August 31, 2004

The chaos in Iraq "was not a miscalculation. It was simply negligence on the part of the president," Clark said.

Well, yes, the LNS Editor-in-Chief still considers
himself a New Yorker, even though he has lived on the
Left Coast for 25 years...New Yorkers are experts at
"smelling a rat." The sewers are full of
them...Hundreds of thousands of America's SILENCED
MAJORITY marched in the streets of NYC on Sunday,
drawing a magical circle of protest around the Brown
Shirt rally at Madison for-once-truly-SQUARE
Garden...LNS Foreign Correspondent Dunston Woods has
verified the turn-out from his Pacific Rim post, here
at home, of course, the "US mainstream news media" is
incapable of counting above "tens of thousands." There
are two boons to the OBSCENITY that is the 2004 RNC,
it provides a chilling glimpse further down the
alternate timeline for those who might be toying with
the notion of throwing their vote away on the
shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader, AND it
should bring the Bush abomination's pre-9/11
negligence and post-9/11 incompetence into sharp
focus, i.e. with Bush-Cheney lathering themselves in
the blood and ash of 9/11 this week, how could any
reasonable person fault Sen. John Edwards (D-NC)
and/or Gen. Wesley Clark (D-NATO) for doing what the
LNS Recently suggested -- pulling out the 9/11
Commission Report on the stump, and reading from it to
throngs and to the reporters *covering* the campaign.
The 9/11 Commission Report, as weak-kneed as it is,
still contains enough DAMNING evidence to consigh the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident, the VICE _resident and their national
insecurity team to political oblivion...America's most
credible political pollster, Zogby, reports that "on
the eve of a Republican National Convention invoking
9/11 symbols, sound bytes and imagery, half (49.3%) of
New York City residents and 41% of New York citizens
overall say that some of our leaders "knew in advance
that attacks were planned on or around September 11,
2001, and that they consciously failed to act."
(http://www.zogby.com/news/ReadNews.dbm?ID=855)
Meanwhile, the increasingy unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident, although perhaps *feeling good*
out on the stump, is nevertheless increasingly
unhinged and shrinking incredibly...The other day he
described his foolish military adventure in Iraq as a
"catastrophic success," soon afterwards in an in-depth
interview with another heavy lifter, NotBeSeen's Matt
Lauer, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident, having already botched, bungled,
misdiagnosed and even mis-named the "war on terror,"
has now declared it unwinnable.

Agence France Press: President George W. Bush (news -
web sites) said in an interview that he does not
believe the US-led war on terror can be won -- a
statement that opposition Democrats exploited with
great gusto.
Bush was asked in an interview on NBC television
whether the United States can win the war on terror.
"I don't think you can win it," he answered.
"After months of listening to the Republicans base
their campaign on their singular ability to win the
war on terror, the president now says we can't win the
war on terrorism," Edwards said in a speech in
Wilmington.
"This is no time to declare defeat," he said.
It is the second time in four days that Bush has been
taken to task over his own remarks.
In an interview published Friday with The New York
Times, Bush said he made a "miscalculation of what the
conditions would be" in Iraq (news - web sites) after
the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web
sites).
The Democrats reacted quickly. "The president has
finally abandoned his stubborn refusal to admit his
failure to plan," said Rand Beers, Kerry's adviser on
national security issues. "Now he must both plan and
act."
Retired army general Wesley Clark (news - web sites),
a former Democratic presidential candidate, took issue
with Bush's Monday statements in an interview with Fox
News. "I believe this war is winnable -- we won the
Cold War," he said. Clark, a the former supreme allied
commander in Europe, expanded on his views in a joint
telephone conference call with Democratic Senator Joe
Biden.
The chaos in Iraq "was not a miscalculation. It was simply negligence on the part of the president," Clark said. "It's a major mistake." Clark said that the war on terrorists "motivated by
Islamic extremist ideology is winnable, by going
after, attacking and defeating the specific groups
that attack us, cutting off their ability to recruit,
(and) defeating the claims of their ideology."
In Wilmington, Edwards reminded his audience that the
last time the United States "collided with an enemy
that wanted to destroy our way of life was at the end
of World War II."
"Imagine if President Truman had responded to the Iron
Curtain with a wall of indifference? Imagine if he had
turned his back on allies that had stood by our side?
Imagine if he had refused to lead the effort to
rebuild our former enemies, Germany and Japan?" he
asked.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040830/ts_alt_afp/us_attacks_vote_bush_040830222544


Democrats pounce on Bush for declaring 'war on terror' unwinnable

Mon Aug 30, 6:25 PM ET Add U.S. National - AFP to My
Yahoo!

WASHINGTON (AFP) - President George W. Bush (news -
web sites) said in an interview that he does not
believe the US-led war on terror can be won -- a
statement that opposition Democrats exploited with
great gusto.

Bush was asked in an interview on NBC television
whether the United States can win the war on terror.
"I don't think you can win it," he answered.


Despite the explanation that followed, opposition
Democrats -- hungry to sink Bush's 2004 re-election
aspirations -- immediately pounced on those seven
words.


Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites)'s vice
presidential candidate, John Edwards (news - web
sites), bashed Bush for being defeatist while on the
campaign trail in North Carolina.


"After months of listening to the Republicans base
their campaign on their singular ability to win the
war on terror, the president now says we can't win the
war on terrorism," Edwards said in a speech in
Wilmington.


"This is no time to declare defeat," he said.


It is the second time in four days that Bush has been
taken to task over his own remarks.


In an interview published Friday with The New York
Times, Bush said he made a "miscalculation of what the
conditions would be" in Iraq (news - web sites) after
the fall of dictator Saddam Hussein (news - web
sites).


And the strong anti-US insurgency in Iraq was an
unintended byproduct of a "swift victory," he said.


Bush however refused to go into detail on what went
wrong, saying that it was a task best left to
historians.


The Democrats reacted quickly. "The president has
finally abandoned his stubborn refusal to admit his
failure to plan," said Rand Beers, Kerry's adviser on
national security issues. "Now he must both plan and
act."


Retired army general Wesley Clark (news - web sites),
a former Democratic presidential candidate, took issue
with Bush's Monday statements in an interview with Fox
News. "I believe this war is winnable -- we won the
Cold War," he said.


Clark, a the former supreme allied commander in
Europe, expanded on his views in a joint telephone
conference call with Democratic Senator Joe Biden.


The chaos in Iraq "was not a miscalculation. It was
simply negligence on the part of the president," Clark
said. "It's a major mistake."


Clark said that the war on terrorists "motivated by
Islamic extremist ideology is winnable, by going
after, attacking and defeating the specific groups
that attack us, cutting off their ability to recruit,
(and) defeating the claims of their ideology."


It was also important to strengthen homeland security
and keep militants from accessing weapons of mass
destruction, Clark said, adding that the Bush
administration's approach to the problem "is
fundamentally flawed."


Biden also took a swipe at Bush. "If we do not unite
the world in the resolution that the tactics of
Islamic terrorists are totally unacceptable, then we
will be fulfilling the prophecy of President Bush
(news - web sites) which is we can't totally win the
war," he said.

In Wilmington, Edwards reminded his audience that the
last time the United States "collided with an enemy
that wanted to destroy our way of life was at the end
of World War II."

"Imagine if President Truman had responded to the Iron
Curtain with a wall of indifference? Imagine if he had
turned his back on allies that had stood by our side?
Imagine if he had refused to lead the effort to
rebuild our former enemies, Germany and Japan?" he
asked.


Posted by richard at 09:04 AM

August 30, 2004

Pentagon spy investigation goes beyond Israeli connection

Yes, there are many patriot professionals in
Beltwayistan, working in the intelligence, law
enforcement and DoD communities, who are DISGUSTED and
ENRAGED by the Bush abomination's numerous national
security blunders, debacles and betrayals...And they
are fighting back, by enforcing long-standing laws of
the US federal government and upholding oaths sworn to
the US Constitution...

Knight-Ridder: An FBI investigation into the handling
of highly classified material by Pentagon civilians is
broader than previously reported and goes well beyond
allegations that a single analyst gave a top-secret
Iran policy document to Israel, three sources familiar
with the investigation said yesterday.
The investigation, which has been going on for more
than two years, also has focused on other civilians in
the secretary of defense’s office, said the sources,
who spoke on condition they not be identified but who
have first-hand knowledge of the subject.
In addition, one said, FBI investigators in recent
weeks have conducted interviews to determine whether
Pentagon officials gave classified U.S. intelligence
to a leading Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National
Congress, which might in turn have passed it on to
Iran. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has denied his group
was involved in any wrongdoing.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.columbiatribune.com/2004/Aug/20040829News021.asp

Pentagon spy investigation goes beyond Israeli connection


Knight Ridder Newspapers
Published Sunday, August 29, 2004
WASHINGTON - An FBI investigation into the handling of
highly classified material by Pentagon civilians is
broader than previously reported and goes well beyond
allegations that a single analyst gave a top-secret
Iran policy document to Israel, three sources familiar
with the investigation said yesterday.

The investigation, which has been going on for more
than two years, also has focused on other civilians in
the secretary of defense’s office, said the sources,
who spoke on condition they not be identified but who
have first-hand knowledge of the subject.

In addition, one said, FBI investigators in recent
weeks have conducted interviews to determine whether
Pentagon officials gave classified U.S. intelligence
to a leading Iraqi exile group, the Iraqi National
Congress, which might in turn have passed it on to
Iran. INC leader Ahmed Chalabi has denied his group
was involved in any wrongdoing.

The link, if any, between the two leak investigations
remains unclear.

But they both center on the office of Undersecretary
of Defense Douglas Feith, the Pentagon’s No. 3
official.

Feith’s office has been the source of numerous
controversies over the last three years. His office
had close ties to Chalabi and was responsible for
post-war Iraq planning that the administration has now
acknowledged was inadequate. Before the war, Feith and
his aides pushed the now-discredited theory that
former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein was in league with
al-Qaida.

No one is known to have been charged with any
wrongdoing in the investigation.

The Israeli government yesterday strenuously denied it
had spied on the United States. The American Israel
Public Affairs Committee, the powerful pro-Israel
lobby that top officials said is suspected of serving
as a conduit to Israel for the analyst, also has
denied any wrongdoing.

That analyst, Larry Franklin, works for Feith’s
deputy, William Luti, and served as an important
advisor on Iran issues to Feith and Deputy Secretary
of Defense Paul Wolfowitz.

Franklin, a former Defense Intelligence Agency analyst
who lives in West Virginia, could not be reached for
comment yesterday.

Two sources disclosed yesterday that the information
believed to have been passed to Israel was the draft
of a top-secret presidential order on Iran policy.
Because of disagreements over Iran policy among
President George W. Bush’s advisors, the document is
not believed to have ever been completed.

Having a draft of the document - which some Pentagon
officials might have believed was insufficiently tough
toward Iran - would have allowed Israel to influence
U.S. policy while it was still being made. Iran is
among Israel’s main security concerns.


Copyright © 2004 The Columbia Daily Tribune. All
Rights Reserved.


Posted by richard at 09:00 AM

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes: "I'm very ashamed"

You think there is freedom of the press in this
country? You think our "journalists" are non-partisan
in the appetite for scandal? Wake-up or lose this
Republic. The Emperor has no uniform...But the "US
mainstream news media," in particular the major
network and cable news organizations, refuse to
acknowledge that a naked chickenhawk deserter is
posing as Commander-in-Chief of the US
military...Another name for the John P. O'Neill Wall
of Heroes: former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes...Get out
the vote, subscribe to Salon, throw your TVs into
Boston harbor, follow John Zogby's tracking poll for
the "Battleground" states, do your Electoral College
math, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) is leading
in this national referendum on the CREDIBILTIY,
COMPETENCE and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged
and incredibly shrinking _resident...There is an
Electoral Uprising coming in November 2004, and
whether it is thwarted or not, we are on the verge of
*unCivil* war in America, and we need a Lincoln...JFK
is that man...

Jeff Horwitz, Salon: Another bombshell in the battle
over Vietnam service that has been raging in the 2004
presidential race exploded on the Web Friday. In a
video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry
organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former
lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role
in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air
National Guard while young men who were not from
prominent or wealthy families "died in Vietnam."
"Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush,
and I know them both," said Barnes in the video, which
was filmed at a gathering of about 200 Kerry
supporters in Austin on May 27. "I got a young man
named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard
when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not
necessarily proud of that. But I did it. I got a lot
of other people in the National Guard because I
thought that was what people should do when you're in
office, and you help a lot of rich people."
"And I walked to the Vietnam Memorial the other day,"
Barnes continued, "and I looked at the names of the
people that died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed
of myself than I have ever been, because it was the
worst thing I ever did, was help a lot of wealthy
supporters and a lot of people who had family names of
importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very
sorry about that, and I'm very ashamed, and I
apologize to you as voters of Texas."

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/08/27/barnes/

Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes: "I'm very ashamed"
The former Texas official who got George Bush into the
National Guard apologizes for making sure that young
men with important "family names" did not have to
fight in Vietnam.

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Jeff Horwitz

Aug. 27, 2004 | Another bombshell in the battle over
Vietnam service that has been raging in the 2004
presidential race exploded on the Web Friday. In a
video originally posted on the Web by a pro-Kerry
organization in Austin, Texas, Ben Barnes, a former
lieutenant governor of Texas, apologized for his role
in getting a young George W. Bush into the Texas Air
National Guard while young men who were not from
prominent or wealthy families "died in Vietnam."

"Let's talk a minute about John Kerry and George Bush,
and I know them both," said Barnes in the video, which
was filmed at a gathering of about 200 Kerry
supporters in Austin on May 27. "I got a young man
named George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard
when I was lieutenant governor, and I'm not
necessarily proud of that. But I did it. I got a lot
of other people in the National Guard because I
thought that was what people should do when you're in
office, and you help a lot of rich people."


"And I walked to the Vietnam Memorial the other day,"
Barnes continued, "and I looked at the names of the
people that died in Vietnam, and I became more ashamed
of myself than I have ever been, because it was the
worst thing I ever did, was help a lot of wealthy
supporters and a lot of people who had family names of
importance get into the National Guard. And I'm very
sorry about that, and I'm very ashamed, and I
apologize to you as voters of Texas."

Why Did Department of Justice Censor Its Diversity
Report?

Republican Party Convention Preview: Diversity On and
Off Stage

Mind Your E-mail Manners





Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.


Home delivery of The New York Times now 50% off.





Barnes then condemned the Republican attacks on John
Kerry's war service: "And I tell you that for the
Republicans to jump on John Kerry and say that he is
not a patriot after he went to Vietnam and was shot at
and fought for our freedom and came back here and
protested against the war, he's a flip-flopper, let me
tell you: John Kerry is a 100 times better patriot
than George Bush or Dick Cheney."

The video of Barnes was filmed by Todd Phelan and Mike
Nicholson, organizers of a political group called
Austin4Kerry. Phelan is currently an organizer for the
Travis County Democrats. The video first appeared on
the Austin4Kerry Web site on June 25, but was widely
overlooked until Friday. The video also includes a
separate interview conducted by the same two
filmmakers in which Barnes speaks with admiration
about Kerry's valor.

Phelan and Nicholson recall they were surprised by the
candor of Barnes' remarks while they were filming him
at the rally. "To be honest with you, my eyes lit up
instantaneously," Phelan told Salon. "I looked at
Mike, he looked at me, and it was like 'Did he just
say that?'" But at the time, said Phelan, they did not
think the video would create a stir. He suggested that
the video suddenly became a Web phenomenon because of
the heated swift boat controversy that has been fanned
by supporters of Bush.

Barnes' story about Bush and the Air National Guard
first broke in 1999 as the then Texas governor was
mounting his first campaign for the presidency. Bush
insisted at the time that neither he nor his father
sought Barnes' assistance. "I can tell you what
happened," said Bush. "Nothing happened. My Guard unit
was looking for pilots and I flew for the Guard. I'm
proud of my service and any allegation that my dad
asked for special favors is simply not true ... I
didn't ask anybody to help get me to the Guard
either."

Barnes said at the time that it was a wealthy Bush
family friend, a Houston oilman named Sidney Adger,
who came to him with the request to help the younger
Bush.

[Note: Barnes' speech can only be viewed on Salon
using Windows Media Player. If you do not have it, you
can download it for free here.]


salon.com


Posted by richard at 08:58 AM

August 29, 2004

Kerry campaign attacks President over 'war honour he did not earn'

The Emperor has no uniform, and the "US mainstream
news media," particularly the major network and cable
news organizations, refuse to tell the US electorate
that there is a naked, and disturbed, deserter
wandering around the White House posing as the
Commander-in-chief...

Charles Laurence, Daily Telegraph: After weeks of
denigration of the Democratic challenger's Vietnam war
record, Mr Kerry's backers have responded with
allegations against the President - including the
claim that he was once photographed in uniform wearing
a medal ribbon he had not earned...
The ribbon is an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award -
which was not awarded to the 111th Fighter Intercept
Squadron in which Mr Bush served until 1975, five
years after the photograph was taken, according to the
group US War Report.
"Why is this fraud important? Because it betrays the
Honour Code that every officer learns and carries
throughout his or her career," said Walt Starr who
investigated the medals for the group. Separately a
new book, Deserter, by Ian Williams, a British-born
author, challenges the President with details of how
he used his father's influence to join the Texas Air
National Guard as a trainee pilot, thereby avoiding
service in Vietnam, and then allegedly disappeared
from his base without fulfilling his duty.

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2004/08/29/wbush129.xml&sSheet=/news/2004/08/29/ixworld.html

Kerry campaign attacks President over 'war honour he did not earn'
By Charles Laurence in New York
(Filed: 29/08/2004)


Supporters of Senator John Kerry yesterday warned of
"blowback" against President George W Bush for the
political "attack ads" by the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth which have damaged Mr Kerry's election campaign.

After weeks of denigration of the Democratic
challenger's Vietnam war record, Mr Kerry's backers
have responded with allegations against the President
- including the claim that he was once photographed in
uniform wearing a medal ribbon he had not earned.

As polls showed that Mr Bush had edged ahead of Mr
Kerry for the first time, a pro-Kerry organisation
labelled the President an "impostor" over the
photograph, taken in 1970 and discovered in his
father's Presidential Library in Houston, Texas.

The ribbon is an Air Force Outstanding Unit Award -
which was not awarded to the 111th Fighter Intercept
Squadron in which Mr Bush served until 1975, five
years after the photograph was taken, according to the
group US War Report.

"Why is this fraud important? Because it betrays the
Honour Code that every officer learns and carries
throughout his or her career," said Walt Starr who
investigated the medals for the group. Separately a
new book, Deserter, by Ian Williams, a British-born
author, challenges the President with details of how
he used his father's influence to join the Texas Air
National Guard as a trainee pilot, thereby avoiding
service in Vietnam, and then allegedly disappeared
from his base without fulfilling his duty.

"Bush has set himself up, and now that the issue is
coming up he is going to have to answer questions on
his own documented record," said Williams.

Williams's book offers evidence that Mr Bush stopped
training in 1972, and failed to take an annual
physical examination demanded of all pilots. Deserter
also claims that Mr Bush failed to turn up for duty in
Alabama, an omission which could have resulted in a
charge of being absent without leave, or even
desertion.

