Just Released:
OFFICIAL 2004 RNC CONVENTION PROGRAM
6:00pm - Delegates receive gift bag from drug companies
6:30pm - Opening prayer and sermon on how important it is to fight to keep religion and state together.
6:40pm - Delegates receive gift bag from tobacco companies.
7:00pm - Tribute to the American Soldier
(Presented by Pres. George Bush, Jr.).
7:10pm - Open discussion on what to do next to keep John McCain out of the spotlight.
7:20pm - Delegates receive gift bags presented by Haliburton
7:25pm - Economic policy discussion, led by the former boards of directors of Tyco and Worldcom.
7:45pm - Pro-war rally (Moderated by Sultan of Dubai)
8:00pm - Bring your "buddy" to a 9-11 hearing happy hour.
8:25pm - Game time, lets play "where's are the minorities in the room?"
8:30pm - Position paper presentation on why women should not be allowed to make choices about their own bodies.
9:00pm - Republican Hall of Fame induction ceremony of Newt Gingrich.
9:30pm - * Intermission *
10:00pm - Delegates receive gift bag sponsored by American auto makers
10:15pm - Dan Quayle Spelleng Bea.
10:30pm - Delegates receive gift bag from International Oil Cartels.
10:40pm - Removal of low and middle class from the room.
10:50pm - Essay contest winners announced, topic: "When I stopped giving a crap about anything except money and power".
11:00pm - Delegates receive gift bag sponsored by the National Association of Trial Lawyers.
11:10pm - Motion and vote to re-name Washington D.C., Ronald Reagan City
11:15pm - Getting out the Vote! How to transfer the dead to the active voter rolls.
11:20pm - President Bush speech titled "Alaska is next, I heard that they had oil too".
11:30pm - "Kill anyone who was mean to my daddy" planning session.
11:59pm - Prepare for drinking and driving, followed by substantial coke snorting.
12:00am - Nomination of Republican Presidential Candidate
12:01am - Delegates receive 74% tax break.
Relevant Quotes:
Friday, April 30, 2004
A Lot More On Sinclair Media From Atrios
Eschaton
SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to airmessages "conveying full support" for the Bush Administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials equired news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages" which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."
end of snip but much more at link>
SINCLAIR REQUIRES JOURNALISTS TO READ PRO-BUSH STATEMENTS: In September 2001, Sinclair Broadcasting required its affiliates to airmessages "conveying full support" for the Bush Administration. At a Baltimore affiliate, WBFF "officials equired news and sports anchors, even a weather forecaster, to read the messages" which included statements such as "[the station] wants you to know that we stand 100% behind our President." Several WBFF staffers objected on the grounds that reading the statements would "erode their reputations as objective journalists" because it made them appear to be "endorsing specific government actions."
end of snip but much more at link>
Are We Ready?
Center For American Progress
On a regular basis, the Pentagon issues "Draft Working Papers" on Iraq, detailing the status of oil production, upgrades to the electrical services, the provision of social services and a range of other activities in which the United States is now engaged. This most recent issue of the "Draft Working Papers" found its way to the Center for American Progress and, as is often the case, the Pentagon saved the best for last – take a look at the final page, issued in the Pentagon's latest report, and ask yourself whether, one year down the road and just two months before the handover to the Iraqis, the Bush administration yet has a plan.
Full copy of report available at the link.
We're in big trouble but not as much as the Iraqis.
On a regular basis, the Pentagon issues "Draft Working Papers" on Iraq, detailing the status of oil production, upgrades to the electrical services, the provision of social services and a range of other activities in which the United States is now engaged. This most recent issue of the "Draft Working Papers" found its way to the Center for American Progress and, as is often the case, the Pentagon saved the best for last – take a look at the final page, issued in the Pentagon's latest report, and ask yourself whether, one year down the road and just two months before the handover to the Iraqis, the Bush administration yet has a plan.
Full copy of report available at the link.
We're in big trouble but not as much as the Iraqis.
The So-Called "Liberal Media"
7 ABC affiliates ordered not to air 'Nightline'
snip>
(CNN) -- Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline" that will air the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.
In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."
Sinclair's decision, announced Thursday, drew angry calls from the public and a sharp response from ABC News.
end of snip>
We often hear of the Liberal Media but as I have long argued, the reporters and news room minions may be a little more left leaning but they do not control what goes on the air or in print. The management and certainly the owners of the media are members of the upper class bush-tax-cut-beneficiary class and lean primarily to the right.
As the story continues;
snip>
According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed.
Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 stations in 39 markets, according to its Web site.
In addition its ABC outlets, Sinclair's television group includes 20 Fox, 19 WB, six UPN, three CBS and four NBC affiliates, and two independent stations.
It reaches approximately 24 percent of all U.S. television households, according to the Web site.
end of snip>
And that is just the individual contributions. This Site shows almost $15K in donations to the Maryland RNC in 2001.
The editors control the message and the owners control the editors and the owners are not liberal. So much for that theory.
snip>
(CNN) -- Sinclair Broadcast Group has ordered its seven ABC stations not to broadcast Friday's "Nightline" that will air the names and photographs of the more than 500 U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war.
In a statement online, the Sinclair group said the "Nightline" program "appears to be motivated by a political agenda designed to undermine the efforts of the United States in Iraq."
Sinclair's decision, announced Thursday, drew angry calls from the public and a sharp response from ABC News.
end of snip>
We often hear of the Liberal Media but as I have long argued, the reporters and news room minions may be a little more left leaning but they do not control what goes on the air or in print. The management and certainly the owners of the media are members of the upper class bush-tax-cut-beneficiary class and lean primarily to the right.
As the story continues;
snip>
According to campaign finance records, four of Sinclair's top executives each have given the maximum campaign contribution of $2,000 to the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign.
The executives have not given any donations to the campaign of Sen. John Kerry, the presumptive Democratic nominee, the records showed.
Sinclair owns and operates, programs, or provides sales services to 62 stations in 39 markets, according to its Web site.
In addition its ABC outlets, Sinclair's television group includes 20 Fox, 19 WB, six UPN, three CBS and four NBC affiliates, and two independent stations.
It reaches approximately 24 percent of all U.S. television households, according to the Web site.
end of snip>
And that is just the individual contributions. This Site shows almost $15K in donations to the Maryland RNC in 2001.
The editors control the message and the owners control the editors and the owners are not liberal. So much for that theory.
Kerry Speaks Truth
Kerry Says Iraq Is Far From Stable
snip>
On May 1, 2003, Bush landed in a Navy plane on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast and spoke under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Critics have derided the banner's declaration as U.S. casualties mounted over the past year, with fighting particularly deadly in recent weeks.
Kerry has criticized Bush for failing to get more international assistance. He has said that other nations have an interest in a peaceful Iraq, so the United States should reach out to them to share the cost.
"I know how to fight a war against terror that is more effective, more strategic, more proactive, that reaches out to the world and brings people to our side," Kerry said Thursday at a fund-raiser in Philadelphia.
...
On Thursday, Kerry accused Cheney of distorting his record through "scare tactic politics." Kerry cited his service in the Vietnam War and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said he had voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in U.S. history.
"To suggest to Americans that I, who have already defended my country, wouldn't defend it today is an insult to the intelligence of Americans," he said to donors gathered at Philadelphia City Hall.
end of snip>
snip>
On May 1, 2003, Bush landed in a Navy plane on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln off the California coast and spoke under a banner that read "Mission Accomplished." Critics have derided the banner's declaration as U.S. casualties mounted over the past year, with fighting particularly deadly in recent weeks.
Kerry has criticized Bush for failing to get more international assistance. He has said that other nations have an interest in a peaceful Iraq, so the United States should reach out to them to share the cost.
"I know how to fight a war against terror that is more effective, more strategic, more proactive, that reaches out to the world and brings people to our side," Kerry said Thursday at a fund-raiser in Philadelphia.
...
On Thursday, Kerry accused Cheney of distorting his record through "scare tactic politics." Kerry cited his service in the Vietnam War and on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee and said he had voted for the largest defense and intelligence budgets in U.S. history.
"To suggest to Americans that I, who have already defended my country, wouldn't defend it today is an insult to the intelligence of Americans," he said to donors gathered at Philadelphia City Hall.
end of snip>
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Not a Proud Moment
Abuse Of Iraqi POWs By GIs Probed
snip>
CBS) Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.
It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.
Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time.
Correspondent Dan Rather talks to one of those soldiers. And, for the first time, 60 Minutes II will show some of the pictures that led to the Army investigation.
According to the U.S. Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
end of snip>
My good friend Bartcop has the following additional details and commentary.
CBS showed a lot of disturbing pictures.
The POWs were stripped and forced to make a pyramid - doggy-style cheerleaders.
Another was forced to put his face in a fellow POW's crotch while both were naked,
and while Americans pointed and laughed, flashed thumbs up and took pictures of them.
I have conflicting thoughts:
If footage surfaced of our captured and naked POWs being forced to blow each other,
the nuclear option would immediately be put on the table. In my lifetime, no pictures of
our captured soldiers have ever appeared like that. There's no telling what the testosterone
monkeys would do if they had pressure from the families to end that ugly situation right away.
Can you imagine - can you imagine the hatred that will run thru the Muslin world once
those pictures are showed on Al Jazeera over and over and over and over. It proves (to them)
that Osama was right - Americans are filthy pigs who deserve to die.
Way to go, Smirk.
One suspect told Dan Rather he had orders to "soften them up" (my words).
If, in wartime, the CIA says "Give us the suspects, but don't send us arrogant pricks
with chips on their soldiers. Send us broken men," an inexperienced, untrained soldier takes
his orders to heart and sets out to "break" the POWs. Keep in mind, when you join our army,
they humiliate you (You worthless maggot!) to get your head in a place to start following orders.
I'm not saying what the suspects did was right - but that's part of the "fog of war," that I believe,
can make a normal man (or woman - they had a lady playing along, too) do the unthinkable.
Is there anyone reading this who has done a year of serious combat who'd like to comment?
Care to comment?
My theory doesn't excuse their behavior, but it might explain it.
What would *I* be like after a year of life and death fear and panic?
What kinds of crap would *I* pull to blow off steam and tension and despair?
When these 150,000 heroes come home, a percent of them will be screwed up in the head.
Another mess - but as always, Bush will remain blameless.
I couldn't agree more.
snip>
CBS) Last month, the U.S. Army announced 17 soldiers in Iraq, including a brigadier general, had been removed from duty after charges of mistreating Iraqi prisoners.
But the details of what happened have been kept secret, until now.
It turns out photographs surfaced showing American soldiers abusing and humiliating Iraqis being held at a prison near Baghdad. The Army investigated, and issued a scathing report.
Now, an Army general and her command staff may face the end of long military careers. And six soldiers are facing court martial in Iraq -- and possible prison time.
Correspondent Dan Rather talks to one of those soldiers. And, for the first time, 60 Minutes II will show some of the pictures that led to the Army investigation.
According to the U.S. Army, one Iraqi prisoner was told to stand on a box with his head covered, wires attached to his hands. He was told that if he fell off the box, he would be electrocuted.
end of snip>
My good friend Bartcop has the following additional details and commentary.
CBS showed a lot of disturbing pictures.
The POWs were stripped and forced to make a pyramid - doggy-style cheerleaders.
Another was forced to put his face in a fellow POW's crotch while both were naked,
and while Americans pointed and laughed, flashed thumbs up and took pictures of them.
I have conflicting thoughts:
If footage surfaced of our captured and naked POWs being forced to blow each other,
the nuclear option would immediately be put on the table. In my lifetime, no pictures of
our captured soldiers have ever appeared like that. There's no telling what the testosterone
monkeys would do if they had pressure from the families to end that ugly situation right away.
Can you imagine - can you imagine the hatred that will run thru the Muslin world once
those pictures are showed on Al Jazeera over and over and over and over. It proves (to them)
that Osama was right - Americans are filthy pigs who deserve to die.
Way to go, Smirk.
One suspect told Dan Rather he had orders to "soften them up" (my words).
If, in wartime, the CIA says "Give us the suspects, but don't send us arrogant pricks
with chips on their soldiers. Send us broken men," an inexperienced, untrained soldier takes
his orders to heart and sets out to "break" the POWs. Keep in mind, when you join our army,
they humiliate you (You worthless maggot!) to get your head in a place to start following orders.
I'm not saying what the suspects did was right - but that's part of the "fog of war," that I believe,
can make a normal man (or woman - they had a lady playing along, too) do the unthinkable.
Is there anyone reading this who has done a year of serious combat who'd like to comment?
Care to comment?
My theory doesn't excuse their behavior, but it might explain it.
What would *I* be like after a year of life and death fear and panic?
What kinds of crap would *I* pull to blow off steam and tension and despair?
When these 150,000 heroes come home, a percent of them will be screwed up in the head.
Another mess - but as always, Bush will remain blameless.
I couldn't agree more.
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
My Hero
Defending Kerry, Senator blasts 'chicken hawks'
snip>
In a scathing speech, Lautenberg said he did not think politicians should be judged by whether they had military service but that "when those who didn't serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive."
Lautenberg pointed to a poster with a drawing of a chicken in a military uniform that defined a chicken hawk as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."
"They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said.
"We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others. When it was their turn to serve where were they? AWOL -- that's where they were," Lautenberg said.
"And now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator John Kerry. And the lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the vice president of the United States -- Vice President Cheney.
"He was in Missouri this week claiming that Senator Kerry was not up to the job of protecting this nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on?" Lautenberg said.
Cheney did not serve in the U.S. military. Lautenberg quoted a Cheney interview from the 1980s that he had "other priorities" in the '60s than military service.
In a speech Monday at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Cheney attacked Kerry's votes in the Senate to cut weapons programs, his opposition to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and recent comments that the war on terror should not be thought of primarily as a military operation.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Cheney criticized Kerry on policy issues and said that "no one is questioning his military service."
Lautenberg compared Cheney's remarks with the GOP campaign against former Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat whose defeat in 2002 has been a sore spot to many in his party.
"Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense," Lautenberg said. "Where do they come off with that kind of stuff?"
Cleland, an Army officer in the war, has been a key player in the Kerry campaign, delivering speeches praising the candidate, reaching out to fellow veterans and attacking Bush.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Cleland offered a harsh critique of Bush, comparing the president's Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War with Kerry's tour of duty in the Navy.
"He has not suffered," Cleland said of Bush. "He has not sacrificed for his country, and he doesn't understand those who have."
In the Senate, Lautenberg also criticized Bush for declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.
He showed a picture of Bush giving a speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner "Mission Accomplished" in the background.
"The mission accomplished was to get a picture that could be used in an election campaign," Lautenberg said.
Since that speech, 587 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, including 415 in hostile action.
And Lautenberg criticized the president for saying "bring 'em on" to Iraqi insurgents.
"I served in Europe in World War II," he said. "The last thing I wanted to hear from my commander in chief, or my local commander, is dare the enemy to launch attacks against us."
end of snip>
Rock On Frank Lautenberg! They can't hide from the truth. Marc Racistcop the GOP chairman was on Hardball tonight doing the same "we respect Kerrys service but" song and dance so don't let them fool you with the pretend high road on this. Kerry is not going to take the bullshit attacks like Gore, Dukakis and Mondale before them. Kerry is fighter like Clinton and he appears to have the support of Dems in congress, at least those with courage. It's going to be a nasty 6 months 'till November ain't it?
snip>
In a scathing speech, Lautenberg said he did not think politicians should be judged by whether they had military service but that "when those who didn't serve attack the heroism of those who did, I find it particularly offensive."
Lautenberg pointed to a poster with a drawing of a chicken in a military uniform that defined a chicken hawk as "a person enthusiastic about war, provided someone else fights it."
"They shriek like a hawk, but they have the backbone of the chicken," he said.
"We know who the chicken hawks are. They talk tough on national defense and military issues and cast aspersions on others. When it was their turn to serve where were they? AWOL -- that's where they were," Lautenberg said.
"And now the chicken hawks are cackling about Senator John Kerry. And the lead chicken hawk against Senator Kerry is the vice president of the United States -- Vice President Cheney.
"He was in Missouri this week claiming that Senator Kerry was not up to the job of protecting this nation. What nerve. Where was Dick Cheney when that war was going on?" Lautenberg said.
Cheney did not serve in the U.S. military. Lautenberg quoted a Cheney interview from the 1980s that he had "other priorities" in the '60s than military service.
In a speech Monday at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri, Cheney attacked Kerry's votes in the Senate to cut weapons programs, his opposition to the 1991 Persian Gulf War and recent comments that the war on terror should not be thought of primarily as a military operation.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Tuesday that Cheney criticized Kerry on policy issues and said that "no one is questioning his military service."
Lautenberg compared Cheney's remarks with the GOP campaign against former Sen. Max Cleland, a Georgia Democrat whose defeat in 2002 has been a sore spot to many in his party.
"Max Cleland lost three limbs in Vietnam and they shamed him so that he was pushed out of office because he was portrayed as weak on defense," Lautenberg said. "Where do they come off with that kind of stuff?"
Cleland, an Army officer in the war, has been a key player in the Kerry campaign, delivering speeches praising the candidate, reaching out to fellow veterans and attacking Bush.
In a conference call with reporters Tuesday, Cleland offered a harsh critique of Bush, comparing the president's Air National Guard service during the Vietnam War with Kerry's tour of duty in the Navy.
"He has not suffered," Cleland said of Bush. "He has not sacrificed for his country, and he doesn't understand those who have."
In the Senate, Lautenberg also criticized Bush for declaring an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 2003.
He showed a picture of Bush giving a speech on the flight deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln with the banner "Mission Accomplished" in the background.
"The mission accomplished was to get a picture that could be used in an election campaign," Lautenberg said.
Since that speech, 587 U.S. troops have died in Iraq, including 415 in hostile action.
And Lautenberg criticized the president for saying "bring 'em on" to Iraqi insurgents.
"I served in Europe in World War II," he said. "The last thing I wanted to hear from my commander in chief, or my local commander, is dare the enemy to launch attacks against us."
end of snip>
Rock On Frank Lautenberg! They can't hide from the truth. Marc Racistcop the GOP chairman was on Hardball tonight doing the same "we respect Kerrys service but" song and dance so don't let them fool you with the pretend high road on this. Kerry is not going to take the bullshit attacks like Gore, Dukakis and Mondale before them. Kerry is fighter like Clinton and he appears to have the support of Dems in congress, at least those with courage. It's going to be a nasty 6 months 'till November ain't it?
Yup
Bush's Approval Rating at All-Time Low -Poll
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low and fewer than half of Americans now believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, according to a CBS/New York Times poll released on Wednesday.
The poll found that if the presidential election due in November was held today, 46 percent of Americans would vote for Democrat John Kerry and 44 percent would vote for Bush -- if independent Ralph Nader stayed out of the race.
The poll, with a sampling error of 3 percentage points, was conducted among 1,042 adults nationwide from Friday to Tuesday during a spate of fierce fighting in Iraq. More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month.
"Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago," the poll reported.
"Less than half, 47 percent, now say the United States did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times polls since the war began."
The poll said the Iraq war appeared to have hurt assessments of Bush -- his overall approval rating (46 percent), his rating on handling Iraq (41 percent) and his rating on handling foreign policy (40 percent) "are at the lowest points ever in this administration."
"His approval rating has dropped five points from early March, before the start of intense new fighting in Iraq. Immediately after the fall of Baghdad a year ago, 67 percent of Americans approved of the job Bush was doing as president," the poll said.
In March last year, at the time of the invasion, nearly seven in 10 Americans thought it was the right thing to do.
The poll said 56 percent of Americans thought Bush was "mostly telling the truth but still hiding something" when he spoke to them about Iraq.
It said 61 percent of respondents now believed the administration did not try hard enough to reach a diplomatic solution before going to war in Iraq -- a reversal of the public's belief last year during the war.
The poll said six in 10 Americans approved of Bush's handling of the threat of terrorism and 39 percent approved of his handling of the economy.
It said the economy and jobs were at the top of the list of issues voters wanted to hear the candidates discuss ahead of the Nov. 2 election.
end of snip>
Bad news for the Bushistas but I'm not going to get too wound up about these numbers as they have been going back and forth for months. I suspect that events over the next 6 months will have more to do with opinions than any ads on TV. They are heading in the right direction however.
That being said, the pundits and idiots at Faux News inparticular who were touting Dumbyas numbers from the CNN poll last weekend I'm sure will be spinning these results for the next few days if they mention them at all. Stay tuned and let me know if you see any blatant pooh-poohing of the results by any of the usual suspects.
NEW YORK (Reuters) - President Bush's approval rating is at an all-time low and fewer than half of Americans now believe invading Iraq was the right thing to do, according to a CBS/New York Times poll released on Wednesday.
The poll found that if the presidential election due in November was held today, 46 percent of Americans would vote for Democrat John Kerry and 44 percent would vote for Bush -- if independent Ralph Nader stayed out of the race.
The poll, with a sampling error of 3 percentage points, was conducted among 1,042 adults nationwide from Friday to Tuesday during a spate of fierce fighting in Iraq. More than 115 U.S. soldiers have been killed in combat this month.
"Just 32 percent, the lowest number ever, say Iraq was a threat that required immediate military action a year ago," the poll reported.
"Less than half, 47 percent, now say the United States did the right thing taking military action in Iraq, the lowest support recorded in CBS News/New York Times polls since the war began."
The poll said the Iraq war appeared to have hurt assessments of Bush -- his overall approval rating (46 percent), his rating on handling Iraq (41 percent) and his rating on handling foreign policy (40 percent) "are at the lowest points ever in this administration."
"His approval rating has dropped five points from early March, before the start of intense new fighting in Iraq. Immediately after the fall of Baghdad a year ago, 67 percent of Americans approved of the job Bush was doing as president," the poll said.
In March last year, at the time of the invasion, nearly seven in 10 Americans thought it was the right thing to do.
The poll said 56 percent of Americans thought Bush was "mostly telling the truth but still hiding something" when he spoke to them about Iraq.
It said 61 percent of respondents now believed the administration did not try hard enough to reach a diplomatic solution before going to war in Iraq -- a reversal of the public's belief last year during the war.
The poll said six in 10 Americans approved of Bush's handling of the threat of terrorism and 39 percent approved of his handling of the economy.
It said the economy and jobs were at the top of the list of issues voters wanted to hear the candidates discuss ahead of the Nov. 2 election.
end of snip>
Bad news for the Bushistas but I'm not going to get too wound up about these numbers as they have been going back and forth for months. I suspect that events over the next 6 months will have more to do with opinions than any ads on TV. They are heading in the right direction however.
That being said, the pundits and idiots at Faux News inparticular who were touting Dumbyas numbers from the CNN poll last weekend I'm sure will be spinning these results for the next few days if they mention them at all. Stay tuned and let me know if you see any blatant pooh-poohing of the results by any of the usual suspects.
Soldiers
From Altercation
snip>
Fox was a buck sergeant and I was a brand new Captain when we first met. We were both new to our unit, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, part of the First Cavalry Division. At the time I was waiting for a company command and Fox was the vehicle commander of a Bradley in one of the line companies.
I met him on a freezing day in the field at Fort Hood, Texas. It was the winter of 1993/4. Fox had one Bradley M2 and a few dismounted infantrymen with him. That day he was the "Opposing Force" working against a platoon of four Bradleys about to "attack" his position in training. Using lasers and receptors we would replicate combat. I was the evaluator.
From a distance I watched him do the most incredible things with his Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and his crew. I watched, and that day I learned, quietly. There was nothing I could do to make him better. He was a natural. Fifteen minutes after the start of the exercise all four of the vehicles attacking Fox's outgunned OPFOR were "destroyed" and their dismounted infantry were pinned down. Fox was preparing a counter-attack. I had to stop it there. There was nobody left to continue the attack against this dynamo.
It was 4-1 odds. He was not supposed to be able to win.
end of snip but full story at link.>
Check It Out!
snip>
Fox was a buck sergeant and I was a brand new Captain when we first met. We were both new to our unit, the 2nd Battalion, 7th Cavalry, part of the First Cavalry Division. At the time I was waiting for a company command and Fox was the vehicle commander of a Bradley in one of the line companies.
I met him on a freezing day in the field at Fort Hood, Texas. It was the winter of 1993/4. Fox had one Bradley M2 and a few dismounted infantrymen with him. That day he was the "Opposing Force" working against a platoon of four Bradleys about to "attack" his position in training. Using lasers and receptors we would replicate combat. I was the evaluator.
From a distance I watched him do the most incredible things with his Bradley Fighting Vehicle, and his crew. I watched, and that day I learned, quietly. There was nothing I could do to make him better. He was a natural. Fifteen minutes after the start of the exercise all four of the vehicles attacking Fox's outgunned OPFOR were "destroyed" and their dismounted infantry were pinned down. Fox was preparing a counter-attack. I had to stop it there. There was nobody left to continue the attack against this dynamo.
It was 4-1 odds. He was not supposed to be able to win.
end of snip but full story at link.>
Check It Out!
More Bug-Killer Humor (Unintentional of course)
Center for American Progress (scroll down for story with links)
TOM DELAY'S FANTASY WORLD: Meanwhile, the WSJ reports that while even some conservatives on Capitol Hill "are clearly nervous about letting the economic recovery speak for itself," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Insane) said, "no matter what way you look at it, the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years." It seems DeLay hasn't seen the data which shows more than 8 million Americans are out of work, more than one million have exhausted their unemployment benefits, consumer debt is at record levels, wages are stagnating, and more than 40 million Americans are living without health insurance. See this new American Progress backgrounder of how rhetoric from conservatives compares with the harsh economic reality for millions of Americans.
...
As the economy still struggles to shake the doldrums, the Bush administration in the last few months has made some strange economic declarations, while its conservative allies in Congress have resorted to outright fantasy. First, the White House said offshoring U.S. jobs was a good thing, then it claimed cutting off millions from federal overtime protection will be good for workers struggling with stagnating wages. Then the president, seemingly unconcerned with the gas price crisis hitting average families, refused to personally intervene after his longtime friends in the Saudi Arabian government cut oil production and raised gas prices (Bush's refusal did nothing to tamp down speculation that he is working with the Saudis to manipulate oil prices for the 2004 election). And yesterday, the administration actually claimed that lower drug prices for American consumers would be bad for the economy, despite economic data to the contrary. For more on conservatives' disconnect from economic realities, see yesterday's American Progress column by senior economist Christian Weller and research associate John Lyman.
end of snip>
I guess Delay was asleep during the 8 years of peace and untold prosperity during the Clinton administration.
"the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years."?
Watcha smokin' Tommy?
Why do I think of this guy everytime I hear about DeLay?
TOM DELAY'S FANTASY WORLD: Meanwhile, the WSJ reports that while even some conservatives on Capitol Hill "are clearly nervous about letting the economic recovery speak for itself," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Insane) said, "no matter what way you look at it, the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years." It seems DeLay hasn't seen the data which shows more than 8 million Americans are out of work, more than one million have exhausted their unemployment benefits, consumer debt is at record levels, wages are stagnating, and more than 40 million Americans are living without health insurance. See this new American Progress backgrounder of how rhetoric from conservatives compares with the harsh economic reality for millions of Americans.
...
As the economy still struggles to shake the doldrums, the Bush administration in the last few months has made some strange economic declarations, while its conservative allies in Congress have resorted to outright fantasy. First, the White House said offshoring U.S. jobs was a good thing, then it claimed cutting off millions from federal overtime protection will be good for workers struggling with stagnating wages. Then the president, seemingly unconcerned with the gas price crisis hitting average families, refused to personally intervene after his longtime friends in the Saudi Arabian government cut oil production and raised gas prices (Bush's refusal did nothing to tamp down speculation that he is working with the Saudis to manipulate oil prices for the 2004 election). And yesterday, the administration actually claimed that lower drug prices for American consumers would be bad for the economy, despite economic data to the contrary. For more on conservatives' disconnect from economic realities, see yesterday's American Progress column by senior economist Christian Weller and research associate John Lyman.
end of snip>
I guess Delay was asleep during the 8 years of peace and untold prosperity during the Clinton administration.
"the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years."?
Watcha smokin' Tommy?
Why do I think of this guy everytime I hear about DeLay?
Who Would Jesus Vote For?
The Democrats' Religion Problem
snip>
With Democrats sitting on the religious sidelines and failing to comprehend the questions of faith, Republicans are allowed to define the "religious issues" in narrow ways that primarily benefit them. It means the "religious issues" in this election will be reduced to the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, marriage amendments, prayer in schools, and, of course, abortion. While important questions, will these issues really exhaust the meaning of religion in this election year? Yes, if Republicans have their way, and Democrats let them have it.
What happened to the biblical imperatives for social justice, the God who lifts up the poor, and the Jesus who says he will judge us, and the nations, by how we care for "the least of these"? How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure. Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is also a religious issue—Iraq was not a "just war" in theological terms. Neglect of the environment is another serious religious issue.
If the Bush administration has failed on these counts, it is a religious problem and not merely a political one. But where are the Democrats saying that? The failure to define their concerns in moral and religious terms is, among other things, a gross political miscalculation.
end of snip>
Does Jesus favor War? And who decided Jesus favors tax cuts for the wealthy and only "Christian America" in the world of nations? I don't know those scriptures but there are a few about helping the poor, the weak, and the innocent. Restoring and creating justice. Seeking peace. Helping your fellow man and loving one another.
snip>
With Democrats sitting on the religious sidelines and failing to comprehend the questions of faith, Republicans are allowed to define the "religious issues" in narrow ways that primarily benefit them. It means the "religious issues" in this election will be reduced to the Ten Commandments in public courthouses, marriage amendments, prayer in schools, and, of course, abortion. While important questions, will these issues really exhaust the meaning of religion in this election year? Yes, if Republicans have their way, and Democrats let them have it.
What happened to the biblical imperatives for social justice, the God who lifts up the poor, and the Jesus who says he will judge us, and the nations, by how we care for "the least of these"? How a candidate deals with poverty is a religious issue, and the Bush administration’s failure to support poor working families should be named as a religious failure. Fighting pre-emptive and unilateral wars based on false claims is also a religious issue—Iraq was not a "just war" in theological terms. Neglect of the environment is another serious religious issue.
If the Bush administration has failed on these counts, it is a religious problem and not merely a political one. But where are the Democrats saying that? The failure to define their concerns in moral and religious terms is, among other things, a gross political miscalculation.
end of snip>
Does Jesus favor War? And who decided Jesus favors tax cuts for the wealthy and only "Christian America" in the world of nations? I don't know those scriptures but there are a few about helping the poor, the weak, and the innocent. Restoring and creating justice. Seeking peace. Helping your fellow man and loving one another.
The Crew Who Lied To Us
The New York Times on the Web (free registration may be required)
The link is a graphic of the secret behind the scene group of people who shortly after 9/11 were tasked to justify the invasion of Iraq. Nothing they told us was correct yet they are not being held accountable.
The link is a graphic of the secret behind the scene group of people who shortly after 9/11 were tasked to justify the invasion of Iraq. Nothing they told us was correct yet they are not being held accountable.
Tuesday, April 27, 2004
'Bout Damn Time
Cheney's Parade of Misleads and Half-Truths Stops in Missouri, Says Kerry Campaign
WASHINGTON, April 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an effort to deflect attention from the worst week of its administration (the end of the worst month of fatalities in Iraq (news - web sites), the Supreme Court hearing of the Cheney Energy Task Force case, the Bush-Cheney joint 9/11 testimony, and the 1st anniversary of the Mission Accomplished event that Karl Rove said was a mistake), Dick Cheney (news - web sites) stopped off in Missouri today to attack John Kerry.
Kerry spokesperson Phil Singer said: "Dick Cheney took audacity to a new level today by going after John Kerry for positions that Dick Cheney himself has taken. At the height of the Cold War, Dick Cheney criticized President Reagan for not cutting defense spending. When he was Secretary of Defense and led the Pentagon (news - web sites), Dick Cheney tried to kill or gut many of the same programs he's attacking John Kerry on. Dick Cheney didn't serve in the military but he attacks John Kerry's commitment to defense. The Vice-President's shameful remarks about a decorated war hero like John who risked his life trying to save the lives of others make it clear that the Bush campaign has no problem stomping on the truth."
1) CLAIM: Cheney said John Kerry was wrong to share the White House's view that war on terror includes both law enforcement and military:
FACTS: White House Spokesperson MCCLELLAN said: Oh, we are fighting the war on terrorism on many fronts. There's the law enforcement front. There's the intelligence front. There's the financial front -- cracking down on terrorist financing. And there's certainly is the military front." (White House Briefing, 3/17/04).
Before the White House decided to politicize the war on terror, Bush Believed in role of law enforcement:
Bush: "All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose. In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before. In order to hunt the terrorists down one by one, our intelligence agencies must cooperate fully with agencies overseas." (Bush, remarks at FBI (news - web sites), 2/14/03)
2) CLAIM: Cheney accused Kerry of voting against intelligence budgets.
FACTS: Kerry Supports Increased Intelligence Funding -- Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years -- A 50 percent Increase Since 1996 -- John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has supported increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding.
According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information, Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50 percent increase in intelligence funding since 1996. Recently, Kerry stressed the need for greater intelligence in order to protect the country from terrorism: (Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote no. 109; Jewish News Bulletin of Northern CA, 4/5/02)
3) CLAIM: Cheney falsely claimed Kerry had no plan to win the war on terror.
FACTS: John Kerry has a comprehensive plan to fight the war against terror:
I. Use Direct Military Action: Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. He will also increase active duty end strength and tailor forces to be better prepared for post-conflict and stability operation.
II. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Kerry will strengthen communication networks between intelligence agencies, build cooperative capacity with international law enforcement agencies, increase the number of linguists trained in critical languages and create a real Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel power.
III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds: Kerry will impose tough financial sanction against banks or nations that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it and will launch a "name and shame' campaign against those that finance terror.
IV. Control the Spread of Weapons on Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.
V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites): Kerry will bring real security in Iraq by broadening the coalition, including the United Nations (news - web sites), and creating a real Iraqi security force that can take care of itself and the people it is supposed to protect. In Afghanistan, Kerry would put forward a major increase in security and fund the promised a Marshall Plan for reconstruction.
VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation: Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture.
VII. Secure America's Homeland: Kerry will restore funding for the COPS program, add 100,000 firefighters to our streets, secure and protect our nuclear and chemical facilities, bolster port and aviation security.
FACTS: Bush Claimed 10 Months Ago "Mission Accomplished," But "Bush Policy Appears Adrift," "Scrambling for an Exit Strategy." "And far from setting a course for the region, Bush administration policy appears adrift. The diplomatic follow-up to the Iraq war, for instance, the so-called Roadmap to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, has hit a complete dead end. In Iraq itself, U.S. troops are struggling to beat back a bloody insurgency that Washington never anticipated. ... While vowing to stay the course, the Bush administration is scrambling for an exit strategy, constantly revising its slapdash plans for a transition to democracy next summer, bending to pressure from Iraq's ayatollahs and facing mounting protests in what used to be the quiet Shiite south of the country." (Newsweek, 1/26/04)
4) CLAIM: Cheney accused Kerry of voting against defense measures that CHENEY wanted to cut when he led the Pentagon.