MoveOn.com, an independent organisation, has repeated
the claim in television advertisements that Mr Bush
abandoned his military post and the American media has
taken up the story. "Alabama is where serious
questions arise over whether or not Bush fulfilled his
obligations to the Guard," said William McTavish, a
Republican, and editor of the Washington on-line
political magazine Capitol Hill Blue.

Mr Bush has strongly denied abandoning his duties. He
says he left his Texan unit after requesting transfer
to Alabama, so that he could also work on a political
campaign.

Asked about the medal ribbon, a White House spokesman
said he could not respond until the record had been
checked.

Meanwhile a new Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
television campaign shows veterans accusing Mr Kerry
of "treachery" for testifying that atrocities were
committed in Vietnam. Williams warned: "There will be
blowback, because it is a documented fact that
atrocities occurred, and also that Kerry did not
accuse all Vietnam vets of committing them."
Related reports

Giuliani gives Bush a boost


Posted by richard at 08:56 AM

August 28, 2004

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy

Yes, it is incomprehensible that Condescenia Rice and
John Ashcroft still have their jobs, knowing what we
now in the wake of the 9/11 Commission hearings, and
in particular the testimony of Richard Clark. Yes, it
is incomprehensible that Donald Rumsfeld still has his
job in the wake of Abu Ghraib and in the midst of the
Mega-Mogadishu that is Iraq...But there is still
hope...There are *many* patriot professionals in
Beltwayistan, in the intelligence community, in the
law enfocrement community, in the foreign policy
establishmnt, in the US military (both active and
retired) who want to bring the Bush cabal and its
loose neo-con cannons down -- politically -- and save
the Republic and the Western Alliance...this criminal
investigation of treason and espionage is another
example, like the Plame investigation and the Chalabi
revelations, of patriot professionals at work on an
operational level enforcing the laws of the US and
serving the US Constitution in a strange, tragic
interlude in our history...Here is the story that CSB
broke...The LNS has tagged on a piece from the
Guardian, giving some background...

CBS: CBS News has learned that the FBI has a
full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is
about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone
agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but
for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of
Defense at the Pentagon.
60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI
believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected
mole supplied Israel with classified materials that
include secret White House policy deliberations on
Iran.
CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy,
described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned
over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward
Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S.
policy-makers were still debating the policy."
This put the Israelis, according to one source,
"inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try
to influence the outcome."
The case raises another concern among investigators:
Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence
U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?
With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and
Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit
within the Defense Department tasked with helping
develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.

Jonathan Steele, Guardian: History is beginning to
repeat itself, this time over Iran. Just two years
after the notorious Downing Street dossier on Saddam
Hussein's alleged weapons of mass destruction and the
first efforts to get United Nations approval for war,
Washington is trying to create similar pressures for
action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/27/eveningnews/main639143.shtml

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy Case

Aug. 27, 2004

FBI Probes Pentagon Spy


(Photo: CBS/AP)

The FBI believes it has "solid" evidence that the
suspected mole supplied Israel with classified
materials that include secret White House policy
deliberations on Iran.


The FBI investigation is headed by Dave Szady.
(Photo: CBS)



(CBS) CBS News has learned that the FBI has a
full-fledged espionage investigation under way and is
about to -- in FBI terminology -- "roll up" someone
agents believe has been spying not for an enemy, but
for Israel from within the office of the Secretary of
Defense at the Pentagon.

60 Minutes Correspondent Lesley Stahl reports the FBI
believes it has "solid" evidence that the suspected
mole supplied Israel with classified materials that
include secret White House policy deliberations on
Iran.

At the heart of the investigation are two people who
work at The American Israel Public Affairs Committee
(AIPAC), a powerful pro-Israel lobby in Washington.

The FBI investigation, headed up by Dave Szady, has
involved wiretaps, undercover surveillance and
photography that CBS News was told document the
passing of classified information from the mole, to
the men at AIPAC, and on to the Israelis.

CBS sources say that last year the suspected spy,
described as a trusted analyst at the Pentagon, turned
over a presidential directive on U.S. policy toward
Iran while it was, "in the draft phase when U.S.
policy-makers were still debating the policy."

This put the Israelis, according to one source,
"inside the decision-making loop" so they could "try
to influence the outcome."

The case raises another concern among investigators:
Did Israel also use the analyst to try to influence
U.S. policy on the war in Iraq?

With ties to top Pentagon officials Paul Wolfowitz and
Douglas Feith, the analyst was assigned to a unit
within the Defense Department tasked with helping
develop the Pentagon's Iraq policy.

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld has been made aware
of the case. The government notified AIPAC today that
it wants information about the two employees and their
contacts with a person at the Pentagon.

AIPAC told CBS News it is cooperating with the
government and has hired outside counsel. It denies
any wrongdoing by the organization or any of its
employees.

An Israeli spokesman said, "We categorically deny
these allegations. They are completely false and
outrageous." The suspected spy has not returned
repeated phone calls from CBS News.


©MMIV, CBS Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Comment

--


http://www.guardian.co.uk/iran/story/0,12858,1291894,00.html

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sexed-up reports, pressure on the UN ... here we go
again

US claims over Iran's nuclear programme sound eerily
familiar

Jonathan Steele
Friday August 27, 2004
The Guardian

History is beginning to repeat itself, this time over
Iran. Just two years after the notorious Downing
Street dossier on Saddam Hussein's alleged weapons of
mass destruction and the first efforts to get United
Nations approval for war, Washington is trying to
create similar pressures for action against Iran.
The ingredients are well-known: sexed-up intelligence
material which puts the target country in the worst
possible light; moves to get the UN to declare it in
"non- compliance", thereby claiming justification for
going in unilaterally even if the UN gives no support
for invasion; and at the back of the whole brouhaha, a
clique of American neoconservatives whose real agenda
is regime change.

The immediate focus for action against Iran is the
International Atomic Energy Agency, which has produced
five reports on Iran in the last 14 months. Part of
the UN, with an international board which acts like a
mini security council, the IAEA's reports have raised
questions about Iran's professedly civilian nuclear
programme and its desire to create its own fuel cycle
which could eventually be used to produce bombs.

To satisfy its critics, Iran agreed last year to allow
so-called intrusive inspections. As a
confidence-building measure, it also stopped enriching
uranium. In a few days' time the IAEA will issue a new
report, and it is its wording which is causing the
latest flurry. John Bolton, the Bush administration's
point-man, has been rushing round Europe claiming the
evidence of sinister Iranian behaviour is clear, even
though the IAEA has consistently made no such
judgment. It has called for more transparency, but
prefers to keep probing and, like Hans Blix and the UN
weapons inspectors in Iraq in 2003, insists it needs
more time.

Advertiser links
Volunteer Work Abroad
Experience a country from a whole new perspective by
signing...

crossculturalsolutions.org

Orphan Helpers
Make a difference in the life of a desperate child
and...

orphanhelpers.com

Volunteers at Free Medicine Program
Volunteers are needed to help people across America
afford...

freemedicineprogram.com
Iran, meanwhile, says the IAEA should accept that
nothing wrong has been found, close the dossier and
let Iran receive the civilian nuclear technology -
with the safeguards that go with it - which countries
like Germany and France have promised.

Bolton is not, at this stage, claiming to have
intelligence which the IAEA's inspectors don't. After
the fiasco of the US's pre-war material on Iraq, he
has not started to trumpet US sources. But he is
choosing to interpret the available knowledge as
harshly as possible. He is also close to the
Washington hardliners in the Project for the New
American Century, who created the doctrine of
pre-emptive strikes against unfriendly states and who
favour regime change to deal with Islamist
fundamentalism.

Norman Podhoretz, the arch-conservative editor of
Commentary magazine, one of their house journals, said
last week: "I am not advocating the invasion of Iran
at this moment, although I wouldn't be heartbroken if
it happened."

There are differences from the anti-Iraq campaign two
years ago. This time the US is taking the lead in
going to the UN. Bolton wants the IAEA board to say
Iran has violated its commitments under the nuclear
non-proliferation treaty and take the matter to the
security council for a decision on sanctions or other
stern action. France and Germany are resisting a move
to the UN.

Second, even the US (Podhoretz excepted) is not
talking about a full-scale US invasion with ground
troops. It has too many soldiers tied up in Iraq and
Afghanistan to spare many for a third campaign. The
talk is of using US special forces or airstrikes to
destroy Iran's nuclear facilities, or giving a green
light to Israel to do it. Slightly less impatiently,
there are hints that the CIA will step up its campaign
to overthrow the regime in Tehran by encouraging
anti-government TV and radio broadcasts from abroad
and infiltrating opposition movements.

The biggest difference, though, is in Britain's
stance. Unlike with the Bush campaign against Saddam
Hussein, Britain is siding this time with France and
Germany. It is part of a "troika" which promotes
constructive engagement rather than confrontation with
Iran. Their dialogue ran into a sticky phase this
summer with allegations of bad faith on both sides,
but the three European states are willing to keep it
going.

They have powerful arguments. The disaster of the Iraq
war and the failure to bring peace, stability or order
make them want no repetition in Iraq's more populous
and larger neighbour. Even "limited" air-strikes on
Iran's nuclear facilities would unify the country and
harden hostility to the west throughout the Middle
East, especially if Washington subcontracted the
attacks to the Israeli air force.

Most Iraqi resistance to the Americans is based on
nationalist resentment, and Iranians are no different.
People of all political persuasions in Tehran support
their country's right to have nuclear power, and
probably even bombs. Threatening them with force is
not the most intelligent way to persuade them
otherwise.

The defeat of Iran's reformist MPs in this spring's
unfair elections, as well as the certainty that
President Mohammad Khatami will be replaced by a less
liberal figure next year, have not ended the chance of
dialogue with Tehran. European diplomats detect the
emergence of a group of "pragmatic conservatives" in
the Iranian leadership who could be easier to deal
with than the beleaguered liberals of the past seven
years. Many are non-clerical veterans of the Iran-Iraq
war who are influenced by nationalism and economic
imperatives more than the revolutionary Islamic
ideology of the Khomeini generation. They want better
relations with the west.

Britain's difference with Washington on Iran is
remarkable. It matters more than the better-publicised
splits on the Kyoto environmental protocol or the
international criminal court. But does Britain's
alignment with France and Germany on Iran mean that
Tony Blair has really parted with George Bush on a key
geo-political and military issue? Or has he not yet
spotted that what he regards as the lily-livered
flunkies in the Foreign Office are up to their
"realist" tricks again? They also opposed the invasion
of Iraq until Ol' Laser-Eyes in Downing Street focused
on the file.

We will know the answer after the US election. Even if
Kerry wins, European diplomats expect no major change
in Washington's policy to wards Iran. Like Cuba, Iran
produces special symptoms of irrationality (because of
the unrevenged wound to US pride the mullahs caused
when they held diplomats hostage in the embassy a
quarter of a century ago).

So how will Blair cuddle up to the new president? What
easier way than to break with France and Germany and
show Kerry that, whether there's a Democrat or a
Republican in the White House, Britain's prime
minister is still best friends when it comes to being
tough with Islamist bullies and taking the brave and
moral route to war? Inshallah, no.

j.steele@guardian.co.uk

Posted by richard at 08:54 AM

Wall St fundraisers shy away from Bush

Greater Greenspania in turmoil...

David Wighton and James Harding, Financial Times: Wall
Street's enthusiasm for US President George W. Bush
appears to have cooled as the presidential race
tightens and concerns grow about foreign policy and
fiscal deficits.
Some leading fundraisers of Mr Bush's re-election bid
have stopped active campaigning and others privately
voice reservations...one senior Wall Street figure,
once talked of as a possible Bush cabinet member, said
that he and other prominent Republicans had been
raising money with increasing reluctance. “Many are
doing so with a heavy heart and some not at all.” He
cited foreign policy and the ballooning federal
deficit as Wall Street Republicans' main concerns.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://news.ft.com/cms/s/ce667ab6-f78b-11d8-afe6-00000e2511c8.html

Wall St fundraisers shy away from Bush
By David Wighton in New York and James Harding in
Washington
Published: August 26 2004 20:58 | Last updated: August
26 2004 20:58

Wall Street's enthusiasm for US President George W.
Bush appears to have cooled as the presidential race
tightens and concerns grow about foreign policy and
fiscal deficits.


Some leading fundraisers of Mr Bush's re-election bid
have stopped active campaigning and others privately
voice reservations.

The New York financial community is expected to give
the Republicans a lavish welcome when the president's
party arrives for its national convention next week.
Wall Street has been a big contributor to Mr Bush's
record-breaking re-election fund.

But one senior Wall Street figure, once talked of as a
possible Bush cabinet member, said that he and other
prominent Republicans had been raising money with
increasing reluctance. “Many are doing so with a heavy
heart and some not at all.” He cited foreign policy
and the ballooning federal deficit as Wall Street
Republicans' main concerns.

Hedging bets on Wall Street

On Monday evening, amid the plush surroundings of the
Rainbow Room on the top floor of that defiant monument
to New York opulence, Rockefeller Plaza, the
rainmakers will mingle with the lawmakers.

Go there


A Republican in the financial services industry
concurs. “Many of them may be maxed out,” he said,
referring to campaign contributions that have hit the
legal ceiling, “but they are backing away from Bush.”

The deficit has been criticised by Peter Peterson,
chairman and co-founder of Blackstone Group, the New
York investment firm, and former commerce secretary
under President Richard Nixon. In his new book,
Running on Empty, he accuses both parties of
recklessness but attacks the Republican leadership for
a “new level of fiscal irresponsibility”.

One New York dinner in June 2003 raised more than $4m,
partly thanks to the efforts of Stan O'Neal, chief
executive of Merrill Lynch. Yet Mr O'Neal has done no
fundraising for the campaign at all since then and
friends say he is not supporting Mr Bush. “He is best
described as independent,” said one. Another senior
Wall Street figure, who has given money to the
campaign, said he was among many Wall Street bosses
who were impressed with Mr Bush's handling of the
September 11 attacks. “But since then, I have lost
faith over foreign policy and tax,” he said.

Even those who are campaigning for Mr Bush sound
increasingly defensive. “Whether or not you like him,
you can't change leaders during a war,” said the head
of one Wall Street firm.

Posted by richard at 08:52 AM

August 27, 2004

Bush Economy: Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage

What they won' tell you:

1) The US economy was not at the end of the Clinton
era economic boom, it was just due for serious
profit-taking and a brief cooling off
2) The illegitimacy of the Bush regime had a real and
negative impact on the country's psyche in general and
on the pysche of the markets in particular
3) It was not only the disturbing way in which the
Bush cabal took power, but also the fact that their
ascendancy meant that there would be a radical
departure from the Rubinesque beauty of White House
economic policy during the 1990s
4) The phoney "California energy crisis" perpetrated
by Enron's Ken Lay and other scions of the Bush cabal
and pulled off with the complicity of the Bush-Cheney
FERC, took out the Golden State's huge economy in
general and Silicon Valley in particular, propelling
the rest of the country into a downward spin
4a) The subsequent collapse of Enron, and the eruption
of similar corporate governance scandals it triggered,
was also a significant factor
psychologically and financially
5) The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident two brazenly skewed tax cuts decimated the
surplus and confirmed the markets worst fears of
fiscal irresponsibility in the White House
6) The devastating attacks of 9/11 and their aftermath
finished us off
7) The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident utter abnegation of leadership in the
Israeli/Palestinian struggle followed up by his
foolish military adventure in Iraq have greatly
excerbated our national insecurity and contributed
significantly the soaring oil prices
It's How the Media Reports the Economy, Stupid.

Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte, Washington Post: The
number of Americans living in poverty or lacking
health insurance rose for the third straight year in
2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday,
reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise
strong economic growth.
Overall, the median household income remained stagnant
at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to
12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from
12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for
the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline,
and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million
children lived in poverty.
As expected, the number of people without health
insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase
to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent. White adults,
primarily in the South, accounted for most of the
increase. The proportion of people receiving health
insurance through an employer fell to 60.4 percent,
the lowest level in a decade, from 61.3 percent.
The census report provided hard numbers to anecdotal
evidence that the recent recovery has missed certain
regions and segments of the population. An additional
1.3 million Americans fell below the poverty line in
2003, as incomes dipped for the poorest 20 percent of
the population. An additional 1.4 million became newly
uninsured.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A35175-2004Aug26.html


washingtonpost.com
Poverty Rate Up 3rd Year In a Row, More Also Lack Health Coverage
By Ceci Connolly and Griff Witte
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, August 27, 2004; Page A01


The number of Americans living in poverty or lacking
health insurance rose for the third straight year in
2003, the Census Bureau announced yesterday,
reflecting a job market that failed to match otherwise
strong economic growth.

Overall, the median household income remained stagnant
at $43,318, while the national poverty rate rose to
12.5 percent -- 35.9 million people -- last year, from
12.1 percent in 2002. Hit hardest were women, who for
the first time since 1999 saw their earnings decline,
and children. By the end of 2003, 12.9 million
children lived in poverty.

As expected, the number of people without health
insurance grew last year, to 45 million -- an increase
to 15.6 percent from 15.2 percent. White adults,
primarily in the South, accounted for most of the
increase. The proportion of people receiving health
insurance through an employer fell to 60.4 percent,
the lowest level in a decade, from 61.3 percent.

The census report provided hard numbers to anecdotal
evidence that the recent recovery has missed certain
regions and segments of the population. An additional
1.3 million Americans fell below the poverty line in
2003, as incomes dipped for the poorest 20 percent of
the population. An additional 1.4 million became newly
uninsured.

"This recovery has failed to reach those in the bottom
half," said Jared Bernstein, a senior economist with
the Economic Policy Institute.

As President Bush prepared to head to New York for the
Republican National Convention, yesterday's data gave
Democrats an opening for picking at his perceived
weakness on traditional bread-and-butter issues.

"While George Bush tries to convince America's
families that we're turning the corner, slogans and
empty rhetoric can't hide the real story," said Sen.
John F. Kerry (Mass.), the Democratic presidential
nominee. "Under George Bush's watch, America's
families are falling further behind."

Bush, campaigning in New Mexico, had no comment.
Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans said the census
data looked "backward in time at an economy that was
substantially weaker" than it is today. He predicted
that the numbers will improve as Bush "continues to
press extremely hard to create the right conditions
and business climate" for job growth and broader
health coverage.

Yet the census report stood in sharp contrast to an
economy and a stock market that grew briskly in 2003,
especially in the second half of the year. "The impact
of a persistent jobless recovery is all over these
results," Bernstein said.

With fewer people working and fewer small businesses
offering health coverage, the uninsured figure is
likely to remain high until the unemployment rate
drops to about 4 percent, said Paul Fronstin, a senior
research associate at the Employee Benefit Research
Institute.

"It's not just about how many people have jobs, but
it's about the kind of jobs they have," he said. "Even
though people are employed, they are less likely to
have access to coverage."

In this region, more people were without health
coverage in 2003 than in 2002. In Virginia, the
uninsured rate rose to 13.3 percent from 12.2 percent;
in both Maryland and the District, it rose to 13.6
percent from 12.8 percent.

The national poverty rate declined from 1993 to 2000,
when it reached a low of 11.3 percent. In the next
three years, 4.3 million more people fell below the
poverty line, and the median household income dropped
by more than $1,500 in inflation-adjusted terms.