FACTS: Cheney Criticized Reagan for NOT Cutting Defense. As a House leader, Cheney went on record and specifically attacked President Reagan for not cutting defense spending: If Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town...The severity of the deficit is great enough that the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible...If you're going to rule out the other two (Social Security (news - web sites) cuts and a tax increase), then you've got to hit defense." (Source: Washington Post, 12/16/84)
FACT: Here's a quick rundown of programs Cheney tried to cut that Kerry has backed:
APACHE HELICOPTER: Kerry has supported $13 billion in defense authorizations for the Apache
AEGIS SHIPS: Kerry has supported at least $53 billion defense authorizations for the Aegis program.
BRADLEY: Kerry backed at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for Bradley Fighting Vehicle
BLACKHAWK: Kerry backed at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk
B-2 BOMBER: Kerry has supported over $16.7 billion in defense authorizations for the B-2 program
C-17 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least $34.5 billion in defense authorizations for the C-17
F/A-18 FIGHTER JETS : Kerry supported at least $60 billion in defense authorizations for F/A-18 & F-18
F-16 FIGHTER JETS: Kerry supported at least $25 billion in defense authorizations for the F-16.
TOMAHAWK MISSILES: Kerry supported at least $6 billion in defense authorizations for the Tomahawk.
C-130 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least at least $12 billion in defense authorizations for the C-130.
SOURCES ON KERRY: CQ Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 - present
5) CLAIM: Cheney lauded the Department of Homeland Security.
FACTS: Bush opposed the Homeland Security Dept. In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "(T)he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he (Ridge) does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet- level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. (White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01)
FACTS: BUSH HASN'T Implemented Key Homeland Security Initiatives
1) Fingerprint Database Not Ready Until 2008. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified this week that they are still working out obstacles with the Justice Department (news - web sites) that have prevented the integration of fingerprint systems with the Border Patrol. Mueller testified the project could be delayed until 2008. The Justice Department inspector general has said the delays leave the U.S. vulnerable to infiltration at the border by terrorists. "I need to know, when are you going to do this?" asked Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., during a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the FBI budget. "The report by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department inspector general, concluded that there is a 'significant risk' that the Border Patrol will continue to release criminals and terrorists because agents will be unable to quickly learn their arrest or deportation histories through fingerprints." (Associated Press, 3/17/04)
2) Only Half Finished with Terrorist List Database. "Mueller also said that an effort to combine several U.S. government terrorist watch lists into a single database is half complete, with a goal of finishing this summer. That database, called the Terrorist Screening Center, is a combined effort of numerous agencies overseen by the FBI. The center began operating Dec. 1 and has been providing some information about potential terrorists to requesting agencies." (Associated Press, 3/17/04)
3) Pre-Screening Program Facing Serious Problems-May Never Work. "According to a GAO report released this morning, the new Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS II) faces "major risks" to its successful deployment and implementation. The GAO says CAPS II has problems with everything from means to prevent abuse of the system to ways to let passengers correct wrong biographical information. At a hearing this morning before the House Aviation Subcommittee chaired by Rep. John Mica, (R- Fl.) lawmaker after lawmaker expressed serious doubts that CAPPS II will ever provide the security it was created for. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), for one, said as the government continues to spend money without creating a viable product he is worried that CAPPS II will "collapse under its own weight." (White House Bulletin 3/17/04)
6) CLAIM: Cheney touted non-proliferation efforts:.
FACTS: WHITE HOUSE CUT FUNDING TO SECURE LOOSE WMD: Despite President Bush's rhetorical support for non-proliferation efforts, the Center for Defense Information reports the Administration has requested a $41.6 million (9.3 percent) decrease in funding for the Pentagon's Cooperative Threat Reduction program - the government's chief program to secure loose nuclear material that could be obtained by terrorists. The Administration also proposes in 2005 to cut $21 million (8 percent) out of Energy Department programs aimed at securing nuclear material in Russia. (Source: CDI, 2/20/04; Arms Control Association, 3/04)
end of snip>
All in one place for easy reference.
WASHINGTON, April 26 /U.S. Newswire/ -- In an effort to deflect attention from the worst week of its administration (the end of the worst month of fatalities in Iraq (news - web sites), the Supreme Court hearing of the Cheney Energy Task Force case, the Bush-Cheney joint 9/11 testimony, and the 1st anniversary of the Mission Accomplished event that Karl Rove said was a mistake), Dick Cheney (news - web sites) stopped off in Missouri today to attack John Kerry.
Kerry spokesperson Phil Singer said: "Dick Cheney took audacity to a new level today by going after John Kerry for positions that Dick Cheney himself has taken. At the height of the Cold War, Dick Cheney criticized President Reagan for not cutting defense spending. When he was Secretary of Defense and led the Pentagon (news - web sites), Dick Cheney tried to kill or gut many of the same programs he's attacking John Kerry on. Dick Cheney didn't serve in the military but he attacks John Kerry's commitment to defense. The Vice-President's shameful remarks about a decorated war hero like John who risked his life trying to save the lives of others make it clear that the Bush campaign has no problem stomping on the truth."
1) CLAIM: Cheney said John Kerry was wrong to share the White House's view that war on terror includes both law enforcement and military:
FACTS: White House Spokesperson MCCLELLAN said: Oh, we are fighting the war on terrorism on many fronts. There's the law enforcement front. There's the intelligence front. There's the financial front -- cracking down on terrorist financing. And there's certainly is the military front." (White House Briefing, 3/17/04).
Before the White House decided to politicize the war on terror, Bush Believed in role of law enforcement:
Bush: "All our successes in the war on terror depend on the ability of our intelligence and law enforcement agencies to work in common purpose. In order to better protect our homeland, our intelligence agencies must coexist like they never had before. In order to hunt the terrorists down one by one, our intelligence agencies must cooperate fully with agencies overseas." (Bush, remarks at FBI (news - web sites), 2/14/03)
2) CLAIM: Cheney accused Kerry of voting against intelligence budgets.
FACTS: Kerry Supports Increased Intelligence Funding -- Including $200 Billion in the Previous 7 Years -- A 50 percent Increase Since 1996 -- John Kerry, a former member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, has supported increases in Intelligence funding, and, in the wake of 9/11, has supported the bipartisan call for an even larger increase in intelligence funding.
According to a report issued by the Center for Defense Information, Kerry has supported approximately $200 billion in Intelligence funding over the past seven years alone. The report concludes that Kerry has supported a 50 percent increase in intelligence funding since 1996. Recently, Kerry stressed the need for greater intelligence in order to protect the country from terrorism: (Senate Intelligence Authorization Funding voice votes 9/25/02, 12/13/01, 12/6/00, 11/19/1999, 10/8/98 & 9/25/96; 1997, Senate Roll Call vote no. 109; Jewish News Bulletin of Northern CA, 4/5/02)
3) CLAIM: Cheney falsely claimed Kerry had no plan to win the war on terror.
FACTS: John Kerry has a comprehensive plan to fight the war against terror:
I. Use Direct Military Action: Kerry will use military force when necessary to capture and destroy terrorist groups and their leaders. He will also increase active duty end strength and tailor forces to be better prepared for post-conflict and stability operation.
II. Improve International Intelligence and Law Enforcement: Kerry will strengthen communication networks between intelligence agencies, build cooperative capacity with international law enforcement agencies, increase the number of linguists trained in critical languages and create a real Director of National Intelligence with budget and personnel power.
III. Cut Off the Flow of Terrorist Funds: Kerry will impose tough financial sanction against banks or nations that engage in money laundering or fail to act against it and will launch a "name and shame' campaign against those that finance terror.
IV. Control the Spread of Weapons on Mass Destruction: Kerry will appoint a high-level Presidential envoy to lead the effort and expand the Nunn/Lugar program to buy up and destroy stockpiles of loose WMD materials.
V. Win the Peace in Iraq and Afghanistan (news - web sites): Kerry will bring real security in Iraq by broadening the coalition, including the United Nations (news - web sites), and creating a real Iraqi security force that can take care of itself and the people it is supposed to protect. In Afghanistan, Kerry would put forward a major increase in security and fund the promised a Marshall Plan for reconstruction.
VI. Win the War of Ideas and the Future of a Young Generation: Kerry will build bridges to the Arab and Islamic world by supporting and assisting human rights groups, independent media, and labor unions dedicated to building a democratic culture.
VII. Secure America's Homeland: Kerry will restore funding for the COPS program, add 100,000 firefighters to our streets, secure and protect our nuclear and chemical facilities, bolster port and aviation security.
FACTS: Bush Claimed 10 Months Ago "Mission Accomplished," But "Bush Policy Appears Adrift," "Scrambling for an Exit Strategy." "And far from setting a course for the region, Bush administration policy appears adrift. The diplomatic follow-up to the Iraq war, for instance, the so-called Roadmap to resolve the Arab-Israeli conflict, has hit a complete dead end. In Iraq itself, U.S. troops are struggling to beat back a bloody insurgency that Washington never anticipated. ... While vowing to stay the course, the Bush administration is scrambling for an exit strategy, constantly revising its slapdash plans for a transition to democracy next summer, bending to pressure from Iraq's ayatollahs and facing mounting protests in what used to be the quiet Shiite south of the country." (Newsweek, 1/26/04)
4) CLAIM: Cheney accused Kerry of voting against defense measures that CHENEY wanted to cut when he led the Pentagon.
FACTS: Cheney Criticized Reagan for NOT Cutting Defense. As a House leader, Cheney went on record and specifically attacked President Reagan for not cutting defense spending: If Reagan "doesn't really cut defense, he becomes the No. 1 special pleader in town...The severity of the deficit is great enough that the president has to reach out and take a whack at everything to be credible...If you're going to rule out the other two (Social Security (news - web sites) cuts and a tax increase), then you've got to hit defense." (Source: Washington Post, 12/16/84)
FACT: Here's a quick rundown of programs Cheney tried to cut that Kerry has backed:
APACHE HELICOPTER: Kerry has supported $13 billion in defense authorizations for the Apache
AEGIS SHIPS: Kerry has supported at least $53 billion defense authorizations for the Aegis program.
BRADLEY: Kerry backed at least $8.5 billion in defense authorizations for Bradley Fighting Vehicle
BLACKHAWK: Kerry backed at least $13 billion in defense authorizations on versions of the Blackhawk
B-2 BOMBER: Kerry has supported over $16.7 billion in defense authorizations for the B-2 program
C-17 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least $34.5 billion in defense authorizations for the C-17
F/A-18 FIGHTER JETS : Kerry supported at least $60 billion in defense authorizations for F/A-18 & F-18
F-16 FIGHTER JETS: Kerry supported at least $25 billion in defense authorizations for the F-16.
TOMAHAWK MISSILES: Kerry supported at least $6 billion in defense authorizations for the Tomahawk.
C-130 CARGO JETS: Kerry supported at least at least $12 billion in defense authorizations for the C-130.
SOURCES ON KERRY: CQ Almanacs, 1986-2002; House Armed Service Committee Authorization Conference Report Summaries; Conference Reports for Defense Authorizations, FY1986 - present
5) CLAIM: Cheney lauded the Department of Homeland Security.
FACTS: Bush opposed the Homeland Security Dept. In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer (news - web sites) said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "(T)he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he (Ridge) does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet- level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. (White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01)
FACTS: BUSH HASN'T Implemented Key Homeland Security Initiatives
1) Fingerprint Database Not Ready Until 2008. FBI Director Robert Mueller testified this week that they are still working out obstacles with the Justice Department (news - web sites) that have prevented the integration of fingerprint systems with the Border Patrol. Mueller testified the project could be delayed until 2008. The Justice Department inspector general has said the delays leave the U.S. vulnerable to infiltration at the border by terrorists. "I need to know, when are you going to do this?" asked Rep. Hal Rogers, R-Ky., during a hearing of the House Appropriations subcommittee that oversees the FBI budget. "The report by Glenn A. Fine, the Justice Department inspector general, concluded that there is a 'significant risk' that the Border Patrol will continue to release criminals and terrorists because agents will be unable to quickly learn their arrest or deportation histories through fingerprints." (Associated Press, 3/17/04)
2) Only Half Finished with Terrorist List Database. "Mueller also said that an effort to combine several U.S. government terrorist watch lists into a single database is half complete, with a goal of finishing this summer. That database, called the Terrorist Screening Center, is a combined effort of numerous agencies overseen by the FBI. The center began operating Dec. 1 and has been providing some information about potential terrorists to requesting agencies." (Associated Press, 3/17/04)
3) Pre-Screening Program Facing Serious Problems-May Never Work. "According to a GAO report released this morning, the new Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-screening System (CAPPS II) faces "major risks" to its successful deployment and implementation. The GAO says CAPS II has problems with everything from means to prevent abuse of the system to ways to let passengers correct wrong biographical information. At a hearing this morning before the House Aviation Subcommittee chaired by Rep. John Mica, (R- Fl.) lawmaker after lawmaker expressed serious doubts that CAPPS II will ever provide the security it was created for. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), for one, said as the government continues to spend money without creating a viable product he is worried that CAPPS II will "collapse under its own weight." (White House Bulletin 3/17/04)
6) CLAIM: Cheney touted non-proliferation efforts:.
FACTS: WHITE HOUSE CUT FUNDING TO SECURE LOOSE WMD: Despite President Bush's rhetorical support for non-proliferation efforts, the Center for Defense Information reports the Administration has requested a $41.6 million (9.3 percent) decrease in funding for the Pentagon's Cooperative Threat Reduction program - the government's chief program to secure loose nuclear material that could be obtained by terrorists. The Administration also proposes in 2005 to cut $21 million (8 percent) out of Energy Department programs aimed at securing nuclear material in Russia. (Source: CDI, 2/20/04; Arms Control Association, 3/04)
end of snip>
All in one place for easy reference.
Can't We Do Anything Right?
Iraqis Say Council-Approved National Flag Won't Fly
In interviews in several Baghdad neighborhoods, a variety of residents expressed strong negative reactions to the flag, which was reproduced in most daily newspapers. In particular, people objected to the pale blue color of the crescent and stripes, saying it was identical to the dominant color in the flag of Israel, a Jewish state.
"When I saw it in the newspaper, I felt very sad," said Muthana Khalil, 50, a supermarket owner in Saadoun, a commercial area in central Baghdad. "The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black. Why did they put in these colors that are the same as Israel? Why was the public opinion not consulted?"
end of snip>
Duh!
In interviews in several Baghdad neighborhoods, a variety of residents expressed strong negative reactions to the flag, which was reproduced in most daily newspapers. In particular, people objected to the pale blue color of the crescent and stripes, saying it was identical to the dominant color in the flag of Israel, a Jewish state.
"When I saw it in the newspaper, I felt very sad," said Muthana Khalil, 50, a supermarket owner in Saadoun, a commercial area in central Baghdad. "The flags of other Arab countries are red and green and black. Why did they put in these colors that are the same as Israel? Why was the public opinion not consulted?"
end of snip>
Duh!
Monday, April 26, 2004
Will Your Vote Count?
Kelley Kramer has a post about the Diebold Voting Machines and the scandal that is being foisted on the American People.
snip>
Diebold May Face Criminal Charges
SACRAMENTO, California - After harshly chastising Diebold Election Systems for what it considered deceptive business practices, a California voting systems panel voted unanimously Thursday to recommend that the secretary of state decertify an electronic touch-screen voting machine manufactured by the company, making it likely that four California counties that recently purchased the machines will have to find other voting solutions for the November presidential election.
-snip-
The panel also recommended that Shelley ask the state attorney general to examine the possibility of bringing civil and criminal charges against Diebold for violating California election codes, which state that vendors cannot change software without notifying the secretary of state's office. The codes also say that no vendor can install uncertified software on voting systems.
Last November, the state discovered that Diebold had installed uncertified software on its voting machines in 17 counties without notifying state officials or, in some cases, even county officials who were affected by the changes.
-snip-
But state undersecretary and panel chairman Mark Kyle said the company's excuses rang "hollow" and that the state's rules were extremely clear. He expressed anger that Diebold had been deceptive about advance knowledge of problems with its smart card encoder before the March primary. He also accused the company of "switch-and-bait" tactics in trying to pass off uncertified software as certified software and suggested that the company might have colluded with the federal testing lab, Wyle Laboratories, to get its system through the California investigation.
Panel member Marc Carrel, assistant secretary of state for policy and planning, said that Diebold's "spin" on the issues left him dizzy. He said that Diebold's repeated apologies were "belied by their actions and their statements."
"I keep hearing apologies. I keep hearing misleading statements. I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day -- it keeps repeating and repeating and repeating," he said. "I'm disgusted by the actions of this company."
Carrel said the "bait-and-switch" on software had resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters in various counties and resulted "in a reduction in the confidence not only in (touch-screen machines) but in voting in general. And that's very disturbing to me."
end of snip>
Kramer's commentary and all the source links available at the hot link.
snip>
Diebold May Face Criminal Charges
SACRAMENTO, California - After harshly chastising Diebold Election Systems for what it considered deceptive business practices, a California voting systems panel voted unanimously Thursday to recommend that the secretary of state decertify an electronic touch-screen voting machine manufactured by the company, making it likely that four California counties that recently purchased the machines will have to find other voting solutions for the November presidential election.
-snip-
The panel also recommended that Shelley ask the state attorney general to examine the possibility of bringing civil and criminal charges against Diebold for violating California election codes, which state that vendors cannot change software without notifying the secretary of state's office. The codes also say that no vendor can install uncertified software on voting systems.
Last November, the state discovered that Diebold had installed uncertified software on its voting machines in 17 counties without notifying state officials or, in some cases, even county officials who were affected by the changes.
-snip-
But state undersecretary and panel chairman Mark Kyle said the company's excuses rang "hollow" and that the state's rules were extremely clear. He expressed anger that Diebold had been deceptive about advance knowledge of problems with its smart card encoder before the March primary. He also accused the company of "switch-and-bait" tactics in trying to pass off uncertified software as certified software and suggested that the company might have colluded with the federal testing lab, Wyle Laboratories, to get its system through the California investigation.
Panel member Marc Carrel, assistant secretary of state for policy and planning, said that Diebold's "spin" on the issues left him dizzy. He said that Diebold's repeated apologies were "belied by their actions and their statements."
"I keep hearing apologies. I keep hearing misleading statements. I feel like Bill Murray in Groundhog Day -- it keeps repeating and repeating and repeating," he said. "I'm disgusted by the actions of this company."
Carrel said the "bait-and-switch" on software had resulted in the disenfranchisement of voters in various counties and resulted "in a reduction in the confidence not only in (touch-screen machines) but in voting in general. And that's very disturbing to me."
end of snip>
Kramer's commentary and all the source links available at the hot link.
What's the Over/Under?
Israel Identifies New Secret Hamas Leader
JERUSALEM - Israel identified the new, secret Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip as Mahmoud Zahar, a 53-year-old Egyptian-trained physician, and signaled Monday he won't be targeted if the militant group halts attacks on Israelis.
Hamas, however, refused to reveal the name of its leader for fear he will be assassinated like his two predecessors.
Also Monday, Israeli troops killed a 14-year-old Palestinian boy and seriously wounded a 15-year-old girl near Israeli settlements in Gaza. The girl, described as mentally retarded, had wandered into a restricted area.
The Palestinian attorney general said he would speed up prosecution of dozens of suspected collaborators with Israel and search for those who helped Israel kill Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi on April 17. Fifty-three alleged informers are in Palestinian custody awaiting trial.
Rantisi, the successor of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, himself assassinated by Israel, had taken extreme precautions, but Israel spotted him when he made a rare visit home and killed him in with a missile attack.
Hamas declared after Rantisi's death that it would not disclose the name of his replacement. However, speculation centered on Zahar — Rantisi's deputy, Yassin's personal physician and for years one of the most visible and uncompromising Hamas spokesmen.
Three Israeli newspapers on Monday identified Zahar as the group's new leader. Several days ago, Zahar told reporters Hamas would not disclose the name of the new leader but did not deny he had the title.
Israel's military chief, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, told the Yediot Ahronot daily the new Hamas leader had inherited the post "automatically" and reluctantly accepted the position. Yaalon also signaled Israel would avoid attacking him as long as the group remains quiet.
"He doesn't want it, and he is apparently avoiding making decisions, and he is apparently avoiding terrorism," Yaalon said. "Anyone who doesn't use terrorism against us, we do not deal with."
Yaalon did not identify the Hamas leader, but military officials said he was referring to Zahar. The officials said it is impossible to identify the leader with certainty because of Hamas' fluid leadership structure.
Zahar has escaped two Israeli attempts on his life, most recently in September when his eldest son and a bodyguard were killed. Zahar rejects any settlement with Israel and compromise with the Palestinian Authority .
In Washington, the CIA declined to comment on whether Zahar is the new Hamas leader.
end of snip>
This poor guys days are numbered after the next suicide bombing. Now that Sharon has the blank check from Bush to do whatever he wants, I wouldn't want to be Zahar.
JERUSALEM - Israel identified the new, secret Hamas leader in the Gaza Strip as Mahmoud Zahar, a 53-year-old Egyptian-trained physician, and signaled Monday he won't be targeted if the militant group halts attacks on Israelis.
Hamas, however, refused to reveal the name of its leader for fear he will be assassinated like his two predecessors.
Also Monday, Israeli troops killed a 14-year-old Palestinian boy and seriously wounded a 15-year-old girl near Israeli settlements in Gaza. The girl, described as mentally retarded, had wandered into a restricted area.
The Palestinian attorney general said he would speed up prosecution of dozens of suspected collaborators with Israel and search for those who helped Israel kill Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi on April 17. Fifty-three alleged informers are in Palestinian custody awaiting trial.
Rantisi, the successor of Hamas founder Sheik Ahmed Yassin, himself assassinated by Israel, had taken extreme precautions, but Israel spotted him when he made a rare visit home and killed him in with a missile attack.
Hamas declared after Rantisi's death that it would not disclose the name of his replacement. However, speculation centered on Zahar — Rantisi's deputy, Yassin's personal physician and for years one of the most visible and uncompromising Hamas spokesmen.
Three Israeli newspapers on Monday identified Zahar as the group's new leader. Several days ago, Zahar told reporters Hamas would not disclose the name of the new leader but did not deny he had the title.
Israel's military chief, Lt. Gen. Moshe Yaalon, told the Yediot Ahronot daily the new Hamas leader had inherited the post "automatically" and reluctantly accepted the position. Yaalon also signaled Israel would avoid attacking him as long as the group remains quiet.
"He doesn't want it, and he is apparently avoiding making decisions, and he is apparently avoiding terrorism," Yaalon said. "Anyone who doesn't use terrorism against us, we do not deal with."
Yaalon did not identify the Hamas leader, but military officials said he was referring to Zahar. The officials said it is impossible to identify the leader with certainty because of Hamas' fluid leadership structure.
Zahar has escaped two Israeli attempts on his life, most recently in September when his eldest son and a bodyguard were killed. Zahar rejects any settlement with Israel and compromise with the Palestinian Authority .
In Washington, the CIA declined to comment on whether Zahar is the new Hamas leader.
end of snip>
This poor guys days are numbered after the next suicide bombing. Now that Sharon has the blank check from Bush to do whatever he wants, I wouldn't want to be Zahar.
Service
With all the hoopla about Kerry's service being bandied about I thought it was worth one more look at the record. Where was George?
Why Would We Want the Truth?
News
snip>
26 April 2004
The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.
Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.
But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".
Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September.
Mrs Edmonds was subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice, which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family for allegedly aiding al-Qa'ida.
Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.
The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."
She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."
end of snip>
These people in the mis-administration have no shame. I fear Ms. Edmonds may end up in a fatal accident in the near future. Don't put it past them.
snip>
26 April 2004
The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.
Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.
But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".
Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September.
Mrs Edmonds was subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice, which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family for allegedly aiding al-Qa'ida.
Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.
The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."
She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want."
end of snip>
These people in the mis-administration have no shame. I fear Ms. Edmonds may end up in a fatal accident in the near future. Don't put it past them.
Drip Drip Drip...
The New York Times > Washington > 9/11 Panel Set to Detail Flaws in Air Defenses (free registration required)
snip>
But their defense of Norad's actions became more difficult this month with the disclosure that Norad planners had specifically weighed the possibility well before Sept. 11 that passenger planes might be used as missiles against domestic targets.
The disclosure came in the form a newly unearthed 2001 memo showing that in April of that year, Norad considered an exercise in which military commanders would weigh how to respond to an attack in which terrorists flew a hijacked plane into the Pentagon, precisely what happened five months later.
"Even with our subpoenas, Norad has been slow to act on our document requests, and that's why we haven't talked particularly about Norad in our earlier hearings," Mr. Kean said. "Now we will."
Asked what information has been gathered about Norad since the subpoena, he said he could not comment until he had reviewed the work of the commission's investigators, noting that he had been consumed in recent days with preparations for the panel's scheduled interview on Thursday with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Other commission officials said the panel's investigators were focusing on the actions of Norad during a two-hour period on Sept. 11 after 8:20 a.m., when the Federal Aviation Administration got its first clue that a passenger plane had been hijacked; the electronic transponder on American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles had been switched off.
The officials said the commission wanted to know why, by Norad's own timeline, it took 44 minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center for Norad to launch fighters in the Washington area.
By the time three F-16 jet fighters were airborne from Langley Air Force Base, Va., about 105 miles from Washington, American Airlines Flight 77 was only seven minutes from plunging into the Pentagon.
Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor and a Democratic member of the panel, would not discuss the evidence that has been presented to the commission since it held a preliminary public hearing on Norad in May of last year.
But Mr. Ben-Veniste said the commission had "substantial" new information and would want to question Norad's commanders about "why the nation's air defenses were in an outward cold-war posture rather than one that the reflected" a new generation of threats, including the use of hijacked passenger planes as missiles.
end of snip>
Why did the pResident continue to read to the children when he could have ordered the planes shot down? Why did they delay the and oppose the formation of the 9/11 commission? So many questions left unanswered.
snip>
But their defense of Norad's actions became more difficult this month with the disclosure that Norad planners had specifically weighed the possibility well before Sept. 11 that passenger planes might be used as missiles against domestic targets.
The disclosure came in the form a newly unearthed 2001 memo showing that in April of that year, Norad considered an exercise in which military commanders would weigh how to respond to an attack in which terrorists flew a hijacked plane into the Pentagon, precisely what happened five months later.
"Even with our subpoenas, Norad has been slow to act on our document requests, and that's why we haven't talked particularly about Norad in our earlier hearings," Mr. Kean said. "Now we will."
Asked what information has been gathered about Norad since the subpoena, he said he could not comment until he had reviewed the work of the commission's investigators, noting that he had been consumed in recent days with preparations for the panel's scheduled interview on Thursday with Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney.
Other commission officials said the panel's investigators were focusing on the actions of Norad during a two-hour period on Sept. 11 after 8:20 a.m., when the Federal Aviation Administration got its first clue that a passenger plane had been hijacked; the electronic transponder on American Airlines Flight 11 from Boston to Los Angeles had been switched off.
The officials said the commission wanted to know why, by Norad's own timeline, it took 44 minutes after Flight 11 crashed into the World Trade Center for Norad to launch fighters in the Washington area.
By the time three F-16 jet fighters were airborne from Langley Air Force Base, Va., about 105 miles from Washington, American Airlines Flight 77 was only seven minutes from plunging into the Pentagon.
Richard Ben-Veniste, the former Watergate prosecutor and a Democratic member of the panel, would not discuss the evidence that has been presented to the commission since it held a preliminary public hearing on Norad in May of last year.
But Mr. Ben-Veniste said the commission had "substantial" new information and would want to question Norad's commanders about "why the nation's air defenses were in an outward cold-war posture rather than one that the reflected" a new generation of threats, including the use of hijacked passenger planes as missiles.
end of snip>
Why did the pResident continue to read to the children when he could have ordered the planes shot down? Why did they delay the and oppose the formation of the 9/11 commission? So many questions left unanswered.
Sunday, April 25, 2004
One Million Give the Finger To Dumbya
Safe, Legal and Rare
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Protesters crowded the National Mall on Sunday to show support for abortion rights and opposition to Bush administration policies on women's health issues in one of the biggest demonstrations in U.S. history.
There was no official crowd count, but organizers claimed more than 1 million people participated.
Pink- and purple-shirted protesters raised signs reading "Fight the Radical Right," "Keep Abortion Legal" and "U.S. Out Of My Uterus" and covered the Mall from the foot of Capitol Hill to the base of the Washington Monument.
The abortion issue was the centerpiece of the march's broad protest against the policies of President Bush, including his stance on funding international family planning. No U.S. funds may be used for any family planning agency that mentions abortion to patients.
...
"Vote That Smirk Out of Office," was a characteristically political placard targeting Bush, but Dorothy Smith, 76, of Eldridge, Missouri, carried an emblem she made herself -- a wire coat hanger draped with a sign reading "Never Again."
"I can remember when abortion was just as common as it is now, but it killed a lot of women," Smith said.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Protesters crowded the National Mall on Sunday to show support for abortion rights and opposition to Bush administration policies on women's health issues in one of the biggest demonstrations in U.S. history.
There was no official crowd count, but organizers claimed more than 1 million people participated.
Pink- and purple-shirted protesters raised signs reading "Fight the Radical Right," "Keep Abortion Legal" and "U.S. Out Of My Uterus" and covered the Mall from the foot of Capitol Hill to the base of the Washington Monument.
The abortion issue was the centerpiece of the march's broad protest against the policies of President Bush, including his stance on funding international family planning. No U.S. funds may be used for any family planning agency that mentions abortion to patients.
...
"Vote That Smirk Out of Office," was a characteristically political placard targeting Bush, but Dorothy Smith, 76, of Eldridge, Missouri, carried an emblem she made herself -- a wire coat hanger draped with a sign reading "Never Again."
"I can remember when abortion was just as common as it is now, but it killed a lot of women," Smith said.
Saturday, April 24, 2004
2 Cents
With all the GOP'ers and tangent football fans jumping on the Pat Tillman is a hero bandwagon I find it funny that many of those same folks are the same people who are harping on John Kerry's Purple Heart non-issue. I guess the difference is that Kerry took his Yale degree and likely six-figure job opportunities and had the nerve to survive his volunteer service in Viet Nam.
Don't get me wrong, I too think Tillman was a hero but no more so than all the other soldiers that are serving in Bush's War and especially those coming home in boxes to quiet funerals and zero recognition.
I predict W will make some sort of comment about Tillman trying to tie himself to a hero and someone unlike himself and those ChickenHawks he is surrounded by in the WhiteHouse.
George's "volunteer" service record.
John Kerry and I suppose like Pat Tillman's "volunteer" service record.
Don't get me wrong, I too think Tillman was a hero but no more so than all the other soldiers that are serving in Bush's War and especially those coming home in boxes to quiet funerals and zero recognition.
I predict W will make some sort of comment about Tillman trying to tie himself to a hero and someone unlike himself and those ChickenHawks he is surrounded by in the WhiteHouse.
George's "volunteer" service record.
John Kerry and I suppose like Pat Tillman's "volunteer" service record.
The Most Powerful Man In The World
Ariel Sharon
Seriously
Ariel Sharon leads a country that has nukes, and has now declared that he will continue to assassinate any opponent he feels like killing.
snip>
In recent months, however, Israel repeatedly has threatened Arafat. Sharon took the threats to a new level Friday, saying in a television interview that he told President Bush earlier this month Israel was no longer bound by the pledge not to harm Arafat.
snip>
On top of all this, he is basically telling Bush and for that matter the entire world that he will do what he wants and the world community be damned.
Why shouldn't he. Bush has shown that you don't need the UN and can push your own agenda without any consequences, at least any from anyone that matters. Sharon also knows that while the Bushits will give lip service to the notion that targeting opponents is unacceptable, clearly the US actions over the last 3 1/2 years show that in the name of fighting terrorists, there are no rules. Sharon also knows that there will be no punishment of Israel as long as Bush courts the Jewish vote as we head in to the election season.
Sharon knows he can act without impunity and get away with it. On top of that, the Bushistas did him the favor or eliminating Saddam who allegedly gave money to the families of suicide bombers.
Sharon, has Bush by the marbles and will escalate the violence using the same big stick philosophy we are now using in Iraq. Sharon is the most powerful man in the world and I'm afraid he knows it.
Friday, April 23, 2004
WAR
If you want to see the 350 or so photos that were released "by mistake" by the Pentagon under the Freedom of Information Act you can do so Here
I'm not going to comment, though I've posted a comment from Condi below the photo, but feel free to do so yourself. From what I understand, the first few photos are actually of the coffins of the Space Shuttle Astronauts from a couple years ago however. The rest are what they are.
"The lesson, too, is that if it is worth fighting for, you had better be prepared to win.
Also, there must be a political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces
—something that is still completely absent in Kosovo. The military is not a civilian police force.
It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.
Using the American armed forces as the world's "911" will degrade capabilities, bog soldiers down
in peacekeeping roles, and fuel concern among other great powers that the United States has decided
to enforce notions of "limited sovereignty" worldwide in the name of humanitarianism."
--Condi Rice, lecturing the world on quagmires in January 2000
I'm not going to comment, though I've posted a comment from Condi below the photo, but feel free to do so yourself. From what I understand, the first few photos are actually of the coffins of the Space Shuttle Astronauts from a couple years ago however. The rest are what they are.
"The lesson, too, is that if it is worth fighting for, you had better be prepared to win.
Also, there must be a political game plan that will permit the withdrawal of our forces
—something that is still completely absent in Kosovo. The military is not a civilian police force.
It is not a political referee. And it is most certainly not designed to build a civilian society.
Using the American armed forces as the world's "911" will degrade capabilities, bog soldiers down
in peacekeeping roles, and fuel concern among other great powers that the United States has decided
to enforce notions of "limited sovereignty" worldwide in the name of humanitarianism."
--Condi Rice, lecturing the world on quagmires in January 2000
Thursday, April 22, 2004
We Knew This Would Happen
The Woman loses her job over coffins photo
A military contractor has fired Tami Silicio, a Kuwait-based cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins of fallen U.S. soldiers was published in Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times.
Silicio was let go yesterday for violating U.S. government and company regulations, said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft, the contractor that employed Silicio at Kuwait International Airport.
"I feel like I was hit in the chest with a steel bar and got my wind knocked out. I have to admit I liked my job, and I liked what I did," Silicio said.
Her photograph, taken earlier this month, shows more than 20 flag-draped coffins in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait. Since 1991, the Pentagon has banned the media from taking pictures of caskets being returned to the United States.