Locally, poverty rates rose in Virginia to 10 percent
from 8.9 percent, and in Maryland to 8 percent from
7.3 percent, according to the Census Bureau's two-year
averaging. In the District, it declined 0.7 percent,
but, at 16.9 percent, it remained higher than the
national average.

The poverty line is not a single, consistent number;
it varies with time and family size. In 2003, the
average poverty line for an individual was $9,393. For
a family of four, it was $18,810. Despite the recent
increase in poverty rates, the rates remained lower
than the average for both the 1980s and the 1990s.

Economic issues -- including the availability and
affordability of health insurance -- remain top
concerns among voters. In several recent Washington
Post and Gallup surveys, voters gave the president no
better than a 51 percent approval rating on his
handling of the economy, and in a head-to-head matchup
with Kerry on economic matters, Bush trailed 41
percent to his challenger's 52 percent.

Yesterday's report showed that several swing states
saw an increase in the poverty rate, the percentage of
uninsured or both -- including Iowa, Michigan,
Missouri, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon,
Pennsylvania, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

"It's definitely not the news that the president was
hoping for," said Rea S. Hederman Jr., senior policy
analyst at the Heritage Foundation.

Children made up an especially large segment of the
newly impoverished, accounting for more than half of
the overall increase as 733,000 more youngsters
slipped below the poverty line. Similarly, the number
of families in poverty headed by a single mother
jumped 1.5 percent, to 3.9 million.

Sheldon H. Danziger, co-director of the National
Poverty Center at the University of Michigan, said the
rise in poverty represents fallout from the 1996
Welfare Reform Act. Because the new policy shifted
government benefits to reward those who work, single
mothers who were employed received additional
assistance when jobs were plentiful but are struggling
now that the economy has 1.2 million fewer jobs.

"They did fine when the economy was booming, and even
in the early part of the recession," he said. "But now
there's been an increase in the number of women who
have no work and no welfare."

Hederman disagreed with Danziger, noting that the
child poverty rate, although up for the year at 17.6
percent, is still well below the 20.5 percent it hit
in 1996.

"You've seen a lot of people who left poverty and who
haven't returned back to it even after the economic
downturn," he said.

Single mothers were not helped by the fact that the
earnings of women overall suffered, declining by 0.6
percent. Women made 76 cents for every dollar earned
by men in 2003, compared with 77 cents in 2002. Others
who felt the sting included Hispanics, whose median
income dropped 2.6 percent last year.

Viewing the increase in poverty by race, Asian
Americans were hit hardest, but census officials said
the rise appeared to be a statistical anomaly
resulting from a small sample size.

Since 2000, the number of uninsured Americans has
grown by 5.2 million people, or 13 percent.

"The latest data indicate that loss of insurance is of
particular concern for middle-income and low-wage
workers," said Karen Davis, president of the
nonpartisan Commonwealth Fund, a private foundation
that studies health and social policy trends.

More Americans were enrolled in government health
programs such as Medicaid and Medicare than at any
time in the past two decades. Last year, 26.6 percent
of the population was covered by government health
insurance, the highest percentage since 1995.

The State Children's Health Insurance Program appeared
to be the leading reason the number of youngsters
without coverage did not rise, even though millions
more fell into poverty.

At the libertarian Cato Institute, Michael Cannon, the
director of health studies, attributed the rise in
uninsured to government regulation. Health and Human
Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson said it was the
Senate's fault, even though Republicans control both
houses of Congress.

"The big failure is not what is happening in the
administration. We are doing everything we can," he
said in a conference call. "Individuals in the United
States Senate have failed to adopt the president's
proposals dealing with health care."

Proposals to cap malpractice awards, to provide tax
credits for individuals purchasing insurance and to
create small-business insurance purchasing pools "show
a president that is leading and a Congress that is
not," he said.

The Census Bureau normally releases its income,
poverty and health insurance figures in September. It
moved the release date up a month to make it coincide
with the release of a separate set of data. Democrats
have charged that the timing is suspicious, given that
many people take vacations in August and could miss
the bad news.

Senior polling analyst Christopher Mustie contributed
to this report.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



Posted by richard at 07:27 PM

August 26, 2004

"Here's the real act of cowardice..."

As usual, in the Orwellian alternate universe in which we have all languished since the coup in 2000, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident and the "vast reich wing conspiracy" and the major network news organizations that are propping them up want to argue about something other than what this argument is about, in this instance they want to turn this firestorm over character, character assasination and false accusations into a struggle over the campaign finance laws...Well, of course, there are two issues...The principle issue is the FALSEHOOD of the SBVT ads, and the secondary issue is whether or not campaign finance laws have been violated...Most people in America now know about the SBVT character assasination ads about Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta), but how many people in America know about these ads from our side attacking the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident? Where are they? How come their content is not being heatedly debated? How come no one from the Kerry-Edwards campaign has resigned to avoid controversy (so far two individuals have quit the Bush-Cheney campaign over allegations of impropriety)? Where is the controversy? Well, of course, the difference is that the "attack ads" from our side are FACTUAL and have not been challenged for their accuracy. No one has resigned because of them because our side is following the letter of the law. There is no moral equivalency between Move On or Media Fund and SBVT. Move On is a PAC, not a 527. Move On has hundreds of thousands of members, and has been around since the obscenity know as Ken Starr. Media Fund is a 527, but it is not runnng any ads questioning the legitimacy of medals won for courage in combat. How could it? Neither the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident nor his VICE _resident served in Vietnam. Nor have they been savaging the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident on the still unanswered questions about his stint in the Alabama Air National Guard. Although the LNS suggests that this issue be raised, but not by the Media Fund or Move On, but by the Kerry-Edwards campaign and the DNC directly. Yes, they should run an ad comparing JFK's military record with that of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident and ask the US Electorate to decide for itself, and the ad should end with "I am John Kerry and I endorse this ad!"

Daniel Ruth, Tampa Tribune: If the Swiftboat Veterans Shilling For Karl Rove had any less credibility they'd make Jayson Blair look like Diogenes.
Perhaps the political lesson here ought to be that if you are going to attempt to launch a cheesy smear campaign, especially against a presidential candidate, it's probably a good idea not be more tainted than Monica Lewinsky modeling for the Gap.
For the problem with the allegations made by the Swiftboat Veterans For Bush/Cheney's Bidding is that their claims have been repeatedly exposed as having less veracity than ..., well, ``Mission Accomplished.''

The problems begin with the group's funding - $100,000-plus from Texas Republican fancy-pants Bob Perry, who has also contributed millions of dollars to the GOP across the country.
Thus we're hardly dealing with merely a civic-minded, nonpartisan group of veterans.
Next, the leader of the Swiftboat Veterans For the Lion of Crawford is led by Texas mouthpiece John O'Neill, the same John O'Neill the Nixon crowd dug up to debate Kerry, then an anti-Vietnam War activist, some 30 years ago.
As well, many of the veterans now accusing Kerry of being more of a poltroon than Barney Fife were supporters of the candidate, some as recently as a year ago.
Others have recanted their accusations against Kerry and, even more importantly, those who insist the senator was the Milo Minderbender of the Vietnam War weren't even witnesses to the events for which the various decorations were awarded...
After Rood pretty much showed up the smear campaign against Kerry for the smarmy right-wing propaganda effort that it is, O'Neill fumbled and bumbled away with this quote to the Chicago Tribune: ``We also stand by our judgment that while the action involved a degree of courage, it was not ... worthy of a Silver Star.''
``Degree of courage''? Since when did a political huckster like John O'Neill become the national arbiter of what constitutes courage under fire? What's next? Will O'Neill allege that if John McCain had been a better pilot he wouldn't have wound up living the life of Riley as a prisoner of war?
Here's the real act of cowardice: Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://tampatrib.com/MGBF7XRQAYD.html

Smear Effort Not The Most Swift Of Ideas
DANIEL RUTH
Published: Aug 25, 2004

If the Swiftboat Veterans Shilling For Karl Rove had any less credibility they'd make Jayson Blair look like Diogenes.
Perhaps the political lesson here ought to be that if you are going to attempt to launch a cheesy smear campaign, especially against a presidential candidate, it's probably a good idea not be more tainted than Monica Lewinsky modeling for the Gap.

For weeks now, the Swiftboat Veterans For Rent have been flitting about the landscape trying to portray Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry as being more gutless under fire during Vietnam than Robert Vaughan in ``The Magnificent Seven.''

Gracious, if you believed merely half of what the Swiftboat Veterans For W have been alleging, you might think Kerry had really spent the entire Vietnam War sitting around the Cote d'Azur sipping Campari and reading Marcel Proust in the original French.


Nixon Crowd

Indeed, the Swiftboat Veterans For Whatever have suggested that Kerry's Silver and Bronze Stars and three Purple Hearts awarded for combat heroics are less deserved than Milli Vanilli's Grammy.

Could it be possible John ``Bring Me A Shrubbery!'' Kerry was more spineless than Monty Python's Knights of the Round Table?

Insert ``Oooooopsie!'' right about here.

For the problem with the allegations made by the Swiftboat Veterans For Bush/Cheney's Bidding is that their claims have been repeatedly exposed as having less veracity than ..., well, ``Mission Accomplished.''

The problems begin with the group's funding - $100,000-plus from Texas Republican fancy-pants Bob Perry, who has also contributed millions of dollars to the GOP across the country.

Thus we're hardly dealing with merely a civic-minded, nonpartisan group of veterans.

Next, the leader of the Swiftboat Veterans For the Lion of Crawford is led by Texas mouthpiece John O'Neill, the same John O'Neill the Nixon crowd dug up to debate Kerry, then an anti-Vietnam War activist, some 30 years ago.


Real Cowardice

As well, many of the veterans now accusing Kerry of being more of a poltroon than Barney Fife were supporters of the candidate, some as recently as a year ago.

Others have recanted their accusations against Kerry and, even more importantly, those who insist the senator was the Milo Minderbender of the Vietnam War weren't even witnesses to the events for which the various decorations were awarded.

Cue an Emily Litella ``never mind'' moment right about here.

Oh, and then there is this: Virtually every Vietnam veteran who served aboard Kerry's vessel, and/or were cheek to jowl with him in combat, have supported his version of the events attesting to his bravery under fire - including William Rood, now a Chicago Tribune editor who, over the weekend, refuted the attacks on the candidate's war record.

How absurd has this gotten?

After Rood pretty much showed up the smear campaign against Kerry for the smarmy right-wing propaganda effort that it is, O'Neill fumbled and bumbled away with this quote to the Chicago Tribune: ``We also stand by our judgment that while the action involved a degree of courage, it was not ... worthy of a Silver Star.''

``Degree of courage''? Since when did a political huckster like John O'Neill become the national arbiter of what constitutes courage under fire? What's next? Will O'Neill allege that if John McCain had been a better pilot he wouldn't have wound up living the life of Riley as a prisoner of war?

Here's the real act of cowardice:

Hustings thugs created a blatant special interest group that exploits Vietnam veterans who served with distinction, and who may well have a fair beef with Kerry over his antiwar activities, simply to advance the political career of a candidate who used the war himself as little more than a glorified dental plan.

Posted by richard at 02:15 PM

August 25, 2004

Cleland to Bush: "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful.

The Emperor has no uniform...and no shame...

CNN: Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland said Wednesday that attack ads questioning Sen. John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam were "scurrilous" and "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on President Bush to come out against them.
Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in the war, told reporters gathered at a school near Bush's Texas ranch that the commercials run by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false and that "George Bush is behind it." "The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful."

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082604W.shtml

CNN

Wednesday 25 August 2004

(CNN) -- Vietnam veteran and former Sen. Max Cleland said Wednesday that attack ads questioning Sen. John Kerry's combat record in Vietnam were "scurrilous" and "dishonest and dishonorable" and called on President Bush to come out against them.

Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in the war, told reporters gathered at a school near Bush's Texas ranch that the commercials run by the group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth were false and that "George Bush is behind it."

"The question is, where is George Bush's honor? The question is where is his shame?" Cleland asked. "To attack a fellow veteran who has distinguished himself ... in combat, regardless of the political combat involved, is disgraceful."

He said he was unsuccessful in trying to deliver a letter to President Bush urging him to condemn the ads. (Text of letter)

Cleland was joined by Lt. Jim Rassmann, a former Green Beret who recommended Kerry for the Bronze Star for risking his life to save Rassmann.

The letter, which Cleland said was signed by nine members of the Senate -- all veterans -- urged the president to specifically condemn the ads, saying they "represent the worst kind of politics."

After Cleland's statement, Texas Land Commissioner Jerry Patterson, also a Vietnam veteran, said he was instructed by a Bush campaign aide to take Cleland's letter, but the former senator refused to give it to him.

Patterson also tried to give Cleland a letter addressed to Kerry and signed by a number of pro-Bush Vietnam veterans, including several GOP congressmen. (Text of letter)

The letter accuses Kerry of basing his campaign on his Vietnam service but then criticizing Vietnam veterans who support Bush, Patterson said. "You can't have it both ways," the letter says.

The letter signed by pro-Bush veterans said they were angry that he had never apologized for saying that U.S. troops had committed atrocities in Vietnam. Kerry has said those comments were taken out of context and that he had been quoting what veterans had told him.

"We're proud of our service in Vietnam. We served honorably in Vietnam and we were deeply hurt and offended by your comments when you came home," it said. Kerry became an anti-war activist upon his return from duty.

Cleland's active support for Kerry was evident when the veteran introduced the candidate's speech in acceptance of the Democratic Party's nomination in Boston last month. (Special Report: America Votes 2004, the Democratic convention)

President Bush has praised Kerry's military record, saying he "served admirably," but has not directly condemned commercials by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth that have attacked Kerry's war record.

He has called for such tax-exempt organizations, such as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and the liberal group MoveOn.org and others, to stop airing political ads.

The groups are known as 527s after the federal provision that makes them tax-exempt and allows them to accept unlimited donations. (Bush urges Kerry to condemn 527s)

The letter Cleland tried to deliver calls the ads attacks on John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and the U.S. Navy. (Kerry alleges 'fear and smear' tactics)

"Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation," the letter said.

"Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned."


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.letter/index.html

Text of letter to President Bush

(CNN) -- Former Sen. Max Cleland on Wednesday attempted to deliver a letter to President Bush at his ranch in Crawford, Texas, asking him to publicly condemn recent attack ads on Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. The ads question Kerry's combat record in Vietnam.

Cleland, who lost both legs and an arm in Vietnam, will deliver the letter asking Bush to condemn commercials attacking Kerry by the group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Though Bush has said Kerry "served admirably" in Vietnam, the commander in chief has not condemned the commercials.

Here is a copy of the letter:

Dear President Bush,

We, the undersigned members of the United States Senate call on you to specifically condemn the recent attack ads and accompanying campaign which dishonor Senator John Kerry's combat record in the Vietnam War. These false charges represent the worst kind of politics, and we agree with both Senator John McCain and Senator Kerry that a firmly established service record in the United States Military is fully above reproach. As veterans of the armed services, we ask that you recognize this blatant attempt at character assassination, and publicly condemn it.

Our outrage over these advertisements and tactics has nothing to do with the tax code or campaign finance reform efforts of this nation. Our pain from seeing these slanderous attacks stems from something much more fundamental, that if one veteran's record is called into question, the service of all American veterans is questioned. This administration must not tacitly comply with unfounded accusations which have suddenly appeared 35 years after the fact, and serve to denigrate the service of a true American patriot. The veterans serving today should never have to expect this kind of treatment, when the wars of their generation have passed into history. We brothers and sisters in arms expect our Commander in Chief to stand up and reject this assault upon John Kerry's honor, the honor of American veterans and that of the United States Navy.

As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend. Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service. We Senators and Congressmen who wore the uniform served in different branches of the military and belong to different political parties, but we join together today to defend a fellow veteran from attacks we know to be false, and politically-motivated slander that has no place in our democratic process.

Mr. President, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, we believe you owe a special duty to America's combat veterans when they are under false and scurrilous attacks. We hope you will recognize this duty, and speak out against this group and their efforts to smear the reputation of a man who has served this country nobly.

Call on this group to cease and desist. We can return this campaign season to a discussion of the issues on either side, and restore faith in the political system. As Americans, we should expect nothing less.

Sincerely,

[unsigned]





Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/25/cleland.letter/index.html

SAVE THIS | EMAIL THIS | Close

Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article.



"As you yourself have said, there is nothing complicated about supporting our troops, and the leaders of this nation should make it clear that the members of our military will not only be supported when they wear the uniform, but also when they return home to the land they fought to defend," it said.

"Their valor and their wounds, both physical and psychological, make them heroes for as long as they live, a status which should not and must not change simply because they seek to enter public service."

Posted by richard at 05:28 PM

Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation (AGAIN)

Whitewash does not work on this stain...Nor does Schlesinger's cheap perfume...The stench of Abu Ghraib is on the White House, and the stench of the Bush abomination is on Abu Ghraib...It is not finished...Seymour Hersh is not finished...and niether is Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...The honor of the US military will be avenged, and so will the innocent...The unspeakable has yet to be acknowledged by the "US mainstream news media," although you can read it for yourself in the LNS archive's searchable database...There is a Day of political Reckoning coming in November 2004...

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta): Yesterday, the Schlesinger panel released their report which found that much of the responsibility for setting the conditions for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be attributed to failures at highest levels of our government. Today the Fay report will be released and will recommend punitive action for those in our military who were directly involved.
But what is missing from all these reports is accountability from the senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon and in the White House. From the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top, there needs to be accountability. The Schlesinger report makes clear that Secretary Rumsfeld was responsible for setting a climate where these types of abuses could occur.
“By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a Secretary of Defense.
“That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately. In addition, I call on the President to appoint an independent investigation to review the entire decision making process that led to these abuses and provide a comprehensive set of reforms so that we can ensure that this never happens again.

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://blog.johnkerry.com/blog/archives/002567.html#more

Kerry Calls for Rumsfeld's Resignation
in Abu Ghraib Scandal
Philadelphia, PA – John Kerry issued the following statement today regarding recent reports on Iraqi prisoner abuse:

“Yesterday, the Schlesinger panel released their report which found that much of the responsibility for setting the conditions for the abuse at Abu Ghraib can be attributed to failures at highest levels of our government. Today the Fay report will be released and will recommend punitive action for those in our military who were directly involved.

“But what is missing from all these reports is accountability from the senior civilian leaders in the Pentagon and in the White House. From the bottom of the chain of command all the way to the top, there needs to be accountability. The Schlesinger report makes clear that Secretary Rumsfeld was responsible for setting a climate where these types of abuses could occur.

“By failing to plan to win the peace, by failing to make sure our troops received the proper training, equipment, reinforcement and command guidance, and by failing to take corrective actions once all of this became apparent, Secretary Rumsfeld did not demonstrate the leadership required from a Secretary of Defense.

“That is why today I am calling on Secretary Rumsfeld to resign effective immediately. In addition, I call on the President to appoint an independent investigation to review the entire decision making process that led to these abuses and provide a comprehensive set of reforms so that we can ensure that this never happens again.

“As Harry Truman said, 'The buck stops here.' The time has come for our Commander in Chief to take charge.”


Posted by richard at 03:38 PM

Warriors Cleland and Rassman take a message to Waco, meanwhile in a "battleground state," the swift boat ads push GOP veteran into Kerry camp...

In a powerful gesture, richly symbolic and yet poignantly real and direct, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) dispatched Max Cleland (D-GA), who lost three limbs in Vietnam, and former Green Beret Jim Rassman, whose life JFK saved on that fateful day in Vietnam, to Waco (that's the reality of it, the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's "ranch" is in Waco County) to deliver a letter from seven Democrat Senators who served in the US military, demanding that the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident stop playing games and repudiate the false and shameful character assassination squad that was bankrolled by his biggest Texas campaign financier and aided and abetted by his own campaign's lawyer (who forced to resigned quickly yesterday to stem the political hemorrhaging)...Of course, Cleland and Rassman were stopped at a security checkpoint and turned away. The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's press flak called the Cleland-Rassman mission a "stunt." Hmmm...Did you hear the knocking at the door, Mr. _resident? Do you understand what time it is? "Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late." The woods have come to the castle walls. Yes, there is a Day of political Reckoning coming at the ballot box in November 2004..."Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette: Ed Belfoure, who flew helicopters as a Marine in Vietnam, is a registered Republican. But he promises to cross party lines in November to vote for Democrat John Kerry for president.
Belfoure, of Washington, Pa., said yesterday he cannot abide the "despicable television ads" that donors to President Bush's campaign have aimed at Kerry...
"In their perverted attempt to discredit John Kerry, they have done a greater harm to all Vietnam veterans who for years have sought validation for their service to country," he said.
About a dozen other military veterans sounded a similar theme.
Jonathan Soltz, an Army veteran who served in Iraq last year, said the two combat medals Kerry received were awarded only after high-ranking Navy officers evaluated his battle record. To challenge Kerry's medals now, Soltz said, amounts to an attack on the integrity of the military system.

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/04238/367395.stm

Swift boat ads push GOP veteran into Kerry camp
Wednesday, August 25, 2004

By Milan Simonich, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Ed Belfoure, who flew helicopters as a Marine in Vietnam, is a registered Republican. But he promises to cross party lines in November to vote for Democrat John Kerry for president.

Belfoure, of Washington, Pa., said yesterday he cannot abide the "despicable television ads" that donors to President Bush's campaign have aimed at Kerry.

A group calling itself Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has attacked Kerry's service record in Vietnam. Kerry received Silver and Bronze stars and three Purple Hearts in the war -- honors that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth say he did not deserve.

Belfoure, appearing yesterday with other veterans at a news conference at Kerry's Downtown Pittsburgh headquarters, called the ads slanderous and untruthful.

"In their perverted attempt to discredit John Kerry, they have done a greater harm to all Vietnam veterans who for years have sought validation for their service to country," he said.

About a dozen other military veterans sounded a similar theme.

Jonathan Soltz, an Army veteran who served in Iraq last year, said the two combat medals Kerry received were awarded only after high-ranking Navy officers evaluated his battle record. To challenge Kerry's medals now, Soltz said, amounts to an attack on the integrity of the military system.

Soltz, who is coordinating Pennsylvania veterans for Kerry, accused Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney of ducking military service in Vietnam, then tacitly supporting guttersnipe attacks on Kerry. Soltz said he believes such negative campaigning will backfire on Republicans.

"All they have done is mobilized our base," he said.

In Washington, a lawyer for Bush's re-election campaign disclosed yesterday that he has been providing legal advice for the Swift Boat group.

Benjamin Ginsberg's acknowledgment marks the second time in days that an individual associated with the Bush-Cheney campaign has been connected to the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

The Kerry campaign last week filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission accusing the Bush campaign and the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth of illegally coordinating the group's ads. The Bush campaign and the veterans' group say there is no coordination.

On Saturday, retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier resigned as a member of the Bush campaign's veterans' steering committee after it was learned that he appeared in the Swift Boat veterans' commercial.

In an interview with The Associated Press, Ginsberg said the group "came to me and said, 'We have a point of view we want to get into the First Amendment debate right now. There's a new law. It's very complicated. We want to comply with the law, will you keep us in the bounds of the law?' I said yes, absolutely, as I would do for anyone."

Ginsberg said he never told the Bush campaign what he discussed with the group, or vice versa, and doesn't advise the group on ad strategies.

Rich Baker, a former Navy lieutenant who served with Kerry on Swift boat missions in Vietnam, agreed with the others at the Pittsburgh appearance.

A Democrat from Scott, Baker voted for Bush in 2000 but said he will back Kerry this year.

Baker called the criticisms of Kerry's wartime service "a smear tactic" that voters should repudiate. "I can vouch for John Kerry's courage and dedication," he said.

Baker estimated that 75 to 100 men who served on Swift boats have direct knowledge of how Kerry conducted himself in battle. He said none of them ever questioned Kerry's courage until he ran for president. Then, Baker said, Republican operatives sprang into action, attacking Kerry despite wartime mission reports that praised his service.

"If I had to go up the river today, I'd want John Kerry on my flank," Baker said. "He knows what it's like to be under fire."

Baker, though, said he was annoyed by the focus on 35-year-old battles in Vietnam. The country and the candidates, he said, should be dealing with more important matters, such as creating jobs and ending warfare in Iraq.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(Milan Simonich can be reached at msimonich@post-gazette.com or 412-263-1956.)

Posted by richard at 03:35 PM

NOTE to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)

NOTE to Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta): Bravo.
Your counter-offensive has been a stunning success.
Ignore the propunditgandist hand-wringing about how
you "waited too long" before responding, they will
second-guess and denigrate everything you do. And they
are wrong. Your timing was impeccable. It will be a week tomorrow since
you took up the counter-offensive in Boston, speaking
to the International Firefighters Association. You
said you were going to turn your boat into the fire,
and you did. And they are on the run. The "SBVT" slime
balls bailed from a scheduled "rally" in Gainesville,
Fraudida (see yesterday's LNS) and, according to the
Dallas Morning News, the Bush cabal financier who
floated the "SBVT" character assasination squad is
bailing from a GOP fund-raiser with DeLay, Rove and
others scheduled for next week in NYC and for which he
was listed as a co-host. Indeed, he is not even going
to attend the Hate and Fear Fest...BUT, John, do not
hold back, do not ease off, PRESS THE ATTACK...FINISH
THEM...It will be a week tomorrow since you said that
if the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident wanted a debate on your Vietnam records,
"bring it on." Well, assume that his answer is yes. He
has not directly and specifically repudiated the
"SBVT" attack ad, as you, and Sen. John Edwards
(D-NC) and Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) called for him to do, nor has he demanded that it be pulled, as you all called on him to do. Indeed, they have released a follow-up attack ad...OK...Someone has to stand up at a lecturn (or
better yet a pulpit) in a formerly red state with your
military record in one hand and the increasingly
unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's military
record in the other -- maybe your miltary adviser,
Wesley Clark D-NATO) -- and ask the US Electorate
itself to decide who has the CHARACTER to lead this
country and the world. But don't stop there! Someone
else (maybe your tar heel lawyer, John Edwards) should
stand stand up at a lecturn (or better yet a pulpit) in a
formerly red state and hold up the 9/11 Commission
Report and point out how many weeks have gone by since
it was issued, and remind the US Electorate that you
embraced its recommendations fully and called for
immediate action but that the Bush abomination has
hemmed and hawed and stalled and changed the subject
and confused the issues...Well, whoever it is that
stands there with that dog-eared, heavily marked-up
copy of the 9/11 Commission Report (and again, we
suggest Edwards) should open it to some of the many
pages that underscore the INCOMPETENCE of the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's "national security team" and demand
answers and action...But don't stop there! Someone
should stand stand up at a lecturn (or better yet a
pulpit) in a formerly red state, and we suggest that
you should do it yourself, and hold up sample news
paper headlines from the ramp-up to the invasion and
occupation of Iraq in one hand, and sample newspaper
headlines of what has happened since in the other
hand, and DEMAND a Day of political Reckoning for the
Bush abomination's utter loss of CREDIBILITY...950+ US
soldiers have died in this foolish, ill-conceived,
mismananged and unnecessary military
adventure...Plame, Chalabi, Abu Ghraib, David Kay,
Halliburton...Let it rip, John...CREDIBILITY,
CHARACTER, COMPETENCE...Let it rip...Yes, the central
issue in this national referendum is SECURITY:
National Security, Economic Security and Environmental
Security. Are the American people safer today than
they were four years ago? They know the answer is
"No!" But they want to hear it from you, and from your
"national security team." That's what they need, John,
that's what they crave...They will not fail you, they
will fall in behind you...

Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY: At a time when
Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry has come
under fire from a group of retired naval officers who
say he lied about his combat record in Vietnam,
questions about President Bush's 1968-73 stint in the
Texas Air National Guard remain unresolved:
Some of the documents about President Bush's
military service documents still have not been made
public.
• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow
officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop
flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to
take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?
• What explains the apparent gap in the president's
Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in
Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for
duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was
supposed to be on duty in Alabama?
• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no
convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and
rowdiness at a football game during his college years?
The White House has released hundreds of pages of
records, but the files released so far haven't
answered those questions. Since the documents were
released in February, at least a half-dozen news
organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new
requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom
of Information Act.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-08-23-bush-service_x.htm


Questions about Bush's Guard service unanswered
By Dave Moniz and Jim Drinkard, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — At a time when Democratic presidential
candidate John Kerry has come under fire from a group
of retired naval officers who say he lied about his
combat record in Vietnam, questions about President
Bush's 1968-73 stint in the Texas Air National Guard
remain unresolved:
Some of the documents about President Bush's
military service documents still have not been made
public.

• Why did Bush, described by some of his fellow
officers as a talented and enthusiastic pilot, stop
flying fighter jets in the spring of 1972 and fail to
take an annual physical exam required of all pilots?

• What explains the apparent gap in the president's
Guard service in 1972-73, a period when commanders in
Texas and Alabama say they never saw him report for
duty and records show no pay to Bush when he was
supposed to be on duty in Alabama?

• Did Bush receive preferential treatment in getting
into the Guard and securing a coveted pilot slot
despite poor qualifying scores and arrests, but no
convictions, for stealing a Christmas wreath and
rowdiness at a football game during his college years?


The White House has released hundreds of pages of
records, but the files released so far haven't
answered those questions. Since the documents were
released in February, at least a half-dozen news
organizations, including USA TODAY, have filed new
requests for Bush's military records under the Freedom
of Information Act.

In an e-mail to USA TODAY last week, presidential
spokesman Dan Bartlett said: "The president has
authorized the release of his records and we are
complying with all requests. Some are taking longer
than others, but all will be addressed."

Past military service and qualifications to be
commander in chief have become a central theme in the
2004 presidential campaign.

Questions about Bush's record predate the current
campaign. The apparent gap in his Guard service first
surfaced before the 2000 election, when The Boston
Globe reported that Texas Guard commanders were unable
to account for Bush's whereabouts from May 1972 to
April 1973.

Bush has not said what he did in the Guard during that
period. Aside from a statement by a former Alabama Air
Guard officer who said he saw Bush report for duty
there in the fall of 1972, the only evidence he was at
Dannelly Air National Guard Base in Alabama was a
record of a dental exam on Jan. 6, 1973, at the base.

Bush said in a TV interview in February that he would
make all his military records available. That month,
the White House released more than 400 pages of Bush
military records, including some duplicates, and said
the documents were a complete catalog of his personnel
files.

But some documents still have not been made public.
The White House did not release Bush's medical records
from his Guard files but allowed a group of reporters
who cover the White House to review them for 20
minutes. They found nothing unusual. Kerry released
some of his military records earlier this year. He has
also declined to release his complete medical records
but showed them to reporters as Bush did.

Since February, the White House has banned all Guard
and military commanders outside the Pentagon from
commenting on Bush's records or service. Requests for
information must go to the Pentagon's Freedom of
Information Act office.

The Pentagon last week responded to a 4-month-old
request from USA TODAY for additional records from
Bush's files by sending another copy of documents that
were released by the White House in February. The
documents do not address the unexplained year in
Bush's Guard service or his decision to stop flying.

The Associated Press filed a lawsuit this summer
requesting copies of Bush's military records stored in
a Texas archive on microfilm. It sought information
that might explain why Bush did not take his flight
physical and whether he showed up for duty in Alabama
in the fall of 1972, AP spokesman John Stokes said.


Posted by richard at 11:10 AM

"While much of the media is focused on the pitched battle over the control of the holy shrine in Najaf, a bigger scandal is brewing in Iraq that may well have an equally important effect on the future of the U.S. occupation."

The election in November 2004 is not a national
referendum on Sen. Johh F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)or
the Vietnam war or the Death Penalty or whether a pro-Choice Roman Catholic has the right to receive holy communion or a Constituional Amendment on Gay Marriage, it is a national referendum on the CHARACTER,
CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and CORRUPTION of this
illegitimate regime...and the American people know
it...despite the distractions and distortions
perpetrated by "US mainstream news media" to serve the
special interests of its Corporatist overlords...

Pratap Chatterjee, AlterNet: While much of the media
is focused on the pitched battle over the control of
the holy shrine in Najaf, a bigger scandal is brewing
in Iraq that may well have an equally important effect
on the future of the U.S. occupation.
A team of auditors was dispatched to Iraq in late
January this year after a string of internal reports
showed that the military was wasting billions of
dollars of taxpayer money. They have issued eleven
reports since June 25, almost all of which have
pointed to the misuse of the money allocated for
reconstruction, be it Iraqi or Congress-appropriated
funds.
According to two of these reports issued in late July
by Stuart Bowen, the auditor-inspector general of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), not only have a
full one-third of the items purchased by the Pentagon
gone MIA (including the pricey generator), but a
whopping. $1.9 billion or more of Iraqi oil revenue
has also mysteriously disappeared.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://alternet.org/waroniraq/19620/


The Thief of Baghdad
By Pratap Chatterjee, AlterNet
Posted on August 23, 2004, Printed on August 25, 2004
http://www.alternet.org/story/19620/
Missing: One giant generator owned by the United
States military. Estimated cost: $734,863

Last seen: Somewhere in Iraq.

While much of the media is focused on the pitched battle over the control of the holy shrine in Najaf, a bigger scandal is brewing in Iraq that may well have an equally important effect on the future of the U.S. occupation.

A team of auditors was dispatched to Iraq in late
January this year after a string of internal reports
showed that the military was wasting billions of
dollars of taxpayer money. They have issued eleven
reports since June 25, almost all of which have
pointed to the misuse of the money allocated for
reconstruction, be it Iraqi or Congress-appropriated
funds.

According to two of these reports issued in late July
by Stuart Bowen, the auditor-inspector general of the
Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), not only have a
full one-third of the items purchased by the Pentagon
gone MIA (including the pricey generator), but a
whopping. $1.9 billion or more of Iraqi oil revenue
has also mysteriously disappeared.

Embarrassed military authorities did eventually track
down the missing generator and much of the money, both
of which seemed to have ended up with none other than
Halliburton. As it turns out they weren't missing
after all; it's just that Dick Cheney's former
employer had misplaced or conveniently forgotten to
turn in the receipts to the correct people.

But the Pentagon was not able to explain just how
Halliburton gained possession of Iraqi funds when
neither the United States Congress nor the Iraqi
government authorized their transfer to Halliburton in
the first place. Worse yet, the man who authorized the
allocation – CPA chief Paul Bremer – had already
quietly left Iraq just as the reports were being
released.

Yet days after the much-touted "transfer of
sovereignty," the White House revealed an even more
startling detail about the reconstruction effort: In
over a year, the CPA had managed to spend just 2
percent of the $18.4 billion earmarked for the
immediate reconstruction of Iraq. And not a penny was
spent on the two areas where the Iraqi people were
suffering the most: healthcare or water and
sanitation.

So what is really going on? Is the United States
spending too much or too little money in Iraq?

To answer that question, we need to separate the
apples from the pears and the oranges.

Other People's Money

There are three treasure chests that the Occupation
authorities are allowed to dip their hands into. The
$87 billion appropriation that Congress granted to the
Bush administration in September 2003 was divided into
two funds: the bigger chunk, some $65 billion, for
military operations and $18.4 billion for
reconstruction. The Development Fund of Iraq (a.k.a.
the revenues accrued from the sale of Iraqi oil) is
the third treasure chest.

Treasure Chest No. 1 was quickly spent after the
invasion on hiring Halliburton to supply the soldiers.
In fact, the Pentagon has reportedly exceeded this
allotment by an estimated $12 billion. This
appropriation has been the source of most of the money
spent in Iraq. It is also the money that has been
subjected to a series of careful audits by the Defense
Contract Audit Agency, the General Accounting Office
(the investigative arm of Congress), and Stuart
Bowen's team of auditors in Baghdad – all of whom have
fiercely criticized Halliburton for its pricing and
spending practices.

The CPA barely touched the $18.4 billion allocated by
Congress for reconstruction (Treasure Chest No.
2)because of stringent bidding and oversight
requirements to prevent fraud or waste. Many of the
reconstruction bills were instead paid for with
revenue from the sale of Iraqi oil (Treasure Chest No.
3). Some of this money was spent on Halliburton for
the repair of the oil infrastructure; some was simply
handed out in cash to local people by soldiers in
return for favors such as rebuilding offices or
building football fields.

A New York Times article in late June 2004, described
the lax oversight of this money thus:


"The teams have become famous in Iraq for the way they
have spread across the country, commissioning repairs
and paying for them from satchels bulging with $100
bills shipped by plane from a Federal Reserve vault in
East Rutherford, New Jersey. At least $1 billion has
been distributed in this fashion – by some estimates
more than $2 billion. 'The military commanders love
that program, because it buys them friends,' said an
administration official, referring to the cash
distribution. 'You want to hire everybody on the
street, put money in their pockets and make them like
you. We have always spent Iraqi money on that.'"

So here is what it all means:

One, the U.S. taxpayers spent a lot of money on the
soldiers, but the Pentagon paid Halliburton to do the
work. The company billed the military top dollar
knowing that the brass would look the other way. The
gravy train finally ground to a halt when two brave
members of Congress inquired about the results of the
internal audit.

Two, almost none of the money that American taxpayers
provided for reconstruction was spent because the
rules were too stringent for the CPA's taste.

And three, we dished out Iraqi money to companies like
Halliburton like it was going out of style because the
United States government knew that neither Congress
nor the United Nations would ask us difficult
questions about what we were doing with other people's
money. Equally importantly, Bush officials were
worried that the new Iraqi government might ask us
difficult questions about their money once they gained
any modicum of power. So they were eager to spend the
money while they could.

In other words, despite access to billions of dollars
for reconstruction, the CPA has done little to serve
the interests of either the American taxpayer or the
Iraqi people. The reconstruction effort has, however,
been a cash bonanza for companies like Halliburton.

The Billion-dollar Corporate Expense Account

Halliburton has been the biggest beneficiary of the
CPA and Pentagon's liberal spending policies – the
company alone got $3.9 billion last year to repair oil
fields and provide food, laundry, sanitation and
transportation services to the military.

Where did the money go? Whistle-blowers from the
company have sent testimony to Congress detailing the
many wasteful practices: paying $100 for a bag of
laundry; abandoning $85,000 trucks for the lack of a
spare tire. Meanwhile, other companies like Science
Applications International Corporation of San Diego
were shipping armored Humvees for company executives
on specially chartered jets and paying themselves $200
an hour to run a U.S. propaganda television station
that no one was watching.

An internal Pentagon audit completed two weeks ago and
reported in the Wall Street Journal earlier this month
found that Halliburton failed to adequately account
for "more than $1.8 billion" it has received so far
for providing logistical support to troops in Iraq and
Kuwait.