This Is the Photo they don't want you to see. Bush Fodder
A military contractor has fired Tami Silicio, a Kuwait-based cargo worker whose photograph of flag-draped coffins of fallen U.S. soldiers was published in Sunday's edition of The Seattle Times.
Silicio was let go yesterday for violating U.S. government and company regulations, said William Silva, president of Maytag Aircraft, the contractor that employed Silicio at Kuwait International Airport.
"I feel like I was hit in the chest with a steel bar and got my wind knocked out. I have to admit I liked my job, and I liked what I did," Silicio said.
Her photograph, taken earlier this month, shows more than 20 flag-draped coffins in a cargo plane about to depart from Kuwait. Since 1991, the Pentagon has banned the media from taking pictures of caskets being returned to the United States.
This Is the Photo they don't want you to see. Bush Fodder
One Year After Our Troops Were (NOT) Greeted With Flowers
MSNBC - Altercation
snip>
Anyway, if these smart fellows—most of whom lacked a single moment of military service in their lives-- had listened to people who really knew something about warfare in that region—men like General Anthony Zinni—they would not be doing intellectual somersaults attempting to explain why absolutely nothing that they said would happen has happened and yet, it was still a great idea. Oh and we’d also be hundreds of billions of dollars wealthier, tens of thousands—perhaps more—parents would not have lost their children and children would not have lost their parents—and the entire world would not hate our guts, causing what will undoubtedly be an upsurge in terrorism.
end of snip>
Go there and read the context as well as the links. Sometimes it's very painful to be right.
snip>
Anyway, if these smart fellows—most of whom lacked a single moment of military service in their lives-- had listened to people who really knew something about warfare in that region—men like General Anthony Zinni—they would not be doing intellectual somersaults attempting to explain why absolutely nothing that they said would happen has happened and yet, it was still a great idea. Oh and we’d also be hundreds of billions of dollars wealthier, tens of thousands—perhaps more—parents would not have lost their children and children would not have lost their parents—and the entire world would not hate our guts, causing what will undoubtedly be an upsurge in terrorism.
end of snip>
Go there and read the context as well as the links. Sometimes it's very painful to be right.
Where Do YOU Stand On This?
USATODAY.com - Poll: Many Americans worried terrorists might be winning
Those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased from 40% in December to 54% now, according to the poll, conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
The people who say the Bush administration made the right decision to go to war in Iraq, 48%, are now about even with those who think the administration made a mistake, 49%. In December, two-thirds said the administration made the right decision.
Those who think the military action in Iraq has increased the long-term risk of terrorism in the United States have increased from 40% in December to 54% now, according to the poll, conducted for the AP by Ipsos-Public Affairs.
The people who say the Bush administration made the right decision to go to war in Iraq, 48%, are now about even with those who think the administration made a mistake, 49%. In December, two-thirds said the administration made the right decision.
Wednesday, April 21, 2004
No Draft Plans eh?
Take Back The Media!
Here's the proof that a national draft is being planned!
There's a rumor out there, that if George W. Bush gains a second term in the White House, a military draft will be instituted in 2005. Senator John McCain said on Meet The Press last Sunday that a draft will 'absolutely' be needed next year.
This is no rumor. Plans are being laid to set up draft review boards right now.
A TBTM listener in Southern California sent us this letter last week, which is from the Selective Service. It is soliciting him to sign up for his local draft review board. He tells us that he's going to become part of the board and refuse as many kids as he possibly can - because he served in Viet Nam and saw war first-hand, and does not want any more young Americans sent to war, no matter where George W. Bush wants to wage it next. Here is the letter:
follow the link for the actual letter.
Here's the proof that a national draft is being planned!
There's a rumor out there, that if George W. Bush gains a second term in the White House, a military draft will be instituted in 2005. Senator John McCain said on Meet The Press last Sunday that a draft will 'absolutely' be needed next year.
This is no rumor. Plans are being laid to set up draft review boards right now.
A TBTM listener in Southern California sent us this letter last week, which is from the Selective Service. It is soliciting him to sign up for his local draft review board. He tells us that he's going to become part of the board and refuse as many kids as he possibly can - because he served in Viet Nam and saw war first-hand, and does not want any more young Americans sent to war, no matter where George W. Bush wants to wage it next. Here is the letter:
follow the link for the actual letter.
Pay No Attention to the
Man Behind the Curtain Pentagon deleted Rumsfeld comment
The Pentagon deleted from a public transcript a statement Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made to author Bob Woodward suggesting that the administration gave Saudi Arabia a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq.
At issue was a passage in Woodward's "Plan of Attack," an account published this week of Bush's decision making about the war, quoting Rumsfeld as telling Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, in January 2003 that he could "take that to the bank" that the invasion would happen.
The comment came in a key moment in the run-up to the war, when Rumsfeld and other officials were briefing Bandar on a military plan to attack and invade Iraq, and pointing to a top-secret map that showed how the war plan would unfold. The book reports that the meeting with Bandar was held on Jan. 11, 2003, in Vice President Cheney's West Wing office. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended.
Pentagon officials omitted the discussion of the meeting from a transcript of the Woodward interview that they posted on the Defense Department's Web site Monday. Rumsfeld told reporters at a briefing yesterday that he may have used the phrase "take that to the bank" but that no final decision had been made to go to war.
"To my knowledge, a decision had not been taken by the president to go to war at that meeting," Rumsfeld said. "There was certainly nothing I said that should have suggested that, and any suggestion to the contrary would not be accurate."
Eight questions and answers deleted
Woodward supplied his own transcript showing that Rumsfeld told him on Oct. 23, 2003: "I remember meeting with the vice president and I think Dick Myers and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words, at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen."
The transcript made it clear that the foreign dignitary Woodward was discussing was Bandar, although Rumsfeld would not say that. "We're going to have to clean some of this up in the transcript," Rumsfeld said in the omitted passage. "We'll give you a — I mean you just said Bandar and I didn't agree with that so we're going to have to — I don't want to say who it is but you are going to have to go through that and find a way to clean up my language too."
All told, the Pentagon transcript omits a series of eight questions and answers, some of them just a few words each. Yesterday Rumsfeld described the deleted passages as "some banter."
Larry DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said the deletion was an honest disagreement and defense officials were reviewing the passage to determine whether to restore it to the published version.
end of snip but more at link.
The Pentagon deleted from a public transcript a statement Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld made to author Bob Woodward suggesting that the administration gave Saudi Arabia a two-month heads-up that President Bush had decided to invade Iraq.
At issue was a passage in Woodward's "Plan of Attack," an account published this week of Bush's decision making about the war, quoting Rumsfeld as telling Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to Washington, in January 2003 that he could "take that to the bank" that the invasion would happen.
The comment came in a key moment in the run-up to the war, when Rumsfeld and other officials were briefing Bandar on a military plan to attack and invade Iraq, and pointing to a top-secret map that showed how the war plan would unfold. The book reports that the meeting with Bandar was held on Jan. 11, 2003, in Vice President Cheney's West Wing office. Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, also attended.
Pentagon officials omitted the discussion of the meeting from a transcript of the Woodward interview that they posted on the Defense Department's Web site Monday. Rumsfeld told reporters at a briefing yesterday that he may have used the phrase "take that to the bank" but that no final decision had been made to go to war.
"To my knowledge, a decision had not been taken by the president to go to war at that meeting," Rumsfeld said. "There was certainly nothing I said that should have suggested that, and any suggestion to the contrary would not be accurate."
Eight questions and answers deleted
Woodward supplied his own transcript showing that Rumsfeld told him on Oct. 23, 2003: "I remember meeting with the vice president and I think Dick Myers and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words, at some point we had had enough of a signal from the president that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen."
The transcript made it clear that the foreign dignitary Woodward was discussing was Bandar, although Rumsfeld would not say that. "We're going to have to clean some of this up in the transcript," Rumsfeld said in the omitted passage. "We'll give you a — I mean you just said Bandar and I didn't agree with that so we're going to have to — I don't want to say who it is but you are going to have to go through that and find a way to clean up my language too."
All told, the Pentagon transcript omits a series of eight questions and answers, some of them just a few words each. Yesterday Rumsfeld described the deleted passages as "some banter."
Larry DiRita, the Pentagon's chief spokesman, said the deletion was an honest disagreement and defense officials were reviewing the passage to determine whether to restore it to the published version.
end of snip but more at link.
More Compassionate Conservatism
Administration Alters Rules for Rent Aid
The Bush administration is changing the nation's largest program of housing assistance so that, for the first time, the government no longer is promising to pay the full cost of rent vouchers that help nearly 2 million poor families.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is putting into place the new payment method for the program, a cornerstone of federal housing policy known as Section 8, before Congress decides whether to endorse a broader proposal by the administration that would eliminate many longtime federal rules governing which people get rent assistance and how much they must pay.
The payment change, which is infuriating congressional Democrats and advocates for affordable housing, is essentially a different route for the administration to accomplish a central goal of its larger proposal: to constrain rapid growth in the program's spending.
Section 8 is a form of housing assistance that was created three decades ago and traditionally has been more popular among Republicans than the nation's network of public housing, because it relies on the private market. The program allows poor families, disabled people and the elderly to obtain a rent voucher -- 1.9 million are available this year -- from a local housing authority and take it to any private landlord in the community who is willing to accept it.
ens of snip>
What will they cut next? Milk for kids?
Shameful
The Bush administration is changing the nation's largest program of housing assistance so that, for the first time, the government no longer is promising to pay the full cost of rent vouchers that help nearly 2 million poor families.
The Department of Housing and Urban Development is putting into place the new payment method for the program, a cornerstone of federal housing policy known as Section 8, before Congress decides whether to endorse a broader proposal by the administration that would eliminate many longtime federal rules governing which people get rent assistance and how much they must pay.
The payment change, which is infuriating congressional Democrats and advocates for affordable housing, is essentially a different route for the administration to accomplish a central goal of its larger proposal: to constrain rapid growth in the program's spending.
Section 8 is a form of housing assistance that was created three decades ago and traditionally has been more popular among Republicans than the nation's network of public housing, because it relies on the private market. The program allows poor families, disabled people and the elderly to obtain a rent voucher -- 1.9 million are available this year -- from a local housing authority and take it to any private landlord in the community who is willing to accept it.
ens of snip>
What will they cut next? Milk for kids?
Shameful
As I've Been Saying...
War May Require More Money Soon
snip>
But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.
The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.
The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.
Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.
"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who returned from Iraq on March 23, said senior Army officers and contractors told him "serious problems" will surface this summer if Congress does not approve more spending by June.
...
Pressed on the funding issue yesterday at a Senate hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz conceded that higher-than-expected troop levels are draining some military accounts, but he said other accounts remain in surplus and can be tapped.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was more equivocal: "We know that we have additional costs that we have to find funding sources for," he said. "We thought before that the services were identifying shortfalls that we could bridge. . . . I think we just have to assure ourselves that's still true."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a briefing that the Pentagon has a plan to boost troop levels beyond the 135,000 already in Iraq if commanders so request.
end of snip>
As Atrios says and I have been saying all along, there will be a big bill due for Bush's war on Iraq and we better face up to it now as we are the one's who will be paying it.
BTW, the money is going to Halliburton and the other contractors who are reaping the benefits, few that they are, of this war. The money as Wolfowitz intimates is not for troop salaries or benefits but rather for the contractors who support them. Don't get me wrong as I want the troops to have EVERYTHING they need to survive and fight but the fact Bush won't ask for the money now is criminal. Atrios sums up his post with this prediction;
"My guess is they'll sit on this for awhile, and then suddenly suckerpunch the Democrats by putting a Bill out there and demanding that they pass it right away to "support the troops."
I'm sure he's right.
snip>
But military officials, defense contractors and members of Congress say that worsening U.S. fortunes in Iraq have dramatically changed the equation and more money will be needed soon. This comes as lawmakers, returning from their spring break, voice unease about the mounting violence and what they say is the lack of a clearly enunciated strategy for victory.
The military already has identified unmet funding needs, including initiatives aimed at providing equipment and weapons for troops in Iraq. The Army has publicly identified nearly $6 billion in funding requests that did not make Bush's $402 billion defense budget for 2005, including $132 million for bolt-on vehicle armor; $879 million for combat helmets, silk-weight underwear, boots and other clothing; $21.5 million for M249 squad automatic weapons; and $27 million for ammunition magazines, night sights and ammo packs. Also unfunded: $956 million for repairing desert-damaged equipment and $102 million to replace equipment lost in combat.
The Marine Corps' unfunded budget requests include $40 million for body armor, lightweight helmets and other equipment for "Marines engaged in the global war on terrorism," Marine Corps documents state. The Marines are also seeking 1,800 squad automatic weapons and 5,400 M4 carbine rifles.
Rep. Curt Weldon (R-Pa.), vice chairman of the House Armed Services Committee, charged that the president is playing political games by postponing further funding requests until after the election, to try to avoid reopening debate on the war's cost and future.
Weldon described the administration's current defense budget request as "outrageous" and "immoral" and said that at least $10 billion is needed for Iraqi operations over the next five months.
"There needs to be a supplemental, whether it's a presidential election year or not," he said. "The support of our troops has to be the number one priority of this country. . . . Somebody's got to get serious about this."
Rep. Chet Edwards (D-Tex.), who returned from Iraq on March 23, said senior Army officers and contractors told him "serious problems" will surface this summer if Congress does not approve more spending by June.
...
Pressed on the funding issue yesterday at a Senate hearing, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul D. Wolfowitz conceded that higher-than-expected troop levels are draining some military accounts, but he said other accounts remain in surplus and can be tapped.
Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was more equivocal: "We know that we have additional costs that we have to find funding sources for," he said. "We thought before that the services were identifying shortfalls that we could bridge. . . . I think we just have to assure ourselves that's still true."
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said at a briefing that the Pentagon has a plan to boost troop levels beyond the 135,000 already in Iraq if commanders so request.
end of snip>
As Atrios says and I have been saying all along, there will be a big bill due for Bush's war on Iraq and we better face up to it now as we are the one's who will be paying it.
BTW, the money is going to Halliburton and the other contractors who are reaping the benefits, few that they are, of this war. The money as Wolfowitz intimates is not for troop salaries or benefits but rather for the contractors who support them. Don't get me wrong as I want the troops to have EVERYTHING they need to survive and fight but the fact Bush won't ask for the money now is criminal. Atrios sums up his post with this prediction;
"My guess is they'll sit on this for awhile, and then suddenly suckerpunch the Democrats by putting a Bill out there and demanding that they pass it right away to "support the troops."
I'm sure he's right.
What a Bunch of Crap
Kerry, Under Fire, Releases Some Military Records
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry, under fire from Republicans, released some of his previously public military records on Tuesday after questions were raised about the Vietnam War wounds he suffered to earn his first Purple Heart.
What a bunch of hooey. Making an issue about how he got his first of three purple hearts is pretty lame don't you think? Of course the media is now on day 3 of this story I suppose in trying to even up the fight over Bush's records. Kerry was on MTP on Sunday and released these records on Tuesday, a whole 48 hours after saying he would. Bush on the other hand, stalled, faught, denied, admitted and finally disclosed after more than a week, records that did not prove he was not AWOL as alleged.
the article continues...
The documents released by the campaign include Kerry's Purple Heart citations but little explanation or documentation of the wounds he suffered or their severity. Purple Heart requirements do not specify the severity of the wound.
Bush was forced to surrender his National Guard files from the Vietnam War period in February to try to stamp out election-year charges from Democrats that he shirked his duty.
Those documents offered no new evidence to place Bush in Alabama during the latter part of 1972, the period when Democrats claimed he was basically absent without leave.
end of snip>
Just for fun, let's throw out the first purple heart and compare the medals and years of service of Kerry and Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and Hannity.
Kerry- 4 years, 4 Medals - 2 Purple Heats, 1 Bronze Star, 1 Silver Star
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and Hannity-combined 0 years, 0 medals
I rest my case.
If this is the best they got. Bring It ON!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democrat John Kerry, under fire from Republicans, released some of his previously public military records on Tuesday after questions were raised about the Vietnam War wounds he suffered to earn his first Purple Heart.
What a bunch of hooey. Making an issue about how he got his first of three purple hearts is pretty lame don't you think? Of course the media is now on day 3 of this story I suppose in trying to even up the fight over Bush's records. Kerry was on MTP on Sunday and released these records on Tuesday, a whole 48 hours after saying he would. Bush on the other hand, stalled, faught, denied, admitted and finally disclosed after more than a week, records that did not prove he was not AWOL as alleged.
the article continues...
The documents released by the campaign include Kerry's Purple Heart citations but little explanation or documentation of the wounds he suffered or their severity. Purple Heart requirements do not specify the severity of the wound.
Bush was forced to surrender his National Guard files from the Vietnam War period in February to try to stamp out election-year charges from Democrats that he shirked his duty.
Those documents offered no new evidence to place Bush in Alabama during the latter part of 1972, the period when Democrats claimed he was basically absent without leave.
end of snip>
Just for fun, let's throw out the first purple heart and compare the medals and years of service of Kerry and Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and Hannity.
Kerry- 4 years, 4 Medals - 2 Purple Heats, 1 Bronze Star, 1 Silver Star
Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and Hannity-combined 0 years, 0 medals
I rest my case.
If this is the best they got. Bring It ON!
Tuesday, April 20, 2004
Mission Accomplished...My Ass
Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.
"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.
The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.
Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.
end of snip>
Why should America's youth be conscripted to bail out W's ass? This was a War of Choice not of necessity. If this doesn't wake up all those 18 year olds graduating from high school this spring and motivate them to vote for Kerry this fall, I don't know what will. If they are gung ho they can join up but I'll be damned if my kids are going to be cannon fodder for Halliburton and Cheney's wet dream.
Don't tell me that all social strata would be eligible, that has NEVER been the case in war as we know from the experience of all the instigators of this war and their Cheerleaders. Those able to pay/buy their way out will and have always avoided the nastiness of war. It is the warmongers like W, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and the others that are willing to send our kids to their death due to some warped sense of divine calling.
Stand up America! If Bush wins this fall a bill will be introduced on 1/21/05 to reinstate the draft as well as a request for 150 Billion to pay for the ongoing war in Iraq and likely somewhere else by then. You will hear nothing but denials from now until Nov. 3 but mark my words. And where will that money come from? Not the wealthy, as the tax cuts will be made permanent by a right wing congress and a lame duck WhiteHouse that has absolutely NOTHING to lose over the following four years and can scorch the earth, literally and figuratively at will.
Support the Troops- Vote John Kerry!
WASHINGTON (AFP) - A senior Republican lawmaker said that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.
"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.
"Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."
The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of military service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.
"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.
The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 of the 135,000 US troops in Iraq.
Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.
end of snip>
Why should America's youth be conscripted to bail out W's ass? This was a War of Choice not of necessity. If this doesn't wake up all those 18 year olds graduating from high school this spring and motivate them to vote for Kerry this fall, I don't know what will. If they are gung ho they can join up but I'll be damned if my kids are going to be cannon fodder for Halliburton and Cheney's wet dream.
Don't tell me that all social strata would be eligible, that has NEVER been the case in war as we know from the experience of all the instigators of this war and their Cheerleaders. Those able to pay/buy their way out will and have always avoided the nastiness of war. It is the warmongers like W, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Rove, Rush and the others that are willing to send our kids to their death due to some warped sense of divine calling.
Stand up America! If Bush wins this fall a bill will be introduced on 1/21/05 to reinstate the draft as well as a request for 150 Billion to pay for the ongoing war in Iraq and likely somewhere else by then. You will hear nothing but denials from now until Nov. 3 but mark my words. And where will that money come from? Not the wealthy, as the tax cuts will be made permanent by a right wing congress and a lame duck WhiteHouse that has absolutely NOTHING to lose over the following four years and can scorch the earth, literally and figuratively at will.
Support the Troops- Vote John Kerry!
Armegeddon Anyone?
Hamas Leader Seeks Arab-Muslim Pact Vs Israel-U.S.
AL-YARMOUK CAMP, Syria (Reuters) - Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Monday called for an Arab and Muslim alliance to defeat the United States and Israel.
"Our battle is with two sides, one of them is the strongest power in the world, the United States, and the second is the strongest power in the region (Israel)," he told hundreds of people at the al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus.
"That is the caliber of the battle. We will not be victorious unless the other side of the battle is Arab and Muslim. All of the Arabs and Muslims," he said at a memorial ceremony for Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, the group's Gaza leader assassinated by Israel on Saturday.
Meshaal, who survived a 1997 Israeli assassination attempt in Jordan, vowed Hamas would avenge the killing of Rantissi and the group's spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin on March 22.
The Hamas politburo chief vowed Palestinians would "turn Earth on their heads, God willing."
The Israelis live "in horror...ahead of our response, during it and after it," he said. "Do not worry, there will be a response and resistance will continue, God willing."
He urged the leaders of 22 Arab states and more than 30 non-Arab Muslim countries to "make an alliance, even a temporary one...to combine capabilities against the enemy."
AL-YARMOUK CAMP, Syria (Reuters) - Hamas political leader Khaled Meshaal on Monday called for an Arab and Muslim alliance to defeat the United States and Israel.
"Our battle is with two sides, one of them is the strongest power in the world, the United States, and the second is the strongest power in the region (Israel)," he told hundreds of people at the al-Yarmouk Palestinian refugee camp near Damascus.
"That is the caliber of the battle. We will not be victorious unless the other side of the battle is Arab and Muslim. All of the Arabs and Muslims," he said at a memorial ceremony for Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi, the group's Gaza leader assassinated by Israel on Saturday.
Meshaal, who survived a 1997 Israeli assassination attempt in Jordan, vowed Hamas would avenge the killing of Rantissi and the group's spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin on March 22.
The Hamas politburo chief vowed Palestinians would "turn Earth on their heads, God willing."
The Israelis live "in horror...ahead of our response, during it and after it," he said. "Do not worry, there will be a response and resistance will continue, God willing."
He urged the leaders of 22 Arab states and more than 30 non-Arab Muslim countries to "make an alliance, even a temporary one...to combine capabilities against the enemy."
YWhy Don't They Love Us?
Mubarak: Arab Hatred of Americans Growing
PARIS - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).
Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.
"At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."
"After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."
Mubarak, whose country is among the biggest beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid, said U.S. missteps in Iraq had made the situation worse.
"In Iraq, they said: 'We are not going to allow the creation of an Islamic state.' Result: people are attached even more to the idea of religion," Mubarak said.
Many Arabs feel a sense of "injustice" in the way the United States has offered strong backing for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mubarak said.
"What's more — they see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything," Mubarak said.
end of snip>
But in BushWorld, everything is just Rosey.
Wake Up People!
PARIS - Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak, a major Arab ally of the United States, said in published remarks Tuesday that hatred of Americans in the Arab world was stronger now than ever because of the war in Iraq (news - web sites).
Mubarak also said Arab opinion of the United States had grown more negative because of Washington's continuing support for Israel.
"At the start, some believed that the Americans were helping them," Mubarak said in comments published Tuesday by French daily Le Monde. "There wasn't any hatred toward the Americans."
"After what has happened in Iraq, there is an unprecedented hatred and the Americans know it," he added. "There exists today a hatred never equaled in the region."
Mubarak, whose country is among the biggest beneficiaries of U.S. foreign aid, said U.S. missteps in Iraq had made the situation worse.
"In Iraq, they said: 'We are not going to allow the creation of an Islamic state.' Result: people are attached even more to the idea of religion," Mubarak said.
Many Arabs feel a sense of "injustice" in the way the United States has offered strong backing for Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon, Mubarak said.
"What's more — they see Sharon act as he wants, without the Americans saying anything," Mubarak said.
end of snip>
But in BushWorld, everything is just Rosey.
Wake Up People!
Monday, April 19, 2004
Why Listen to the Experts?
SignOnSanDiego.com >Retired general assails U.S. policy on Iraq
snip>
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.
"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.
...
"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."
"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."
end of snip>
Another traitor/truthteller in Bushworld.
Viet Nam or Iraq
The parallels are eerie:
1. Misguided Nation Building.
2. Puppet governments.
3. Poor and minorities fighting the war.
4. No exit strategy
5. Congress abdicates their responsibility.
6. Lying politicians.
7. People hate us.
8. Corporations profiteering.
snip>
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.
"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
At a Pentagon news briefing yesterday, Rumsfeld said he could not have estimated how many troops would be killed in the past week.
...
"I've been called a traitor and a turncoat for mentioning these things," said Zinni, 60. The problems in Iraq are being caused, he said, by poor planning and shortsightedness, such as disbanding the Iraqi army and being unable to provide security.
Zinni said the United States must now rely on the U.N. to pull its "chestnuts out of the fire in Iraq."
"We're betting on the U.N., who we blew off and ridiculed during the run-up to the war," Zinni said. "Now we're back with hat in hand. It would be funny if not for the lives lost."
end of snip>
Another traitor/truthteller in Bushworld.
Viet Nam or Iraq
The parallels are eerie:
1. Misguided Nation Building.
2. Puppet governments.
3. Poor and minorities fighting the war.
4. No exit strategy
5. Congress abdicates their responsibility.
6. Lying politicians.
7. People hate us.
8. Corporations profiteering.
Truth
Via Atrios
NEW YORK In an unusual move for the organization, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) will release what it promises will be a bombshell article related to the Iraq conflict at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. It will be made available free of charge for publication on all AAN-member Web sites, as well as for print, and more than 60 members papers have expressed interest in using it, according to Executive Director Richard Karpel.
The 3,000-word story, embargoed until Tuesday but obtained by E&P today, is based on a "closely held" memo purportedly written by a U.S. government official detailed to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It was provided to writer Jason Vest by "a Western intelligence official." The memo offers a candid assessment of Iraq's bleak future -- as a country trapped in corruption and dysfunction -- and portrays a CPA cut off from the Iraqi people after a "year's worth of serious errors."
The article is titled, "Fables of Reconstruction," with a subhed, "A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq."
Karpel commented, "We have no question that the memo is authentic."
Drip drip drip
Your Legacy, Mr. Bush, I hope you're proud.
NEW YORK In an unusual move for the organization, the Association of Alternative Newsweeklies (AAN) will release what it promises will be a bombshell article related to the Iraq conflict at 10 a.m. Eastern Standard Time on Tuesday. It will be made available free of charge for publication on all AAN-member Web sites, as well as for print, and more than 60 members papers have expressed interest in using it, according to Executive Director Richard Karpel.
The 3,000-word story, embargoed until Tuesday but obtained by E&P today, is based on a "closely held" memo purportedly written by a U.S. government official detailed to the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA). It was provided to writer Jason Vest by "a Western intelligence official." The memo offers a candid assessment of Iraq's bleak future -- as a country trapped in corruption and dysfunction -- and portrays a CPA cut off from the Iraqi people after a "year's worth of serious errors."
The article is titled, "Fables of Reconstruction," with a subhed, "A Coalition memo reveals that even true believers see the seeds of civil war in the occupation of Iraq."
Karpel commented, "We have no question that the memo is authentic."
Drip drip drip
Your Legacy, Mr. Bush, I hope you're proud.
Bad Options
The Washington Monthly
snip>
It's nice to see that at least one "senior U.S. official" understands the gravity of what's going on, but it would be even nicer to hear some plan for doing more than simply "staying the course." Right now, staying the course is the worst strategy imaginable.
NOTE: I realize that that last sentence is ambiguous. All I meant by it is that we have three basic options:
1. Declare victory and pull out. This would likely lead to civil war and an unpredicable — but bad — outcome, but at least no more Americans would die.
2. Stay the course. This will probably also lead to some version of civil war and a bad outcome, and many more Americans will die in the process.
3. Increase both the resources and the time frame devoted to Iraq. Americans will continue to die, but at least there's the possibility of a (moderately) good outcome.
Doves prefer option #1 and hawks prefer option #3, but surely everyone agrees that option #2 is the worst of the lot?
snip>
It's nice to see that at least one "senior U.S. official" understands the gravity of what's going on, but it would be even nicer to hear some plan for doing more than simply "staying the course." Right now, staying the course is the worst strategy imaginable.
NOTE: I realize that that last sentence is ambiguous. All I meant by it is that we have three basic options:
1. Declare victory and pull out. This would likely lead to civil war and an unpredicable — but bad — outcome, but at least no more Americans would die.
2. Stay the course. This will probably also lead to some version of civil war and a bad outcome, and many more Americans will die in the process.
3. Increase both the resources and the time frame devoted to Iraq. Americans will continue to die, but at least there's the possibility of a (moderately) good outcome.
Doves prefer option #1 and hawks prefer option #3, but surely everyone agrees that option #2 is the worst of the lot?
Busy Monday
I'm going to be tied up most, if not all of the day today so please read the linked blogs and check out the Capitol Grilling Discussion board. Both sides of the aisle represented there.
And don't forget to tune in Air America via their streaming audio also linked to the right of this page.
Check It Out!
I won't even be able to tune in to the fallout that is sure to happen today regarding Woodwards Book. Any readers (both of you) can help by updating me with any good details in the comments section.
Vote the Bastards Out in November!
And don't forget to tune in Air America via their streaming audio also linked to the right of this page.
Check It Out!
I won't even be able to tune in to the fallout that is sure to happen today regarding Woodwards Book. Any readers (both of you) can help by updating me with any good details in the comments section.
Vote the Bastards Out in November!
Sunday, April 18, 2004
Freepers Gone Mad -Then Again, We Knew That
CNN.com - 9/11 commissioner: 'I've received threats'
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks.
In the mid-1990s, Gorelick served as deputy attorney general of the United States.
During that time, she wrote a memorandum establishing distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law-enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes.
That separation was originally required as a safeguard against abuse of citizens' rights by government investigative agencies. But passage of the Patriot Act in the wake of the attacks eliminated the requirement.
The so-called "wall" governing intelligence uses has been a key subject at hearings of the commission. It has been blamed for being a main obstacle to better sharing of information in connection with the September 11 attacks.
"I can confirm that I've received threats at my office and my home," she told CNN on Saturday. "I did get a bomb threat to my home."
She added, "I have gotten a lot of very vile e-mails. The bomb threat was by phone."
ABC News first reported the story Saturday.
The threats were "scary," she said, but added that she was "not intimidated enough to resign from the commission."
A law enforcement source told CNN that the FBI is investigating the threats.
end of snip>
Read her side of the story and not the insane Freeper version Here and see why this is such a stupid red herring the wing nuts are using to try and take the heat off the mis-administration. (WaPo source-free registration required)
snip>
At last week's hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft, facing criticism, asserted that "the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents" and that I built that wall through a March 1995 memo. This is simply not true.
First, I did not invent the "wall," which is not a wall but a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) and federal court decisions interpreting it. In a nutshell, that law, as the courts read it, said intelligence investigators could conduct electronic surveillance in the United States against foreign targets under a more lenient standard than is required in ordinary criminal cases, but only if the "primary purpose" of the surveillance were foreign intelligence rather than a criminal prosecution.
Second, according to the FISA Court of Review, it was the justice departments under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1980s that began to read the statute as limiting the department's ability to obtain FISA orders if it intended to bring a criminal prosecution. The practice of prohibiting prosecutors from directing intelligence investigations was first put in place in those years as well. Then, in July 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno issued written guidelines that spelled out the steps FBI intelligence agents and criminal investigators and prosecutors needed to follow when sharing information. The point was to preserve the ability of prosecutors to use information collected by intelligence agents.
Third, Mr. Ashcroft's own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, formally reaffirmed the 1995 guidelines in an Aug. 6, 2001, memo addressed to the FBI and the Justice Department. Ashcroft has charged that the guidelines hampered the department's ability to pursue terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in August 2001, but his own department had endorsed those guidelines at the pivotal time.
Fourth, the memo I wrote in March 1995 -- which concerns information-sharing in two particular cases, including the original World Trade Center bombing -- permits freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines or the 2001 Thompson memo. The purpose of my memo was to resolve a problem presented to me: facilitating investigations on both the intelligence side and criminal side at the same time. My memo directed agents on both sides to share information -- and, in particular, directed one agent to work on both the criminal and intelligence investigations -- to ensure the flow of information "over the wall." We set up special procedures because of the extraordinary circumstances and the necessity to prevent a court from throwing out any conviction in those cases. Had my memo been in place in August 2001 -- when, as Ashcroft said, FBI officials rejected a criminal warrant of Moussaoui because they feared "breaching the wall" -- it would have allowed those agents to obtain a criminal warrant without fear of jeopardizing an intelligence investigation.
Fifth, nothing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. Indeed, the guidelines require that FBI foreign intelligence agents share information with criminal investigators and prosecutors whenever they uncover facts suggesting that a crime has been or may be committed. The guidelines did set forth procedures, but those procedures implemented court decisions and, as noted, were reaffirmed by the Ashcroft Justice Department.
The Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11, together with an unprecedented appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, paved the way for the Justice Department to permit largely unrestricted information-sharing between intelligence and criminal investigators because the law changed the legal standard that had given rise to the guidelines in the first place. The Patriot Act says that electronic surveillance can be conducted in the United States against foreign threats as long as a "significant purpose" -- rather than the "primary purpose" -- is to obtain foreign intelligence.
This history has all been well-rehearsed in publicly available briefs, opinions and reports, all available to the 9/11 commission. I have -- consistent with the policy applied to all commissioners -- recused myself from any consideration of my actions or of the department while I was there. My fellow commissioners have spoken for themselves in rejecting the call by a few partisans that I step aside based upon false premises. I have worked hard to help the American public understand what happened on Sept. 11. I intend -- with my brethren on the commission -- to finish the job.
end of snip>
I ask again, who do you trust? She is sooo much smarter than those attacking her, can there be any doubt? I don't think Ashcroft understood what she wrote and therefore maliciously de-classified the information thinking it would bury her. Too bad the honorable republicans on the panel are her staunchest supporters. Strike Three Johnny Ashcroft.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Jamie Gorelick, a member of the commission investigating the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001, said Saturday that she received death threats this week after a number of conservatives alleged that her former work in the Justice Department may have contributed to failures leading to the attacks.
In the mid-1990s, Gorelick served as deputy attorney general of the United States.
During that time, she wrote a memorandum establishing distinctions between intelligence that could be used for law-enforcement purposes and intelligence that could be used for national security purposes.
That separation was originally required as a safeguard against abuse of citizens' rights by government investigative agencies. But passage of the Patriot Act in the wake of the attacks eliminated the requirement.
The so-called "wall" governing intelligence uses has been a key subject at hearings of the commission. It has been blamed for being a main obstacle to better sharing of information in connection with the September 11 attacks.
"I can confirm that I've received threats at my office and my home," she told CNN on Saturday. "I did get a bomb threat to my home."
She added, "I have gotten a lot of very vile e-mails. The bomb threat was by phone."
ABC News first reported the story Saturday.
The threats were "scary," she said, but added that she was "not intimidated enough to resign from the commission."
A law enforcement source told CNN that the FBI is investigating the threats.
end of snip>
Read her side of the story and not the insane Freeper version Here and see why this is such a stupid red herring the wing nuts are using to try and take the heat off the mis-administration. (WaPo source-free registration required)
snip>
At last week's hearing, Attorney General John Ashcroft, facing criticism, asserted that "the single greatest structural cause for September 11 was the wall that segregated criminal investigators and intelligence agents" and that I built that wall through a March 1995 memo. This is simply not true.
First, I did not invent the "wall," which is not a wall but a set of procedures implementing a 1978 statute (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, or FISA) and federal court decisions interpreting it. In a nutshell, that law, as the courts read it, said intelligence investigators could conduct electronic surveillance in the United States against foreign targets under a more lenient standard than is required in ordinary criminal cases, but only if the "primary purpose" of the surveillance were foreign intelligence rather than a criminal prosecution.
Second, according to the FISA Court of Review, it was the justice departments under Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush in the 1980s that began to read the statute as limiting the department's ability to obtain FISA orders if it intended to bring a criminal prosecution. The practice of prohibiting prosecutors from directing intelligence investigations was first put in place in those years as well. Then, in July 1995, Attorney General Janet Reno issued written guidelines that spelled out the steps FBI intelligence agents and criminal investigators and prosecutors needed to follow when sharing information. The point was to preserve the ability of prosecutors to use information collected by intelligence agents.
Third, Mr. Ashcroft's own deputy attorney general, Larry Thompson, formally reaffirmed the 1995 guidelines in an Aug. 6, 2001, memo addressed to the FBI and the Justice Department. Ashcroft has charged that the guidelines hampered the department's ability to pursue terrorists Zacarias Moussaoui, Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf al-Hazmi in August 2001, but his own department had endorsed those guidelines at the pivotal time.
Fourth, the memo I wrote in March 1995 -- which concerns information-sharing in two particular cases, including the original World Trade Center bombing -- permits freer coordination between intelligence and criminal investigators than was subsequently permitted by the 1995 guidelines or the 2001 Thompson memo. The purpose of my memo was to resolve a problem presented to me: facilitating investigations on both the intelligence side and criminal side at the same time. My memo directed agents on both sides to share information -- and, in particular, directed one agent to work on both the criminal and intelligence investigations -- to ensure the flow of information "over the wall." We set up special procedures because of the extraordinary circumstances and the necessity to prevent a court from throwing out any conviction in those cases. Had my memo been in place in August 2001 -- when, as Ashcroft said, FBI officials rejected a criminal warrant of Moussaoui because they feared "breaching the wall" -- it would have allowed those agents to obtain a criminal warrant without fear of jeopardizing an intelligence investigation.
Fifth, nothing in the 1995 guidelines prevented the sharing of information between criminal and intelligence investigators. Indeed, the guidelines require that FBI foreign intelligence agents share information with criminal investigators and prosecutors whenever they uncover facts suggesting that a crime has been or may be committed. The guidelines did set forth procedures, but those procedures implemented court decisions and, as noted, were reaffirmed by the Ashcroft Justice Department.
The Patriot Act, enacted after 9/11, together with an unprecedented appeal to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court of Review, paved the way for the Justice Department to permit largely unrestricted information-sharing between intelligence and criminal investigators because the law changed the legal standard that had given rise to the guidelines in the first place. The Patriot Act says that electronic surveillance can be conducted in the United States against foreign threats as long as a "significant purpose" -- rather than the "primary purpose" -- is to obtain foreign intelligence.
This history has all been well-rehearsed in publicly available briefs, opinions and reports, all available to the 9/11 commission. I have -- consistent with the policy applied to all commissioners -- recused myself from any consideration of my actions or of the department while I was there. My fellow commissioners have spoken for themselves in rejecting the call by a few partisans that I step aside based upon false premises. I have worked hard to help the American public understand what happened on Sept. 11. I intend -- with my brethren on the commission -- to finish the job.
end of snip>
I ask again, who do you trust? She is sooo much smarter than those attacking her, can there be any doubt? I don't think Ashcroft understood what she wrote and therefore maliciously de-classified the information thinking it would bury her. Too bad the honorable republicans on the panel are her staunchest supporters. Strike Three Johnny Ashcroft.
Impeach the Bastards NOW!
Sleeping With The Enemy @ Oliver Willis: Like Kryptonite to Stupid
snip>
Suppose I told you that the president of the United States shared top secret information with a terrorist supporter, and made a deal with this supporter to help ensure his re-election?
(from Woodwards book)
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.
Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
end of snip>
Go there, read the whole piece, follow the links, link to your own blogs and e-mail your friends on the right and the left. This administration deserves to be brought down.
Support our Troops-Vote John Kerry
snip>
Suppose I told you that the president of the United States shared top secret information with a terrorist supporter, and made a deal with this supporter to help ensure his re-election?
(from Woodwards book)
But, it turns out, two days before the president told Powell, Cheney and Rumsfeld had already briefed Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador.
Prince Bandar enjoys easy access to the Oval Office. His family and the Bush family are close. And Woodward told 60 Minutes that Bandar has promised the president that Saudi Arabia will lower oil prices in the months before the election -- to ensure the U.S. economy is strong on election day.
end of snip>
Go there, read the whole piece, follow the links, link to your own blogs and e-mail your friends on the right and the left. This administration deserves to be brought down.
Support our Troops-Vote John Kerry
Saturday, April 17, 2004
There is No Shame
Ted Olson vs. Partisanship - The solicitor general enters the Hypocrisy Hall of Fame. By Timothy Noah
snip>
The American people have got to stand behind the administration. And again, it's not a partisan thing [italics Chatterbox's].
—Solicitor General Ted Olson, April 13, on Fox News's Hannity & Colmes.
I'm sorry to see that kind of controversy develop between people, because I don't think it's constructive. I think that some members of the [9/11] commission have attempted to exploit that sort of thing, for partisan purposes [italics Chatterbox's] or for purposes that relate to their own opportunity to be in the spotlight, and I think that's very destructive, it's very unfortunate.
—Olson, April 14, on CNN's Larry King Live.
Olson was an attorney for the Arkansas Project; he was an attorney for David Hale, the star witness in the Whitewater investigation; and he advised lawyers for Paula Jones, the woman whose accusations of sexual harassment provided the occasion for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to set a "perjury trap" for Clinton regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did all this after arguing before the Supreme Court that the Independent Counsel statute, which made most of this mayhem possible, was unconstitutional. In an article he wrote under a pseudonym for the January 1997 American Spectator, Olson wrote, "[C]omparing Clinton to Nixon may underestimate the scope of the administration's problems … the appropriate comparison for Bill Clinton may well turn out to be Don Corleone."
And now Olson's lecturing Americans not to ask tough questions about the Bush White House's preparedness for Sept. 11 because that's too … partisan? He just set a new world's record for shamelessness.
[Update, April 17: No sooner did Olson set the world's record than he was bested by House Majority Leader Tom "the Hammer" DeLay. In a letter to Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, DeLay complained, "Partisan mudslinging, circus-atmosphere pyrotechnics, and gotcha-style questioning do not get us closer to the truth." Hasn't the GOP got anyone who can make this complaint with clean hands?]
end of snip>
And they all do it with a straight face. Bastards All!
snip>
The American people have got to stand behind the administration. And again, it's not a partisan thing [italics Chatterbox's].
—Solicitor General Ted Olson, April 13, on Fox News's Hannity & Colmes.
I'm sorry to see that kind of controversy develop between people, because I don't think it's constructive. I think that some members of the [9/11] commission have attempted to exploit that sort of thing, for partisan purposes [italics Chatterbox's] or for purposes that relate to their own opportunity to be in the spotlight, and I think that's very destructive, it's very unfortunate.
—Olson, April 14, on CNN's Larry King Live.
Olson was an attorney for the Arkansas Project; he was an attorney for David Hale, the star witness in the Whitewater investigation; and he advised lawyers for Paula Jones, the woman whose accusations of sexual harassment provided the occasion for Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr to set a "perjury trap" for Clinton regarding his affair with Monica Lewinsky. He did all this after arguing before the Supreme Court that the Independent Counsel statute, which made most of this mayhem possible, was unconstitutional. In an article he wrote under a pseudonym for the January 1997 American Spectator, Olson wrote, "[C]omparing Clinton to Nixon may underestimate the scope of the administration's problems … the appropriate comparison for Bill Clinton may well turn out to be Don Corleone."
And now Olson's lecturing Americans not to ask tough questions about the Bush White House's preparedness for Sept. 11 because that's too … partisan? He just set a new world's record for shamelessness.
[Update, April 17: No sooner did Olson set the world's record than he was bested by House Majority Leader Tom "the Hammer" DeLay. In a letter to Thomas Kean, chairman of the 9/11 commission, DeLay complained, "Partisan mudslinging, circus-atmosphere pyrotechnics, and gotcha-style questioning do not get us closer to the truth." Hasn't the GOP got anyone who can make this complaint with clean hands?]
end of snip>
And they all do it with a straight face. Bastards All!
Nice Move Mr. Bush
Bush Sealed Hamas Leader's Fate- Reuters.com
GAZA (Reuters) - "It was Bush."
The verdict was near unanimous amid the tears and rage on Palestinian streets after Israel killed Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in an air strike Saturday that many Arabs felt President Bush must have approved.
"Bush has Rantissi's blood on his hands," said Khamis Saadi, among tens of thousands who swept into Gaza's shabby streets.
"All doors to hell should be opened against the Israelis and against the Americans," he cried.
U.S. officials denied giving a green light to Israel.
But Palestinians, fuming over unprecedented concessions Bush gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week for a Gaza pullout plan, felt Rantissi's killing was just another action in the same vein.
Sharon's Palestinian counterpart, Ahmed Qurie, called it "a direct result of American encouragement and the complete bias of the American administration toward the Israeli government."
The United States has always been a target of Palestinian and Arab ire because of its close relations with Israel.
But Bush's statement that Israel could expect to keep chunks of the West Bank seized in the 1967 Middle East war and ruled out a return of refugees to what is now Israel was felt by many Palestinians as a death blow for dreams of a real state.
"Bush freed the hands of Sharon to do whatever he liked with the Palestinian people, to kill their leaders and to confiscate their land," said one mourner in Gaza called Hammad.
end of snip>
Bush stands shoulder to shoulder with Sharon with the Israeli flag as a backdrop and they act surprised that Bush is seen as anything more than Sharons sock puppet. I guess Rove and the minions won't be satisfied unless the entire world hates us.
A leader, spurred on by powerful aides, invades a much weaker country under the auspices that they are helping the people of the smaller country. The world condems the action but very few countries rise up to fight the invading force. Eventually, after several other military conquests over a few years the world unites to fight the invading country with the support of the occupants of those countries invaded in the guise of the resistance and drive the invaders out. Sound Familiar?
Support our Troops-Vote for John Kerry
GAZA (Reuters) - "It was Bush."
The verdict was near unanimous amid the tears and rage on Palestinian streets after Israel killed Hamas leader Abdel-Aziz al-Rantissi in an air strike Saturday that many Arabs felt President Bush must have approved.
"Bush has Rantissi's blood on his hands," said Khamis Saadi, among tens of thousands who swept into Gaza's shabby streets.
"All doors to hell should be opened against the Israelis and against the Americans," he cried.
U.S. officials denied giving a green light to Israel.
But Palestinians, fuming over unprecedented concessions Bush gave Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon last week for a Gaza pullout plan, felt Rantissi's killing was just another action in the same vein.
Sharon's Palestinian counterpart, Ahmed Qurie, called it "a direct result of American encouragement and the complete bias of the American administration toward the Israeli government."
The United States has always been a target of Palestinian and Arab ire because of its close relations with Israel.
But Bush's statement that Israel could expect to keep chunks of the West Bank seized in the 1967 Middle East war and ruled out a return of refugees to what is now Israel was felt by many Palestinians as a death blow for dreams of a real state.
"Bush freed the hands of Sharon to do whatever he liked with the Palestinian people, to kill their leaders and to confiscate their land," said one mourner in Gaza called Hammad.
end of snip>
Bush stands shoulder to shoulder with Sharon with the Israeli flag as a backdrop and they act surprised that Bush is seen as anything more than Sharons sock puppet. I guess Rove and the minions won't be satisfied unless the entire world hates us.
A leader, spurred on by powerful aides, invades a much weaker country under the auspices that they are helping the people of the smaller country. The world condems the action but very few countries rise up to fight the invading force. Eventually, after several other military conquests over a few years the world unites to fight the invading country with the support of the occupants of those countries invaded in the guise of the resistance and drive the invaders out. Sound Familiar?
Support our Troops-Vote for John Kerry
Minister Of Dis-information
Kevin Drum has an interesting snip over at his new gig at The Washington Monthly regarding Rove and the Mission Accomplished Banner which was put up just about 1 year ago.
Check it Out!
Check it Out!
Friday, April 16, 2004
The Boy King Revisited
Mistakes Were Made web ad video from the DNC. Windows Media Version
Real Player Version availableHere
Real Player Version availableHere
Summer Flicks
New York Daily News
President Bush may have a bigger bankroll for TV campaign commercials, but some prominent filmmakers are ready to do battle with him in the movie theaters. Among the flicks due for release before the November election:
"Silver City": Oscar-winner Chris Cooper plays a born-again, tongue-tied heir to a Republican dynasty. Director John Sayles tells us: "He's like George W. when he was running for governor of Texas." Sayles has Pilager running in Colorado - where, while fishing on a lake for a campaign ad, he hooks a corpse. Sayles hopes to make voters think about the "assault on democracy."
"Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature When Freedom Burns": Michael ("Bowling for Columbine") Moore is in the editing room finishing his documentary, which should get hearty applause from the French when he unveils it at the Cannes Film Festival. The Oscar winner says he's tired of Bush calling captured Americans in Iraq "contractors."
"They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway," he says. "They are mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. They are there for the money."
"Bush's Brain": A documentary that bluntly dissects the strategies of Dubya's political guru Karl Rove.
"The Hunting of the President": A look at President Bill Clinton's impeachment, produced by his longtime friend Harry Thomason.
Though it won't be ready for November, Sony has optioned Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies," which gives a blistering assessment of Bush's counterterrorism planning. We're sure Dubya will be running to the multiplex.
President Bush may have a bigger bankroll for TV campaign commercials, but some prominent filmmakers are ready to do battle with him in the movie theaters. Among the flicks due for release before the November election:
"Silver City": Oscar-winner Chris Cooper plays a born-again, tongue-tied heir to a Republican dynasty. Director John Sayles tells us: "He's like George W. when he was running for governor of Texas." Sayles has Pilager running in Colorado - where, while fishing on a lake for a campaign ad, he hooks a corpse. Sayles hopes to make voters think about the "assault on democracy."
"Fahrenheit 9/11: The Temperature When Freedom Burns": Michael ("Bowling for Columbine") Moore is in the editing room finishing his documentary, which should get hearty applause from the French when he unveils it at the Cannes Film Festival. The Oscar winner says he's tired of Bush calling captured Americans in Iraq "contractors."
"They are not there to fix a roof or to pour concrete in a driveway," he says. "They are mercenaries and soldiers of fortune. They are there for the money."
"Bush's Brain": A documentary that bluntly dissects the strategies of Dubya's political guru Karl Rove.
"The Hunting of the President": A look at President Bill Clinton's impeachment, produced by his longtime friend Harry Thomason.
Though it won't be ready for November, Sony has optioned Richard Clarke's "Against All Enemies," which gives a blistering assessment of Bush's counterterrorism planning. We're sure Dubya will be running to the multiplex.
Big Shocker....NOT!
Woodward Book Alleges Secret Iraq War Plan
Bush and his aides have denied accusations they were preoccupied with Iraq at the cost of paying attention to the al-Qaida terrorist threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A commission investigating the attacks just concluded several weeks of extraordinary public testimony from high-ranking government officials. One of them, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, charged the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror.
Woodward's account fleshes out the degree to which some members of the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were focused on Saddam Hussein from the onset of Bush's presidency and even after the terrorist attacks made the destruction of al-Qaida the top priority.
Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside Nov. 21, 2001 — when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan — and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.
The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.
Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.
In an interview two years later, Bush told Woodward that if the news had leaked, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation."
The Bush administration's drive toward war with Iraq raised an international furor anyway, alienating long-time allies who did not believe the White House had made a sufficient case against Saddam. Saddam was toppled a year ago and taken into custody last December. But the central figure of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, remains at large and a threat to the west.
The book says Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of Central Command, uttered a string of obscenities when the Pentagon told him to come up with an Iraq war plan in the midst of fighting another conflict.
end of snip>
Richard Clarke, vindicated yet a gain.
Bush and his aides have denied accusations they were preoccupied with Iraq at the cost of paying attention to the al-Qaida terrorist threat before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. A commission investigating the attacks just concluded several weeks of extraordinary public testimony from high-ranking government officials. One of them, former counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke, charged the Bush administration's determination to invade Iraq undermined the war on terror.
Woodward's account fleshes out the degree to which some members of the administration, particularly Vice President Dick Cheney, were focused on Saddam Hussein from the onset of Bush's presidency and even after the terrorist attacks made the destruction of al-Qaida the top priority.
Woodward says Bush pulled Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld aside Nov. 21, 2001 — when U.S. forces and allies were in control of about half of Afghanistan — and asked him what kind of war plan he had on Iraq. When Rumsfeld said it was outdated, Bush told him to get started on a fresh one.
The book says Bush told Rumsfeld to keep quiet about it and when the defense secretary asked to bring CIA Director George Tenet into the planning at some point, the president said not to do so yet.
Even Bush's national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, was apparently not fully briefed. Woodward said Bush told her that morning he was having Rumsfeld work on Iraq but did not give details.
In an interview two years later, Bush told Woodward that if the news had leaked, it would have caused "enormous international angst and domestic speculation."
The Bush administration's drive toward war with Iraq raised an international furor anyway, alienating long-time allies who did not believe the White House had made a sufficient case against Saddam. Saddam was toppled a year ago and taken into custody last December. But the central figure of al-Qaida, Osama bin Laden, remains at large and a threat to the west.
The book says Gen. Tommy Franks, who was in charge of the Afghan war as head of Central Command, uttered a string of obscenities when the Pentagon told him to come up with an Iraq war plan in the midst of fighting another conflict.
end of snip>
Richard Clarke, vindicated yet a gain.
What Arrogance Gets Us
Rising Partisanship Ties Up Congress
"To Democrats, (President George W.) Bush and his fellow Republicans are 'extremists,"' Josten said. "To Bush and Republicans, Democrats are 'obstructionists."'
Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, a Tennessee Republican, told business leaders this month, "We're stuck."
Bush took office in January 2001, promising "to change the tone in Washington."
"He has. He has made it worse," said Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle, a South Dakota Democrat.
...
House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, a Texas Republican, said Democrats and their presidential candidate, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, "haven't produced anything but hate."
House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat, shot back: "There is no room for compromise, negotiations or working together in the Republican House .... This arrogant and autocratic rule is leading to abuses of power."
Adding to the rough-and-tumble atmosphere has been squabbling over Bush's handling of Iraq and terror threats prior to Sept. 11, 2001 as well as some unrelated investigations.
One probe involves possible bribes on the House floor on behalf of an administration-backed prescription drug bill that narrowly won passage late last year.
Authorities are also examining an alleged threat to dismiss a federal actuary if he revealed what the bill might actually cost, drawing fire from some Republicans as well as Democrats.
The Senate's top law enforcement officer found that two Republican aides tapped into Democratic computer files, part of an apparent renegade effort to track opposition to Bush's most contentious judicial nominees.
end of snip>
Looks to me that most of the problems are from the right side of the aisle. Absolute power corrupts absolutely no?
Thursday, April 15, 2004
The Long Knives
Democrats Say Bush Must Admit Iraq Blunders
This is gutsy for the Dems to try and call out the pResident to admit his mistakes. If he does, they play it over and over through election day. If he doesn't (and I don't believe he will apologize for just the aforementioned reason) the Dems get to talk about it all summer. It may backfire but I don't see a drawback at this point.
snip>
In separate speeches, several Democrats said Bush must change course to prevent Iraq from becoming a quagmire that spreads violence throughout the Middle East and drains U.S. lives and resources for years to come.
"I fear the administration is far more worried about conceding mistakes than it is concerned about sticking to a failed policy," said Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I don't know whether 'stay the course' is the way we should go when we don't know how we got involved in this course, or where it's going to take us," Charles Rangel of New York, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee (news - web sites), said at the National Press Club.
Bush at a news conference on Tuesday said he would "stay the course" in Iraq, and could not think of a mistake he had made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The Republican president also said he would stake his re-election this November on a successful outcome in Iraq
But Democrats ticked off a series of blunders that they said have alienated allies and left the United States burdened with trying to stabilize Iraq amid spiraling violence, including kidnappings of dozens of foreigners by insurgents enraged by the U.S. siege of Falluja.
Rangel and Biden said they felt there was time to shift from Bush's strategy that has left the United States as the major occupying force in Iraq, and get more support from allies. "We can't go it alone," Rangel said.
Biden, in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Bush should quickly convene a summit of key allies and form an international board of directors for Iraq, with a top member who would replace U.S. administrator Paul Bremer as Iraq's primary partner.
Since Lakhdar Brahimi, adviser on Iraq to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), is beginning to take on that role informally, Biden recommended giving him the job to help form a caretaker government, mediate disputes before next year's elections and help Iraqis decide on a new government.
Biden said there were some in the administration pushing this idea -- "almost literally what I have outlined" -- that also would include seeking a new U.N. resolution to put the international community on record behind the arrangement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, in a speech in his home state of Vermont, said the United States needed a "broader, multilateral strategy that has the support of a majority of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community, including as many Arab and other Muslim nations as possible."
He said the administration's "heavy-handed" tactics have made many Muslims feel the United States is "at war with Islam itself." Iraq may splinter or become a theocracy modeled on Iran, he said, if the administration persists "in an approach that is perceived by the Iraqi people and by the wider Muslim world as being imposed from the outside."
end of snip>
Support our Troops-Vote Bush Out!
This is gutsy for the Dems to try and call out the pResident to admit his mistakes. If he does, they play it over and over through election day. If he doesn't (and I don't believe he will apologize for just the aforementioned reason) the Dems get to talk about it all summer. It may backfire but I don't see a drawback at this point.
snip>
In separate speeches, several Democrats said Bush must change course to prevent Iraq from becoming a quagmire that spreads violence throughout the Middle East and drains U.S. lives and resources for years to come.
"I fear the administration is far more worried about conceding mistakes than it is concerned about sticking to a failed policy," said Joseph Biden of Delaware, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
"I don't know whether 'stay the course' is the way we should go when we don't know how we got involved in this course, or where it's going to take us," Charles Rangel of New York, top Democrat on the House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee (news - web sites), said at the National Press Club.
Bush at a news conference on Tuesday said he would "stay the course" in Iraq, and could not think of a mistake he had made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. The Republican president also said he would stake his re-election this November on a successful outcome in Iraq
But Democrats ticked off a series of blunders that they said have alienated allies and left the United States burdened with trying to stabilize Iraq amid spiraling violence, including kidnappings of dozens of foreigners by insurgents enraged by the U.S. siege of Falluja.
Rangel and Biden said they felt there was time to shift from Bush's strategy that has left the United States as the major occupying force in Iraq, and get more support from allies. "We can't go it alone," Rangel said.
Biden, in a speech to the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said Bush should quickly convene a summit of key allies and form an international board of directors for Iraq, with a top member who would replace U.S. administrator Paul Bremer as Iraq's primary partner.
Since Lakhdar Brahimi, adviser on Iraq to U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan (news - web sites), is beginning to take on that role informally, Biden recommended giving him the job to help form a caretaker government, mediate disputes before next year's elections and help Iraqis decide on a new government.
Biden said there were some in the administration pushing this idea -- "almost literally what I have outlined" -- that also would include seeking a new U.N. resolution to put the international community on record behind the arrangement.
Sen. Patrick Leahy, in a speech in his home state of Vermont, said the United States needed a "broader, multilateral strategy that has the support of a majority of the American people, the Iraqi people, and the international community, including as many Arab and other Muslim nations as possible."
He said the administration's "heavy-handed" tactics have made many Muslims feel the United States is "at war with Islam itself." Iraq may splinter or become a theocracy modeled on Iran, he said, if the administration persists "in an approach that is perceived by the Iraqi people and by the wider Muslim world as being imposed from the outside."
end of snip>
Support our Troops-Vote Bush Out!
Lotsa good stuff here
Welcome to David Sirota's Web Site!
snip>
CLAIM:
"And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way...If I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think I'd be pretty ineffective."
- President George W. Bush, 4/13/04
Source:
FACT:
"One [White House] adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield" and apologize for mistakes.
- NY Times, 4/15/04
This is an incredible example...he's now pathologically lying not only about policy, but about mundane details. As the Washington Monthly noted earlier, Bush apparently has an obsession with polling.
end of snip>
Tons more info including more tax fax.
snip>
CLAIM:
"And as to whether or not I make decisions based upon polls, I don't. I just don't make decisions that way...If I tried to fine-tune my messages based upon polls, I think I'd be pretty ineffective."
- President George W. Bush, 4/13/04
Source:
FACT:
"One [White House] adviser said the White House had examined polling and focus group studies in determining that it would be a mistake for Mr. Bush to appear to yield" and apologize for mistakes.
- NY Times, 4/15/04
This is an incredible example...he's now pathologically lying not only about policy, but about mundane details. As the Washington Monthly noted earlier, Bush apparently has an obsession with polling.
end of snip>
Tons more info including more tax fax.
Tom DeLay (R-Bugkiller)
Uh huh
Interesting little story about the poster child of the Rethuglican Wing of the Republican party.
snip>
Tom was there to explain to Fort Bend teachers why he won’t let HR 594 come to the House floor for a vote. Being as how Tom couldn’t explain that without using words to describe himself like mean, condescending, hateful, and/or money grubbing egg-sucking-dog elitist in a heap of donkey dump, he took another route. Instead, he chose to explain that gypping Texas schoolteachers out of their full retirement is good for them and wonderful for the Iraqi rebuilding effort.
It didn’t go over well.
Have you ever noticed that when somebody can’t explain diddle squat or is trying to hide something, they use a Power Point presentation? Like looking at the pretty pictures and graphs makes you throw common sense and mathematical principles out the door. Oh looky at that, Erlene, Tom drew a real pretty graph for us. Let’s quit loathing him.
end of snip>
It's a great read.
Interesting little story about the poster child of the Rethuglican Wing of the Republican party.
snip>
Tom was there to explain to Fort Bend teachers why he won’t let HR 594 come to the House floor for a vote. Being as how Tom couldn’t explain that without using words to describe himself like mean, condescending, hateful, and/or money grubbing egg-sucking-dog elitist in a heap of donkey dump, he took another route. Instead, he chose to explain that gypping Texas schoolteachers out of their full retirement is good for them and wonderful for the Iraqi rebuilding effort.
It didn’t go over well.
Have you ever noticed that when somebody can’t explain diddle squat or is trying to hide something, they use a Power Point presentation? Like looking at the pretty pictures and graphs makes you throw common sense and mathematical principles out the door. Oh looky at that, Erlene, Tom drew a real pretty graph for us. Let’s quit loathing him.
end of snip>
It's a great read.
Kids, whatcha gonna do?
New York Daily News It's not MY fault says Terry.
He is a born-again Christian activist who has fought against legalized abortion and gay rights.
But Randall Terry's three children aren't living by dad's rules.
Terry - jailed in 1992 for sending an aborted fetus to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in New York - has a gay son, an unmarried daughter with two children and a pregnant teenager.
Terry's adopted son Jamiel Terry, 24, confirmed in Out magazine this month that he told hisdad two years ago about his homosexuality.
And in interviews aired last night on CNN, Terry's foster daughter Ebony - the oldest of the three siblings - and adopted daughter Tila, 18, revealed their out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
"In my family, it was like, 'You start having sex out of marriage and you get AIDS,'" Jamiel Terry told CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown."
"You are a whore or a slut. Those are exact words."
Randall Terry, 42, founded Operation Rescue in the 1980s, spearheading an anti-abortion effort that saw its members block the doorways of abortion clinics. He eventually turned his focus to condemning gays and gay marriage.
His anti-abortion ads featured the Terry family, including the wife he divorced in 2000 and the three children who spoke with CNN.
The children were born to a woman who was in and out of jail and later killed herself, Randall Terry said.
"We didn't get these children until they had been for years in a home that was filled with criminal activity," Randall Terry told the Daily News. "We did the best we could to provide these children with a safe, loving home.
"If they've chosen to revert to the lifestyle they saw before we got them, there's nothing I can do except grieve and pray," Randall Terry added.
He is a born-again Christian activist who has fought against legalized abortion and gay rights.
But Randall Terry's three children aren't living by dad's rules.
Terry - jailed in 1992 for sending an aborted fetus to then-presidential candidate Bill Clinton in New York - has a gay son, an unmarried daughter with two children and a pregnant teenager.
Terry's adopted son Jamiel Terry, 24, confirmed in Out magazine this month that he told hisdad two years ago about his homosexuality.
And in interviews aired last night on CNN, Terry's foster daughter Ebony - the oldest of the three siblings - and adopted daughter Tila, 18, revealed their out-of-wedlock pregnancies.
"In my family, it was like, 'You start having sex out of marriage and you get AIDS,'" Jamiel Terry told CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown."
"You are a whore or a slut. Those are exact words."
Randall Terry, 42, founded Operation Rescue in the 1980s, spearheading an anti-abortion effort that saw its members block the doorways of abortion clinics. He eventually turned his focus to condemning gays and gay marriage.
His anti-abortion ads featured the Terry family, including the wife he divorced in 2000 and the three children who spoke with CNN.
The children were born to a woman who was in and out of jail and later killed herself, Randall Terry said.
"We didn't get these children until they had been for years in a home that was filled with criminal activity," Randall Terry told the Daily News. "We did the best we could to provide these children with a safe, loving home.
"If they've chosen to revert to the lifestyle they saw before we got them, there's nothing I can do except grieve and pray," Randall Terry added.
Army Lengthens Iraq Tours Despite Pledge
Still waiting for aome good news
Approximately 14,500 soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, which is based in Germany, plus about 3,200 support troops and about 2,800 soldiers of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Polk, La., have been told that they will remain in Iraq for another three months instead of coming home this month, defense officials said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The decision breaks the Army's pledge to soldiers and their families that assignments in Iraq would not exceed one year. The affected soldiers already have been in Iraq for a year.
In addition, about 3,000 soldiers in a number of transportation and other support units based in Kuwait will be extended beyond one year, an official said Thursday. Many of them are in the National Guard or Reserve. They are deemed critical to resupplying the troops based in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was to announce the decision Thursday. He had said last week that he would approve Iraq tour extensions if commanders believed it was necessary to maintain enough combat power to deal with the recent escalation of attacks by insurgents.
end of snip>
Can you say Quagmire?
Approximately 14,500 soldiers of the 1st Armored Division, which is based in Germany, plus about 3,200 support troops and about 2,800 soldiers of the 2nd Armored Cavalry Regiment from Fort Polk, La., have been told that they will remain in Iraq for another three months instead of coming home this month, defense officials said Thursday, speaking on condition of anonymity.
The decision breaks the Army's pledge to soldiers and their families that assignments in Iraq would not exceed one year. The affected soldiers already have been in Iraq for a year.
In addition, about 3,000 soldiers in a number of transportation and other support units based in Kuwait will be extended beyond one year, an official said Thursday. Many of them are in the National Guard or Reserve. They are deemed critical to resupplying the troops based in Iraq.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld was to announce the decision Thursday. He had said last week that he would approve Iraq tour extensions if commanders believed it was necessary to maintain enough combat power to deal with the recent escalation of attacks by insurgents.
end of snip>
Can you say Quagmire?
The Out-of-Towner - While Bush vacationed, 9/11 warnings went unheard.
More Evidence they lied. By Fred Kaplan
In an otherwise dry day of hearings before the 9/11 commission, one brief bit of dialogue set off a sudden flash of clarity on the basic question of how our government let disaster happen.
The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.
Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed.
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.
And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.
A USA Today story, written right before Bush took off, reported that the vacation—scheduled to last from Aug. 3 to Sept. 3—would tie one of Richard Nixon's as the longest that any president had ever taken. A week before he left, Bush made a videotaped message for the Boy Scouts of America. On the tape, he said, "I'll be going to my ranch in Crawford, where I'll work and take a little time off. I think it is so important for the president to spend some time away from Washington, in the heartland of America."
Dana Milbank and Mike Allen of the Washington Post recently wrote a story recalling those halcyon days in Crawford. On Aug. 7, 2001, the day after the fateful PDB, Bush, they wrote, "was in an expansive mood … when he ran into reporters while playing golf." The president's aides emphasized that he was working, now and then, on a few issues—education, immigration, Social Security, and his impending decision on stem-cell research. On Aug. 29, less than a week after Tenet found out about Moussaoui, Bush gave a speech before the American Legion. The White House press office headlined the text of the address, "President Discusses Defense Priorities." Those priorities: boosting soldiers' pay and abandoning the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty. Nothing about terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, hijackings. Nothing that reflected the PDB or Moussaoui.
Anyone who has ever spent time in Washington knows that the whole town takes off the month of August. Despite the "threat spike," August 2001, it seems, was no different.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and the State Department's counterterrorism chief from 1989-93, explained on MSNBC this afternoon, during a break in the hearings, why the PDB—let alone the Moussaoui finding—should have compelled everyone to rush back to Washington. In his CIA days, Johnson wrote "about 40" PDBs. They're usually dispassionate in tone, a mere paragraph or two. The PDB of Aug. 6 was a page and a half. "That's the intelligence-community equivalent of writing War and Peace," Johnson said. And the title—"Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"—was clearly designed to set off alarm bells. Johnson told his interviewer that when he read the declassified document, "I said 'Holy smoke!' This is such a dead-on 'Mr. President, you've got to do something!' " (By the way, Johnson claimed he's a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.)
Bush got back after Labor Day. That first day, Sept. 4, was when the "Principals Committee"—consisting of his Cabinet heads—met in the White House to discuss terrorism. As Dick Clarke has since complained, and Condi Rice and others have acknowledged, it was the first time Bush's principals held a meeting on the subject.
end of snip>
The rest of the article is at the link and again shows why the White House didn't want this investigation in the first place.
In an otherwise dry day of hearings before the 9/11 commission, one brief bit of dialogue set off a sudden flash of clarity on the basic question of how our government let disaster happen.
The revelation came this morning, when CIA Director George Tenet was on the stand. Timothy Roemer, a former Democratic congressman, asked him when he first found out about the report from the FBI's Minnesota field office that Zacarias Moussaoui, an Islamic jihadist, had been taking lessons on how to fly a 747. Tenet replied that he was briefed about the case on Aug. 23 or 24, 2001.