When challenged by military auditors to account for
its missing equipment and receipts, the Houston-based
Halliburton told the Pentagon that it did not have
enough staff to keep track of the $400 million it was
spending in Iraq – an explanation that the Defense
Department was surprisingly quick to accept. Linda
Theis, a spokeswoman for the Army Materiel Command,
told reporters, "It was the pace. It was the magnitude
of this contract."

In statements to the press, on the other hand,
Halliburton flatly denies any problems with its
accounting procedures. Randy Harl, president of
Kellogg, Brown and Root, the Halliburton subsidiary
that conducts the work in Iraq, said, "In general, we
have found that the subcontractors are properly
billing on the basis provided in the subcontracts. We
are operating in a remote, hostile and ever-changing
environment in Iraq. In such an environment, there are
bound to be challenges. Any issues related to billings
will not only be resolved quickly and responsibly, but
also resolved in such a way that it will not affect
any services provided to our soldiers."

But in written testimony submitted to Congress,
Halliburton's own auditor, Marie de Young, revealed
that the company's internal auditors (nicknamed the
"Tiger Team") were not doing their job properly. De
Young, who was hired in December 2003 to help oversee
Operation Iraqi Freedom contracts, told Congress:


When the Tiger Team examined a subcontract, they just
checked to make sure that all the forms were in the
file. ... They didn't assess the reasonableness of the
price or consult with site managers. The team's sole
purpose was to close as many subcontracts as possible,
under the mistaken assumption that everything that was
closed prior to the arrival of the government audit
team would be exempt from further scrutiny.

De Young also made clear the company's intentions: "I
had been advised by subcontract administrators who
quit the company that employees get moved around when
they get too close to the truth. ... Ironically, other
previous managers who tolerated bad practices were
promoted to better paying jobs in Iraq or Houston or
Jordan."

The final touch of irony: Halliburton housed the Tiger
Team at the five-star Kempinski Hotel in Kuwait,
paying each of them a whopping $10,000 per month for
their troubles. At the time, U.S. soldiers were
required to live in tents at a cost of $1.39 a day.
When the military asked Halliburton employees to move
into the tents, they refused.

Crimes and Consequences

The audit reports have produced little real action on
the part of the Pentagon thus far. Last Monday,
Halliburton announced that the Pentagon had told the
company that it plans to withhold 15 percent ($60
million) of its monthly payment until they find all
the missing receipts. But the Pentagon reversed its
decision the very next day, announcing that it will
give the company more time to find the missing paper
work and prove their costs before imposing the
penalty. Halliburton has already been granted extra
time twice.

The audits may also not have much effect on the future
of the reconstruction effort, which remains grim.
Bremer's departure in June was only one in an exodus
of occupation officials and contractors, derisively
labeled by a U.S. soldier as "The League of Frightened
Gentleman," fleeing the dangerous situation in Iraq.
The German engineers hired to repair the Daura power
plant in Baghdad left behind enormous disassembled
machines strewn across the plant floor. "They didn't
contact me," said Bashir Khalif Omir, the plant
director at the time. "They took their luggage at
midnight and they left."

When Bremer caught his jet plane out of Iraq, two
heavily armed Blackwater private military watched his
back, rifles pointed menacingly at camera crews. There
were no flowers from an adoring Iraqi public, not even
anything similar to the dramatic lift-off from the
roof of the U.S. embassy in Saigon marked the occasion
– just a quiet, top-secret escape to freedom (and a
lucrative book contract). But Bremer left behind a
nation that was not just more dangerous but also
poorer for his efforts.

© 2004 Independent Media Institute. All rights
reserved.
View this story online at:
http://www.alternet.org/story/19620/

Posted by richard at 11:05 AM

August 24, 2004

E.J. Dionne: Just politics? Nation, media, and Bush should stand up to Swift Boat smear campaign

950+ US soldiers killed in a foolish military
adventure, Abu Ghraib, Chalabi, Plame, WMD lies,
pre-9/11 incompetence (at best), post-9/11
incompetence (at best), hundreds of billions of
dollars in Federal budget deficit, seven trillion
dollars in national debt, dismal economic news,
soaring oil prices, Medifraud, Enron and the phoney
"California energy crisis," Halliburton (both under
Cheney and in Iraq), the prostitution of the EPA and
other government agencies...Yes, let's spend another
news cycle debating the Vietnam war record of Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...

E.J. Dionne, Washington Post: The media have to do
more than "he said/he said" reporting. If the charges
don't hold up, they don't hold up. And, yes, now that
John Kerry's life during his 20s has been put at the
heart of this campaign just over two months from
Election Day, the media owe the country a comparable
review of what Bush was doing at the same time and the
same age.
If all the stories are about what Kerry did in Vietnam
and not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the
Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a
right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors
and producers don't want to send a signal that all you
have to do to set the media's agenda is to spend a
half a million bucks on television ads.
This is also a test of John McCain. When he ran
against Bush four years ago, McCain was smeared
mercilessly. When McCain protested to Bush about the
attacks at one of their debates during the 2000
primaries, Bush brushed him off. "John," Bush said,
"it's politics."
McCain snapped back, "George, everything isn't
politics."
McCain was right, and when he returns to the United
States from a trip to Europe this week, he should
stand up for that principle by suspending his
campaigning for Bush's re-election until the smears
against Kerry's Vietnam record stop. More than anyone,
McCain is the person to make the case that
slaughterhouse politics is particularly ill-suited at
this moment in our history.
Now that John Kerry's life during his 20s has been put
at the heart of this campaign, the media owe the
country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at
the same time and the same age.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=17523
E.J. Dionne, Jr.
Washington Post Writers Group
08.24.04

Just politics? Nation, media, and Bush should stand up to Swift Boat smear campaign


WASHINGTON -- You would have thought that if the issue
of who served under fire during the Vietnam War became
a big deal at this point in the presidential campaign,
it would be a major advantage to John Kerry.
After all, there is no dispute that Kerry served in
Vietnam's combat zones while both President Bush and
Vice President Cheney avoided the war. Bush served
stateside in the National Guard (it's still not clear
exactly how much of his duty time he missed) and
Cheney avoided the military altogether. The hawkish
veep has explained blithely, "I had other priorities
in the '60s than military service."

Republicans insisted that military service was an
important criterion for leadership when Bill Clinton
ran against the elder George Bush and former Sen. Bob
Dole, war veterans both. But the Republican attack
maestros were never as interested in service as they
were in taking and holding power. So now it's Bush
supporters, through a front group, attacking the war
veteran -- much as they attacked Vietnam hero John
McCain during the Republican primaries four years ago
when McCain dared to challenge Bush.

This episode is a great test of how politics work in
our country. It is, first, a test of George W. Bush.

Bush claims that his highest priority is uniting the
country in the war against terrorism. A president who
would be a uniter and not a divider knows that
cheap-shot politics can only further rend our nation
and weaken his own ability to lead.

On Monday, Bush offered what you might call a nuanced
response to the controversy over the anti-Kerry ads.
While praising Kerry's service, Bush issued only a
blanket condemnation of all ads by outside groups.
What Bush really needs to do is tell the
inappropriately named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth to
stop smearing Kerry's service record and urge his big
money contributors to stop bankrolling the
distortions.

This is also a test for the media. We see here a
fascinating and ugly development in the politics of
annihilation. A supposedly outside group raises money
from close Bush supporters, staffs itself with
political operatives close to Bush and the
Republicans, and then puts up several hundred thousand
dollars worth of television ads. This is, as one
operative with years of experience in Republican
campaigns, put it, "a professional hit." Suddenly,
questions about Kerry's service that were asked and
answered months ago become big news again.

To their credit, several news organizations -- The New
York Times, Chicago Tribune and The Washington Post
among them -- have run reports exposing the
distortions, inconsistencies and fabrications of the
anti-Kerry crowd, and the links between this operation
and the Bush machine.

But this hasn't stopped the run of unproven innuendo.
Even highly respected Republicans have jumped in.
"There's got to be some truth to these charges," Dole,
a true war hero, said on CNN.

Alas, this is the classic course a smear campaign
takes. A group throws up accusations that, when
subjected to scrutiny, prove to be full of holes.
Supporters of the attack campaign say that, well,
those charges may not pan out, but there must be
something here. Let's just keep attacking.

The media have to do more than "he said/he said"
reporting. If the charges don't hold up, they don't
hold up. And, yes, now that John Kerry's life during
his 20s has been put at the heart of this campaign
just over two months from Election Day, the media owe
the country a comparable review of what Bush was doing
at the same time and the same age.

If all the stories are about what Kerry did in Vietnam
and not balanced by serious scrutiny of Bush in the
Vietnam years, the media will be capitulating to a
right-wing smear campaign. Surely our nation's editors
and producers don't want to send a signal that all you
have to do to set the media's agenda is to spend a
half a million bucks on television ads.

This is also a test of John McCain. When he ran
against Bush four years ago, McCain was smeared
mercilessly. When McCain protested to Bush about the
attacks at one of their debates during the 2000
primaries, Bush brushed him off. "John," Bush said,
"it's politics."

McCain snapped back, "George, everything isn't
politics."

McCain was right, and when he returns to the United
States from a trip to Europe this week, he should
stand up for that principle by suspending his
campaigning for Bush's re-election until the smears
against Kerry's Vietnam record stop. More than anyone,
McCain is the person to make the case that
slaughterhouse politics is particularly ill-suited at
this moment in our history.

Now that John Kerry's life during his 20s has been put
at the heart of this campaign, the media owe the
country a comparable review of what Bush was doing at
the same time and the same age.


For more, please visit the E.J. Dionne, Jr. archives.



(c) 2004, Washington Post Writers Group
Opinions expressed on this site are not necessarily
those of Working Assets, nor is Working Assets
responsible for objectionable material accessed via
links from this site.

Posted by richard at 11:55 AM

LA Times Editorial: These Charges are False...

Although this LAT editorial is rather self-serving and
disingenuous about what is going on in newsrooms these
days, it is nevertheless significant in its moral force and refreshing in its lack of ambiguity. It both reveals human decency and clarity of mind.
Unfortunately, both qualties are rare in the "US
mainstream news media."

LA Times Editorial: More important, either man could
shut down the groups working on his behalf if he
wanted to. Kerry has denounced the MoveOn ads, with
what degree of sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday
— finally — called for all ads by independent groups
on both sides to be halted. He also said Kerry had
"served admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an
invitation to condemn the Swift boat effort.
In both cases, the candidates are the reason the
groups are in business. There is an important
difference, though, between the side campaign being
run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry
campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign
is nasty, personal and false.
No informed person can seriously believe that
Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals
in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as
having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago.
Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the
events in question, as well as by documentation. His
accusers have no evidence except their own dubious
word.
Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues
in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges
against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no
good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he
were a man of principle, would say the same thing.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082504Z.shtml

These Charges are False...
Los Angeles Times | Editorial

Tuesday 25 August 2004

It's one thing for the presidential campaign to get
nasty but quite another for it to engage in
fabrication.
The technique President Bush is using against John
F. Kerry was perfected by his father against Michael
Dukakis in 1988, though its roots go back at least to
Sen. Joseph McCarthy. It is: Bring a charge, however
bogus. Make the charge simple: Dukakis "vetoed the
Pledge of Allegiance"; Bill Clinton "raised taxes 128
times"; "there are [pick a number] Communists in the
State Department." But make sure the supporting
details are complicated and blurry enough to prevent
easy refutation.

Then sit back and let the media do your work for
you. Journalists have to report the charges, usually
feel obliged to report the rebuttal, and often even
attempt an analysis or assessment. But the canons of
the profession prevent most journalists from saying
outright: These charges are false. As a result, the
voters are left with a general sense that there is
some controversy over Dukakis' patriotism or Kerry's
service in Vietnam. And they have been distracted from
thinking about real issues (like the war going on now)
by these laboratory concoctions.

It must be infuriating to the victims of this
process to be given conflicting advice about how to
deal with it from the same campaign press corps that
keeps it going. The press has been telling Kerry: (a)
Don't let charges sit around unanswered; and (b) stick
to your issues: Don't let the other guy choose the
turf.

At the moment, Kerry is being punished by the
media for taking advice (b) and failing to take advice
(a). There was plenty of talk on TV about what Kerry's
failure to strike back said about whether he had the
backbone for the job of president — and even when he
did strike back, he was accused of not doing it soon
enough. But what does Bush's acquiescence in the use
of this issue say about whether he has the simple
decency for the job of president?

Whether the Bush campaign is tied to the Swift
boat campaign in the technical, legal sense that
triggers the wrath of the campaign-spending reform law
is not a very interesting question. The ridiculously
named Swift Boat Veterans for Truth is being funded by
conservative groups that interlock with Bush's world
in various ways, just as MoveOn.org, which is running
nasty ads about Bush's avoidance of service in
Vietnam, is part of Kerry's general milieu.

More important, either man could shut down the
groups working on his behalf if he wanted to. Kerry
has denounced the MoveOn ads, with what degree of
sincerity we can't know. Bush on Monday — finally —
called for all ads by independent groups on both sides
to be halted. He also said Kerry had "served
admirably" in Vietnam. But he declined an invitation
to condemn the Swift boat effort.

In both cases, the candidates are the reason the
groups are in business. There is an important
difference, though, between the side campaign being
run for Kerry and the one for Bush. The pro-Kerry
campaign is nasty and personal. The pro-Bush campaign
is nasty, personal and false.

No informed person can seriously believe that
Kerry fabricated evidence to win his military medals
in Vietnam. His main accuser has been exposed as
having said the opposite at the time, 35 years ago.
Kerry is backed by almost all those who witnessed the
events in question, as well as by documentation. His
accusers have no evidence except their own dubious
word.

Not limited by the conventions of our colleagues
in the newsroom, we can say it outright: These charges
against John Kerry are false. Or at least, there is no
good evidence that they are true. George Bush, if he
were a man of principle, would say the same thing.

Posted by richard at 11:51 AM

Gainesville Sun: Swift boat vets back out of speech at local rally

Rove's character assasination squad is deserting...and
Fraudida is slipping from the Bush cabal's clutches...

Gainesville Sun: Joe Ponder, wounded during the war in
1968, said he turned down the speaking engagement
after learning that fliers promoting the event had
been distributed at a local Bush-Cheney campaign
office Friday.
Pete Webster, another member of the organization
scheduled to speak, did not attend Saturday's rally.
When the speakers failed to materialize, scores of
Bush and Kerry supporters who had gathered for the
event sparred verbally for more than three hours...
In the muggy, wet afternoon, activists from both
campaigns struggled for control of the plaza's stage,
with more than 70 Kerry supporters nearly crowding out
a smaller, pro-Bush contingent.
Between them, a third group tried to remain neutral on
the sharply divided political battleground.
Kerry supporters sang "America the Beautiful" and "God
Bless America" while Bush supporters recited the
Pledge of Allegiance. Heated debates over which man
was "fit for command" had supporters on both sides
engaged in a face-to-face war of words. A sea of red,
white and blue signs were held high, but the
atmosphere was anything but peaceful.
When Kerry supporters refused to leave the stage,
Wolfersheim called the Gainesville Police Department
to have them removed. After being asked to leave by
the police, the Kerry supporters moved onto the lawn
of the plaza, where they continued to argue with Bush
supporters on the stage before dispersing by 5:30 p.m.

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.gainesville.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040822/LOCAL/40821054/1078

Swift boat vets back out of speech at local rally

By GREG C. BRUNO, JEFF ADELSON and DEBORAH BALL

Sun Staff Writers
August 22. 2004 6:01AM

ZOOM DAVID MASSEY/The Gainesville Sun
Vietnam veteran Tommy Wheeler looks onto the downtown
community plaza during a rally originally organized to
showcase The Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, Vietnam
Veterans against Kerry and Veterans for Bush on
Saturday. No swift boat veterans showed.
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth member featured
prominently in ads attacking Sen. John Kerry's Vietnam
service said he was misled by Republicans when asked
to speak at an anti-Kerry rally in Gainesville on
Saturday.

Joe Ponder, wounded during the war in 1968, said he
turned down the speaking engagement after learning
that fliers promoting the event had been distributed
at a local Bush-Cheney campaign office Friday.

Pete Webster, another member of the organization
scheduled to speak, did not attend Saturday's rally.

When the speakers failed to materialize, scores of
Bush and Kerry supporters who had gathered for the
event sparred verbally for more than three hours.

The Bush campaign has insisted for weeks that it has
no connection to the swift boat veteran's group. Known
as a 527 for its tax-exempt status, the organization
has sponsored television ads featuring several Vietnam
veterans who accuse Kerry f lying about events for
which he won medals.

Kerry supporters have countered that members of the
organization did not serve in the same boat as the
Massachusetts senator, and accused the veterans' group
of using negative campaign tactics. Kerry has said he
stands behind his record.

The group is financed by a Texas businessman with
longtime ties to prominent Republicans in the state,
including President Bush.

By law, such groups can not coordinate with campaigns.

During an interview Saturday from his Keystone Heights
home, Ponder said he did not know how the fliers wound
up at the Alachua County Republican Party headquarters
in Gainesville, and offered few details of the event
itself. In addition to the swift boat group, the
program noted that "Alachua County Republicans,"
"Veterans for Bush," and the "Alachua Bush-Cheney
Committee" were scheduled to attend.

"I had the assurance that the party and the
Bush-Cheney campaign had nothing to do with this,"
Ponder said.

But after learning about the flyer, "I contacted those
folks and told them that as much as I was looking
forward to addressing the vets, I decided it was in
the best interest of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
that I not participate in this event."

There was question as to whether the swift boat group
had ever officially agreed to attend the eight-hour
rally. An e-mailed statement from another swift boat
member, John O?Neill, claimed that the engagement was
never cleared by the group's executives.

Regardless, Kerry officials have seized on reports of
the rally's alleged promotion, declaring Friday that
Bush had been "busted" for coordinating with the group
"in their smear campaign" against the Democratic
presidential nominee.

They went one step further on Saturday, saying that
Ponder's decision not to speak was proof of
cooperation between the groups.

"The fact that they canceled once the evidence came
out is a pretty clear sign they knew they were
breaking the law," said Matt Miller, Kerry's Florida
spokesman.

"And by they, I mean the Bush campaign and the Swift
Boat people."

In Washington, Bush-Cheney officials dismissed the
claims as ridiculous.

"This campaign would object to any sort of literature
or promotion (from an outside group) placed within any
Republican office," said Taylor Griffin, a spokesman
for the Republican campaign.

"The bottom line is, this campaign has no relationship
with this group."

Despite the high-level partisan bickering, details of
the event and its promotion in Gainesville remained
unclear Saturday.

Dineen Wolfersheim, secretary of the Alachua County
Republican Executive Committee, said she helped
organized the event as a private citizen and blamed an
unidentified "overzealous Republican" for placing the
flier in the party's headquarters. She said once local
Republican party officials learned of the promotion's
placement, they removed it.

In addition, Wolfersheim said she pulled the permit
needed for the event and helped others organize and
raise money.

REC Chairman Travis Horn said he was aware Wolfersheim
was participating in the event, but said she was not
doing so as a representative of the party.

"We don't control what people do with their First
Amendment rights," he said.