Roemer then asked Tenet if he mentioned Moussaoui to President Bush at one of their frequent morning briefings. Tenet replied, "I was not in briefings at this time." Bush, he noted, "was on vacation." He added that he didn't see the president at all in August 2001. During the entire month, Bush was at his ranch in Texas. "You never talked with him?" Roemer asked. "No," Tenet replied. By the way, for much of August, Tenet too was, as he put it, "on leave."
And there you have it. National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice has made a big point of the fact that Tenet briefed the president nearly every day. Yet at the peak moment of threat, the two didn't talk at all. At a time when action was needed, and orders for action had to come from the top, the man at the top was resting undisturbed.
Throughout that summer, we now well know, Tenet, Richard Clarke, and several other officials were running around with their "hair on fire," warning that al-Qaida was about to unleash a monumental attack. On Aug. 6, Bush was given the now-famous President's Daily Brief (by one of Tenet's underlings), warning that this attack might take place "inside the United States." For the previous few years—as Philip Zelikow, the commission's staff director, revealed this morning—the CIA had issued several warnings that terrorists might fly commercial airplanes into buildings or cities.
And now, we learn today, at this peak moment, Tenet hears about Moussaoui. Someone might have added 2 + 2 + 2 and possibly busted up the conspiracy. But the president was down on the ranch, taking it easy. Tenet wasn't with him. Tenet never talked with him. Rice—as she has testified—wasn't with Bush, either. He was on his own and, willfully, out of touch.
A USA Today story, written right before Bush took off, reported that the vacation—scheduled to last from Aug. 3 to Sept. 3—would tie one of Richard Nixon's as the longest that any president had ever taken. A week before he left, Bush made a videotaped message for the Boy Scouts of America. On the tape, he said, "I'll be going to my ranch in Crawford, where I'll work and take a little time off. I think it is so important for the president to spend some time away from Washington, in the heartland of America."
Dana Milbank and Mike Allen of the Washington Post recently wrote a story recalling those halcyon days in Crawford. On Aug. 7, 2001, the day after the fateful PDB, Bush, they wrote, "was in an expansive mood … when he ran into reporters while playing golf." The president's aides emphasized that he was working, now and then, on a few issues—education, immigration, Social Security, and his impending decision on stem-cell research. On Aug. 29, less than a week after Tenet found out about Moussaoui, Bush gave a speech before the American Legion. The White House press office headlined the text of the address, "President Discusses Defense Priorities." Those priorities: boosting soldiers' pay and abandoning the Anti-Ballistic-Missile Treaty. Nothing about terrorism, Osama Bin Laden, hijackings. Nothing that reflected the PDB or Moussaoui.
Anyone who has ever spent time in Washington knows that the whole town takes off the month of August. Despite the "threat spike," August 2001, it seems, was no different.
Larry Johnson, a former CIA officer and the State Department's counterterrorism chief from 1989-93, explained on MSNBC this afternoon, during a break in the hearings, why the PDB—let alone the Moussaoui finding—should have compelled everyone to rush back to Washington. In his CIA days, Johnson wrote "about 40" PDBs. They're usually dispassionate in tone, a mere paragraph or two. The PDB of Aug. 6 was a page and a half. "That's the intelligence-community equivalent of writing War and Peace," Johnson said. And the title—"Bin Laden Determined To Strike in US"—was clearly designed to set off alarm bells. Johnson told his interviewer that when he read the declassified document, "I said 'Holy smoke!' This is such a dead-on 'Mr. President, you've got to do something!' " (By the way, Johnson claimed he's a Republican who voted for Bush in 2000.)
Bush got back after Labor Day. That first day, Sept. 4, was when the "Principals Committee"—consisting of his Cabinet heads—met in the White House to discuss terrorism. As Dick Clarke has since complained, and Condi Rice and others have acknowledged, it was the first time Bush's principals held a meeting on the subject.
end of snip>
The rest of the article is at the link and again shows why the White House didn't want this investigation in the first place.
Wednesday, April 14, 2004
Ooops!
Bush Makes Three Mistakes While Trying to Cite One
snip>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - While struggling unsuccessfully this week to think of a single mistake he has made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush committed three factual errors about weapons finds in Libya, the White House said on Wednesday.
Bush, long known for his grammatical conundrums and confusing phraseology, told reporters twice during Tuesday's prime-time news conference that 50 tons of mustard gas were discovered at a turkey farm in Libya.
On the second occasion, he was responding to a reporter who asked him to identify the biggest mistake he had made since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people and prompted the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
He could not. But as he searched for an answer, the Republican president reaffirmed his decision to invade Iraq and said weapons of mass destruction may still lie hidden there.
"They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm," said Bush, referring to Libya's voluntary disclosure of weapons in March.
The next day, the White House said the accurate figure for the Libyan mustard gas was 23.6 metric tons, or 26 short tons, not 50 tons.
Moreover, the substance was found at different locations across Libya, not at a turkey farm. And observers did not find mustard gas on the farm at all, but rather unfilled chemical munitions, the White House acknowledged.
"The president misspoke and we just want to correct the record," explained White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Reports on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which Bush cited as justification for the March 2003 invasion, have proved to be a political mine field for the president.
end of snip>
I predict these are only the first 3 mistakes to be flushed out. Stay Tuned. LOL
snip>
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - While struggling unsuccessfully this week to think of a single mistake he has made since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, President Bush committed three factual errors about weapons finds in Libya, the White House said on Wednesday.
Bush, long known for his grammatical conundrums and confusing phraseology, told reporters twice during Tuesday's prime-time news conference that 50 tons of mustard gas were discovered at a turkey farm in Libya.
On the second occasion, he was responding to a reporter who asked him to identify the biggest mistake he had made since the 2001 attacks on New York and Washington that killed nearly 3,000 people and prompted the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan.
He could not. But as he searched for an answer, the Republican president reaffirmed his decision to invade Iraq and said weapons of mass destruction may still lie hidden there.
"They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm," said Bush, referring to Libya's voluntary disclosure of weapons in March.
The next day, the White House said the accurate figure for the Libyan mustard gas was 23.6 metric tons, or 26 short tons, not 50 tons.
Moreover, the substance was found at different locations across Libya, not at a turkey farm. And observers did not find mustard gas on the farm at all, but rather unfilled chemical munitions, the White House acknowledged.
"The president misspoke and we just want to correct the record," explained White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
Reports on weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, which Bush cited as justification for the March 2003 invasion, have proved to be a political mine field for the president.
end of snip>
I predict these are only the first 3 mistakes to be flushed out. Stay Tuned. LOL
Israel and the Palestinians
Economist.com
If it wasn't enough to incite most of the Muslim World by pre-emptively invading Iraq under false pretenses and causing thousands of young Muslims to take up Jihad, W has now cast off almost 40 years of precedent in order to shore up his fundamentalist base.
See Here for the reasons why.
snip>
A year ago, at the height of the invasion of Iraq, there were hopes that after Saddam Hussein had been toppled, Mr Bush would turn his attention back to the internationally backed “road map” plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If he were to press both sides to agree to a settlement, it would greatly reduce Arab nations’ resentment at American intervention in the region and would help Mr Bush’s drive to bring democracy to the greater Middle East. But these high hopes have not, so far, been fulfilled. Post-Saddam Iraq has proved more messy than Mr Bush had expected. Meanwhile, the road map has been left in tatters by successive rounds of suicide bombings and assassinations.
With little prospect of progress along the road map, and with Mr Sharon under domestic pressure from various scandals (including an accusation of taking bribes, which he denies), the Israeli premier seized the initiative and launched a “unilateral disengagement”, of which the Gaza withdrawal was the first step. Israeli forces struggle to defend the 7,500 Jewish settlers in Gaza against continual attacks from among the 1.3m Palestinians in the strip—on Monday, for example, Israeli troops shot three Palestinian gunmen who had got in to one of the settlements. After gaining Mr Bush's support for the Gaza pull-out, Mr Sharon plans to put it to a binding referendum among members of his Likud Party shortly and then to votes in the cabinet and the Israeli parliament.
Polls show that around 60% of Israelis back the idea of abandoning the Gaza outposts. But Israel’s politically powerful settler movement—of which Mr Sharon has long been a champion—is unhappy. To appease them, the prime minister has been making it clear that the aim of the pull-out is to make it easier to defend—both militarily and diplomatically—the continued occupation of the largest settlements in the West Bank, where there are now around 230,000 Jewish settlers among ten times many Palestinians.
end of snip>
Excellent Map at the link.
If it wasn't enough to incite most of the Muslim World by pre-emptively invading Iraq under false pretenses and causing thousands of young Muslims to take up Jihad, W has now cast off almost 40 years of precedent in order to shore up his fundamentalist base.
See Here for the reasons why.
snip>
A year ago, at the height of the invasion of Iraq, there were hopes that after Saddam Hussein had been toppled, Mr Bush would turn his attention back to the internationally backed “road map” plan to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. If he were to press both sides to agree to a settlement, it would greatly reduce Arab nations’ resentment at American intervention in the region and would help Mr Bush’s drive to bring democracy to the greater Middle East. But these high hopes have not, so far, been fulfilled. Post-Saddam Iraq has proved more messy than Mr Bush had expected. Meanwhile, the road map has been left in tatters by successive rounds of suicide bombings and assassinations.
With little prospect of progress along the road map, and with Mr Sharon under domestic pressure from various scandals (including an accusation of taking bribes, which he denies), the Israeli premier seized the initiative and launched a “unilateral disengagement”, of which the Gaza withdrawal was the first step. Israeli forces struggle to defend the 7,500 Jewish settlers in Gaza against continual attacks from among the 1.3m Palestinians in the strip—on Monday, for example, Israeli troops shot three Palestinian gunmen who had got in to one of the settlements. After gaining Mr Bush's support for the Gaza pull-out, Mr Sharon plans to put it to a binding referendum among members of his Likud Party shortly and then to votes in the cabinet and the Israeli parliament.
Polls show that around 60% of Israelis back the idea of abandoning the Gaza outposts. But Israel’s politically powerful settler movement—of which Mr Sharon has long been a champion—is unhappy. To appease them, the prime minister has been making it clear that the aim of the pull-out is to make it easier to defend—both militarily and diplomatically—the continued occupation of the largest settlements in the West Bank, where there are now around 230,000 Jewish settlers among ten times many Palestinians.
end of snip>
Excellent Map at the link.
They just can't stand it
The fact that President Clinton was successful and beloved by the American People over two full terms.
Counter Clinton Library receives IRS tax exemption
snip>
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas -- A group dedicated to building the Counter Clinton Library -- a rebuttal to the Clinton Presidential Library -- has been granted status as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.
The move could help the group with fund-raising but also requires it to be more public about its supporters.
...
But the tax-exempt status means that Erickson and co-founder John LeBoutillier, former Republican congressman from New York, will not be able to keep names of contributors or land acquisitions secret for long. Counterlibe Corp. will have to file that and other information with the IRS next year.
Erickson said his organization also needs overt financial and public relations support from prominent Republicans. Erickson already counts on kind words from conservative media personalities like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and help with documents from insiders including fired Clinton adviser Dick Morris.
end of snip>
Petty little twisted men. Because of them and their ilk the FBI was tracking down alleged bimbo's and not terrorists. Read Hunting of the President if you don't believe me.
Counter Clinton Library receives IRS tax exemption
snip>
LITTLE ROCK, Arkansas -- A group dedicated to building the Counter Clinton Library -- a rebuttal to the Clinton Presidential Library -- has been granted status as a tax-exempt nonprofit organization.
The move could help the group with fund-raising but also requires it to be more public about its supporters.
...
But the tax-exempt status means that Erickson and co-founder John LeBoutillier, former Republican congressman from New York, will not be able to keep names of contributors or land acquisitions secret for long. Counterlibe Corp. will have to file that and other information with the IRS next year.
Erickson said his organization also needs overt financial and public relations support from prominent Republicans. Erickson already counts on kind words from conservative media personalities like Sean Hannity and Rush Limbaugh and help with documents from insiders including fired Clinton adviser Dick Morris.
end of snip>
Petty little twisted men. Because of them and their ilk the FBI was tracking down alleged bimbo's and not terrorists. Read Hunting of the President if you don't believe me.
South Knox Bubba
Linked to the right has a couple of good threads on what the naysayers and the supporters of W are saying. Amazing people can see the same thing so differently.
The O'Franken factor Blog (Air America link) has a good rundown on the lies and distortions of fearless leader as well.
The O'Franken factor Blog (Air America link) has a good rundown on the lies and distortions of fearless leader as well.
Touche'
Roberts contradicts Frist on Clarke
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke’s testimony before a joint congressional panel on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did not contradict his later testimony before a presidentially appointed commission.
Roberts’s comments to The Hill contradict a stinging condemnation of Clarke by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on the Senate floor after Clarke accused President Bush of failing to take Osama bin Laden seriously before Sept. 11.
Roberts said Frist did not consult him before making his floor speech, which has been criticized by Democrats. Roberts’s words make perjury charges against Clarke highly unlikely.
Who's the liar again?
Sen. Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke’s testimony before a joint congressional panel on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did not contradict his later testimony before a presidentially appointed commission.
Roberts’s comments to The Hill contradict a stinging condemnation of Clarke by Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) on the Senate floor after Clarke accused President Bush of failing to take Osama bin Laden seriously before Sept. 11.
Roberts said Frist did not consult him before making his floor speech, which has been criticized by Democrats. Roberts’s words make perjury charges against Clarke highly unlikely.
Who's the liar again?
Another take on the... whatever it was last night
Trust, Don't Verify - Bush's incredible definition of credibility. By William Saletan
snip>
To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true.
end of snip>
Check it Out!
snip>
To Bush, credibility means that you keep saying today what you said yesterday, and that you do today what you promised yesterday. "A free Iraq will confirm to a watching world that America's word, once given, can be relied upon," he argued Tuesday night. When the situation is clear and requires pure courage, this steadfastness is Bush's most useful trait. But when the situation is unclear, Bush's notion of credibility turns out to be dangerously unhinged. The only words and deeds that have to match are his. No correspondence to reality is required. Bush can say today what he said yesterday, and do today what he promised yesterday, even if nothing he believes about the rest of the world is true.
end of snip>
Check it Out!
Our Last Real Chance
This Article is very informative about the realities of what is going on in Iraq and why.
snip>
In order to make possible a long-term commitment in Iraq, Washington needs to correct its mistakes. First, it must make the lives of Iraqis more secure. The experiment with hasty Iraqification has failed. Iraqi security forces and police should be pulled off the streets and given proper training. In the meanwhile, the United States will have to bulk up its forces—and make those forces engage in patrols and crime prevention and provide a general sense of law and order.
Check It Out!
snip>
In order to make possible a long-term commitment in Iraq, Washington needs to correct its mistakes. First, it must make the lives of Iraqis more secure. The experiment with hasty Iraqification has failed. Iraqi security forces and police should be pulled off the streets and given proper training. In the meanwhile, the United States will have to bulk up its forces—and make those forces engage in patrols and crime prevention and provide a general sense of law and order.
Check It Out!
Truth
Kerry Statement on President's News Conference
"Tonight, the President had the opportunity to tell the American people what steps he was going to take to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, he offered no specific plan whatsoever. Rather, the President made it clear that he intends to stubbornly cling to the same policy that has led to a greater risk to American troops and a steadily higher cost to the American taxpayer.
"We need to set a new course in Iraq. We need to internationalize the effort and put an end to the American occupation. We need to open up the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries. We need a real transfer of political power to the UN.
"The President may refuse to acknowledge a single mistake in the course of his presidency, but with deaths mounting and American sacrifice increasing, it's time he offered a specific plan that secures real international involvement, gets the target off the backs of our troops, and starts to share the burden in Iraq."
'Nuff Said
"Tonight, the President had the opportunity to tell the American people what steps he was going to take to stabilize the situation in Iraq. Unfortunately, he offered no specific plan whatsoever. Rather, the President made it clear that he intends to stubbornly cling to the same policy that has led to a greater risk to American troops and a steadily higher cost to the American taxpayer.
"We need to set a new course in Iraq. We need to internationalize the effort and put an end to the American occupation. We need to open up the reconstruction of Iraq to other countries. We need a real transfer of political power to the UN.
"The President may refuse to acknowledge a single mistake in the course of his presidency, but with deaths mounting and American sacrifice increasing, it's time he offered a specific plan that secures real international involvement, gets the target off the backs of our troops, and starts to share the burden in Iraq."
'Nuff Said
Press Conference Reviews
Looking Past Means, Focusing on Ends in Iraq (free registration required)
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — For all the attention President Bush devoted to the war in Iraq at his news conference Tuesday night, his message boiled down to three words: Stay the course.
Faced with rising turmoil across Iraq, Bush repeatedly stressed his resolve to drive that troubled nation toward stability and democracy — but offered no new plans on how to achieve those aims.
Long on goals and short on means, his performance left even some supporters wondering whether he had found a formula to reassure the growing number of Americans expressing doubt in polls about his course.
"I was depressed," said conservative strategist William Kristol, one of the war's most vocal proponents. "I am obviously a supporter of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there."
Throughout the session with reporters, Bush gave no ground to his critics, either on the war or on his administration's handling of the terrorist threat before Sept. 11, 2001. In his forceful answers, Bush repeatedly demonstrated the determination that his supporters find among his most appealing qualities.
The political risk he faces is that swing voters will view his refusal to reconsider his strategy as more dogmatic than determined.
"When he gets up there and digs in his heels and says the same things he has been saying all along with no give, no evidence of any kind of thoughtful flexibility, I think it undercuts him and adds to the doubts," presidential historian Robert Dallek said.
Bush's performance is unlikely to stem anxiety among Republicans already uneasy about poor reviews for his State of the Union address in January and a subsequent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The skeptical tone of the questions Bush faced — all of which centered on the war in Iraq or the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks — underscored the decline in his political standing since his last news conference in December 2003. That session came while Bush was riding a wave of public support just after the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Most polls at that time found Bush's job approval near 60%, with support for the decision to invade Iraq and optimism about the country's reconstruction also swelling. Now, amid intense violence in Iraq, Bush's approval rating in most surveys has fallen just below 50% — the danger zone for an incumbent.
In contrast to the earlier optimism, a Newsweek poll released Saturday found that a majority of Americans were concerned that Iraq could become "another Vietnam, in which the United States does not accomplish its goals despite many years of military involvement."
At his news conference, Bush's response to those doubts was a curious mixture of tenacity and passivity. He was unyielding and often eloquent when explaining why he believed it so important for the United States to transform Iraq into an outpost of freedom in the Middle East. But at times he seemed to place the principal burden for achieving that on others.
end of snip>
We deserve more than this guy don't we?
By Ronald Brownstein, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON — For all the attention President Bush devoted to the war in Iraq at his news conference Tuesday night, his message boiled down to three words: Stay the course.
Faced with rising turmoil across Iraq, Bush repeatedly stressed his resolve to drive that troubled nation toward stability and democracy — but offered no new plans on how to achieve those aims.
Long on goals and short on means, his performance left even some supporters wondering whether he had found a formula to reassure the growing number of Americans expressing doubt in polls about his course.
"I was depressed," said conservative strategist William Kristol, one of the war's most vocal proponents. "I am obviously a supporter of the war, so I don't need to be convinced. But among people who were doubtful or worried, I don't think he made arguments that would convince them. He didn't explain how we are going to win there."
Throughout the session with reporters, Bush gave no ground to his critics, either on the war or on his administration's handling of the terrorist threat before Sept. 11, 2001. In his forceful answers, Bush repeatedly demonstrated the determination that his supporters find among his most appealing qualities.
The political risk he faces is that swing voters will view his refusal to reconsider his strategy as more dogmatic than determined.
"When he gets up there and digs in his heels and says the same things he has been saying all along with no give, no evidence of any kind of thoughtful flexibility, I think it undercuts him and adds to the doubts," presidential historian Robert Dallek said.
Bush's performance is unlikely to stem anxiety among Republicans already uneasy about poor reviews for his State of the Union address in January and a subsequent appearance on NBC's "Meet the Press."
The skeptical tone of the questions Bush faced — all of which centered on the war in Iraq or the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks — underscored the decline in his political standing since his last news conference in December 2003. That session came while Bush was riding a wave of public support just after the capture of former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
Most polls at that time found Bush's job approval near 60%, with support for the decision to invade Iraq and optimism about the country's reconstruction also swelling. Now, amid intense violence in Iraq, Bush's approval rating in most surveys has fallen just below 50% — the danger zone for an incumbent.
In contrast to the earlier optimism, a Newsweek poll released Saturday found that a majority of Americans were concerned that Iraq could become "another Vietnam, in which the United States does not accomplish its goals despite many years of military involvement."
At his news conference, Bush's response to those doubts was a curious mixture of tenacity and passivity. He was unyielding and often eloquent when explaining why he believed it so important for the United States to transform Iraq into an outpost of freedom in the Middle East. But at times he seemed to place the principal burden for achieving that on others.
end of snip>
We deserve more than this guy don't we?
See, It Works
For the wealthy.President Benefits From His Tax Cut
Bush and first lady Laura W. Bush had income totaling $822,126, down 4 percent from the $856,058 they reported last year, according to tax forms released yesterday by the White House. But the president's taxes fell much more. His federal income tax payment last year dropped $41,229, or 15 percent, from the 2002 level of $268,719.
In all, the tax cut Bush signed into law last summer saved him and his wife $30,858, according to Robert McIntyre, executive director of the labor-backed Citizens for Tax Justice.
Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported income of $1,273,334, up $102,965, or nearly 9 percent, from 2002. Their tax burden dropped sharply, to $253,067 from $341,114, a decline of more than $88,000. Although the Cheneys were easily in the top tax bracket of 35 percent, their effective tax rate fell from 29 percent in 2002 to 20 percent in 2003.
end of snip>
What percentage did YOU save this year?
Bush and first lady Laura W. Bush had income totaling $822,126, down 4 percent from the $856,058 they reported last year, according to tax forms released yesterday by the White House. But the president's taxes fell much more. His federal income tax payment last year dropped $41,229, or 15 percent, from the 2002 level of $268,719.
In all, the tax cut Bush signed into law last summer saved him and his wife $30,858, according to Robert McIntyre, executive director of the labor-backed Citizens for Tax Justice.
Vice President Cheney and his wife, Lynne V. Cheney, reported income of $1,273,334, up $102,965, or nearly 9 percent, from 2002. Their tax burden dropped sharply, to $253,067 from $341,114, a decline of more than $88,000. Although the Cheneys were easily in the top tax bracket of 35 percent, their effective tax rate fell from 29 percent in 2002 to 20 percent in 2003.
end of snip>
What percentage did YOU save this year?
Tuesday, April 13, 2004
But it's not our fault we didn't read them
Panel Says Bush Saw Repeated Warnings
snip>
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A01
By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports, "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."
The intelligence included reports of a hostage plot against Americans. It noted that operatives might choose to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. Without knowing when, where or how the terrorists would strike, the CIA "consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil," according to one of two staff reports released by the panel yesterday.
"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with [Director of Central Intelligence George J.] Tenet," the commission staff said.
The information offers the most detailed account to date of the warnings the intelligence community gave top Bush administration officials, and provides the context in which a CIA briefer put together a memo on Osama bin Laden's activities in the Aug. 6 PDB for Bush.
Drip drip drip...
snip>
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, April 14, 2004; Page A01
By the time a CIA briefer gave President Bush the Aug. 6, 2001, President's Daily Brief headlined "Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US," the president had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team, according to newly declassified information released yesterday by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.
In April and May 2001, for example, the intelligence community headlined some of those reports, "Bin Laden planning multiple operations," "Bin Laden network's plans advancing" and "Bin Laden threats are real."
The intelligence included reports of a hostage plot against Americans. It noted that operatives might choose to hijack an aircraft or storm a U.S. embassy. Without knowing when, where or how the terrorists would strike, the CIA "consistently described the upcoming attacks as occurring on a catastrophic level, indicating that they would cause the world to be in turmoil," according to one of two staff reports released by the panel yesterday.
"Reports similar to these were made available to President Bush in the morning meetings with [Director of Central Intelligence George J.] Tenet," the commission staff said.
The information offers the most detailed account to date of the warnings the intelligence community gave top Bush administration officials, and provides the context in which a CIA briefer put together a memo on Osama bin Laden's activities in the Aug. 6 PDB for Bush.
Drip drip drip...
Pop for the Weasel
President responds to questions transcript
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could’ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet.
I would’ve gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would’ve called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.
See, I’m of the belief that we’ll find out the truth on the weapons. That’s why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
Waaa?
Moron
QUESTION: Thank you, Mr. President.
In the last campaign, you were asked a question about the biggest mistake you’d made in your life, and you used to like to joke that it was trading Sammy Sosa.
You’ve looked back before 9/11 for what mistakes might have been made. After 9/11, what would your biggest mistake be, would you say, and what lessons have learned from it?
BUSH: I wish you’d have given me this written question ahead of time so I could plan for it.
John, I’m sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could’ve done it better this way or that way. You know, I just — I’m sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn’t yet.
I would’ve gone into Afghanistan the way we went into Afghanistan. Even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would’ve called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein.
See, I’m of the belief that we’ll find out the truth on the weapons. That’s why we sent up the independent commission. I look forward to hearing the truth as to exactly where they are. They could still be there. They could be hidden, like the 50 tons of mustard gas in a turkey farm.
Waaa?
Moron
Mind Numbing
Great summary by DHinMI over at the Daily Kos
snip>
But this press conference was also different, in large part because of the reporters in the room. Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience. When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school.
Check it Out!
snip>
But this press conference was also different, in large part because of the reporters in the room. Bush approaches the world as if the good things that happen to him are the result of virtue and the bad things the result of environment, but with other people it's the exact opposite. We're all susceptible to that mistake. But with Bush it's reached a truly bizarre level, and makes listening to him an unsettling experience. When he's not questioned or challenged, or things are going swimmingly, he comes across as confident and resolute. But when the environment changes--like tonight, when even NYT correspondent Elizabeth Bumiller (!) asked a slightly pointed question, and the White House press corps showed signs that they're embarrassed about their performance over the last three years, Bush resumes smirking and becomes that smug jerk we all hated in high school.
Check it Out!
Shame on you Mr. pResident
I have never been more angry at a so-called leader or more embarrassed for the American People than I am now after seeing the pResident lie, evade, parse, and fail to answer even one asked question at this press conference.
He read his answers, the questions were loaded and he mocks the American People by pretending to actually know what he is talking about.
Our children deserve more than this buffoon because they will be the ones paying for this war financially and with their lives for years and years to come.
Support our Troops-Vote for John Kerry Please!
He read his answers, the questions were loaded and he mocks the American People by pretending to actually know what he is talking about.
Our children deserve more than this buffoon because they will be the ones paying for this war financially and with their lives for years and years to come.
Support our Troops-Vote for John Kerry Please!
Iraq Exit Strategy
There isn't one. "This administration will not be able to get us out, so the first requirement is to get this administration out," says retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak.
snip>
U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a long time to come, according to retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Plans for getting them home and re-establishing Iraq as an independent nation may prove ellusive as well as unpopular.
"The fact is, I don't have any good ideas how to get us out," McPeak told more than 100 people gathered Monday at the Majestic Theatre. "I haven't heard a single good idea from anyone how to get us out. I think we're stuck … with no exit strategy to get us out."
...
Concerning the draft, he explained that he knows draft systems as far back as the Civil War have seen richer people find ways for their children to avoid induction. Regardless, more manpower will be needed, he said.
For every soldier and Marine deployed, it requires two as backup in order to provide support and rotation. The nation has about 600,000 deployable ground troops in the Army and Marines, which means that only 200,000 can be deployed at one time. With the commitments the nation already has to provide for a military presence around the world, the supply of combatants has run short.
"That's why the National Guard and reserves have already been called up," McPeak explained. "Some Marines are on the second tour."
Additionally, in order to quickly provide the order and stability required to turn control back over to the Iraqi people, the 130,000 troop-strength currently in country will have to be doubled, he said. The general rule for order in society is one police officer for every 500 people. The United States, due to its own violence, already exceeds that ratio, at about 2.2 per 500. To restore or maintain order in violent situations, the ratio needs to climb even higher. Israel employs a 1-to-100 ratio. Great Britain maintained a 1-to-85 ratio in Ireland.
"We're (in Iraq) with about half of what we need. … If it takes the draft, that's what we'll have to do," McPeak said.
To McPeak, building up military strength in Iraq means sending men, not women. Not only is he opposed to women in combat roles, he finds it unwise to send our women in uniform into a Muslim country and have them tell Muslim men what to do.
Gaining international support is a must in order to end the conflict in Iraq, he said. Going to war with such little worldwide support was a mistake.
"How was it that the world's most powerful democracy came to make war on a very unpopular dictator and almost every other country in the world opposed us?" he asked rhetorically.
end of snip>
I'm afraid he's right. Nice legacy Georgie.
snip>
U.S. troops will be in Iraq for a long time to come, according to retired Gen. Merrill "Tony" McPeak. Plans for getting them home and re-establishing Iraq as an independent nation may prove ellusive as well as unpopular.
"The fact is, I don't have any good ideas how to get us out," McPeak told more than 100 people gathered Monday at the Majestic Theatre. "I haven't heard a single good idea from anyone how to get us out. I think we're stuck … with no exit strategy to get us out."
...
Concerning the draft, he explained that he knows draft systems as far back as the Civil War have seen richer people find ways for their children to avoid induction. Regardless, more manpower will be needed, he said.
For every soldier and Marine deployed, it requires two as backup in order to provide support and rotation. The nation has about 600,000 deployable ground troops in the Army and Marines, which means that only 200,000 can be deployed at one time. With the commitments the nation already has to provide for a military presence around the world, the supply of combatants has run short.
"That's why the National Guard and reserves have already been called up," McPeak explained. "Some Marines are on the second tour."
Additionally, in order to quickly provide the order and stability required to turn control back over to the Iraqi people, the 130,000 troop-strength currently in country will have to be doubled, he said. The general rule for order in society is one police officer for every 500 people. The United States, due to its own violence, already exceeds that ratio, at about 2.2 per 500. To restore or maintain order in violent situations, the ratio needs to climb even higher. Israel employs a 1-to-100 ratio. Great Britain maintained a 1-to-85 ratio in Ireland.
"We're (in Iraq) with about half of what we need. … If it takes the draft, that's what we'll have to do," McPeak said.
To McPeak, building up military strength in Iraq means sending men, not women. Not only is he opposed to women in combat roles, he finds it unwise to send our women in uniform into a Muslim country and have them tell Muslim men what to do.
Gaining international support is a must in order to end the conflict in Iraq, he said. Going to war with such little worldwide support was a mistake.
"How was it that the world's most powerful democracy came to make war on a very unpopular dictator and almost every other country in the world opposed us?" he asked rhetorically.
end of snip>
I'm afraid he's right. Nice legacy Georgie.
Where was the FBI?
CNN.com - Pickard, Black give 9/11 testimony
All the witnesses today essentially said the same thing about why they didn't do more before 9/11. We didn't have the money or the manpower to do what needed to be done.
I don't doubt that but one question comes to mind.
How were they able in 1998-99 to have up to 200 FBI agents investigating President Clintons alleged dealings in Arkansas from 20 years prior but not able to have 40 or 50 agents looking into the terrorists we apparently knew were already in the country?
Nobody asked Louis Freeh that question that I recall.
All the witnesses today essentially said the same thing about why they didn't do more before 9/11. We didn't have the money or the manpower to do what needed to be done.
I don't doubt that but one question comes to mind.
How were they able in 1998-99 to have up to 200 FBI agents investigating President Clintons alleged dealings in Arkansas from 20 years prior but not able to have 40 or 50 agents looking into the terrorists we apparently knew were already in the country?
Nobody asked Louis Freeh that question that I recall.
If Ashcroft Says... Remember This - Center for American Progress
If Ashcroft Says... Remember This - Center for American Progress
If Ashcroft Says, 'We Increased Funding for Counterterrorism,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Prevention of Terrorism Was the Number One Priority of the DOJ Before September 11,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Legal Barriers to Information Sharing Prevented Us From Doing Our Job,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Two-thirds of Al Qaeda Leaders Have Been Captured or Killed,' Remember That:
The real answers to all these Ashcroft evasions are at the link.
If Ashcroft Says, 'We Increased Funding for Counterterrorism,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Prevention of Terrorism Was the Number One Priority of the DOJ Before September 11,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Legal Barriers to Information Sharing Prevented Us From Doing Our Job,' Remember That:
If Ashcroft Says, 'Two-thirds of Al Qaeda Leaders Have Been Captured or Killed,' Remember That:
The real answers to all these Ashcroft evasions are at the link.
More info on the reality of the tax cuts from Paul Waldman via Matt Yglesias at TAPPED
We're Screwed.
We're Screwed.
Blowback
Commission on 9/11 Criticizes Ashcroft
As I listen to Louis Freeh testify before the 9/11 panel I can't help wondering about the Bush administrations consistent claims that the FBI and CIA were the ones at fault for not preventing 9/11. Freeh says he had no money or legal authority to do more pointing the finger right back at congress.
On numerous occasions, most recently from Richard Clarke and several before him, we are shown an image of the White House and specifically Bush and Condi with little or no interest in terrorism. They claim they were interested but show nothing as far as pro-active applications of that alleged concern. The Cheney chaired commission never met, the memos never got to the top, the records were seen as "historical", warning were apparently ignored.
The revelations today about John Ashcroft's priorities being "focused on drugs, violent crime and civil rights shows a low priority compared to other things in spite of the warnings given by Clinton administration officials as they left power. Combating "terrorist activities" was mentioned once by Ashcroft -- as the third objective under enforcement of criminal laws according to the report in the WaPo today.
All that being said, the administration and their minions take no responsibility for anything that happened on 9/11. I wonder if the CIA and FBI are going to have a little resentment toward this administration for being blamed for everything and perhaps a little blowback or payback may be in order to the detriment of us all.
Ashcroft goes later today. Tune in and Check it Out.
As I listen to Louis Freeh testify before the 9/11 panel I can't help wondering about the Bush administrations consistent claims that the FBI and CIA were the ones at fault for not preventing 9/11. Freeh says he had no money or legal authority to do more pointing the finger right back at congress.
On numerous occasions, most recently from Richard Clarke and several before him, we are shown an image of the White House and specifically Bush and Condi with little or no interest in terrorism. They claim they were interested but show nothing as far as pro-active applications of that alleged concern. The Cheney chaired commission never met, the memos never got to the top, the records were seen as "historical", warning were apparently ignored.
The revelations today about John Ashcroft's priorities being "focused on drugs, violent crime and civil rights shows a low priority compared to other things in spite of the warnings given by Clinton administration officials as they left power. Combating "terrorist activities" was mentioned once by Ashcroft -- as the third objective under enforcement of criminal laws according to the report in the WaPo today.
All that being said, the administration and their minions take no responsibility for anything that happened on 9/11. I wonder if the CIA and FBI are going to have a little resentment toward this administration for being blamed for everything and perhaps a little blowback or payback may be in order to the detriment of us all.
Ashcroft goes later today. Tune in and Check it Out.
Monday, April 12, 2004
It's time to judge (some of) the pundits
Guardian Unlimited Happy Anniversery...Again.
snip>
The Daily Express believed the allied forces had won "one of the most remarkable military campaigns in recent history", adding: "Tony Blair's utter determination to see this battle through has been thoroughly vindicated." The Express columnists Richard and Judy informed us that the "weapons of mass destruction, or their components, will surely soon surface. Iraqi scientists ... will reveal details of the research and development of illegal weapons programmes."
Next day the Sunday Express's star columnist, Robert Kilroy-Silk - who later lost his BBC presenter's role after revealing an anti-Arab bias - was certain the Iraqis "can be in no safer hands than the British and Americans. Both are successful democracies with proud records on human rights. Both can be relied upon to keep their word and act with altruism to a degree that would seem foolish to the French. And the Iraqis can be assured the country will be returned in better shape than before."
Even the looting was of no consequence to the Sunday Telegraph, which berated "politicians and commentators who - driven by anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel or (in rare cases) immovable pacifism - will refuse to accept that the outcome of this war has been just and joyous. Such doom-mongers have naturally seized on the looting in liberated Iraq. But if that is the worst that they can find to complain about, then there is much cause for optimism as this terrorised country at last throws aside its rusting shackles."
Anne McElvoy, delighted at the vindication of her belief that the war was "both morally and practically right", scorned those who had predicted a "mother of all battles". They "are still waiting for their 'next Vietnam'", she wrote sarcastically in the London Evening Standard.
The Daily Telegraph berated the war's opponents too. "While many of those who opposed the war have had the good grace to keep quiet, others are even now trying to insist that the whole enterprise has been a disaster."
Then there was dear Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, laying into "the anti-war lobby" and "armchair appeasers" for predicting disaster. "They were proved wrong," she wrote. "Now, with military victory almost complete, they are willing the peace to fail." She conceded that "there are huge dangers of civil war", but that didn't negate the benefits of overthrowing Saddam.
end of snip>
Lots more examples at the link and these are just the Brits.
Kos has done a mini round-up of some of our fellow Americans.
snip>
The Daily Express believed the allied forces had won "one of the most remarkable military campaigns in recent history", adding: "Tony Blair's utter determination to see this battle through has been thoroughly vindicated." The Express columnists Richard and Judy informed us that the "weapons of mass destruction, or their components, will surely soon surface. Iraqi scientists ... will reveal details of the research and development of illegal weapons programmes."
Next day the Sunday Express's star columnist, Robert Kilroy-Silk - who later lost his BBC presenter's role after revealing an anti-Arab bias - was certain the Iraqis "can be in no safer hands than the British and Americans. Both are successful democracies with proud records on human rights. Both can be relied upon to keep their word and act with altruism to a degree that would seem foolish to the French. And the Iraqis can be assured the country will be returned in better shape than before."
Even the looting was of no consequence to the Sunday Telegraph, which berated "politicians and commentators who - driven by anti-Americanism, hatred of Israel or (in rare cases) immovable pacifism - will refuse to accept that the outcome of this war has been just and joyous. Such doom-mongers have naturally seized on the looting in liberated Iraq. But if that is the worst that they can find to complain about, then there is much cause for optimism as this terrorised country at last throws aside its rusting shackles."
Anne McElvoy, delighted at the vindication of her belief that the war was "both morally and practically right", scorned those who had predicted a "mother of all battles". They "are still waiting for their 'next Vietnam'", she wrote sarcastically in the London Evening Standard.
The Daily Telegraph berated the war's opponents too. "While many of those who opposed the war have had the good grace to keep quiet, others are even now trying to insist that the whole enterprise has been a disaster."
Then there was dear Melanie Phillips in the Daily Mail, laying into "the anti-war lobby" and "armchair appeasers" for predicting disaster. "They were proved wrong," she wrote. "Now, with military victory almost complete, they are willing the peace to fail." She conceded that "there are huge dangers of civil war", but that didn't negate the benefits of overthrowing Saddam.
end of snip>
Lots more examples at the link and these are just the Brits.
Kos has done a mini round-up of some of our fellow Americans.
Bush to Hold News Conference Tuesday Night
Well, this should be interesting
Hopefully the timid press will actually ask a question and when W doesn't answer it, someone will follow up with the same question over and over until he does. I hope we get to see who the pResident will call on with the pre-arranged questions, vetted by Karl Rove with the stock answers given to W before the actual press conference like the pResident will. Must be a biggie as they're holding it in the East Room.
snip>
After a week of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, Bush was scheduled to appear in the East Room of the White House at 8:30 p.m. to take questions from the White House press corps in a live telecast.
The White House said it has asked U.S. television networks for time to broadcast the news conference.
"Tomorrow night I'm interested in answering more questions for you all," the Republican president told reporters on Monday in Crawford, Texas, where he appeared alongside Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
"Why not. See you at the East Room," he added.
Bush has come under increasing pressure in Washington to send more U.S. troops into Iraq to help stabilize the country in the face of insurgencies, and some have urged him to delay plans to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30.
He is also being urged to spell out his plans for Iraq more clearly, given the surge in bloodshed and unrest, which has left the United States with no obvious exit strategy. (I'll bet he doesn't do it)
The East Room of the White House is usually reserved for formal events. Only two of Bush's 11 press conferences have been held there -- one on Oct. 11, 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and another on March 6, 2003, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, the White House said.
"We are at a critical period in Iraq and the president looks forward to talking to the American people and updating the American people where we are in Iraq right now and where we are headed," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
McClellan said Bush decided last Thursday to hold the press conference but held off partly because of the Easter holiday. (sure he did that was until John McCain called him out on Meet the Press)
end of snip>
Maybe we should work up a drinking game and take a shot each time he says things such as; terrorists, committed in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, brave fighting men and women, no credible intelligence, freedom, free Iraq, people who hate freedom and so on.
Any other suggestions?
Hopefully the timid press will actually ask a question and when W doesn't answer it, someone will follow up with the same question over and over until he does. I hope we get to see who the pResident will call on with the pre-arranged questions, vetted by Karl Rove with the stock answers given to W before the actual press conference like the pResident will. Must be a biggie as they're holding it in the East Room.
snip>
After a week of the bloodiest fighting in Iraq since the ouster of Saddam Hussein, Bush was scheduled to appear in the East Room of the White House at 8:30 p.m. to take questions from the White House press corps in a live telecast.
The White House said it has asked U.S. television networks for time to broadcast the news conference.
"Tomorrow night I'm interested in answering more questions for you all," the Republican president told reporters on Monday in Crawford, Texas, where he appeared alongside Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.
"Why not. See you at the East Room," he added.
Bush has come under increasing pressure in Washington to send more U.S. troops into Iraq to help stabilize the country in the face of insurgencies, and some have urged him to delay plans to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqi people on June 30.
He is also being urged to spell out his plans for Iraq more clearly, given the surge in bloodshed and unrest, which has left the United States with no obvious exit strategy. (I'll bet he doesn't do it)
The East Room of the White House is usually reserved for formal events. Only two of Bush's 11 press conferences have been held there -- one on Oct. 11, 2001, in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, and another on March 6, 2003, on the eve of the Iraq invasion, the White House said.
"We are at a critical period in Iraq and the president looks forward to talking to the American people and updating the American people where we are in Iraq right now and where we are headed," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
McClellan said Bush decided last Thursday to hold the press conference but held off partly because of the Easter holiday. (sure he did that was until John McCain called him out on Meet the Press)
end of snip>
Maybe we should work up a drinking game and take a shot each time he says things such as; terrorists, committed in Iraq, Saddam Hussein, brave fighting men and women, no credible intelligence, freedom, free Iraq, people who hate freedom and so on.
Any other suggestions?
How to Fix the War On Iraq
The Washington Monthly
snip>
The Bush administration went into Iraq with a series of prejudices about Iraq, rogue states, nation-building, the Clinton administration, multilateralism and the U.N. It believed Iraq was going to vindicate these ideological positions. As events unfolded the administration proved stubbornly unwilling to look at facts on the ground, new evidence and the need for shifts in its basic approach. It was more important to prove that it was right than to get Iraq right.
(Italics mine.)
This pretty much defines the Bush administration on practically everything, doesn't it? Unfortunately, having bolloxed up practically every phase of the war except for the "major combat operations" part, what can we do now? Zakaria's suggestions aren't very convincing:
end of snip>
See his suggestions at the link. Sad isn't it?
snip>
The Bush administration went into Iraq with a series of prejudices about Iraq, rogue states, nation-building, the Clinton administration, multilateralism and the U.N. It believed Iraq was going to vindicate these ideological positions. As events unfolded the administration proved stubbornly unwilling to look at facts on the ground, new evidence and the need for shifts in its basic approach. It was more important to prove that it was right than to get Iraq right.
(Italics mine.)
This pretty much defines the Bush administration on practically everything, doesn't it? Unfortunately, having bolloxed up practically every phase of the war except for the "major combat operations" part, what can we do now? Zakaria's suggestions aren't very convincing:
end of snip>
See his suggestions at the link. Sad isn't it?
Who gets the $$$
Data suggest middle-income families are treading water
snips>
But economists say real household income is little changed since 2000, with gains in household income due to tax cuts being wiped out by inflation, and stagnant wages providing almost no help.
Economists cite data to suggest that Kerry is right when he suggests that the wealthy have fared far better than the middle and lower income families during the last four years.
...
But average income figures can be greatly influenced by larger gains among the wealthy. The median income numbers -- the point at which half the population has more and half the population has less -- are another measure of how the middle-income family is doing.
The Census Department's data shows pretax median household income rose 0.6 percent to $42,409 between 2000 and 2002, the most recent year available from that agency. When adjusted for inflation, that gain became a 3.3 percent decline during the same period -- the figure that Kerry has been using in his "misery index."
At least part of the reason for the decline in median income at the same time that average income rose is that the wealthy have seen more gains from both the tax cuts and the overall economic climate, according to economists.
"It's true there's been a shift of income distribution, with a lot of income gains accruing to upper income individuals. The labor market is paying a bigger and bigger premium for being well educated," said Ethan Harris, chief economist for Lehman Bros. "At the other end of the distribution, if you look at Joe Six-Pack, you've seen a big decline in big paying, low skill jobs in manufacturing."
end of snip>
Bottom line is that the top end gains of the richest 2% offset the bottom 80% that make less than the median. If Bill Gates and me are in a room together, the median income for both of us is about 1.5 Billion dollars. that doesn't make me worth one dime more than I am today. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy don't make you or me any more wealthy either. Since the cost of living has gone up on gas, milk and other necessary daily items we all need and use we in essence net nothing.
Remember the good ol' 90's?
snips>
But economists say real household income is little changed since 2000, with gains in household income due to tax cuts being wiped out by inflation, and stagnant wages providing almost no help.
Economists cite data to suggest that Kerry is right when he suggests that the wealthy have fared far better than the middle and lower income families during the last four years.
...
But average income figures can be greatly influenced by larger gains among the wealthy. The median income numbers -- the point at which half the population has more and half the population has less -- are another measure of how the middle-income family is doing.
The Census Department's data shows pretax median household income rose 0.6 percent to $42,409 between 2000 and 2002, the most recent year available from that agency. When adjusted for inflation, that gain became a 3.3 percent decline during the same period -- the figure that Kerry has been using in his "misery index."
At least part of the reason for the decline in median income at the same time that average income rose is that the wealthy have seen more gains from both the tax cuts and the overall economic climate, according to economists.
"It's true there's been a shift of income distribution, with a lot of income gains accruing to upper income individuals. The labor market is paying a bigger and bigger premium for being well educated," said Ethan Harris, chief economist for Lehman Bros. "At the other end of the distribution, if you look at Joe Six-Pack, you've seen a big decline in big paying, low skill jobs in manufacturing."
end of snip>
Bottom line is that the top end gains of the richest 2% offset the bottom 80% that make less than the median. If Bill Gates and me are in a room together, the median income for both of us is about 1.5 Billion dollars. that doesn't make me worth one dime more than I am today. The Bush tax cuts for the wealthy don't make you or me any more wealthy either. Since the cost of living has gone up on gas, milk and other necessary daily items we all need and use we in essence net nothing.
Remember the good ol' 90's?
Seven U.S. Contractors Missing in Iraq
Yahoo! News
It just gets better and better doesn't it? Do you think the terorists know about Cheney's relationship to Halliburton?
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Seven contractors for a U.S. company are missing in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told a news conference Monday.
An unknown number of foreign hostages are being held captive in Iraq, where U.S. troops are battling Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents across the center and south of the country.
The U.S. military said the contractors were working for Kellogg, Brown & Root. They vanished after an attack on a U.S. convoy just west of Baghdad.
Kellogg Brown & Root, a unit of oil field services company Halliburton Co., is the largest contractor in Iraq, holding contracts that could eventually be worth $19 billion, and has become a lightning rod for critics of the U.S.-led invasion last year.
The company has also drawn criticism for its cozy relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as Halliburton's chief executive until 2000.
It just gets better and better doesn't it? Do you think the terorists know about Cheney's relationship to Halliburton?
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Seven contractors for a U.S. company are missing in Iraq, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq, told a news conference Monday.
An unknown number of foreign hostages are being held captive in Iraq, where U.S. troops are battling Sunni and Shi'ite insurgents across the center and south of the country.
The U.S. military said the contractors were working for Kellogg, Brown & Root. They vanished after an attack on a U.S. convoy just west of Baghdad.
Kellogg Brown & Root, a unit of oil field services company Halliburton Co., is the largest contractor in Iraq, holding contracts that could eventually be worth $19 billion, and has become a lightning rod for critics of the U.S.-led invasion last year.
The company has also drawn criticism for its cozy relationship with Vice President Dick Cheney, who served as Halliburton's chief executive until 2000.
Depends on What Your Definition of "Specific" Is
As Atrios points out, these are REALLY impeachable offenses. From David Sirota's Website
snip>
CLAIM:
President Bush said yesterday that a memo he received a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not contain enough specific threat information to prevent the hijackings and "said nothing about an attack on America." "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack."
- Washington Post, 4/12/04
FACT:
In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President George W. Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points toward the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later.
- NY Times, 4/12/04
Not only is Bush lying, but he's making a ridiculous argument: he's essentially saying that because he did not know terrorists would attack at a specific time, place he is absolved from his gross negligence in failing to ratchet up homeland security and counterterrorism before 9/11. It is like saying that while you know a car accident can kill you and your family, it is OK to not strap yourself and your kids in because you don't know exactly when and where you might get into an accident.
Bush: Two Lies in 10 Minutes
CLAIM:
"The [August 6, 2001] PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat...[It] said nothing about an attack on America."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04
FACT:
"[There are] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York...The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
- Presidential Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001
CLAIM:
"I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That's what the PDB request was."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04
FACT:
According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."
- Washington Post, 3/25/04
PDB Proves Condi Rice Knowingly Lied
CLAIM:
[The August 6th PDB] "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."
- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04
FACT:
The August 6th PDB included very current information, including warnings that the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The memo also included information from just 90 days beforehand noting that al Qaeda members were trying to enter the United States for an attack with explosives. "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," the document said.
- Retuers, 4/10/04
Legal note: the official dictionary definition of perjury is "the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."
You can read the PDB for yourself below.
Josh Marshall has a lot more on this and some follow up with the FBI.
snip>
CLAIM:
President Bush said yesterday that a memo he received a month before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks did not contain enough specific threat information to prevent the hijackings and "said nothing about an attack on America." "I am satisfied that I never saw any intelligence that indicated there was going to be an attack on America -- at a time and a place, an attack."
- Washington Post, 4/12/04
FACT:
In a single 17-sentence document, the intelligence briefing delivered to President George W. Bush in August 2001 spells out the who, hints at the what and points toward the where of the terrorist attacks on New York and Washington that followed 36 days later.
- NY Times, 4/12/04
Not only is Bush lying, but he's making a ridiculous argument: he's essentially saying that because he did not know terrorists would attack at a specific time, place he is absolved from his gross negligence in failing to ratchet up homeland security and counterterrorism before 9/11. It is like saying that while you know a car accident can kill you and your family, it is OK to not strap yourself and your kids in because you don't know exactly when and where you might get into an accident.
Bush: Two Lies in 10 Minutes
CLAIM:
"The [August 6, 2001] PDB was no indication of a terrorist threat...[It] said nothing about an attack on America."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04
FACT:
"[There are] patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York...The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the US that it considers Bin Ladin-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group of Bin Ladin supporters was in the US planning attacks with explosives."
- Presidential Daily Briefing, August 6, 2001
CLAIM:
"I asked the intelligence agency to analyze the data to tell me whether or not we faced a threat internally, like they thought we had faced a threat in other parts of the world. That's what the PDB request was."
- President George W. Bush, 4/11/04
FACT:
According to the CIA, the briefing "was not requested by President Bush." As commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste disclosed, "the CIA informed the panel that the author of the briefing does not recall such a request from Bush and that the idea to compile the briefing came from within the CIA."
- Washington Post, 3/25/04
PDB Proves Condi Rice Knowingly Lied
CLAIM:
[The August 6th PDB] "was historical information based on old reporting. There was no new threat information. And it did not, in fact, warn of any coming attacks inside the United States."
- National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, 4/8/04
FACT:
The August 6th PDB included very current information, including warnings that the FBI had detected "patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York." The memo also included information from just 90 days beforehand noting that al Qaeda members were trying to enter the United States for an attack with explosives. "The FBI is conducting approximately 70 full field investigations throughout the U.S. that it considers Bin Laden-related. CIA and the FBI are investigating a call to our Embassy in the UAE in May saying that a group or Bin Laden supporters was in the U.S. planning attacks with explosives," the document said.
- Retuers, 4/10/04
Legal note: the official dictionary definition of perjury is "the deliberate, willful giving of false, misleading, or incomplete testimony under oath."
You can read the PDB for yourself below.
Josh Marshall has a lot more on this and some follow up with the FBI.
Sunday, April 11, 2004
Man bets all on roulette
CNN.com
I read about this guy earlier in the week. He bet it all.
snip>
Ashley Revell, a 32-year-old Londoner, sold all his possessions in March, took $135,300 to the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas, did some low stakes gambling and then placed everything he had left on "Red."
Revell, recently a professional gambler, said he decided to take a big plunge while he was still young and had raised the stakes as high as possible, including selling his clothes.
"I like to do things properly," he said.
The wheel was spun, a crowd of supporters including his Mum and Dad from London went wild, the ball bobbled over the slots and landed on Red '7' -- and Revell walked away with...
end of snip>
I read about this guy earlier in the week. He bet it all.
snip>
Ashley Revell, a 32-year-old Londoner, sold all his possessions in March, took $135,300 to the Plaza Hotel in Las Vegas, did some low stakes gambling and then placed everything he had left on "Red."
Revell, recently a professional gambler, said he decided to take a big plunge while he was still young and had raised the stakes as high as possible, including selling his clothes.
"I like to do things properly," he said.
The wheel was spun, a crowd of supporters including his Mum and Dad from London went wild, the ball bobbled over the slots and landed on Red '7' -- and Revell walked away with...
end of snip>
Let YOU be the Judge
Courtesy of Kevin Drum at Washington Monthly and he used to be CalPundit 'till he went Big Time.
Comments Welcome
Comments Welcome
Fundamentally, Bush Works on Faith
And that's why this whole thing is so scary. The LA Times has this story that give a little insight into what is really going on in W's head.
snip>
NEW YORK — Ask Bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and George W. Bush's Christian faith and you get some strong answers.
"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know."
Family friend Franklin Graham told us: "The president is not stupid. The people who attacked this country did it in the name of their religion. He's made it clear that we are not at war with Islam. But he understands the implications of what is going on and the spiritual dimensions."
Critics charge that the president is blindly engaged in a crusade, propelled by a belief in Armageddon that will end in a geopolitical disaster. One has compared his faith to the fundamentalists of Islam. Another calls it downright "frightening." Do we have something to fear from Bush's obviously strongly held convictions?
In many respects, questions about the role of faith in Bush's presidency are a replay of those raised during Ronald Reagan's administration, when the former president called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and talked about a spiritual battle against communism. Critics then predicted a possible nuclear Armageddon caused by a president bent on fulfilling prophecy. In reality, what Reagan's faith brought him was a deeper understanding of the Cold War, that it was less about missiles and geopolitics than about core principles. His faith morally clarified the superpower conflict, and according to some dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, encouraged them to further resist the Soviet system.
Faith has played an equally important role in Bush's administration, morally clarifying for him the war on terrorism and encouraging patience in the light of tremendous pressure. But Bush's critics have it backward: It's not so much that Bush thinks God is on his side; rather, he wants to be on God's side and make the correct moral choices. He doesn't think God has given him a blank check; rather, to make the correct decisions, he believes he must study and embrace Judeo-Christian principles.
Bush reads the Bible and a devotional every morning. When you compare what he reads and studies with what he says and does publicly, the overlap is stunning.
His readings influence his language. One morning shortly after Sept. 11, Bush got up and read Proverbs 21:15 (New International Version): "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Soon after, he was calling the terrorists "evildoers."
Family members and friends told us that his favorite readings in the Bible are Proverbs and Psalms in the Old Testament and parables of the New Testament. During the buildup to the Iraq war, he constantly consulted with advisors, both those who supported and those who opposed military action, an approach we expect from our leaders — and, for Bush, something that Proverbs counseled: "A wise man has great power, and a man of knowledge increases strength; for waging war, you need guidance, and for victory, many advisors."
The president's interpretation of Jesus' parables directly influences his moral vision for foreign policy. Rejecting the notion of realpolitik — that cold, hard self-interest should be the sole guide of policy — Bush embraces the idea that the United States has a moral obligation to help those in trouble.
His friend Doug Wead, a former aide to George H.W. Bush, recounted for us a discussion he had with the current president a few years ago on the story of the good Samaritan. Wead was reminding Bush of the story about our moral obligation to help strangers in distress when the president, in typically blunt fashion, asked: What if we got there 20 minutes earlier, when the traveler to Jericho was being attacked. Don't we have an obligation to help him then too? Such thinking not only influenced his decision to liberate Iraq but also fueled his commitment to combat AIDS in Africa.
Bush's daily reading both supports and challenges his religious beliefs. On March 19, 2003, when bombs began falling on Iraq, he read a sober reminder from minister Oswald Chambers: "Living a life of faith means never knowing where you are being led. But it does mean loving and knowing the One who is leading…. Faith is rooted in the knowledge of a Person, and one of the biggest traps we fall into is the belief that if we have faith, God will surely lead us to success in the world."
Bush read Chambers devotionals throughout 2003, and Chambers is hardly what you would call a hawk. "War is the most damnably bad thing," Chambers wrote. "Because God overrules a thing and brings good out of it does not mean that the thing itself is a good thing."
Far from making Bush gung-ho, his Bible readings create an unusual cocktail of courage and patience. Family members say the president has read numerous "hair-raising" CIA reports since 9/11 on "losing a city" to a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb or biological weapon. The agency told him that the anthrax letters discovered on Capitol Hill after 9/11 might have killed 100,000 people. In a direct way, though, such dire scenarios steadied Bush. He knew that he would need to take bold and direct action. But he attacked Afghanistan only after serious deliberation and without a sense of retribution.
end of snip>
I think Reagan was religious for political reasons and hardly ever went to church. Bush found religion late in life and I think the Texas mafia he surrounds himself with bolster his fundy views on all things both good and bad as outlined in this article. I challenge you to find anything Christ like in the actions of this administration.
The most dangerous thing about this type of belief is the ultimate results and the perception that the Bushits have an overall ends justify the means mentality.
Can we afford even 8 more months of these people?
snip>
NEW YORK — Ask Bush family members and friends about the intersection between the war on terrorism and George W. Bush's Christian faith and you get some strong answers.
"George sees this as a religious war," one family member told us. "He doesn't have a PC view of this war. His view is that they are trying to kill the Christians. And we the Christians will strike back with more force and more ferocity than they will ever know."
Family friend Franklin Graham told us: "The president is not stupid. The people who attacked this country did it in the name of their religion. He's made it clear that we are not at war with Islam. But he understands the implications of what is going on and the spiritual dimensions."
Critics charge that the president is blindly engaged in a crusade, propelled by a belief in Armageddon that will end in a geopolitical disaster. One has compared his faith to the fundamentalists of Islam. Another calls it downright "frightening." Do we have something to fear from Bush's obviously strongly held convictions?
In many respects, questions about the role of faith in Bush's presidency are a replay of those raised during Ronald Reagan's administration, when the former president called the Soviet Union an "evil empire" and talked about a spiritual battle against communism. Critics then predicted a possible nuclear Armageddon caused by a president bent on fulfilling prophecy. In reality, what Reagan's faith brought him was a deeper understanding of the Cold War, that it was less about missiles and geopolitics than about core principles. His faith morally clarified the superpower conflict, and according to some dissidents behind the Iron Curtain, encouraged them to further resist the Soviet system.
Faith has played an equally important role in Bush's administration, morally clarifying for him the war on terrorism and encouraging patience in the light of tremendous pressure. But Bush's critics have it backward: It's not so much that Bush thinks God is on his side; rather, he wants to be on God's side and make the correct moral choices. He doesn't think God has given him a blank check; rather, to make the correct decisions, he believes he must study and embrace Judeo-Christian principles.
Bush reads the Bible and a devotional every morning. When you compare what he reads and studies with what he says and does publicly, the overlap is stunning.
His readings influence his language. One morning shortly after Sept. 11, Bush got up and read Proverbs 21:15 (New International Version): "When justice is done, it brings joy to the righteous but terror to evildoers." Soon after, he was calling the terrorists "evildoers."
Family members and friends told us that his favorite readings in the Bible are Proverbs and Psalms in the Old Testament and parables of the New Testament. During the buildup to the Iraq war, he constantly consulted with advisors, both those who supported and those who opposed military action, an approach we expect from our leaders — and, for Bush, something that Proverbs counseled: "A wise man has great power, and a man of knowledge increases strength; for waging war, you need guidance, and for victory, many advisors."
The president's interpretation of Jesus' parables directly influences his moral vision for foreign policy. Rejecting the notion of realpolitik — that cold, hard self-interest should be the sole guide of policy — Bush embraces the idea that the United States has a moral obligation to help those in trouble.
His friend Doug Wead, a former aide to George H.W. Bush, recounted for us a discussion he had with the current president a few years ago on the story of the good Samaritan. Wead was reminding Bush of the story about our moral obligation to help strangers in distress when the president, in typically blunt fashion, asked: What if we got there 20 minutes earlier, when the traveler to Jericho was being attacked. Don't we have an obligation to help him then too? Such thinking not only influenced his decision to liberate Iraq but also fueled his commitment to combat AIDS in Africa.
Bush's daily reading both supports and challenges his religious beliefs. On March 19, 2003, when bombs began falling on Iraq, he read a sober reminder from minister Oswald Chambers: "Living a life of faith means never knowing where you are being led. But it does mean loving and knowing the One who is leading…. Faith is rooted in the knowledge of a Person, and one of the biggest traps we fall into is the belief that if we have faith, God will surely lead us to success in the world."
Bush read Chambers devotionals throughout 2003, and Chambers is hardly what you would call a hawk. "War is the most damnably bad thing," Chambers wrote. "Because God overrules a thing and brings good out of it does not mean that the thing itself is a good thing."
Far from making Bush gung-ho, his Bible readings create an unusual cocktail of courage and patience. Family members say the president has read numerous "hair-raising" CIA reports since 9/11 on "losing a city" to a terrorist attack with a dirty bomb or biological weapon. The agency told him that the anthrax letters discovered on Capitol Hill after 9/11 might have killed 100,000 people. In a direct way, though, such dire scenarios steadied Bush. He knew that he would need to take bold and direct action. But he attacked Afghanistan only after serious deliberation and without a sense of retribution.
end of snip>
I think Reagan was religious for political reasons and hardly ever went to church. Bush found religion late in life and I think the Texas mafia he surrounds himself with bolster his fundy views on all things both good and bad as outlined in this article. I challenge you to find anything Christ like in the actions of this administration.
The most dangerous thing about this type of belief is the ultimate results and the perception that the Bushits have an overall ends justify the means mentality.
Can we afford even 8 more months of these people?
But what about...
With all the parsing of the now famous PDB from Aug.6, 2001 and the Bushits saying that we didn't know about a specific threat, let's remember that Ashcroft had been taken off commercial airplanes and was flying on a private plane for most of the the summer of 2001.
snip> (This from an article in 2002)
On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.
Ashcroft used to fly commercial, just as Janet Reno did. So why, two months before Sept. 11, did he start taking chartered government planes?
CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department.
Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it," CBS News reported.
The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.
The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?
Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.
So our nation's chief law enforcement officer was told that flying commercial was hazardous to his health, and yet he appeared not to care what the threat was, who made it, how, or why?
Note that it was the FBI that warned Ashcroft before Sept. 11. That's the same FBI now claiming it didn't "connect the dots" before Sept. 11.
Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.
But the CBSNews.com story was largely ignored. CBS ran it once, briefly. A number of CBS affiliates repeated the story, even more briefly. That was it. As near as I can tell, no other major news outlet ran the story of a danger to commercial air travel so severe that our attorney general was told to stay away from it.
When the furor broke recently over who knew what, or when, President Bush chose his words carefully. "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning," he said, "I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."
Note the phrase, "use airplanes to kill." It suggests he thought the bad guys were going to use airplanes in some other way, perhaps, for example, as a trading chip to win the release of those responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing.
end of snip>
Clearly they knew something was up but by their very definition, you rarely if ever know what a terrorist is going to do, that is the terror part in terrorist isn't it?
It is disingenuous, in my opinion for Bush and the minions to keep saying they would have moved heaven and earth if they knew something was going to happen. Obviously they knew something was afoot and yet the boy king spent a month clearing brush and nobody seemed to care...Except Ashcrofts FBI handlers apparently.
Can't wait for Johnny Ashcrofts testimony this week. I hope someone has the cajones to ask him this question among others. I'm sure the families of all the pilots who died on 9/11 would like to know why they weren't given the same heads up from the FBI not to mention all the others killed that day.
snip> (This from an article in 2002)
On July 26, 2001, cbsnews.com reported that John Ashcroft had stopped flying on commercial airlines.
Ashcroft used to fly commercial, just as Janet Reno did. So why, two months before Sept. 11, did he start taking chartered government planes?
CBS News correspondent Jim Stewart asked the Justice Department.
Because of a "threat assessment" by the FBI, he was told. But "neither the FBI nor the Justice Department ... would identify what the threat was, when it was detected or who made it," CBS News reported.
The FBI did advise Ashcroft to stay off commercial aircraft. The rest of us just had to take our chances.
The FBI obviously knew something was in the wind. Why else would it have Ashcroft use a $1,600-plus per hour G-3 Gulfstream when he could have flown commercial, as he always did before, for a fraction of the cost?
Ashcroft demonstrated an amazing lack of curiosity when asked if he knew anything about the threat. "Frankly, I don't," he told reporters.
So our nation's chief law enforcement officer was told that flying commercial was hazardous to his health, and yet he appeared not to care what the threat was, who made it, how, or why?
Note that it was the FBI that warned Ashcroft before Sept. 11. That's the same FBI now claiming it didn't "connect the dots" before Sept. 11.
Had we in the press been on our toes, we might have realized that if flying commercial posed a threat to John Ashcroft, it also posed a threat to the population at large.
But the CBSNews.com story was largely ignored. CBS ran it once, briefly. A number of CBS affiliates repeated the story, even more briefly. That was it. As near as I can tell, no other major news outlet ran the story of a danger to commercial air travel so severe that our attorney general was told to stay away from it.
When the furor broke recently over who knew what, or when, President Bush chose his words carefully. "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to kill on that fateful morning," he said, "I would have done everything in my power to protect the American people."
Note the phrase, "use airplanes to kill." It suggests he thought the bad guys were going to use airplanes in some other way, perhaps, for example, as a trading chip to win the release of those responsible for the first World Trade Center bombing.
end of snip>
Clearly they knew something was up but by their very definition, you rarely if ever know what a terrorist is going to do, that is the terror part in terrorist isn't it?
It is disingenuous, in my opinion for Bush and the minions to keep saying they would have moved heaven and earth if they knew something was going to happen. Obviously they knew something was afoot and yet the boy king spent a month clearing brush and nobody seemed to care...Except Ashcrofts FBI handlers apparently.
Can't wait for Johnny Ashcrofts testimony this week. I hope someone has the cajones to ask him this question among others. I'm sure the families of all the pilots who died on 9/11 would like to know why they weren't given the same heads up from the FBI not to mention all the others killed that day.
Saturday, April 10, 2004
Just for the record
I have been posting updates but for some reason it won't update the page. I have informed the server host but I apologize to my half dozen regular readers for the delay in updates. Let me know when you see something new.
On Edit- Sun. 4/11 9:45am MST-
It appears the posting problems have been resolved and perhaps my suspicions that Ashcroft had something to do with it are well...shall we say, I'm going with technical difficulties. Happy Easter.
On Edit- Sun. 4/11 9:45am MST-
It appears the posting problems have been resolved and perhaps my suspicions that Ashcroft had something to do with it are well...shall we say, I'm going with technical difficulties. Happy Easter.
Any Other Questions?
Bush Was Told of Al Qaeda Hijack Preparation
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush was told a month before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda members were in the United States and the FBI had detected suspicious activity "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," according to a secret memo the White House released under pressure on Saturday.
Do we really need to know anything else?
These people have slandered everyone who has dared to speak the truth and expose the conspiricy within the White House. All we need are the documents that time after time have proven that the Bushits are lying and covering up their culpability.
Again, Game, Set and Match!
CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush was told a month before Sept. 11, 2001, that al Qaeda members were in the United States and the FBI had detected suspicious activity "consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks," according to a secret memo the White House released under pressure on Saturday.
Do we really need to know anything else?
These people have slandered everyone who has dared to speak the truth and expose the conspiricy within the White House. All we need are the documents that time after time have proven that the Bushits are lying and covering up their culpability.
Again, Game, Set and Match!