Horn said he had seen the fliers in the office, but
only noticed that they advertised a "pro-USA veteran's
rally." The committee never authorized the use of the
name of their committee or party on the fliers and did
not contribute funds or resources to the event, the
chairman said.

The REC and other organizations affiliated with the
party were also mentioned in an e-mail announcement
sent by Wolfersheim promoting the event.

"The Swift Boat Vets for Truth, Vietnam Veterans
against Kerry, Veterans for Bush have asked us to
participate and join them in a political rally at the
downtown plaza," according to the e-mail, which is
signed Dineen Wolfersheim, Events Coordinator, ACREC
Secretary.

ACREC is the Alachua County Republican Executive
Committee.

Wolfersheim said she wrote the e-mail but did not
intend for it to be put into general distribution.
Republican groups did not sponsor the event, she said,
though they were invited to participate.

"In no way is this (event) sanctioned by my party or
my president," she said.

Though the event lacked speakers, it was not at a loss
for political organizations. Members of other veterans
groups supporting Bush attended, but did not speak.

Denny Baum, with Vietnam Veterans for Truth, was
initially slated to speak along with the swift boat
veterans, but said "legal issues" prevented him from
speaking at the event.

In the muggy, wet afternoon, activists from both
campaigns struggled for control of the plaza's stage,
with more than 70 Kerry supporters nearly crowding out
a smaller, pro-Bush contingent.

Between them, a third group tried to remain neutral on
the sharply divided political battleground.

Kerry supporters sang "America the Beautiful" and "God
Bless America" while Bush supporters recited the
Pledge of Allegiance. Heated debates over which man
was "fit for command" had supporters on both sides
engaged in a face-to-face war of words. A sea of red,
white and blue signs were held high, but the
atmosphere was anything but peaceful.

When Kerry supporters refused to leave the stage,
Wolfersheim called the Gainesville Police Department
to have them removed. After being asked to leave by
the police, the Kerry supporters moved onto the lawn
of the plaza, where they continued to argue with Bush
supporters on the stage before dispersing by 5:30 p.m.


Posted by richard at 11:48 AM

Bob Herbert: A Chill in Florida

No number of op-ed pieces written by an African American
columnist, however compelling, absolves the NYTwits of
their journalistic responsibility of ACCURATELY
reporting what is happening in Fraudida -- on their
FRONT PAGE...The NYTwits failed the US Electorate in
2000, and there is little evidence that it will be any
different in 2004...

Bob Herbert, NY Times: From the G.O.P. perspective, it
doesn't really matter whether anyone is arrested in
the Orlando investigation, or even if a crime was
committed. The idea, in Orange County and elsewhere,
is to send a chill through the democratic process,
suppressing opposing votes by whatever means are
available.

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082404J.shtml

A Chill in Florida
By Bob Herbert
New York Times

Monday 23 August 2004

The state police investigation into get-out-the-vote
activities by blacks in Orlando, Fla., fits perfectly
with the political aims of Gov. Jeb Bush and the
Republican Party.

The Republicans were stung in the 2000 presidential
election when Al Gore became the first Democrat since
1948 to carry Orange County, of which Orlando is the
hub. He could not have carried the county without the
strong support of black voters, many of whom cast
absentee ballots.

The G.O.P. was stung again in 2003 when Buddy Dyer,
a Democrat, was elected mayor of Orlando. He won a
special election to succeed Glenda Hood, a three-term
Republican who was appointed Florida secretary of
state by Governor Bush. Mr. Dyer was re-elected last
March. As with Mr. Gore, the black vote was an
important factor.

These two election reverses have upset Republicans
in Orange County and statewide. Moreover, the anxiety
over Democratic gains in Orange County is entwined
with the very real fear among party stalwarts that
Florida might go for John Kerry in this year's
presidential election.

It is in this context that two of the ugliest
developments of the current campaign season should be
viewed.

"A Democrat can't win a statewide election in
Florida without a high voter turnout - both at the
polls and with absentee ballots - of
African-Americans," said a man who is close to the
Republican establishment in Florida but asked not to
be identified. "It's no secret that the name of the
game for Republicans is to restrain that turnout as
much as possible. Black votes are Democratic votes,
and there are a lot of them in Florida."

The two ugly developments - both focused on race -
were the heavy-handed investigation by Florida state
troopers of black get-out-the-vote efforts in Orlando,
and the state's blatant attempt to purge blacks from
voter rolls through the use of a flawed list of
supposed felons that contained the names of thousands
of African-Americans and, conveniently, very few
Hispanics.

Florida is one of only a handful of states that bar
convicted felons from voting, unless they successfully
petition to have their voting rights restored. The
state's "felon purge" list had to be abandoned by
Glenda Hood, the secretary of state (and, yes, former
mayor of Orlando), after it became known that the
flawed list would target blacks but not Hispanics, who
are more likely in Florida to vote Republican. The
list also contained the names of thousands of people,
most of them black, who should not have been on the
list at all.

Ms. Hood, handpicked by Governor Bush to succeed the
notorious Katherine Harris as secretary of state, was
forced to admit that the felons list was a mess. She
said the problems were unintentional. What clearly was
intentional was the desire of Ms. Hood and Governor
Bush to keep the list secret. It was disclosed only as
a result of lawsuits filed under Florida's admirable
sunshine law.

Meanwhile, the sending of state troopers into the
homes of elderly black voters in Orlando was said by
officials to be a response to allegations of voter
fraud in last March's mayoral election. But the
investigation went forward despite findings in the
spring that appeared to show that the allegations were
unfounded.

Why go forward anyway? Well, consider that the
prolonged investigation dovetails exquisitely with
that crucial but unspoken mission of the G.O.P. in
Florida: to keep black voter turnout as low as
possible. The interrogation of elderly black men and
women in their homes has already frightened many
voters and intimidated elderly get-out-the-vote
volunteers.

The use of state troopers to zero in on voter
turnout efforts is highly unusual, if not
unprecedented, in Florida. But the head of the Florida
Department of Law Enforcement, Guy Tunnell, who was
also handpicked by Governor Bush, has been unfazed by
the mounting criticism of this use of the state
police. His spokesmen have said a "person of interest"
in the investigation is Ezzie Thomas, a 73-year-old
black man who just happens to have done very well in
turning out the African-American vote.

From the G.O.P. perspective, it doesn't really
matter whether anyone is arrested in the Orlando
investigation, or even if a crime was committed. The
idea, in Orange County and elsewhere, is to send a
chill through the democratic process, suppressing
opposing votes by whatever means are available.

-------

Posted by richard at 11:44 AM

August 23, 2004

Business Week: John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt

Four more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? The
neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. Meanwhile,
the "US mainstream news media," which no longers gives
these tragic and *unnecessary* deaths prominent
coverage, has flooded the air waves for days and
nights with the Bush cabal's despicable and deceitful
attacks on the heroic military record of Sen. John F.
Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...JFK is ahead in Missouri,
Ohio and Fraudida. West Virginia, Virginia, North
Carolina, Tennessee and Arkansas are in play. New
Hampshire is already lost to the Bush cabal...Arizona
and Nevada too are in play...There is an Electoral
Uprising coming in November...The Bush cabal will get even more desperate and even more viscious the closer we get to the day of political reckoning...

Thane Peterson, Business Week: The next time the
nation gets into a war, why would any American with an
interest in national service show up to fight? When
did the U.S. come to blithely accept the tarring for
political gain of honorably discharged combat
veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the attacks on
John Kerry by a bunch of angry, Bush-backing
Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic candidate
doesn't deserve all of the medals, which include
Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple Hearts, that
he won in combat in Vietnam.
But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican
Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a
genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his
South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush
for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the
relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max
Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated
Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If
you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need
to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.
It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in
general -- to get on the right side of this issue once
and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry
and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry
served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you
don't think it's important for a President to have
served in combat, fine, make your choice on other
grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on
this one issue (see BW Online, 8/23/04, "Why Kerry's
War Record Matters").

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/aug2004/nf20040823_6115_db045.htm


AUGUST 23, 2004

COMMENTARY
By Thane Peterson


Flinging the Foul Mud of Vietnam: John Kerry returned a hero. The smears his political enemies are now flinging mark them -- not him -- as beneath contempt

The next time the nation gets into a war, why would
any American with an interest in national service show
up to fight? When did the U.S. come to blithely accept
the tarring for political gain of honorably discharged
combat veterans? Obviously, I'm talking about the
attacks on John Kerry by a bunch of angry,
Bush-backing Vietnam-war vets who claim the Democratic
candidate doesn't deserve all of the medals, which
include Bronze and Silver Stars and three Purple
Hearts, that he won in combat in Vietnam.

But I'm also talking about the attacks on Republican
Senator and former prisoner of war John McCain -- a
genuine hero by anyone's definition -- during his
South Carolina primary battle against George W. Bush
for the 2000 Presidential nomination. And the
relentless assaults on the patriotism of Democrat Max
Cleland by Republican Saxby Chambliss, who defeated
Cleland for one of Georgia's Senate seats in 2002. If
you want proof of Cleland's patriotism, all you need
to know is that he lost three limbs in Vietnam.

It's time for Bush in particular -- and Americans in
general -- to get on the right side of this issue once
and for all. No moral equivalency exists between Kerry
and Bush on the issue of service in Vietnam. Kerry
served in combat. He was shot at. Not Bush. If you
don't think it's important for a President to have
served in combat, fine, make your choice on other
grounds. But if you do, Kerry is your man, at least on
this one issue (see BW Online, 8/23/04, "Why Kerry's
War Record Matters").

REPUBLICAN RECOMMENDATION. Nine of the ten Swift-boat
comrades who served on Kerry's boat have showed up at
his side to campaign for him and defend him. They're
the ones with the most direct knowledge of what
happened and they confirm that Kerry deserved the
Bronze Star for his leadership during a skirmish on
March 13, 1969.

So does Jim Rassmann, the retired Los Angeles County
cop who introduced Kerry at the Democratic Convention.
Rassmann is a Republican, for gosh sakes. He came
forward on his own and offered to campaign for Kerry,
whom he credits with saving his life that day. Rassman
also recommended Kerry for the Silver Star, one of the
nation's highest honors for bravery under fire and the
highest medal Kerry won.

Crewmen on the three Swift boats involved in an attack
Kerry led on Feb. 28, 1969, also support Kerry's
version of events. That's the day Kerry won the Silver
Star, one of the nation's highest honors for bravery
under fire and the highest medal Kerry was awarded.

The latest to come forward is Willam R. Rood, a
Chicago Tribune editor who commanded one of the other
boats, broke a 35-year silence when he published a
first-person account on Aug. 22 supporting Kerry's
version. "What matters most to me," Rood wrote, "is
that this is hurting crewmen who are not public
figures and who deserved to be honored for what they
did."

"FOG OF WAR"? Contrast that with George Bush, who few
witnesses can recall having seen during a long stretch
of his National Guard duty during the Vietnam War.
News organizations have done plenty of digging into
the past to determine whether Bush used personal
influence to get himself into that National Guard
assignment. It's hard to say for certain. But no poor
people were in that unit. The only ones in it were
people with pull.

Why the so-called called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
-- only one of whom served on the same vessel with
Kerry -- have decided to attack their fellow vet is a
bit hard to decipher, too. I suppose it could partly
be an honest difference of opinion. Maybe the "fog of
war" led vets to have different memories of the same
events.

But the critics' main motivation is clear from
statements they themselves have repeatedly made: They
remain angry that Kerry protested the war when he
returned the U.S. and, specifically, that he accused
his fellow soldiers of having committed atrocities in
Vietnam.

MUDDYING THE WATER. Unfortunately, soldiers --
including American soldiers -- commit atrocities in
all wars. That was true even of the so-called Greatest
Generation in World War II, it was true in Korea and
Vietnam, and it's undoubtedly true in the current
conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan. Denying that is to
deny the reality of war. And failing to face the harsh
realities of war is what makes it so easy for the U.S.
to slide into nasty, unnecessary conflicts -- like
Vietnam and the Iraq War now.

Americans should never go to war except in the full
knowledge that it's going to wreak terrible pain on
the enemy, the civilian populations involved, and our
own troops. That doesn't make the service of those who
served honorably any less honorable. But anyone who
denies that some American soldiers committed
atrocities in Vietnam is kidding themselves. You can
quibble over the exact words Kerry used and whether he
should have said them when he did, but in broad terms
he spoke the truth.

The purpose of the attacks against Kerry, however,
isn't to get at the truth. It's a media campaign, with
TV ads intended to create a vague, negative impression
where none existed. The people behind the ads know
that by any realistic assessment of the facts, Kerry
has a major advantage over Bush when it comes to their
respective military records. They want to muddy the
waters to reduce Kerry's advantage. It's amazing that
such bald-faced tactics can gain any traction with
voters.

NO EQUIVALENCY. The critics know that if they can
just manufacture the appearance of controversy, most
reporters -- in the name of "balancing" their stories
-- will play along. Attacks on Bush, such as an ad
funded by the liberal advocacy group MoveOn.org that
questioned Bush's military record, have been given
equal weight with the vets' attack ads in some
stories.

The Bush campaign and editorial writers are calling on
Kerry to distance himself from the MoveOn ads in the
same breath that the Kerry campaign and editorialists
are asking Bush to renounce the Swift-boat vets' ads.
Kerry has repudiated the MoveOn ad (after some
prodding from McCain).

But sorry, my fellow journalists, there's no
equivalency here. MoveOn is an avowedly partisan group
that openly opposes Bush. The Swift-boat vets tried to
cover their political tracks while claiming inside
knowledge about Kerry most of them clearly don't have.
And several of them have flip-flopped from publicly
praising Kerry to attacking him.

A nation has to honor its war veterans whatever their
political party, while remaining realistic about the
horrors of war. If some Americans do otherwise, all
Americans are shamed. McCain has also called on Bush
to denounce the attacks on Kerry and condemn that kind
of low-life negative campaigning. It's time the
President complied in no uncertain terms, and it's
time he meant it.


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

Peterson is a contributing editor at BusinessWeek
Online. Follow his State of the Arts column, only on
BusinessWeek Online
Edited by Douglas Harbrecht


Copyright 2000-2004, by The McGraw-Hill Companies Inc.
All rights reserved.
Terms of Use Privacy Notice

Posted by richard at 02:09 PM

Iraqi Soccer Coach: "Freedom is just a word for the media. We are living in hard times, under occupation."

First, the 9/11 Families demanded that the Bush-Cheney campaign not exploit the slaughter of their loved ones in its political advertisements, then the
International Association of Firefighters demanded
that the 9/11-related deaths of NYC firefighters not
be exploited in political advertisements for Bush-Cheney, then the family
of slain WSJ journalist Danny Pearl demanded that VICE
_resident Cheney not exploit Danny's sacrifice for
political gain after a tasteless remark in one of his speeches, and now, the Iraqi soccer team coach has joined the team's already outspoken players in
denouncing the Bush-Cheney campaign's exploitation of their success
for his political gain...What is happening in this
country? This activity is not 527-related. It is official Bush-Cheney campaign activity. Why isn't this extraordinary pattern of
exploitation and rebuke a major story for the "US
mainstream news media"? Well, of course, they are not
interested in providing CONTEXT and CONTINUITY for the
real news...their not so hidden agenda is to save the
Corporatist lock on the White House and the US Senate,
and the media monopoly it enables, at almost any
cost...

Ellie Tzortzi, Reuters: Iraq's Olympic soccer coach
said Monday his side should not be seen as a symbol of
freedom, taking issue with a campaign commercial for
President Bush.
The flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear in a
commercial as part of Bush's drive for re-election in
November. A narrator says: "At this Olympics there
will be two more free nations -- and two fewer
terrorist regimes."
But coach Adnan Hamad said Iraq, still plagued by
violence daily, remained a country under occupation.
"You cannot speak about a team that represents
freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an
occupying force. This is one of our most miserable
times," he said.
"Freedom is just a word for the media. We are living in hard times, under occupation."

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy on 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082404X.shtml

Soccer: We're No Symbol of Freedom, Iraq Coach Says
By Ellie Tzortzi
Reuters

Monday 23 August 2004

THESSALONIKI, Greece (Reuters) - Iraq's Olympic
soccer coach said Monday his side should not be seen
as a symbol of freedom, taking issue with a campaign
commercial for President Bush.

The flags of Iraq and Afghanistan appear in a
commercial as part of Bush's drive for re-election in
November. A narrator says: "At this Olympics there
will be two more free nations -- and two fewer
terrorist regimes."

But coach Adnan Hamad said Iraq, still plagued by
violence daily, remained a country under occupation.

"You cannot speak about a team that represents
freedom. We do not have freedom in Iraq, we have an
occupying force. This is one of our most miserable
times," he said.

"Freedom is just a word for the media. We are
living in hard times, under occupation."

The Iraqi men's soccer side has been one of the
surprises of the Olympics, reaching the semifinals of
the competition. They play Paraguay Tuesday for a
place in the final.

But their success has been overshadowed in the
past few days by rows over the commercial for Bush,
who went to war and ousted Iraq's Saddam Hussein last
year.

Although Washington has officially handed power to
an Iraqi interim government, more than 130,000
American soldiers remain in the country, battling with
insurgents from various factions. Western officials
also hold key positions behind the scenes.

"We want to give our people a cause to celebrate,
to forget their problems," Hamad told reporters in the
northern Greek city of Thessaloniki, the venue for
Tuesday's match.

After Sports Illustrated magazine quoted Iraqi
team members expressing outrage at the Bush ad, a
British adviser to the Iraqi Olympic committee accused
journalists of taking advantage of players' naivete
and said sport should not be politicized.

But Hamad said: "One cannot separate politics and
sport because of the situation in the country right
now."

He said the violence which continues to afflict
Iraq, more than a year after Bush declared major
combat there was over, meant the team could not fully
enjoy its success.

"To be honest with you, even our happiness at
winning is not happiness because we are worried about
the problems in Iraq, all the daily problems that our
people face back home, so to tell you the truth, we
are not really happy," he said.


The International Olympic Committee said it had
not been in touch with the Bush campaign about its use
of the Games in the commercial. National Olympic
committees own the rights to the Olympic name and
symbols in their countries, a spokeswoman said.


-------

Posted by richard at 02:05 PM

Boykin said, "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Either the Bush cabal is turned out of power in the national referendum in November 2004 or we will lose this Republic and be caught up in an unspeakable nightmare...Yes, it can get much worse...fast...Ask those you know who might be considering throwing their vote away on the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader if they really think that Boykin would still be in uniform in a Kerry-Edwards administration?