Letter from the Front
Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo has a friend in Iraq. He sent Josh this Letter or e-mail that shows how it really is going over there, at least from his perspective.
snip>
I have to tell you although the wide open areas of Iraq give a false sense of security. Even though much of this is unseen to most people the situation has gone from bad to really bad to unbelievably bad! Westerners are getting hit everywhere. Security companies escorting CPA, themselves and other Westerners are now on the menu for all the armed resistance groups. There was a report of a massive ambush by one security firm that tried to drive in from Amman. Reports have 25-40 gunmen opening up on them. They lost all of their vehicles and had to be given a mercy lift by a passing Iraqi minivan. Several other firms lost western security personnel killed this week in drive-by ambushes and even a seige by the Sadr Militia. Several NGOs, security firms and military bases were literally under siege for days in Kut, Nasiriyah and Baghdad. The boldness and sophistication of the attacks is staggering and it is clear that every one of the resistance fighters and Islamic militiamen have taken heart at the ease of inflicting damage on the Westerners. The abductions of the Japanese hostages is a sign that we have entered a new phase of bad as abduction requires a permissive environment for the hostage taker.
I refer to this entire mess as the second Intifada of Iraq. The first Intifida was last August in Fallujah when US soldiers killed 15-17 Iraqis and Fallujah fell into revolt. Vehicles are being hit where they are easiest to find and the security firms who are here to protect the Westerners are taking casualties because the US Army and Marines are literally stretched thin throughout the country and quit over their own capacity to stop the violence. The resistance's combat operational center of mass is and will continue moving from known mass resistance organizations (such as uniformed Badr Brigade) to small leaderless or autonomous teams or supporters who are now deciding to do what they please to the first target available. Those targets are easy ... Westerners. Any and all. This burst of energy won't last long though ...
end of snip>
Chilling account. Go and read the whole thing. It really is a shame we are there and out leaders have no idea what to do.
snip>
I have to tell you although the wide open areas of Iraq give a false sense of security. Even though much of this is unseen to most people the situation has gone from bad to really bad to unbelievably bad! Westerners are getting hit everywhere. Security companies escorting CPA, themselves and other Westerners are now on the menu for all the armed resistance groups. There was a report of a massive ambush by one security firm that tried to drive in from Amman. Reports have 25-40 gunmen opening up on them. They lost all of their vehicles and had to be given a mercy lift by a passing Iraqi minivan. Several other firms lost western security personnel killed this week in drive-by ambushes and even a seige by the Sadr Militia. Several NGOs, security firms and military bases were literally under siege for days in Kut, Nasiriyah and Baghdad. The boldness and sophistication of the attacks is staggering and it is clear that every one of the resistance fighters and Islamic militiamen have taken heart at the ease of inflicting damage on the Westerners. The abductions of the Japanese hostages is a sign that we have entered a new phase of bad as abduction requires a permissive environment for the hostage taker.
I refer to this entire mess as the second Intifada of Iraq. The first Intifida was last August in Fallujah when US soldiers killed 15-17 Iraqis and Fallujah fell into revolt. Vehicles are being hit where they are easiest to find and the security firms who are here to protect the Westerners are taking casualties because the US Army and Marines are literally stretched thin throughout the country and quit over their own capacity to stop the violence. The resistance's combat operational center of mass is and will continue moving from known mass resistance organizations (such as uniformed Badr Brigade) to small leaderless or autonomous teams or supporters who are now deciding to do what they please to the first target available. Those targets are easy ... Westerners. Any and all. This burst of energy won't last long though ...
end of snip>
Chilling account. Go and read the whole thing. It really is a shame we are there and out leaders have no idea what to do.
Friday, April 09, 2004
But..but..
9/11 Documents Show Hijacking Warnings
WASHINGTON - U.S. government agencies issued repeated warnings in the summer of 2001 about potential terrorist plots against the United States masterminded by Osama bin Laden, including a possible plan to hijack commercial aircraft, documents show.
While there were no specific targets mentioned in the United States, there was intelligence indicating al-Qaida might attempt to crash a plane into the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. And other reports said Islamic extremists might try to hijack a plane to gain release of comrades.
The escalating seriousness was reflected in a series of warnings issued by the State Department, Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites), Defense Department and others detailing a heightened risk of terror attacks targeting Americans.
Whether the Bush administration had enough information to take more strident action is at the heart of the dispute over the contents of an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing the White House was working to declassify Friday at the urging of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
Several Democrats on the commission claim the memo, called a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, included current intelligence indicating a high threat of hijackings. It was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
...
The memo mentioned intelligence that bin Laden wanted to hijack aircraft to gain release of prisoners in the United States. The PDB also contains FBI information about "patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other attacks," according to congressional investigators.
A key event occurred on June 21, 2001, when a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., returned a 46-count indictment charging 13 Saudis and one Lebanese with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. service personnel.
Rumors of the coming indictment had been circulating for weeks before that, according to officials familiar with the intelligence, leading to increased worries that terrorists might take some action in connection with the case.
The next day, June 22, the FAA issued a nationwide circular "referring to a possible hijacking plot by Islamic terrorists to secure release of 14 persons incarcerated in the United States" in the Khobar Towers case. The circular did not mention that the 14 were still at large. They remain fugitives to this day.
More terrorism warnings quickly followed, including:(list at link)
...
A senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FBI issued at least two other bulletins in 2001 about the terror threat intelligence but did not include directives for field offices to take specific actions because there was no imminent threat to the homeland.
There had been numerous earlier reports of bin Laden's interest in using aircraft for terror attacks, including a 1998 plot to fly an explosives-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center and an April 2000 plot to hijack a Boeing 747 and either fly it to Afghanistan or blow up.
End of snip but go and read the rest of the article at the link.
In essence, Condi and W and the whole gang are saying; if you would have given us the terrorists plans, told us exactly what and when they were going to strike, we might have done something, it's not our fault.
Meanwhile 140,000 troops spend another holiday away from their families fighting a war based on a lie and hoping they don't get killed or burned alive if captured.
Thanks Mr. Bush
WASHINGTON - U.S. government agencies issued repeated warnings in the summer of 2001 about potential terrorist plots against the United States masterminded by Osama bin Laden, including a possible plan to hijack commercial aircraft, documents show.
While there were no specific targets mentioned in the United States, there was intelligence indicating al-Qaida might attempt to crash a plane into the U.S. embassy in Nairobi. And other reports said Islamic extremists might try to hijack a plane to gain release of comrades.
The escalating seriousness was reflected in a series of warnings issued by the State Department, Federal Aviation Administration (news - web sites), Defense Department and others detailing a heightened risk of terror attacks targeting Americans.
Whether the Bush administration had enough information to take more strident action is at the heart of the dispute over the contents of an Aug. 6, 2001, intelligence briefing the White House was working to declassify Friday at the urging of the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks.
Several Democrats on the commission claim the memo, called a Presidential Daily Brief, or PDB, included current intelligence indicating a high threat of hijackings. It was titled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
...
The memo mentioned intelligence that bin Laden wanted to hijack aircraft to gain release of prisoners in the United States. The PDB also contains FBI information about "patterns of activity consistent with preparations for hijackings or other attacks," according to congressional investigators.
A key event occurred on June 21, 2001, when a federal grand jury in Alexandria, Va., returned a 46-count indictment charging 13 Saudis and one Lebanese with the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers complex in Saudi Arabia that killed 19 U.S. service personnel.
Rumors of the coming indictment had been circulating for weeks before that, according to officials familiar with the intelligence, leading to increased worries that terrorists might take some action in connection with the case.
The next day, June 22, the FAA issued a nationwide circular "referring to a possible hijacking plot by Islamic terrorists to secure release of 14 persons incarcerated in the United States" in the Khobar Towers case. The circular did not mention that the 14 were still at large. They remain fugitives to this day.
More terrorism warnings quickly followed, including:(list at link)
...
A senior law enforcement official, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the FBI issued at least two other bulletins in 2001 about the terror threat intelligence but did not include directives for field offices to take specific actions because there was no imminent threat to the homeland.
There had been numerous earlier reports of bin Laden's interest in using aircraft for terror attacks, including a 1998 plot to fly an explosives-laden plane from a foreign country into the World Trade Center and an April 2000 plot to hijack a Boeing 747 and either fly it to Afghanistan or blow up.
End of snip but go and read the rest of the article at the link.
In essence, Condi and W and the whole gang are saying; if you would have given us the terrorists plans, told us exactly what and when they were going to strike, we might have done something, it's not our fault.
Meanwhile 140,000 troops spend another holiday away from their families fighting a war based on a lie and hoping they don't get killed or burned alive if captured.
Thanks Mr. Bush
Surprise!
CBS News | Poll: Bush Credibility Takes Hit
The 9/11 Commission hearings on appear to have raised concerns about both the Bush Administration’s credibility and its overall performance, even on the issue on which the Administration may be staking its re-election. Nearly six in ten Americans are following the hearings closely, and the latest CBS News Poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, shows declines in the President’s approval ratings in a number of policy areas, but especially changes in the evaluation of the President’s handling of terrorism.
There has been little impact on the campaign, however, in the places it most matters -- the 18 "battleground states." The race in that critical group of states continues to be too close to call.
THE PRESIDENT, THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE 9/11 HEARINGS
Americans believe the Bush Administration is cooperating with the 9/11 Commission, but that there is still more to learn: most say the Administration isn’t telling the entire truth about what they knew before 9/11.
Only one-quarter thinks the Bush Administration is telling the entire truth about what they knew of the terror threat prior to 9/11. 59 percent say they are mostly telling the truth but still hiding something about that knowledge, and 11 percent say they are mostly lying.
WHAT DID THEY KNOW BEFORE 9/11?: IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION…?
Telling the entire truth 24%
Telling mostly truth, but hiding something 59%
Mostly lying 11%
Views on this are about the same today as they were nearly two years ago, in the spring of 2002, when 73 percent said the Administration was hiding something or lying about what it knew pre-9/11, compared to 70 percent now.
Nearly six in ten Americans say they are very or somewhat closely following the work of the commission, and those hearings appear to be affecting way the country views the Administration’s performance in the war on terrorism. While a majority continues to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration are making the U.S. safer from terror, this view has dropped nine points from three weeks ago and is now at its lowest level.
End of snip>
All the stats and questions they asked are at the link. Some very interesting stuff.
Drip, Drip, Drip...
The 9/11 Commission hearings on appear to have raised concerns about both the Bush Administration’s credibility and its overall performance, even on the issue on which the Administration may be staking its re-election. Nearly six in ten Americans are following the hearings closely, and the latest CBS News Poll, conducted Tuesday through Thursday, shows declines in the President’s approval ratings in a number of policy areas, but especially changes in the evaluation of the President’s handling of terrorism.
There has been little impact on the campaign, however, in the places it most matters -- the 18 "battleground states." The race in that critical group of states continues to be too close to call.
THE PRESIDENT, THE WAR ON TERROR AND THE 9/11 HEARINGS
Americans believe the Bush Administration is cooperating with the 9/11 Commission, but that there is still more to learn: most say the Administration isn’t telling the entire truth about what they knew before 9/11.
Only one-quarter thinks the Bush Administration is telling the entire truth about what they knew of the terror threat prior to 9/11. 59 percent say they are mostly telling the truth but still hiding something about that knowledge, and 11 percent say they are mostly lying.
WHAT DID THEY KNOW BEFORE 9/11?: IS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION…?
Telling the entire truth 24%
Telling mostly truth, but hiding something 59%
Mostly lying 11%
Views on this are about the same today as they were nearly two years ago, in the spring of 2002, when 73 percent said the Administration was hiding something or lying about what it knew pre-9/11, compared to 70 percent now.
Nearly six in ten Americans say they are very or somewhat closely following the work of the commission, and those hearings appear to be affecting way the country views the Administration’s performance in the war on terrorism. While a majority continues to believe that the policies of the Bush Administration are making the U.S. safer from terror, this view has dropped nine points from three weeks ago and is now at its lowest level.
End of snip>
All the stats and questions they asked are at the link. Some very interesting stuff.
Drip, Drip, Drip...
Happy Anniversary
Reuters.com
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Bloody turmoil reigned in Iraq on Friday, the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein's fall, with Sunni and Shi'ite rebels battling U.S.-led forces and holding three Japanese and several other foreign hostages.
Fierce fighting that has convulsed the Sunni cities of Falluja and Ramadi reached the western fringe of Baghdad, where guerrillas killed nine in an attack on a fuel convoy, and said they had seized foreigners traveling in the area.
A Reuters journalist saw two captive foreigners in a mosque in a village in the Abu Ghraib district. One was wounded in the shoulder. Both men were weeping. They said they were Italian.
At the scene of the convoy attack, several vehicles were ablaze and overturned. Nine bodies were in and around the mangled wreckage -- one a dead foreigner lying on the road with a bloody head as an Iraqi beat his corpse.
Teenage fighters with rocket-propelled grenades and rifles lurked on bridges or in derelict lots near the main highway leading west toward the embattled town of Falluja.
Iraq's U.S administrator Paul Bremer said U.S. forces had unilaterally suspended operations in Falluja at midday after a crackdown on guerrillas to allow aid in and what would be unprecedented talks with insurgents.
This week's bloodshed, engulfing the hitherto quiescent Shi'ite south as well as the bastions of Sunni insurgency in central Iraq, has shown how far the United States is from securing the country whose dictator it toppled on April 9, 2003.
Iraqis traumatized by 35 years of Baathist rule then hoped Saddam's removal would bring them freedom and a better life. Today they face an uncertain future after 12 months of violence that is sapping a reconstruction drive, hampering oil exports to pay for it and frightening off foreign investors.
In the past week, at least 51 U.S. and allied soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in fighting. Two U.S. soldiers and a civilian truck driver were killed on Friday in Iraq, the military said. A British civilian working for a U.S. security firm was also killed, Britain's foreign office said.
Since the start of the U.S.-led war at least 455 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
more at the link
BAGHDAD (Reuters) - Bloody turmoil reigned in Iraq on Friday, the first anniversary of Saddam Hussein's fall, with Sunni and Shi'ite rebels battling U.S.-led forces and holding three Japanese and several other foreign hostages.
Fierce fighting that has convulsed the Sunni cities of Falluja and Ramadi reached the western fringe of Baghdad, where guerrillas killed nine in an attack on a fuel convoy, and said they had seized foreigners traveling in the area.
A Reuters journalist saw two captive foreigners in a mosque in a village in the Abu Ghraib district. One was wounded in the shoulder. Both men were weeping. They said they were Italian.
At the scene of the convoy attack, several vehicles were ablaze and overturned. Nine bodies were in and around the mangled wreckage -- one a dead foreigner lying on the road with a bloody head as an Iraqi beat his corpse.
Teenage fighters with rocket-propelled grenades and rifles lurked on bridges or in derelict lots near the main highway leading west toward the embattled town of Falluja.
Iraq's U.S administrator Paul Bremer said U.S. forces had unilaterally suspended operations in Falluja at midday after a crackdown on guerrillas to allow aid in and what would be unprecedented talks with insurgents.
This week's bloodshed, engulfing the hitherto quiescent Shi'ite south as well as the bastions of Sunni insurgency in central Iraq, has shown how far the United States is from securing the country whose dictator it toppled on April 9, 2003.
Iraqis traumatized by 35 years of Baathist rule then hoped Saddam's removal would bring them freedom and a better life. Today they face an uncertain future after 12 months of violence that is sapping a reconstruction drive, hampering oil exports to pay for it and frightening off foreign investors.
In the past week, at least 51 U.S. and allied soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in fighting. Two U.S. soldiers and a civilian truck driver were killed on Friday in Iraq, the military said. A British civilian working for a U.S. security firm was also killed, Britain's foreign office said.
Since the start of the U.S.-led war at least 455 U.S. troops have been killed in action in Iraq, according to the Pentagon.
more at the link
That was Quick
As I was leaving the house this morning, the General in charge in Iraq was announcing a halt to hostilities in Fallujah so that the parties could attempt to talk out some of the issues and halt the killing. Well here comes the news that Marines resume attacks in Fallujah only an hour and a half after the talks started.
And where is Bush?
On vacation in Texas with Wayne LaPierre Jr., chief executive of the National Rifle Association and problably dying some easter eggs.
Both photos taken yesterday and courtesy of CalPundit
And where is Bush?
On vacation in Texas with Wayne LaPierre Jr., chief executive of the National Rifle Association and problably dying some easter eggs.
Both photos taken yesterday and courtesy of CalPundit
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Operation Unquestioning Patriotism
Atrios at Eschaton has this snip from an article in Newsweek from 9/13/01 that showed that the Whitehouse had information prior to 9/11 and did nothing.
Newsweek 9/13/01
Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill. In testimony to the Intelligence Committee earlier this year, CIA Director George Tenet said bin Laden posed the most immediate terrorist threat to Americans around the world and was capable of "multiple attacks with little or no warning." "There is a giant accountability issue starting today," says former Afghanistan CIA station chief Milt Bearden, "and in the midst of legitimate accountability there will be a lot of scapegoating. They're going to start looking for the modern-day equivalent of General Short and Admiral Kimmel [the armed-forces commanders at Pearl Harbor], and they're going to find them."
That was before the Operation Unquestioning Patriotism kicked into full swing, and all such questions were forgotten.
Newsweek 9/13/01
Could the bombers have been stopped? NEWSWEEK has learned that while U.S. intelligence received no specific warning, the state of alert had been high during the past two weeks, and a particularly urgent warning may have been received the night before the attacks, causing some top Pentagon brass to cancel a trip. Why that same information was not available to the 266 people who died aboard the four hijacked commercial aircraft may become a hot topic on the Hill. In testimony to the Intelligence Committee earlier this year, CIA Director George Tenet said bin Laden posed the most immediate terrorist threat to Americans around the world and was capable of "multiple attacks with little or no warning." "There is a giant accountability issue starting today," says former Afghanistan CIA station chief Milt Bearden, "and in the midst of legitimate accountability there will be a lot of scapegoating. They're going to start looking for the modern-day equivalent of General Short and Admiral Kimmel [the armed-forces commanders at Pearl Harbor], and they're going to find them."
That was before the Operation Unquestioning Patriotism kicked into full swing, and all such questions were forgotten.
Meanwhile In Iraq...
BAGHDAD
U.S.-led troops fought fierce battles with Sunni and Shi'ite rebels on Thursday and a spate of kidnappings hit foreigners as Iraq descended into bloody chaos not seen since Saddam Hussein's fall a year ago.
A previously unknown Iraqi group said it was holding three Japanese hostages and threatened to "burn them alive" unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq within three days.
Rebels seized two Arabs with Israeli identity cards, shown on a video tape aired by an Iranian television station, and accused them of spying. A Briton was missing after being kidnapped in the southern town of Nassiriya.
Seven South Koreans, all evangelical church pastors, were seized by armed men but later freed unharmed. The Koreans told Reuters in a Baghdad hotel they had been kidnapped on a road north of the capital.
The top U.S. general in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, acknowledged the southern towns of Najaf and Kut were in the hands of a militia loyal to radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
On the eve of the anniversary of Baghdad's capture, U.S.-led forces were locked in open urban warfare in the central Sunni town of Falluja, the Shi'ite shrine city of Kerbala and Abu Ghraib on the western outskirts of the capital, witnesses said.
...
TWO-FRONT FIGHTING
Thirty-five American and allied soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in this week's new two-front fighting in Iraq. Previously violence had been largely confined to Sunni areas and Washington had blamed attacks on Saddam supporters and foreign Islamic militants.
Bush has vowed the violence will not force the United States to retreat from Baghdad or disrupt its planned handover of power to Iraqis on June 30.
But a U.S. opinion poll on Monday showed plunging support for Bush's handling of Iraq and signs of nervousness have emerged among some other countries with troops in the country.
The rash of kidnappings will probably cause more soul-searching among U.S. allies. About 125,000 U.S. troops and some 20,000 from other nations, including Britain, Japan and South Korea, are in Iraq.
end of snip>
Tell me how this is getting better and how we are going to hand over the "power" to who-knows-who on June 30?
Just wonderin'.
U.S.-led troops fought fierce battles with Sunni and Shi'ite rebels on Thursday and a spate of kidnappings hit foreigners as Iraq descended into bloody chaos not seen since Saddam Hussein's fall a year ago.
A previously unknown Iraqi group said it was holding three Japanese hostages and threatened to "burn them alive" unless Tokyo withdrew its troops from Iraq within three days.
Rebels seized two Arabs with Israeli identity cards, shown on a video tape aired by an Iranian television station, and accused them of spying. A Briton was missing after being kidnapped in the southern town of Nassiriya.
Seven South Koreans, all evangelical church pastors, were seized by armed men but later freed unharmed. The Koreans told Reuters in a Baghdad hotel they had been kidnapped on a road north of the capital.
The top U.S. general in Iraq, Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez, acknowledged the southern towns of Najaf and Kut were in the hands of a militia loyal to radical Shi'ite Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr.
On the eve of the anniversary of Baghdad's capture, U.S.-led forces were locked in open urban warfare in the central Sunni town of Falluja, the Shi'ite shrine city of Kerbala and Abu Ghraib on the western outskirts of the capital, witnesses said.
...
TWO-FRONT FIGHTING
Thirty-five American and allied soldiers and hundreds of Iraqis have been killed in this week's new two-front fighting in Iraq. Previously violence had been largely confined to Sunni areas and Washington had blamed attacks on Saddam supporters and foreign Islamic militants.
Bush has vowed the violence will not force the United States to retreat from Baghdad or disrupt its planned handover of power to Iraqis on June 30.
But a U.S. opinion poll on Monday showed plunging support for Bush's handling of Iraq and signs of nervousness have emerged among some other countries with troops in the country.
The rash of kidnappings will probably cause more soul-searching among U.S. allies. About 125,000 U.S. troops and some 20,000 from other nations, including Britain, Japan and South Korea, are in Iraq.
end of snip>
Tell me how this is getting better and how we are going to hand over the "power" to who-knows-who on June 30?
Just wonderin'.
Claim vs. Fact: Rice's Q&A Testimony Before the 9/11 Commission
Here at the site for the Center for American Progress they have a good rundown on the facts vs. what Condi claimed today in her testimony/filibuster.
Check it Out!
Check it Out!
Stonewalling and Lies Exposed
Rice Clashes with 9/11 Commission on Al Qaeda
The most important part of testimony today is what we learned about the August 6, 2001 memo. Remember W was talking to his cows during his month long vacation at this time. I don't know how much clearer it could have been and now we know why they have up till now refused to release this info. We learned;
snip>
Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, was the first of the 10 members of the bipartisan panel to challenge Rice, focusing particularly on a briefing given to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at which a document was presented entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
As members of the audience, including some family members of 9/11 victims applauded, Ben-Veniste demanded that the report be declassified. He said even its title had been kept secret until now. Rice said it contained no specific threats.
"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting," she said.
end of snip>
I'm sorry but what planet is she living on? "Determined to attack" is not a historical statement but rather a prediction statement. To me this shows that they have been lying, parsing and suppressing the facts that all the critics have said they ignored including Clarke, O'Niell and the rest.
We need ALL the records now and not just what they want to give us to cover their butts.
Game, Set and Match.
The most important part of testimony today is what we learned about the August 6, 2001 memo. Remember W was talking to his cows during his month long vacation at this time. I don't know how much clearer it could have been and now we know why they have up till now refused to release this info. We learned;
snip>
Commissioner Richard Ben-Veniste, a Democrat, was the first of the 10 members of the bipartisan panel to challenge Rice, focusing particularly on a briefing given to Bush on Aug. 6, 2001, at which a document was presented entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Attack Inside the United States."
As members of the audience, including some family members of 9/11 victims applauded, Ben-Veniste demanded that the report be declassified. He said even its title had been kept secret until now. Rice said it contained no specific threats.
"It did not warn of attacks inside the United States. It was historical information based on old reporting," she said.
end of snip>
I'm sorry but what planet is she living on? "Determined to attack" is not a historical statement but rather a prediction statement. To me this shows that they have been lying, parsing and suppressing the facts that all the critics have said they ignored including Clarke, O'Niell and the rest.
We need ALL the records now and not just what they want to give us to cover their butts.
Game, Set and Match.
Condi's Testimony
I'm not going to do an in depth discussion or analysis of her testimony but one word does come to mind while I sort of listen. Filibuster. It seems she gives long winded answers to simple questions so as to avoid having to answer more questions as time runs out.
On Edit: I see Bob Kerrey agrees with my assessment. Filibuster.
Neal Pollack has a pretty good summary of her testimony if you are interested.
On Edit: I see Bob Kerrey agrees with my assessment. Filibuster.
Neal Pollack has a pretty good summary of her testimony if you are interested.
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
What was it Richard Clarke said?
U.S. Terrorism Policy Spawns Steady Staff Exodus
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.
Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said.
"I'm kind of hoping for regime change," one official who quit told Reuters.
The administration's handling of the battle against terrorism is a key issue for the presidency, and could be key to Bush's re-election effort.
Similar charges were made by Bush's former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who told the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the administration ignored the al Qaeda threat beforehand and was fixated on Iraq afterward. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifies (lies) before the 9/11 panel on Thursday.
"Iraq has been a distraction from the whole counterterrorism effort," said the former official, adding the policy had frustrated many in the White House anti-terrorism office, about two-thirds of whom have left and been replaced since Sept. 11.
more at link but this is another strong indication that Clarke spoke nothing but the truth and the mis-administration is blowing smoke at the American people. Time for regime change indeed.
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Since the Sept. 11 attacks, the Bush administration has faced a steady exodus of counterterrorism officials, many disappointed by a preoccupation with Iraq they said undermined the U.S. fight against terrorism.
Former counterterrorism officials said at least half a dozen have left the White House Office for Combating Terrorism or related agencies in frustration in the 2 1/2 years since the attacks.
Some also left because they felt President Bush had sidelined his counterterrorism experts and paid almost exclusive heed to the vice president, the defense secretary and other Cabinet members in planning the "war on terror," former counterterrorism officials said.
"I'm kind of hoping for regime change," one official who quit told Reuters.
The administration's handling of the battle against terrorism is a key issue for the presidency, and could be key to Bush's re-election effort.
Similar charges were made by Bush's former counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who told the independent commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that the administration ignored the al Qaeda threat beforehand and was fixated on Iraq afterward. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice testifies (lies) before the 9/11 panel on Thursday.
"Iraq has been a distraction from the whole counterterrorism effort," said the former official, adding the policy had frustrated many in the White House anti-terrorism office, about two-thirds of whom have left and been replaced since Sept. 11.
more at link but this is another strong indication that Clarke spoke nothing but the truth and the mis-administration is blowing smoke at the American people. Time for regime change indeed.
On the Eve of Condi's Testimony
BBC NEWS - Iraq's anxious anniversary
Twelve months on from the start of the war, there are still almost 124,000 US troops in Iraq. An operation with one US platoon gives the BBC's Paul Wood an insight in to the current military and political situation.
...
What was most upsetting about this, his platoon told me, was how some Iraqis had come out to celebrate, dancing around the charred wreckage of his jeep. Like a lot of US soldiers, they thought they would just come to Iraq, liberate it, and go home.
"I thought it would be a lot more peaceful here because I believed that the Iraqi people all wanted to be free," said Sergeant Leecharde Bersamina, a medic with the 1-37.
...
Away from the protest, another Shia man told me: "We have freedom but there is no order in Iraq, it is chaos. They promised us things, the Americans, but they didn't deliver."
He added: "We want them to rebuild Iraq. We're thankful for them [liberating us] but the bridge near my village is still broken - and we need them to repair it."
That is the kind of remark you hear most often from Iraqis. They are glad that the dictator who once terrorised them is gone. But they think Iraq is a mess - and that it's the Coalition's job to fix it.
end of snip>
Not all the news is bad but the administration has a lot of explaining to do. Let's hope Condi starts with the truth tomorrow.
Twelve months on from the start of the war, there are still almost 124,000 US troops in Iraq. An operation with one US platoon gives the BBC's Paul Wood an insight in to the current military and political situation.
...
What was most upsetting about this, his platoon told me, was how some Iraqis had come out to celebrate, dancing around the charred wreckage of his jeep. Like a lot of US soldiers, they thought they would just come to Iraq, liberate it, and go home.
"I thought it would be a lot more peaceful here because I believed that the Iraqi people all wanted to be free," said Sergeant Leecharde Bersamina, a medic with the 1-37.
...
Away from the protest, another Shia man told me: "We have freedom but there is no order in Iraq, it is chaos. They promised us things, the Americans, but they didn't deliver."
He added: "We want them to rebuild Iraq. We're thankful for them [liberating us] but the bridge near my village is still broken - and we need them to repair it."
That is the kind of remark you hear most often from Iraqis. They are glad that the dictator who once terrorised them is gone. But they think Iraq is a mess - and that it's the Coalition's job to fix it.
end of snip>
Not all the news is bad but the administration has a lot of explaining to do. Let's hope Condi starts with the truth tomorrow.
Journey to Hell...
An Amazing Trip
This is not political in the traditional sense but think about the environment and what W is doing to it while you take this trip.
This is not political in the traditional sense but think about the environment and what W is doing to it while you take this trip.
Wow!
Try and figure out what all these photos have in common.
Thanks to Atrios for the link. As he notes, this is really disturbing.
I wonder if any news media will point this out?
Thanks to Atrios for the link. As he notes, this is really disturbing.
I wonder if any news media will point this out?
Just the Facts Ma'am
MSNBC - Presidents and employment trends
snips>
Employment began slipping in mid-2001, just a few months after George W. Bush was sworn in as president. The nation lost almost 1.9 million jobs during the first three years of Bush's administration, based on annual averages compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
...
Reagan emerged as the leader, with 53 of the 100 markets posting their highest job-growth rates during his administration. Thirty-eight markets enjoyed their strongest growth under Clinton, and nine reached their peak under George H.W. Bush. No markets did best under the current administration.
The flip side was dominated by George W. Bush, with 79 markets registering their lowest job-growth rates during his tenure. Eighteen hit bottom under his father, two did worst under Reagan and one reached its nadir during Clinton's administration.
...
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Overall breakdown: Ninety-five markets added jobs during Reagan's eight years in the White House. Just four areas suffered losses. (Reagan-era employment statistics are unavailable for the 100th market, Colorado Springs.) The 99 metros, taken together, picked up 12 million jobs. (btw, the largest area of growth was Wash. D.C as Reagan expanded the government he hated so much.)
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Overall breakdown:The common image of the elder Bush's administration is one of economic recession and job losses. The facts are different. Eighty of the top 100 markets actually increased employment, though at a slower pace than they did under Reagan. The group's total gain was 1.5 million jobs.
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Overall breakdown: Honolulu had cause for economic complaints during the Clinton era, but no one else really did. Ninety-nine major markets increased employment while Clinton was president, running up a total gain of 15.3 million jobs. Honolulu was the only place to suffer a drop.
George W. Bush (2001-)
Overall breakdown: The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession began in March 2001, the dawn of the younger Bush's administration, though it adds that it might eventually revise the date to late 2000, when Clinton was still in office. Sixty-three markets have lost jobs since he took office, while 36 have added employment. (Allentown, Pa., is unchanged.) The total loss for the top 100: 1.4 million jobs.
end of snip>
A lot more info at the site including the cities studied and breakdown of absolute percentage gain and loss issues.
Hey Folks, the stats don't lie. George Heerbert Hoover Bush is running for re-selection. I guess we need another tax cut for millionaires eh?
snips>
Employment began slipping in mid-2001, just a few months after George W. Bush was sworn in as president. The nation lost almost 1.9 million jobs during the first three years of Bush's administration, based on annual averages compiled by the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics.
...
Reagan emerged as the leader, with 53 of the 100 markets posting their highest job-growth rates during his administration. Thirty-eight markets enjoyed their strongest growth under Clinton, and nine reached their peak under George H.W. Bush. No markets did best under the current administration.
The flip side was dominated by George W. Bush, with 79 markets registering their lowest job-growth rates during his tenure. Eighteen hit bottom under his father, two did worst under Reagan and one reached its nadir during Clinton's administration.
...
Ronald Reagan (1981-1989)
Overall breakdown: Ninety-five markets added jobs during Reagan's eight years in the White House. Just four areas suffered losses. (Reagan-era employment statistics are unavailable for the 100th market, Colorado Springs.) The 99 metros, taken together, picked up 12 million jobs. (btw, the largest area of growth was Wash. D.C as Reagan expanded the government he hated so much.)
George H.W. Bush (1989-1993)
Overall breakdown:The common image of the elder Bush's administration is one of economic recession and job losses. The facts are different. Eighty of the top 100 markets actually increased employment, though at a slower pace than they did under Reagan. The group's total gain was 1.5 million jobs.
Bill Clinton (1993-2001)
Overall breakdown: Honolulu had cause for economic complaints during the Clinton era, but no one else really did. Ninety-nine major markets increased employment while Clinton was president, running up a total gain of 15.3 million jobs. Honolulu was the only place to suffer a drop.
George W. Bush (2001-)
Overall breakdown: The nonpartisan National Bureau of Economic Research says the recession began in March 2001, the dawn of the younger Bush's administration, though it adds that it might eventually revise the date to late 2000, when Clinton was still in office. Sixty-three markets have lost jobs since he took office, while 36 have added employment. (Allentown, Pa., is unchanged.) The total loss for the top 100: 1.4 million jobs.
end of snip>
A lot more info at the site including the cities studied and breakdown of absolute percentage gain and loss issues.
Hey Folks, the stats don't lie. George Heerbert Hoover Bush is running for re-selection. I guess we need another tax cut for millionaires eh?
MSNBC - Campaign Ad Watch Front Page
MSNBC - Campaign Ad Watch Front Page
Check out this MSNBC site that allegedly gives a Realitycheck (shoulda trademarked that name) to the ads that both sides are showing on TV. I think the breakdowns are poorly done but there is a clear pattern.
All the Bushco ads have clear misrepresentations and almost out and out lies in them about Kerry's record. The Kerry ads on the other hand are much more on point and even the "critics" at MSNBC don't say they are as off base or misleading even if they are a little vague in spots.
Bookmark this site and check back on occasion.
Here's a sample:
Bush ad analysis:
ANALYSIS by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press writer: The commercial is another attempt in the Bush campaign's effort to define Kerry for voters as a liberal tax-raiser.
The ad doesn't say outright that Kerry voted for higher taxes, but suggests that by saying he "supported" or "opposed." The Bush-Cheney campaign says the ad is based largely on Kerry's voting record during 19 years in the Senate. However, some of the votes referenced in the ad were not outright votes for or against an issue. Rather, they were procedural or included in larger bills with many other items.
In the Senate, Kerry has supported measures that would have meant higher taxes for some, and he currently supports rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, which would mean a tax increase for them. His proposals, though, also call for cutting taxes on the middle class, some married couples and families with children.
The claim that Kerry supported higher taxes 350 times is based on a range of Kerry's votes, including some in favor of leaving taxes unchanged when Republicans proposed cuts, and others that were in favor of lower tax cuts than had been proposed.