Americans United: "We are concerned that the Defense Department is not taking this case seriously," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "General Boykin's conduct was utterly outrageous and should not be treated lightly."
According to today's Washington Post, a Defense Department report recommends that the Acting Secretary of the Army find Boykin, who is now a high-ranking military intelligence official, guilty of minor internal regulations, such as failing to get clearance for his frequent comments before churches and making sure his audiences understood that he was speaking in a personal capacity. The report has not been made public, but was obtained by the newspaper.
The Post's article quotes a "senior Defense official" as calling the report a "complete exoneration" of Boykin and that it is likely the general will only be held responsible for "relatively minor offenses."
In October 2003, Americans United urged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fire Boykin. Only months earlier in April, AU had sent a letter to the Secretary of the Army protesting Boykin's endorsement of a Southern Baptist evangelism program and his use of an army base and its personnel to host and promote the ministry.
Boykin's frequent speeches before churches and prayer breakfasts nationwide drew worldwide attention when they were brought to light in fall 2003. Boykin spoke about his involvement in the war on terrorism at 23 religious events since early 2002. According to the Post, he wore his uniform at all but two.
In a speech in Daytona, Fla., Boykin recalled his efforts to capture an Islamic militant in Somalia who boasted that Allah would protect him from Americans. Boykin said, "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.au.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=6871&abbr=pr&JServSessionIdr012=6s2t4yh5l1.app13a&security=1002&news_iv_ctrl=1241

Americans United Urges Defense Dept. To Fire Controversial General
Thursday August 19, 2004

Army Official Who Claimed U.S. Is Waging Christian Holy War Against Satan Should Be Removed from Office, Says AU's Lynn

The Defense Department would be wrong to exonerate an Army general who sparked international ire for describing the U.S. war on terrorism as a Christian battle against Satan, says Americans United for Separation of Church and State.

"We are concerned that the Defense Department is not taking this case seriously," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, Americans United executive director. "General Boykin's conduct was utterly outrageous and should not be treated lightly."

According to today's Washington Post, a Defense Department report recommends that the Acting Secretary of the Army find Boykin, who is now a high-ranking military intelligence official, guilty of minor internal regulations, such as failing to get clearance for his frequent comments before churches and making sure his audiences understood that he was speaking in a personal capacity. The report has not been made public, but was obtained by the newspaper.

The Post's article quotes a "senior Defense official" as calling the report a "complete exoneration" of Boykin and that it is likely the general will only be held responsible for "relatively minor offenses."

In October 2003, Americans United urged Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld to fire Boykin. Only months earlier in April, AU had sent a letter to the Secretary of the Army protesting Boykin's endorsement of a Southern Baptist evangelism program and his use of an army base and its personnel to host and promote the ministry.

Boykin's frequent speeches before churches and prayer breakfasts nationwide drew worldwide attention when they were brought to light in fall 2003. Boykin spoke about his involvement in the war on terrorism at 23 religious events since early 2002. According to the Post, he wore his uniform at all but two.

In a speech in Daytona, Fla., Boykin recalled his efforts to capture an Islamic militant in Somalia who boasted that Allah would protect him from Americans. Boykin said, "Well, you know what I knew, that my God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God, and his was an idol."

During a speech before a congregation in Oregon, he declared that he was leading a "spiritual battle" against Satan. He told the congregation that Islamic extremists hate the U.S. "because we're a Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christian."

Boykin was roundly criticized by political leaders worldwide and his comments only added to perceptions held by many in the Middle East of an American-led war against Islam. A gaggle of Religious Right groups and their congressional allies has come out in support of Boykin. And although President George W. Bush sought to distance his administration from Boykin's remarks, Rumsfeld praised the general's "outstanding record" and refused to suspend him from office during the defense department's investigation.

Lynn said that the administration should remove Boykin from office.

"The general should not be in a top policy-making position," said Lynn. "This initial report from the Defense Department is troubling because it suggests Boykin will not be held fully accountable for his inflammatory actions."

Americans United for Separation of Church and State is a religious liberty watchdog group based in Washington, D.C. Founded in 1947, the organization educates Americans about the importance of church-state separation in safeguarding religious freedom.

Posted by richard at 01:58 PM

August 22, 2004

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir told Sports Illustrated in a story posted yesterday online. "He can find another way to advertise himself."

The major network news organizations have been running *feel good* stories of the Iraqi soccer on the air waves this weekend. Not once mentioning this compelling aspect of their story, i.e. no CONTEXT, no CONTINUITY. "Long Live Big Brother! Long Live Big Brother!" (Luckily, the best newspaper in New York is keeping its "eye on the prize," i.e. journalistic truth.) Add the Iraqi soccer team to the list that includes the International Firefighters Association, the 9/11 Families and slain WSJ journalist Danny Pearl's family, i.e the list of those who have demanded that they not be exploited in Bush cabal political advertisements...Oh, but that too would be providing CONTEXT and CONTINUITY...

It's the Media, Stupid.

KENNETH R. BAZINET, N.Y. DAILY NEWS: The Iraqi soccer
team featured in a Bush campaign ad says it considers
the President a killer who should remove U.S. forces
from their country immediately.
Midfielder Ahmed Manajid even said if he wasn't
playing soccer at the Olympics, he would be home in
Fallujuah trying to kill American soldiers.
"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for the presidential campaign," Iraqi midfielder Salih Sadir told Sports Illustrated in a story posted yesterday online. "He can find another way to advertise himself."
A week ago, the Bush camp began airing the
touchy-feely TV ad that paints Iraq's and
Afghanistan's participation in the Olympics as an
example of democracy growing worldwide. And, on the
campaign trail, President Bush has cited Team Iraq's
impressive start in Athens.
The Iraqis say enough already.
"How will [Bush] meet his God, having slaughtered so
many men and women?" Manajid told the magazine. "He
has committed so many crimes."

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/224061p-192375c.html

Team Iraq aims
kick at Bush


BY KENNETH R. BAZINET
DAILY NEWS WASHINGTON BUREAU

WASHINGTON - The Iraqi soccer team featured in a Bush
campaign ad says it considers the President a killer
who should remove U.S. forces from their country
immediately.
Midfielder Ahmed Manajid even said if he wasn't
playing soccer at the Olympics, he would be home in
Fallujuah trying to kill American soldiers.

"Iraq as a team does not want Mr. Bush to use us for
the presidential campaign," Iraqi midfielder Salih
Sadir told Sports Illustrated in a story posted
yesterday online. "He can find another way to
advertise himself."

A week ago, the Bush camp began airing the
touchy-feely TV ad that paints Iraq's and
Afghanistan's participation in the Olympics as an
example of democracy growing worldwide. And, on the
campaign trail, President Bush has cited Team Iraq's
impressive start in Athens.

The Iraqis say enough already.

"How will [Bush] meet his God, having slaughtered so
many men and women?" Manajid told the magazine. "He
has committed so many crimes."

Iraqi coach Adnan Hamad says his problems "are not
with the American people" but rather "with what
America has done in Iraq: destroy everything. The
American Army has killed so many people in Iraq. What
is freedom when I go to the stadium and there are
shootings on the road?"

Still, the 2-1 Iraqi soccer team, which is headed
toward the medal round, is happy about one thing: It
does not have to fear torture if it loses, as was the
policy of ex-Iraq Olympic Committee Chairman Uday
Hussein, son of jailed former dictator Saddam Hussein.
Uday was killed by U.S. forces along with brother
Qusay about four months into the war.

"Freedom and democracy are spreading across the globe
because of America and her allies - and there are two
more, Iraq and Afghanistan," said Bush campaign
spokesman Kevin Madden.

Posted by richard at 11:15 AM

Sen. John Edwards (D-NC): "This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush...We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is...We want to hear from the president of the United States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to hear th

The increasingly shrinking _resident was a coward
during the Vietnam war, who let others fight a war he
supported while he hide here, and he is a coward now,
letting others do his political wet work for him while
he runs the other way, only addressing those who have
signed a loyalty oath (literally) and only answering
scripted questions (literally). But no context or
continuity is coming from the "US mainstream news
media." The "US mainstream news media" did not provide
the proper context for the viscious and deceitful
"Swift Boat Veterans" ruse, they did not compare it to
what the Bush cabaal's character assassination squad
did to Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) in South Carolina in
2000. The Kerry-Edwards campaign had to provide that
context. Nor have they made the fairly simple, direct
and irrefutable observation that there is no lack of
documentation on the battle for which JFK was
decorated or indeed for his whole tour of service
while there is a disturbing lack of documentation and
a disturbing gap in the record of the increasingly
unhinged and incredible shrinking _resident's
*service* in the Alabama National Guard. Indeed, we
hardly know anything except that he got some dental
work done on the taxpayer's dime. Numerous and serious
unresolved allegations concerning whether or not he
went AWOL or was deemed unfit continue to swirl around
in the vortex created by that lack of documentation
and the disturbing gap. The White House has claimed
that Bush's entire record was released, but it was
not...Lo and behold, there was no paper trail for the
months that are of the greatest concern...Documents
have been announced as "destroyed" have later surfaced
to provide...grist for more questions...And yet the
"US mainstream news media" does not think it strange
or disproportionate in its coverage of the sliming of
JFK..."Long Live Big Brother! Long Live Big Brother!"
Yes, it's the Media, Stupid.

David Nakamura, Washington Post: John Edwards demanded
Saturday that President Bush call for television ads
attacking John F. Kerry's military service in Vietnam
to be pulled because they are lies funded by Bush
allies.
"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," the North Carolina senator told a cheering crowd at a magnet school here, where his campaign stopped for a morning town hall meeting. "We're going to see what kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. . . . We want to hear from the president of the United States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to hear three words: 'Stop these ads!' "

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup and Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A22430-2004Aug21?language=printer

washingtonpost.com
Edwards Assails Veterans Group Ad as Lies


By David Nakamura
Washington Post Staff Writer
Sunday, August 22, 2004; Page A15


ROANOKE, Aug. 21 -- John Edwards demanded Saturday
that President Bush call for television ads attacking
John F. Kerry's military service in Vietnam to be
pulled because they are lies funded by Bush allies.

"This is a moment of truth for George W. Bush," the
North Carolina senator told a cheering crowd at a
magnet school here, where his campaign stopped for a
morning town hall meeting. "We're going to see what
kind of man he is and what kind of leader he is. . . .
We want to hear from the president of the United
States. We don't want to hear rhetoric. We want to
hear three words: 'Stop these ads!' "

Saturday night at a fundraiser in the Hamptons, Kerry
repeated those sentiments, saying that "they are
personally going after me." He declared that "the
president needs to stand up and stop that."

The Democrats' comments represented what the campaign
called a systematic effort to aggressively respond to
charges by a Republican-backed group of veterans
accusing the Massachusetts senator of inflating his
military record. The campaign also posted an online ad
comparing the attacks to ones leveled against Sen.
John McCain (Ariz.) in his bid for the 2000 GOP
nomination.

The video, "Old Tricks," will be e-mailed to 200,000
veterans activists and posted on veterans Web sites.
"George Bush is up to his old tricks," the video says,
showing Bush and McCain at a debate in February 2000.

McCain, sitting next to Bush, says that when "fringe
veterans groups" attacked him at a Bush campaign
function, Bush stood by and did not say a word. "I
don't know how you can understand this, George, but
that really hurts," McCain says in the video.

Kerry's critics are being challenged by a Chicago
Tribune editor who was on the Feb. 28, 1969, mission
for which Kerry received the Silver Star.

"There were three swift boats on the river that day in
Vietnam more than 35 years ago -- three officers and
15 crew members. Only two of those officers remain to
talk about what happened on February 28, 1969,"
William B. Rood wrote in a 1,700-word story that
appeared on the newspaper's Web site Saturday. "One is
John Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate who
won a Silver Star for what happened on that date. I am
the other."

Rood refused requests for interviews, including from
his own newspaper. "But Kerry's critics, armed with
stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the
accounts of what happened were overblown." he wrote.
"The critics have taken pains to say they're not
trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did,
but their version of events has splashed doubt on all
of us."

Rood said allegations that Kerry's accomplishments
were overblown are untrue and that Kerry devised an
attack strategy that was praised by their superiors.
The Tribune said Rood's account was supported by
military documents.

Rood wrote that Kerry recently contacted him and other
crew members, requesting that they go public with
their accounts of what happened. "I can't pretend
those calls had no effect on me, but that is not why I
am writing this," Rood said. "What matters most to me
is that this is hurting crewmen who are not public
figures and who deserved to be honored for what they
did. My intent is to tell the story here and to never
again talk publicly about it."

On Friday, Kerry accused Swift Boat Veterans for Truth
of collaborating with the Bush campaign and asked the
Federal Election Commission to force the group to
withdraw the ad.

Brian Jones, a Bush campaign spokesman, said, "The
president has made it repeatedly clear that he wants
to see an end to all" advertising from outside groups.

Edwards had planned to focus his remarks on issues
touching voters in this region, where thousands of
jobs have been lost in the textiles and manufacturing
industries. The partisan crowd, which included
Virginia Gov. Mark R. Warner, roared its approval at
Edwards's economic message and his direct challenge to
Bush. Later in Charleston, W.Va., Edwards repeated his
remarks to another enthusiastic audience.

In Roanoke, World War II veteran George Keller, 82,
chairman of the Alleghany County-Covington Democratic
Committee, said, "I'm tickled to death that they're
deciding to fight back." He added: "You can't fake
medals. [Bush] should denounce those ads."

© 2004 The Washington Post Company


Posted by richard at 11:08 AM

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad: Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign

Contrary to the "conventional wisdom," the LNS does
not believe the Kerry-Edwards campaign was "too slow"
in responding to this Bush abomination character
assassination squad...No, the LNS thinks that this
disgusting episode is going to play out differently
than the hit on McCain in South Carolina...The LNS
thinks that Kerry-Edwards, as usual, exhibited
discipline and an extraordinary sense of timing...The
LNS thinks that Kerry-Edwards waited just long enough
for it to come to saturation and a runnning boil on
the air waves, then they struck back...forcefully...
decisively...Remember, Sen. John F. Kerry is not only
a warrior, a prosecutor and a statesman...JFK is a
hunter...

CNN: A volunteer adviser has quit President Bush's
re-election campaign after appearing in a veterans
group's television commercial blasting Democratic
presidential nominee John Kerry's involvement in the
Vietnam-era antiwar movement.
A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that
retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an
ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry
campaign has accused the group of illegally working
with the Bush campaign.
As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an
election campaign.
Kerry's camp calls it a front for the Bush campaign
and has urged the Federal Election Commission to cite
the group, the Bush campaign and the Republican
National Committee for violating federal election
laws.

Cleanse the White House of the Chicken Hawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/21/edwards.swiftboat/index.html

Bush adviser quits after appearing in swift boat ad: Kerry has accused group of illegally working with campaign
Saturday, August 21, 2004 Posted: 11:43 PM EDT (0343
GMT)


ROANOKE, Virginia (CNN) -- A volunteer adviser has
quit President Bush's re-election campaign after
appearing in a veterans group's television commercial
blasting Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry's
involvement in the Vietnam-era antiwar movement.

A Bush campaign statement said it did not know that
retired Air Force Col. Ken Cordier had appeared in an
ad by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth. The Kerry
campaign has accused the group of illegally working
with the Bush campaign.

As a so-called 527 group, Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth is barred from coordinating efforts with an
election campaign.

Kerry's camp calls it a front for the Bush campaign
and has urged the Federal Election Commission to cite
the group, the Bush campaign and the Republican
National Committee for violating federal election
laws.

The 527 groups are named for the federal provision
that makes such organizations tax exempt and allows
them to accept unlimited donations.

Before his departure, Cordier -- who spent six years
as a prisoner of war in North Vietnam -- was a member
of the Bush-Cheney campaign's veterans' steering
committee, campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said in a
written statement issued Saturday night.

Cordier appeared in a commercial launched Friday by
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which has accused Kerry
of lying about his Vietnam service. In it, he and
other Vietnam veterans accuse Kerry, a decorated Navy
officer, of selling out his old comrades by joining
the antiwar movement upon his return home.

"He betrayed us in the past. How could we be loyal to
him now?" Cordier asks in the ad.

Schmidt called Cordier "an American hero" but said he
would "no longer participate as a volunteer for
Bush-Cheney '04" because of his appearance in the
anti-Kerry ad.

"Col. Cordier did not inform the campaign of his
involvement in the advertisement being run by a 527
organization," Schmidt said.

The Bush campaign called Kerry's FEC complaint
"frivolous" in a response released Saturday and urged
commissioners to dismiss it swiftly.

A previous ad by the swift boat group accuses Kerry of
lying to get his war medals: three Purple Hearts, a
Bronze Star and a Silver Star. Kerry and others say
the ads are false and misleading.

The latest ad, a 30-second spot released Friday, uses
segments from Kerry's testimony before the Senate
Foreign Relations Committee in 1971. In the ad, Kerry
says, "They had personally raped, cut off ears, cut
off heads," "randomly shot at civilians," and "razed
villages in a fashion reminiscent of Genghis Kahn."

The ad does not include Kerry's preface, in which he
said he is reporting what others said at a Vietnam
veterans conference. Instead, a swift boat group
member refers to the statements as "accusations" Kerry
made against Vietnam veterans.

An official transcript shows Kerry was referring to a
meeting in Detroit, Michigan, that was part of what
was called the Winter Soldier investigation. Kerry has
said he regrets some of the comments but stands by his
protests.

Two speak up for Kerry
Also Saturday, two former comrades of Kerry backed up
the candidate's account of the events that earned him
his Silver Star.

William Rood, an editor at the Chicago Tribune, writes
in Sunday's editions: "Kerry's critics, armed with
stories I know to be untrue, have charged that the
accounts of what happened [in 1969] were overblown.
The critics have taken pains to say they're not trying
to cast doubts on the merit of what others did, but
their version of events has splashed doubt on all of
us."

Like Kerry, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade and
skipper of one of the three boats ambushed twice while
on patrol February 28, 1969. Kerry was awarded the
Silver Star, the Navy's third-highest combat
decoration, for his aggressive response to the
ambushes.

Rood won a Bronze Star for his actions in the same
clash, and writes that criticism of Kerry " impugns
others who are not in the public eye."

He says, "It's gotten harder and harder for those of
us who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were
not there."

John O'Neill, who wrote a book challenging Kerry's
accounts of his service, said Saturday that SBVT was
not challenging Rood's commendation. But in a
statement issued the same day, he called Rood's
account "an obvious political move" and said the
group's accusations against Kerry were drawn from two
previous books about the Massachusetts senator.

"Anyone who compares the three books on the Silver
Star incident will see that they are substantially
identical in the facts," he said.

Rood says in the first-person article that Kerry asked
him to publicly discuss his account of that mission.

"I can't pretend those calls had no effect on me, but
that is not why I am writing this," he writes."What
matters most to me is that this is hurting crewmen who
are not public figures and who deserved to be honored
for what they did. My intent is to tell the story here
and to never again talk publicly about it."

Rood writes that Kerry was in charge of the mission
and discussed with the other two skippers how to
handle the inevitable ambushes.

"We agreed that if we were not crippled by the initial
volley and had a clear fix on the location of the
ambush," he writes, "we would turn directly into it,
focusing the boats' twin .50-caliber machine guns on
the attackers and beaching the boats."

Twice on that day Kerry ordered such a maneuver,
according to Rood. Each time the ambushes were
quelled.

O'Neill's book said Kerry shot a fleeing Vietnamese
teenager to win the award.

Rood disputes that, saying he checked with another
sailor on that mission and they agreed that "he was a
grown man, dressed in the kind of garb the [Viet Cong]
usually wore."

Wayne Langhofer, who now works at a gunpowder plant in
Kansas, said he also was present for the battle.

"I was with Kerry when he won his Silver Star, and as
far as I'm concerned, he did right," he told CNN on
Saturday.

CNN's Matthew Hoye and Phil Hirshkorn contributed to
this article.


Posted by richard at 11:04 AM

Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong -- Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

William Rood, metro desk editor for the Chicago
Tribune, another name for the John P. O'Neill Wall of
Heroes...