The claim that Kerry would raise taxes by at least $900 billion in his first 100 days in office is based on the Bush campaign's calculation for how much Kerry's health care plan would cost and its assumption about how he would pay for it. Kerry has not proposed such a tax increase.
Lastly, the claim that Kerry supports a 50-cent increase in the gas tax is based on 1994 quotes in two Boston newspapers in which he expressed support for such an increase. However, his support was brief, he never voted on such a bill and he says he longer holds that view.
Kerry Ad analysis;
ANALYSIS, by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press writer: The ad is meant to exploit a Bush vulnerability, more than 2 million jobs lost under his administration, and highlight Kerry's recently released economic plan. But going negative is risky for Kerry because he's not well known, and, therefore, the ad could give voters an initial, negative impression of him. (this is a criticism of the ad? nice spin Liz)
The ad claims that Bush said outsourcing jobs "makes sense." While he never uttered that phrase, it is included in the president's 2004 economic report, which was released in February and was signed by Bush.
And, his chief economist initially suggested that shipping U.S. service jobs overseas could be good for the economy, but N. Gregory Mankiw, the current chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, later said his comments were misconstrued. Treasury Secretary John Snow drew criticism for similar comments.
Bush's campaign says his economic plan is about creating more jobs in America, not about outsourcing.
Kerry's economic plan calls for lowering corporate taxes by 5 percent to promote job creation while eliminating tax incentives that send work overseas. The goal is to create 10 million new jobs.
(emphasis mine)
Check out this MSNBC site that allegedly gives a Realitycheck (shoulda trademarked that name) to the ads that both sides are showing on TV. I think the breakdowns are poorly done but there is a clear pattern.
All the Bushco ads have clear misrepresentations and almost out and out lies in them about Kerry's record. The Kerry ads on the other hand are much more on point and even the "critics" at MSNBC don't say they are as off base or misleading even if they are a little vague in spots.
Bookmark this site and check back on occasion.
Here's a sample:
Bush ad analysis:
ANALYSIS by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press writer: The commercial is another attempt in the Bush campaign's effort to define Kerry for voters as a liberal tax-raiser.
The ad doesn't say outright that Kerry voted for higher taxes, but suggests that by saying he "supported" or "opposed." The Bush-Cheney campaign says the ad is based largely on Kerry's voting record during 19 years in the Senate. However, some of the votes referenced in the ad were not outright votes for or against an issue. Rather, they were procedural or included in larger bills with many other items.
In the Senate, Kerry has supported measures that would have meant higher taxes for some, and he currently supports rolling back Bush's tax cuts for the wealthiest taxpayers, which would mean a tax increase for them. His proposals, though, also call for cutting taxes on the middle class, some married couples and families with children.
The claim that Kerry supported higher taxes 350 times is based on a range of Kerry's votes, including some in favor of leaving taxes unchanged when Republicans proposed cuts, and others that were in favor of lower tax cuts than had been proposed.
The claim that Kerry would raise taxes by at least $900 billion in his first 100 days in office is based on the Bush campaign's calculation for how much Kerry's health care plan would cost and its assumption about how he would pay for it. Kerry has not proposed such a tax increase.
Lastly, the claim that Kerry supports a 50-cent increase in the gas tax is based on 1994 quotes in two Boston newspapers in which he expressed support for such an increase. However, his support was brief, he never voted on such a bill and he says he longer holds that view.
Kerry Ad analysis;
ANALYSIS, by Liz Sidoti, Associated Press writer: The ad is meant to exploit a Bush vulnerability, more than 2 million jobs lost under his administration, and highlight Kerry's recently released economic plan. But going negative is risky for Kerry because he's not well known, and, therefore, the ad could give voters an initial, negative impression of him. (this is a criticism of the ad? nice spin Liz)
The ad claims that Bush said outsourcing jobs "makes sense." While he never uttered that phrase, it is included in the president's 2004 economic report, which was released in February and was signed by Bush.
And, his chief economist initially suggested that shipping U.S. service jobs overseas could be good for the economy, but N. Gregory Mankiw, the current chairman of the president's Council of Economic Advisers, later said his comments were misconstrued. Treasury Secretary John Snow drew criticism for similar comments.
Bush's campaign says his economic plan is about creating more jobs in America, not about outsourcing.
Kerry's economic plan calls for lowering corporate taxes by 5 percent to promote job creation while eliminating tax incentives that send work overseas. The goal is to create 10 million new jobs.
(emphasis mine)
Iraq rocked by fiercest fighting since war's end
MSNBC - Iraq rocked by fiercest fighting since war's end
What is wrong with this headline? Has the war ended and I'm not aware? I thought the war on terror(ism) would never end at least under Bush.
Yesterday, Sean Hannity (R-Moron) was arguing with a caller and saying that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate because it was a continuation of the first gulf war due to Iraq violating the cease fire conditions set down in 1991. The caller said nobody in their right mind would say that this invasion was a continuation but Hannity kept saying it was. Hannity's big claim was that Saddam had not given up his WMD's as he had agreed to do under the terms of the cease fire. Now from what I've seen, there were no WMD's so in fact Saddam HAD given them up (we can argue the details if he ever knew he had them or not) therefore the invasion according to Hannity's logic, was unjustified.
We have slipped through the looking glass indeed if the war we are having is the fiercest fighting since war's end and we invaded Iraq because they wouldn't give up the WMD's they didn't have in the first place. Somebody help me out here? Is it 1984?
What is wrong with this headline? Has the war ended and I'm not aware? I thought the war on terror(ism) would never end at least under Bush.
Yesterday, Sean Hannity (R-Moron) was arguing with a caller and saying that the invasion of Iraq was legitimate because it was a continuation of the first gulf war due to Iraq violating the cease fire conditions set down in 1991. The caller said nobody in their right mind would say that this invasion was a continuation but Hannity kept saying it was. Hannity's big claim was that Saddam had not given up his WMD's as he had agreed to do under the terms of the cease fire. Now from what I've seen, there were no WMD's so in fact Saddam HAD given them up (we can argue the details if he ever knew he had them or not) therefore the invasion according to Hannity's logic, was unjustified.
We have slipped through the looking glass indeed if the war we are having is the fiercest fighting since war's end and we invaded Iraq because they wouldn't give up the WMD's they didn't have in the first place. Somebody help me out here? Is it 1984?
Do They Ever Tell The Truth?
White House criticism disputed
Dealing with criticism that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wouldn't testify in public before the 10-member commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained last month that when she testified in private, "only five members showed up" to hear what she had to say.
What McClellan didn't tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 - long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February - the White House counsel's office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank.
Given that demand, "we are a little surprised that the White House has repeatedly implied to the public that commissioners were uninterested in attending these meetings," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said Tuesday.
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who did not attend the interview with Rice on Feb. 7, said she finds it "infuriating" that the White House would insinuate commissioners shirked their duty and didn't have a right to press for more time with Rice. "That's hooey," she said.
Drip, Drip, Drip...
Dealing with criticism that national security adviser Condoleezza Rice wouldn't testify in public before the 10-member commission investigating the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks, White House spokesman Scott McClellan complained last month that when she testified in private, "only five members showed up" to hear what she had to say.
What McClellan didn't tell reporters was that on Nov. 21 - long before Rice met with the five commissioners in February - the White House counsel's office had sent the commission a letter saying no more than three commissioners could attend meetings with White House aides of Rice's rank.
Given that demand, "we are a little surprised that the White House has repeatedly implied to the public that commissioners were uninterested in attending these meetings," commission spokesman Al Felzenberg said Tuesday.
Commissioner Jamie Gorelick, who did not attend the interview with Rice on Feb. 7, said she finds it "infuriating" that the White House would insinuate commissioners shirked their duty and didn't have a right to press for more time with Rice. "That's hooey," she said.
Drip, Drip, Drip...
This Can't Be Good
US Checking Report of Iraq Mosque Attack
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is looking into a report that U.S. missiles hit a mosque in the restive Iraqi city of Falluja, killing about 40 people, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
"We've seen those reports and are looking into it," a senior Bush administration official said of The Associated Press report, which quoted witnesses in the city.
end of snip>
More Info Here
If true, this does not bode well for the soldiers or the overall situation in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world. The Mosques are considered holy by the Muslims and if we have destroyed one whether on purpose or not, this will inflame even those who are not actively fighting our soldiers.
I suspect that it is known amongst the fighters that the US and coalition fighters are hesitant to fire on Mosque's throughout the Muslim world for just this reason. Therefore, I suspect they confidently use the Mosques as bases and supply areas as well as hide outs ala Sadr. Clearly the soldiers can and likely are put in a tough position if they are being fired on from a Mosque. Do they return fire and protect themselves or do they retreat so as not to inflame the population leaving the bad guys to fight another day? Not something we want to be dealing with and I don't have an answer.
But let's do a quick re-cap shall we?
A year ago, the pro-war crowd told us that as we liberated Iraq, our brave soldiers would be greeted with flowers and cheers. We were told we were going in because Saddam had WMD's that were deployable in 45 minutes and maybe nukes. There was massive looting that did more damage to Iraq's infrastructure than all the bombing combined. The war mongers hadn't planned for that and Rummy said that looting is what free people do. It then became clear that a post battle plan did not exist.
Naysayers and those opposed to the war said that we would not be greeted with flowers and applause and that there was a huge possibility that we would be fighting house to house against the Saddam loyalists and others opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It was also postulated that there were no WMD's based on those who really knew and that if we invaded Iraq we would need to be there for years to come.
Today. over one year later - No WMD's, no stable government or police force, almost daily US casualties, current house to house fighting that seems to be getting worse, no exit strategy, and no way we can abandon the country to the inevitable Civil War.
Nice work Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con supporters.
My Ass!
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The United States is looking into a report that U.S. missiles hit a mosque in the restive Iraqi city of Falluja, killing about 40 people, U.S. officials said on Wednesday.
"We've seen those reports and are looking into it," a senior Bush administration official said of The Associated Press report, which quoted witnesses in the city.
end of snip>
More Info Here
If true, this does not bode well for the soldiers or the overall situation in Iraq and throughout the Muslim world. The Mosques are considered holy by the Muslims and if we have destroyed one whether on purpose or not, this will inflame even those who are not actively fighting our soldiers.
I suspect that it is known amongst the fighters that the US and coalition fighters are hesitant to fire on Mosque's throughout the Muslim world for just this reason. Therefore, I suspect they confidently use the Mosques as bases and supply areas as well as hide outs ala Sadr. Clearly the soldiers can and likely are put in a tough position if they are being fired on from a Mosque. Do they return fire and protect themselves or do they retreat so as not to inflame the population leaving the bad guys to fight another day? Not something we want to be dealing with and I don't have an answer.
But let's do a quick re-cap shall we?
A year ago, the pro-war crowd told us that as we liberated Iraq, our brave soldiers would be greeted with flowers and cheers. We were told we were going in because Saddam had WMD's that were deployable in 45 minutes and maybe nukes. There was massive looting that did more damage to Iraq's infrastructure than all the bombing combined. The war mongers hadn't planned for that and Rummy said that looting is what free people do. It then became clear that a post battle plan did not exist.
Naysayers and those opposed to the war said that we would not be greeted with flowers and applause and that there was a huge possibility that we would be fighting house to house against the Saddam loyalists and others opposed to the invasion of Iraq. It was also postulated that there were no WMD's based on those who really knew and that if we invaded Iraq we would need to be there for years to come.
Today. over one year later - No WMD's, no stable government or police force, almost daily US casualties, current house to house fighting that seems to be getting worse, no exit strategy, and no way we can abandon the country to the inevitable Civil War.
Nice work Mr. Bush and your Neo-Con supporters.
My Ass!
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Back at ya Dick
From the John Kerry for President - DBunker ::
KERRY BACKED EFFORT TO STOP CHENEY GAS PRICE HIKE
BUSH FICTION: Bush Ad: Kerry “supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax.”
FACT: John Kerry has never sponsored or voted for a 50 cent gas tax increase. When Sen. Charles Robb introduced legislation in 1993 that phased in a 50-cent increase, John Kerry chose not to vote for or co-sponsor this bill. (S. 1068, Introduced 5/28/93) It’s George Bush who has broken his promise to lead the way to a sustainable energy policy. His refusal to stand up to his big oil contributors has contributed to the highest gas prices in history – an effective $245 tax increase on American families and commuters.
Kerry opposed a Dick Cheney plan that would have raised gas prices by prices by $1.2 trillion and cut 400,000 jobs.
In 1986, then-Congressman Dick Cheney proposed a tax on oil that would have raised gasoline prices and laid 400,000 workers off. Despite this bill, the Bush-Cheney campaign claims that they are interested in lower gas prices and opposed to higher taxes.
Senator Kerry helped stop Cheney’s proposed gas price hike, co-sponsoring for a resolution in opposition to the plan. Even Cheney’s fellow Republican lawmakers opposed his gas price hike -- 15 Senators joined Kerry to sponsor a resolution in 1987 to stop Cheney’s bill.
Cheney Opposed Low Oil Prices
In October 1986, Cheney introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have increased the price of oil and ultimately the price of gasoline by billions of dollars per year. On the House floor Cheney said “let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.” [Energy Security Policy Act of 1986, H.R.5667, introduced 10/9/86, 99th Congress 2nd Session, 132 Cong Rec E 1350, Vol. 132, No. 139; Inside Energy/with Federal Lands, 10/13/86]
Cheney Bill would Cost Consumers $1.2 Trillion
The Congressional Research Service, in coordination with staffers from the Senate Energy Committee, studied the effects of Cheney’s bill on consumers. The report states that if Cheney’s plan had been enacted in 1986 it would have cost consumers $1.2 trillion. [New York Times, 4/6/04]
Bill Would Have Led to Loss of 400,000 jobs
Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, a Republican, said in February 1987 that the proposals would add $1.3 billion per year to the energy costs of Pennsylvania consumers. He also cited a study done for a Federal Reserve Bank suggesting that a $5 per barrel fee would lead to the loss of 400,000 jobs nationwide and cause inflation to soar. [New York Times, 4/5/04; S.RES.97, introduced 02/03/87]
Kerry and 15 Senators from Both Parties Joined in Opposition to Cheney’s Bill
On February 3rd, 1987, John Kerry and 15 Senators cosponsored a resolution in opposition to import fees and taxes on oil, including Republican Senators John Heinz and Alphonse D’Amato. Senator Pell said that “the truth is that an oil import fee is not a good idea and would certainly not be painless for consumers. An oil import fee would impose heavy new costs on all who use oil and oil products in manufacturing and production. It would also impose higher costs on all who heat their homes with oil or use oil-generated electricity. In addition, by increasing the production costs of energy and raw materials, an oil import fee would make American manufacturers far less competitive in world markets—a situation certainly not tolerable with today's current trade imbalance. [S.RES.97, introduced, 2/3/87; 100th Congress 1st Session, Congressional Record Vol. 133 No. 16, S 1624]
Bush-Cheney Campaign Refuse to Acknowledge Cheney’s Call for Higher Taxes
When asked about Cheney’s bill to increase oil taxes, Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said that “President Bush and Vice President Cheney want to keep taxes low and keep the economy moving. They have proposed an energy plan that will provide for a stable, affordable and secure energy supply.”
While the Bush-Cheney campaign failed to acknowledge the higher tax and gas prices as a result of Cheney’s bill, Cheney’s office refused to comment about the bill. [New York Times, 4/5/04]
more at the link...
Can't wait for the VP debate, that is if Cheney will allow one. Maybe he will just co-debate with W who doesn't seem to be able to handle one on ones very well by himself.
KERRY BACKED EFFORT TO STOP CHENEY GAS PRICE HIKE
BUSH FICTION: Bush Ad: Kerry “supported a 50-cent-a-gallon gas tax.”
FACT: John Kerry has never sponsored or voted for a 50 cent gas tax increase. When Sen. Charles Robb introduced legislation in 1993 that phased in a 50-cent increase, John Kerry chose not to vote for or co-sponsor this bill. (S. 1068, Introduced 5/28/93) It’s George Bush who has broken his promise to lead the way to a sustainable energy policy. His refusal to stand up to his big oil contributors has contributed to the highest gas prices in history – an effective $245 tax increase on American families and commuters.
Kerry opposed a Dick Cheney plan that would have raised gas prices by prices by $1.2 trillion and cut 400,000 jobs.
In 1986, then-Congressman Dick Cheney proposed a tax on oil that would have raised gasoline prices and laid 400,000 workers off. Despite this bill, the Bush-Cheney campaign claims that they are interested in lower gas prices and opposed to higher taxes.
Senator Kerry helped stop Cheney’s proposed gas price hike, co-sponsoring for a resolution in opposition to the plan. Even Cheney’s fellow Republican lawmakers opposed his gas price hike -- 15 Senators joined Kerry to sponsor a resolution in 1987 to stop Cheney’s bill.
Cheney Opposed Low Oil Prices
In October 1986, Cheney introduced legislation to create a new import tax that would have increased the price of oil and ultimately the price of gasoline by billions of dollars per year. On the House floor Cheney said “let us rid ourselves of the fiction that low oil prices are somehow good for the United States.” [Energy Security Policy Act of 1986, H.R.5667, introduced 10/9/86, 99th Congress 2nd Session, 132 Cong Rec E 1350, Vol. 132, No. 139; Inside Energy/with Federal Lands, 10/13/86]
Cheney Bill would Cost Consumers $1.2 Trillion
The Congressional Research Service, in coordination with staffers from the Senate Energy Committee, studied the effects of Cheney’s bill on consumers. The report states that if Cheney’s plan had been enacted in 1986 it would have cost consumers $1.2 trillion. [New York Times, 4/6/04]
Bill Would Have Led to Loss of 400,000 jobs
Senator John Heinz of Pennsylvania, a Republican, said in February 1987 that the proposals would add $1.3 billion per year to the energy costs of Pennsylvania consumers. He also cited a study done for a Federal Reserve Bank suggesting that a $5 per barrel fee would lead to the loss of 400,000 jobs nationwide and cause inflation to soar. [New York Times, 4/5/04; S.RES.97, introduced 02/03/87]
Kerry and 15 Senators from Both Parties Joined in Opposition to Cheney’s Bill
On February 3rd, 1987, John Kerry and 15 Senators cosponsored a resolution in opposition to import fees and taxes on oil, including Republican Senators John Heinz and Alphonse D’Amato. Senator Pell said that “the truth is that an oil import fee is not a good idea and would certainly not be painless for consumers. An oil import fee would impose heavy new costs on all who use oil and oil products in manufacturing and production. It would also impose higher costs on all who heat their homes with oil or use oil-generated electricity. In addition, by increasing the production costs of energy and raw materials, an oil import fee would make American manufacturers far less competitive in world markets—a situation certainly not tolerable with today's current trade imbalance. [S.RES.97, introduced, 2/3/87; 100th Congress 1st Session, Congressional Record Vol. 133 No. 16, S 1624]
Bush-Cheney Campaign Refuse to Acknowledge Cheney’s Call for Higher Taxes
When asked about Cheney’s bill to increase oil taxes, Scott Stanzel, a spokesman for the Bush-Cheney campaign, said that “President Bush and Vice President Cheney want to keep taxes low and keep the economy moving. They have proposed an energy plan that will provide for a stable, affordable and secure energy supply.”
While the Bush-Cheney campaign failed to acknowledge the higher tax and gas prices as a result of Cheney’s bill, Cheney’s office refused to comment about the bill. [New York Times, 4/5/04]
more at the link...
Can't wait for the VP debate, that is if Cheney will allow one. Maybe he will just co-debate with W who doesn't seem to be able to handle one on ones very well by himself.
At Least 12 US Soldiers Killed
Raging battles in Iraq all day and at least 12 US Soldiers killed in Ramadi.
It may be much Worse
Details to follow.
12 weeks until the handover to Iraqis. Anyone know who we are handing Iraq over to and what the plan is after that? Anyone? Apparently the Senate doesn't know and they are going to be asked to sign a big check in the future.
It may be much Worse
Details to follow.
12 weeks until the handover to Iraqis. Anyone know who we are handing Iraq over to and what the plan is after that? Anyone? Apparently the Senate doesn't know and they are going to be asked to sign a big check in the future.
Bummer for Rush!
Police begin massive roundup of drug dealers
HAZARD, Kentucky (AP) -- Authorities in eastern Kentucky began arresting more than 200 suspected drug dealers Tuesday in the state's biggest crackdown yet on OxyContin, the powerful prescription painkiller blamed for scores of deaths.
HAZARD, Kentucky (AP) -- Authorities in eastern Kentucky began arresting more than 200 suspected drug dealers Tuesday in the state's biggest crackdown yet on OxyContin, the powerful prescription painkiller blamed for scores of deaths.
Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf
CNN.com - Sources: Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf - Apr 6, 2004
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.
Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.
The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.
end of snip>
This is good right? I don't think so and now our troops won't be rotated home as promised as noted Here and here are just a few of the latest headlines;
Alleged Tape by Zarqawi Vows More Iraq Attacks
Report: Blix Says Iraq Worse Off After War
20 GIs, 100 Iraqis Killed Since Weekend
Pentagon Report on Afghanistan Criticizes War Strategy
Rumsfeld Backs More Iraq Troops if Needed
Yeah, things are going swimmingly.
BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
The source said al-Sadr's followers controlled the governor's office, police stations and the Imam Ali mosque, one of Shia Muslim's holiest shrines.
Iraqi police were negotiating to regain their stations, the source said.
The source also said al-Sadr was busing followers into Najaf from Sadr City in Baghdad and that many members of his outlawed militia, Mehdi's Army, were from surrounding provinces.
end of snip>
This is good right? I don't think so and now our troops won't be rotated home as promised as noted Here and here are just a few of the latest headlines;
Alleged Tape by Zarqawi Vows More Iraq Attacks
Report: Blix Says Iraq Worse Off After War
20 GIs, 100 Iraqis Killed Since Weekend
Pentagon Report on Afghanistan Criticizes War Strategy
Rumsfeld Backs More Iraq Troops if Needed
Yeah, things are going swimmingly.
'The Dirty Little Secret of the Tax Cut' from Newsweek
Click The Picture at the Link.
Bush's Tax Cut Plan Would Ultimately 'Make It Harder For People Who Start Out With Nothing to Earn Their Way Up The Economic Ladder,' Writes Sloan 'Private Whispering Among Experts Left to Right Is That Some Sort of National Sales Tax Is Inevitable...'
NEW YORK, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," President George W. Bush's ultimate tax cut plan would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make; but it would shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs, reports Wall Street Editor Allan Sloan in the April 12 Newsweek cover story (on newsstands Monday, April 5). Sloan takes a closer look at the tax package to see who's really benefiting and finds that, if you factor in all levies, most of us are getting much less of a percentage cut than we've been led to believe.
Until now, the public debate over the trillions of dollars of tax cuts Bush has pushed through has played out along predictable, partisan lines, reports Sloan in an installment of Newsweek's "Issues 2004" series on important debates in the presidential race. Bush argues that cutting taxes for all Americans stimulates the economy and will make everyone more prosperous, meanwhile his opponents say the bulk of the tax cuts have gone to the well- off. Bush has been open about each item he wants, but he's not been at all forthcoming about the ultimate effect of his program. If Bush gets what he wants, the income tax will become a misnomer -- it will really be a salary tax, argues Sloan.
Under Bush's ultimate plan, almost all income taxes would come from tax on paychecks-80 percent of income for most families, less than half for the top 1 percent, reports Sloan. Meanwhile taxpayers receiving dividends, interest and capital gains, known collectively as investment income, would have a much lighter burden than salary earners-or maybe none at all. In the name of preserving family farms and keeping small businesses in the family, Bush would eliminate the estate tax and create a new class of landed aristocrats who could inherit billions tax-free, invest the money, watch it compound tax-free and hand it down tax-free to their heirs.
With the current rate of spending and tax-cutting, there's no way the government can even remotely balance its books without huge spending cutbacks, which are unlikely, or new sources of revenue, reports Sloan. Bush people talk about growing our way out of budget problems, but that just doesn't seem possible-especially if Bush's two big new proposed tax cuts are adopted. Private whispering among experts from right to left is that some sort of national sales tax is inevitable if we continue current spending patterns, exempt investment income from taxation and try to fix the alternative minimum tax. Who would be affected most by such a "consumption tax"? People who live from paycheck to paycheck, spending virtually every dollar that comes in the door.
end of snip>
Bottom line, if W gets what he wants, we're screwed.
I noted in an earlier post here that trickle down economics which is what this is under a new name does not work and was a sham as outlined by David Stockman who perpetrated it the first time under Reagan. W is trying to finish off the job of making an elite ruling class viable while the rest of us act as serfs to support them.
Wake up people (Bush Supporters) before its too late.
Bush's Tax Cut Plan Would Ultimately 'Make It Harder For People Who Start Out With Nothing to Earn Their Way Up The Economic Ladder,' Writes Sloan 'Private Whispering Among Experts Left to Right Is That Some Sort of National Sales Tax Is Inevitable...'
NEW YORK, April 4 /PRNewswire/ -- By drastically favoring investment income over salary, fees and other "earned income," President George W. Bush's ultimate tax cut plan would make it harder for people who start out with nothing to earn their way up the economic ladder, because they'd pay full taxes on almost everything they make; but it would shower rewards on people who have already made it to the top rungs, reports Wall Street Editor Allan Sloan in the April 12 Newsweek cover story (on newsstands Monday, April 5). Sloan takes a closer look at the tax package to see who's really benefiting and finds that, if you factor in all levies, most of us are getting much less of a percentage cut than we've been led to believe.
Until now, the public debate over the trillions of dollars of tax cuts Bush has pushed through has played out along predictable, partisan lines, reports Sloan in an installment of Newsweek's "Issues 2004" series on important debates in the presidential race. Bush argues that cutting taxes for all Americans stimulates the economy and will make everyone more prosperous, meanwhile his opponents say the bulk of the tax cuts have gone to the well- off. Bush has been open about each item he wants, but he's not been at all forthcoming about the ultimate effect of his program. If Bush gets what he wants, the income tax will become a misnomer -- it will really be a salary tax, argues Sloan.
Under Bush's ultimate plan, almost all income taxes would come from tax on paychecks-80 percent of income for most families, less than half for the top 1 percent, reports Sloan. Meanwhile taxpayers receiving dividends, interest and capital gains, known collectively as investment income, would have a much lighter burden than salary earners-or maybe none at all. In the name of preserving family farms and keeping small businesses in the family, Bush would eliminate the estate tax and create a new class of landed aristocrats who could inherit billions tax-free, invest the money, watch it compound tax-free and hand it down tax-free to their heirs.
With the current rate of spending and tax-cutting, there's no way the government can even remotely balance its books without huge spending cutbacks, which are unlikely, or new sources of revenue, reports Sloan. Bush people talk about growing our way out of budget problems, but that just doesn't seem possible-especially if Bush's two big new proposed tax cuts are adopted. Private whispering among experts from right to left is that some sort of national sales tax is inevitable if we continue current spending patterns, exempt investment income from taxation and try to fix the alternative minimum tax. Who would be affected most by such a "consumption tax"? People who live from paycheck to paycheck, spending virtually every dollar that comes in the door.
end of snip>
Bottom line, if W gets what he wants, we're screwed.
I noted in an earlier post here that trickle down economics which is what this is under a new name does not work and was a sham as outlined by David Stockman who perpetrated it the first time under Reagan. W is trying to finish off the job of making an elite ruling class viable while the rest of us act as serfs to support them.
Wake up people (Bush Supporters) before its too late.
Monday, April 05, 2004
Recipe for a flip-flop or how to make a Sucker
All the President's Suckers
snip>
What do all these flip-floppers have in common? Not subject matter: DiIulio worked on social policy, O'Neill on economics, Clarke on national security. Not party: Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt are Democrats; O'Neill is a Republican; Clarke worked for President Reagan and both Bushes as well as for President Clinton. The only thing they have in common is that they all cooperated with this administration before deciding they'd been conned. Flip-flopping, it turns out, is the final stage of trusting George W. Bush.
That's how Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt got whiplash. They supported tax cuts in 2001 when Bush challenged them to give back some of the surplus. Then the surplus vanished, Bush demanded more tax cuts, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education bill in 2001. Then the administration withheld money for it, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported the Patriot Act after 9/11 when Bush urged them to trust law enforcement. Then the Justice Department took liberties with its new powers, and they decided they'd been conned. They voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq after the administration promised to use the resolution as leverage toward U.N. action, reserving unilateral war as a last resort. Then Bush ditched the United Nations and went to war, and they decided they'd been conned.
When the administration offered them a supposedly $400 billion Medicare bill stuffed with goodies for health insurers and drug companies, they said no. But lots of fiscally conservative House Republicans said yes. Now, thanks to yet another flip-flopping Bush administration whistleblower, those Republicans have discovered that the real bill, concealed by the White House, will be $150 billion higher than advertised. You don't have to be a Democrat to feel conned.
Once you vote with Bush, serve in his cabinet, or spin for him in a classified briefing, you're trapped. If you change your mind, he'll dredge up your friendly vote or testimony and use it to discredit you. That's what he's doing now to all the politicians at home and abroad who fell for his exaggerations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a threat," he tells audiences. "Members of Congress looked at the intelligence information, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence information, and it saw a threat." It's too late to admit that Bush is wrong and that you were fooled. You're on record agreeing with him. He doesn't even look dishonest when he rebukes you, because, unlike the people who run his administration's scams, he can't tell the difference between what he promised and what he delivered.
end of snip>
Who do you think is really telling the truth, Bush and the minions or all these other people both Dems and Repubs who have all done more in their lives for good than GWB could do in two lives.
snip>
What do all these flip-floppers have in common? Not subject matter: DiIulio worked on social policy, O'Neill on economics, Clarke on national security. Not party: Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt are Democrats; O'Neill is a Republican; Clarke worked for President Reagan and both Bushes as well as for President Clinton. The only thing they have in common is that they all cooperated with this administration before deciding they'd been conned. Flip-flopping, it turns out, is the final stage of trusting George W. Bush.
That's how Kerry, Edwards, and Gephardt got whiplash. They supported tax cuts in 2001 when Bush challenged them to give back some of the surplus. Then the surplus vanished, Bush demanded more tax cuts, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported Bush's "No Child Left Behind" education bill in 2001. Then the administration withheld money for it, and they decided they'd been conned. They supported the Patriot Act after 9/11 when Bush urged them to trust law enforcement. Then the Justice Department took liberties with its new powers, and they decided they'd been conned. They voted for a resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq after the administration promised to use the resolution as leverage toward U.N. action, reserving unilateral war as a last resort. Then Bush ditched the United Nations and went to war, and they decided they'd been conned.
When the administration offered them a supposedly $400 billion Medicare bill stuffed with goodies for health insurers and drug companies, they said no. But lots of fiscally conservative House Republicans said yes. Now, thanks to yet another flip-flopping Bush administration whistleblower, those Republicans have discovered that the real bill, concealed by the White House, will be $150 billion higher than advertised. You don't have to be a Democrat to feel conned.
Once you vote with Bush, serve in his cabinet, or spin for him in a classified briefing, you're trapped. If you change your mind, he'll dredge up your friendly vote or testimony and use it to discredit you. That's what he's doing now to all the politicians at home and abroad who fell for his exaggerations about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. "In Iraq, my administration looked at the intelligence information, and we saw a threat," he tells audiences. "Members of Congress looked at the intelligence information, and they saw a threat. The United Nations Security Council looked at the intelligence information, and it saw a threat." It's too late to admit that Bush is wrong and that you were fooled. You're on record agreeing with him. He doesn't even look dishonest when he rebukes you, because, unlike the people who run his administration's scams, he can't tell the difference between what he promised and what he delivered.
end of snip>
Who do you think is really telling the truth, Bush and the minions or all these other people both Dems and Repubs who have all done more in their lives for good than GWB could do in two lives.
Going to Hell in a Bucket
And nobody is enjoying the ride Bank of America plans to cut 12,500 jobs and you can bet these jobs being lost are a lot better paying than the 200K service industry jobs the Bushits were touting so much the last few days. These cuts are a result of the recent merger between BofA and Fleet Boston. Of course the premise of the cuts are to save money which of course helps the bottom line and the stockholders. So much for 12,500 jobs.
The ride to hell goes on with the disaster continuing in Iraq. and the pResident doesn't have a clue.
snip>
U.S. Gulf ally Qatar voiced its own fears of civil war on Monday, calling Iraq "fertile ground for terrorists."
"The developments in Iraq in the last few days are alarming, and we fear that we are facing a civil war," Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said.
U.S. administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, canceled plans to brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday so he could stay in Baghdad, lawmakers said.
Clashes with members of Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim majority have opened a new front for U.S. troops, already struggling to contain attacks by Sunni Muslims. Forty-eight Iraqis, eight American soldiers and one Salvadoran soldier died in fighting on Sunday in Baghdad and the shrine city of Najaf.
After U.S. helicopters opened fire and tanks rumbled through Baghdad's main Shi'ite district on Monday, teen-age militiamen with guns and knives remained firmly in control.
end of snip>
and as far as a clue?
snip>
-- the Observer goes on to warn that, on the basis of personal soundings within the Administration, the conviction arises that the White House has "no concept of how to manage the crisis, no plan in place likely to work." This Observer last week relayed a concern that President Bush was not being given accurate reports from Iraq, but today, one assumes that even a President who prides himself on not reading the newspapers now grasps that things are not necessarily proceeding to our advantage, to borrow an hi
The ride to hell goes on with the disaster continuing in Iraq. and the pResident doesn't have a clue.
snip>
U.S. Gulf ally Qatar voiced its own fears of civil war on Monday, calling Iraq "fertile ground for terrorists."
"The developments in Iraq in the last few days are alarming, and we fear that we are facing a civil war," Qatari Foreign Minister Sheikh Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani said.
U.S. administrator for Iraq, Paul Bremer, canceled plans to brief lawmakers on Capitol Hill on Tuesday so he could stay in Baghdad, lawmakers said.
Clashes with members of Iraq's Shi'ite Muslim majority have opened a new front for U.S. troops, already struggling to contain attacks by Sunni Muslims. Forty-eight Iraqis, eight American soldiers and one Salvadoran soldier died in fighting on Sunday in Baghdad and the shrine city of Najaf.
After U.S. helicopters opened fire and tanks rumbled through Baghdad's main Shi'ite district on Monday, teen-age militiamen with guns and knives remained firmly in control.
end of snip>
and as far as a clue?
snip>
-- the Observer goes on to warn that, on the basis of personal soundings within the Administration, the conviction arises that the White House has "no concept of how to manage the crisis, no plan in place likely to work." This Observer last week relayed a concern that President Bush was not being given accurate reports from Iraq, but today, one assumes that even a President who prides himself on not reading the newspapers now grasps that things are not necessarily proceeding to our advantage, to borrow an hi