Tim Jones, Chicago Tribune: The commander of a Navy
swift boat who served alongside Democratic
presidential candidate John Kerry during the Vietnam
War stepped forward Saturday to dispute attacks
challenging Kerry's integrity and war record.
William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's
metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence
about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in
Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent
portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the
best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and
smear the reputations of veterans who served with
Kerry.
Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during
that 1969 mission, said that Kerry came under rocket
and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and
that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that
was praised by their superiors.
He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments
were "overblown" untrue.
"The critics have taken pains to say they're not
trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did,
but their version of events has splashed doubt on all
of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us
who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were
not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person
account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/specials/elections/chi-0408220343aug22,1,2916896.story?coll=chi-news-hed

JOHN KERRY'S WAR RECORD



Swift boat skipper: Kerry critics wrong -- Tribune editor breaks long silence on Kerry record; fought in disputed battle

By Tim Jones, Tribune national correspondent. Tribune
staff reporter Rick Pearson contributed to this report
from Crawford, Texas
Published August 22, 2004

The commander of a Navy swift boat who served
alongside Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry
during the Vietnam War stepped forward Saturday to
dispute attacks challenging Kerry's integrity and war
record.

William Rood, an editor on the Chicago Tribune's
metropolitan desk, said he broke 35 years of silence
about the Feb. 28, 1969, mission that resulted in
Kerry's receiving a Silver Star because recent
portrayals of Kerry's actions published in the
best-selling book "Unfit for Command" are wrong and
smear the reputations of veterans who served with
Kerry.

Rood, who commanded one of three swift boats during
that 1969 mission, said that Kerry came under rocket
and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong forces and
that Kerry devised an aggressive attack strategy that
was praised by their superiors.

He called allegations that Kerry's accomplishments
were "overblown" untrue.

"The critics have taken pains to say they're not
trying to cast doubts on the merit of what others did,
but their version of events has splashed doubt on all
of us. It's gotten harder and harder for those of us
who were there to listen to accounts we know to be
untrue, especially when they come from people who were
not there," Rood said in a 1,700-word first-person
account published in Sunday's Tribune.

Rood's recollection of what happened on that day at
the southern tip of South Vietnam was backed by key
military documents, including his citation for a
Bronze Star he earned in the battle and a glowing
after-action report written by the Navy captain who
commanded his and Kerry's task force and is now a
critic of the Democratic candidate.

Rood's previously untold story and the documents shed
new light on a key historical event that has taken
center stage in an extraordinary political and media
firestorm generated by a group calling itself the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

Allegations in the book, co-authored by one of the
leaders of the group, accuse Kerry of being a coward
who fabricated wartime events and used comrades for
his "insatiable appetite for medals." The allegations
have fueled a nearly two-week-long TV ad campaign
against the Democratic nominee. Talk radio and cable
news channels have feasted on the story.

Animosity from some veterans toward Kerry goes back
more than 30 years, when Kerry returned from Vietnam
to take a leadership role in the anti-war group
Vietnam Veterans Against the War. Anger reached a
boiling point with Kerry's presidential nomination and
his own highlighting of his service during the war, a
centerpiece of his campaign strategy against President
Bush, who spent the war stateside in the Air National
Guard in Texas and Alabama.

A poll released Friday by the National Annenberg
Election Survey reported that more than half the
country has heard about or seen TV ads attacking
Kerry's war record, a remarkable impact for ads that
have appeared in only a handful of states.

Kerry strongly disputes the allegations, and on
Saturday a spokesman for his campaign, David Wade,
responded to Rood's account by saying, "The truth is
being told, and it's the same and only truth
documented by the Navy 35 years ago and remembered by
those veterans without a Bush political ax to grind."

Wade added that "the real truth being told by veterans
who've had the courage to stand up to the Bush
Republican attack machine is all the honor John Kerry
needs in his life."

Last week, Kerry called on the White House to denounce
the TV ads and accused Bush of relying on the Vietnam
veterans "to do his dirty work." On Thursday, Kerry
challenged Bush to a debate on their respective war
records. Democrats point to unresolved questions about
whether Bush in fact served all the time he was
credited with serving in Alabama.

The Bush campaign has denied any association with the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth but so far has refused
to condemn the book and the group's TV ads. It had no
direct comment Saturday on Rood's version of events,
instead criticizing the Kerry campaign for alleging
that the Bush team was providing tacit support to the
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth and for not repudiating
all advertising by so-called 527 groups, political
organizations barred by law from coordinating their
efforts with campaigns.

"John Kerry knows that attack is false and baseless,"
said Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt. "John
Kerry knows that the president has said [Kerry's]
service was noble service. John Kerry knows that there
is no connection between the Bush campaign and this
527 and . . . that President Bush has called on Sen.
Kerry to join him in condemning all of the shadowy 527
groups that are advertising."

Schmidt said Kerry "has remained silent" while
pro-Democratic 527 groups have run $62 million worth
of attack ads targeting Bush.

Kerry's campaign sought to turn up the heat on Bush
through an e-mail effort targeting veterans. The
effort resurrects Arizona Sen. John McCain's
complaints during the 2000 South Carolina Republican
presidential primary about Bush's failure to disavow
attacks on McCain's actions as a prisoner of war.

Mary Beth Cahill, Kerry's campaign manager, said
Bush's refusal to disavow the advertising by the swift
boat veterans group was "an unfortunate and classic
move by a Bush-Rove campaign," citing the president's
senior political adviser, Karl Rove.

A report in Friday's New York Times disclosed
connections between the anti-Kerry vets and the Bush
family, Rove and several high-ranking Texas
Republicans. Some of the recent accounts from veterans
critical of Kerry have been contradicted by their own
earlier statements, the Times reported.

Rood's account also sharply contradicts the version
currently put forth by the anti-Kerry veterans. Rood,
61, wrote that Kerry had personally contacted him and
other crew members in recent days asking that they go
public with their accounts of what happened on that
day.

Rood said that, ever since the war, he had "wanted to
put it all behind us--the rivers, the ambushes, the
killing. . . . I have refused all requests for
interviews about Kerry's service--even those from
reporters at the Chicago Tribune."

"I can't pretend those calls [from Kerry] had no
effect on me, but that is not why I am writing this,"
Rood said. "What matters most to me is that this is
hurting crewmen who are not public figures and who
deserved to be honored for what they did. My intent is
to tell the story here and to never again talk
publicly about it."

Rood declined requests from a Tribune reporter to be
interviewed for this article. Rood wrote that he could
testify only to the February 1969 mission and not to
any of the other battlefield decorations challenged by
Kerry's critics--a Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts--because Rood was not an eyewitness to those
engagements.

Ambush scenario

In February 1969, Rood was a lieutenant junior grade
commanding PCF-23, one of the three 50-foot aluminum
swift boats that carried troops up the Dong Cung, a
tributary of the Bay Hap River. Kerry commanded
another boat, PCF-94, and Lt. j.g. Donald Droz, who
was killed in action six weeks later, commanded
PCF-43. Ambushes from Viet Cong fighters were common
because the noise from boats, powered by twin diesel
engines, practically invited gunfire. Ambushes, Rood
said, "were a virtual certainty."

Before this day's mission, though, Kerry, the tactical
commander of the mission, discussed with Rood and Droz
a change in response to the anticipated ambushes: If
possible, turn into the fire once it is identified and
attack the ambushers, Rood recalled Kerry saying. The
boats followed that new tactic with great success,
Rood said, and the mission was highly praised.

In the book "Unfit for Command," Kerry's critics
maintained otherwise. The book's authors, John O'Neill
and Jerome Corsi, wrote that Kerry's attack on the
Viet Cong ambush displayed "stupidity, not courage."
The book was published by Regnery, a conservative
publisher that has brought into print many books
critical of Democratic politicians and policies.

"The only explanation for what Kerry did is the same
justification that characterizes his entire short
Vietnam adventure: the pursuit of medals and ribbons,"
wrote Corsi and O'Neill. Later in the war, O'Neill
commanded the same swift boat Kerry had led. O'Neill
is now a leader of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In the book, O'Neill and Corsi said Kerry chased down
a "young Viet Cong in a loincloth . . . clutching a
grenade launcher which may or may not have been
loaded."

Rood recalled the fleeing Viet Cong was "a grown man,
dressed in the kind of garb the VC usually wore."
There were other attackers as well, he said, and his
boat and Kerry's boat took significant fire.

After the attack, the task force commanding officer,
then-Capt. Roy Hoffmann, sent a message of
congratulations to the three swift boats, saying their
charge of the ambushers was a "shining example of
completely overwhelming the enemy" and that it "may be
the most efficacious [method] of dealing with small
numbers of ambushers," Rood said.

In the official after-action message, obtained by the
Tribune, Hoffmann wrote that the tactics developed and
executed by Kerry, Rood and Droz were "immensely
effictive [sic]" and that "this operation did
unreparable [sic] damage to the enemy in this area."

"Well done," Hoffmann concluded in his message.

But more than three decades later, Hoffmann, now a
retired rear admiral, has changed his story. Today he
is one of Kerry's most vocal critics, saying the
attacks against the ambushers 35 years ago call into
question Kerry's judgment and show his tendency to be
impulsive.

Rood challenges that criticism, recalling that the
direction for the actions they took on the river that
day came from the highest ranks of the Navy command in
Vietnam.

"What we did on Feb. 28, 1969, was well in line with
the tone set by our top commanders," Rood said.

Asked for his response to Rood's account, O'Neill
argued that the former swift boat skipper's version of
events is not substantially different from what
appeared in the book. The account of the Feb. 28
attack draws heavily on reporting from The Boston
Globe, O'Neill said.

He said the congratulatory note from Hoffmann was
based on the belief that Kerry was under heavy fire
from the Viet Cong. But O'Neill claimed that "didn't
happen." Had Hoffmann known the true circumstances of
events that day, O'Neill said, he would not have
issued the congratulatory note. Attempts to reach
Hoffmann for comment were unsuccessful.

O'Neill said in a statement Saturday that, unlike
Rood, most of the officers who served with Kerry do
not support him.

"Bill Rood is one of 23 officers who served with John
Kerry at An Thoi," O'Neill said. "Seventeen of those
officers have condemned John Kerry."

He called Rood's criticism of "Unfit for Command"
"extremely unfair" and said Rood declined to be
interviewed for the book he and Corsi wrote.

"We strongly stand by the different judgments we
reached as to the advisability of beaching the Kerry
boat and chasing the wounded, fleeing Viet Cong
teenager," O'Neill said in the statement. "We also
stand by our judgment that while the action involved a
degree of courage, it was not compatible with the
description given to senior command nor worthy of the
Silver Star. We are joined in that judgment by many
Vietnam veterans who expressed similar views."

In his eyewitness account, Rood describes coming under
rocket and automatic weapons fire from Viet Cong on
the riverbank during two ambushes of his boat and
Kerry's boat.

Praise for the mission led by Kerry came from Navy
commanders who far outranked Hoffmann. Rood won a
Bronze Star for his actions on that day. The Bronze
Star citation from the late Adm. Elmo Zumwalt, then
commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, singled out
the tactic used by the boats and said the Viet Cong
were "caught completely off guard."

Longtime debate

The war about the war between O'Neill and Kerry has
raged for more than three decades. O'Neill, who became
a lawyer in Houston after returning from Vietnam, was
recruited by the Nixon administration in 1971 to serve
as a political counterweight to Kerry, who by then had
left the military and was a vocal critic of the war.

The two debated the war on the Dick Cavett television
show in 1971, with O'Neill accusing Kerry of the
"attempted murder of the reputations of 2 1/2 million"
Vietnam veterans.

Rood acknowledged in his first-person account that
there could be errors in recollection, especially with
the passage of more than three decades. His Bronze
Star citation, he said, misidentifies the river where
the main action occurred.

That mistake, he said, is a "cautionary note for those
trying to piece it all together. There's no final
authority on something that happened so long ago--not
the documents and not even the strained recollections
of those of us who were there.

"But I know that what some people are saying now is
wrong," Rood wrote. "While they mean to hurt Kerry,
what they're saying impugns others who are not in the
public eye."
Copyright © 2004, Chicago Tribune


Posted by richard at 11:01 AM

August 21, 2004

Military records support Kerry's account of Vietnam service

Three more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what?
The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. The US
military, over-extended and dis-illusioned, is TRAPPED
in a Mega-Mogadishu. The "liberation" of Iraq is a
foolish military adventure, predicated on LIES, perpetuated on the
cruelty, indifference and avarice of the Bush
Abmoination and enabled and sustained with the
complicity of the "US mainstream news media." The
Arab Street is ablaze with hate. The western alliance
has been seriously fractured. The US is isolated in
the world. US soldiers are taking the rap for war
crimes sanctioned by high officials in the Pentagon and
the White House. The CIA has been scapegoated both for
the the Bush abomination's pre-9/11 INCOMPETENCE and
their exaggeration, fabrication and deceit in the ramp
up to the invasion and occupation of Iraq. The US
economy is backsliding, and worse, slipping toward a
precipice. The huge Federal surplus that Clinton-Gore
left behind them has been gutted, and we have been
plunged into hundreds of billions of dollars in
Federal decific this year, all for an irresponsible,
ill-timed tax cut two-thirds of which went to those
very few Americans earning of $200K a year.The price
of oil is only going to go up. All the major economic
indicators are in a tail-spin. The drip, drip, drip of
real scandals -- Abu Ghraib, Chalabi (yes, that was
him next to Laura at the SOTU), Plame, Enron and the
phoney "California energy crisis," Medifraud
(fraudulent numbers, and bribery on the floor of the
US Congress), the prostitution of the EPA, and
ESPECIALLY and in particular, Halliburton (before and
after Bush-Cheney seized power) -- are eroding their
own base in the Neo- Confederacy. Yes, Kerry-Edwards is
ahead in Missouri and Ohio and within the statistical
margin of error in North Carolina. Last week, while
Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong) took a few days off in
Ketchum, Idaho, his tar heel shark, Sen. John Edwards
(D-NC) began the politically wet work. The
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident is "stacking the federal government with
friends and donors who are gutting regulations on U.S.
corporations," and putting "corporate interests ahead
of workers and the middle class." The logging and
timber industry gave more than $1.5 million to Bush
and got the right to log without the usual
environmental reviews. The coal industry gave $300,000
to Bush and got less protection against black lung
disease for workers. The chemical industry gave more
than $1 million to Bush and got reduced regulations on
chemicals exposed to workers. The auto industry gave
more than $300,000 to Bush and got eased rules on
reporting potential defects and a rule allowing
truckers to drive 11 hours a day. The restaurant
industry gave more than $1.2 million and got killed a
regulation intended to prevent their workers from
exposure to smoke. US citizens who want to attend
speeches of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident and his VICE _resident have to
sign loyality oaths. A FEMA worker and her husband are
handcuffed and taken away at a Bush-Cheney rally in
West Virginia because of what the message on her tee shirt.
A US Senator is routinely harrassed at airports. High government officials openly talk about cancelling the November election because of "terrorist
threats." MEANWHILE, the imagination of the "US
mainstream news media" has been captured by "Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth." OK. Let's talk about "Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth." The money for their ads
comes from the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident largest donor from Texas (not that
Kenny Boy is too hot to handle), their P.R. handler
used to work for Ken Starr, their own military
records, in ways to blatant for even the NYTwits or
the WASHPs to avoid, refute their disgusting
distortion of JFK's heroism, and yet, the increasingly
unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident refuses to
rebuke them...There is an Electoral Uprising coming in
November...There are no more red or blue states. There
are only red, white and blue states...We are moving,
as Barak Obama (D-IL) and Bill Clinton (D-AK) promised
at the DNC, toward "a more perfect union." E Pluribus
Unum.

Joseph Galloway, Knight-Ridder: Military records back
John Kerry's account of his service in Vietnam and
have backed at least two of his accusers into a
corner...Although the 15 veterans featured in the
attack ad all state "I served with John Kerry," none
of them served on the same boat with him. Those who
did, such as retired Chief Petty Officer Del Sandusky,
60, of Clearwater, Fla., praise Kerry for his
leadership and credit him with keeping them alive to
make it home...
Kerry released a stack of his military records -
including after-action reports, citations for his
medals, boat battle damage reports and his officer
efficiency reports. These records - and the military
records of at least one of his accusers - cast serious
doubt on some of the more inflammatory charges raised
by the group.
It didn't help the cause of the Swift Boat Veterans
group that some of them, including their leader,
retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, were on the record
praising Kerry for his service in Vietnam...
Another critic, Larry Thurlow, a fellow Swift boat
commander in the Mekong Delta in 1969, disputed
Kerry's claim that his boat and others in the
five-boat patrol came under enemy fire during a March
13, 1969, mission that earned Kerry a Bronze Star.
Thurlow said that although one of the Swift boats was
disabled by a mine explosion, there was no enemy fire
from shore, as Kerry and others testified, and that
Kerry's account was "a total fabrication." Thurlow
said in an affidavit: "I never heard a shot."
However, a citation for the Bronze Star with valor
awarded to Thurlow for that same mission stated that
his actions "took place under constant enemy small
arms fire which (Thurlow) completely ignored" while he
provided assistance to the damaged Swift boat and the
wounded aboard.

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.realcities.com/mld/krwashington/9455159.htm

Posted on Fri, Aug. 20, 2004

Military records support Kerry's account of Vietnam service

BY Joseph L. Galloway

Knight Ridder Newspapers


WASHINGTON - Military records back John Kerry's
account of his service in Vietnam and have backed at
least two of his accusers into a corner.

Kerry this week was forced to defend himself against
accusations by a group of fellow Navy veterans of
Vietnam that he was a liar and a coward. The charges
were made in a book and in an attack ad that polls
show have chipped away at Kerry's standing with
veterans in three critical states - West Virginia,
Wisconsin and Ohio.

The long-ago Vietnam War has suddenly become a central
issue in the presidential campaign. The attacks by the
group Swift Boat Veterans for Truth have called into
account Kerry's conduct during the war, when he
volunteered for one of the most dangerous duties - the
so-called Brown Water Navy, which regularly penetrated
Viet Cong-controlled territory via the maze of
waterways in the sodden Mekong Delta.

Although the 15 veterans featured in the attack ad all
state "I served with John Kerry," none of them served
on the same boat with him. Those who did, such as
retired Chief Petty Officer Del Sandusky, 60, of
Clearwater, Fla., praise Kerry for his leadership and
credit him with keeping them alive to make it home.

"We are really upset at this stuff," Sandusky told
Knight Ridder. "They are calling us all liars. They
dishonor us and they dishonor all those who died over
there. They are getting awfully desperate. Last year
many of them were on board with us. Now they are
telling outrageous lies."

Kerry has said that members of the Swift Boat Veterans
for Truth lied when they said he inflated his role in
various combat actions in the Mekong Delta in 1968 and
1969 and had manipulated the award of three Purple
Heart medals for wounds and Bronze and Silver Star
medals for valor in combat.

Kerry released a stack of his military records -
including after-action reports, citations for his
medals, boat battle damage reports and his officer
efficiency reports. These records - and the military
records of at least one of his accusers - cast serious
doubt on some of the more inflammatory charges raised
by the group.

It didn't help the cause of the Swift Boat Veterans
group that some of them, including their leader,
retired Rear Adm. Roy Hoffman, were on the record
praising Kerry for his service in Vietnam.

Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam, George Elliott,
said in an attack ad: "John Kerry has not been honest
about what happened in Vietnam."

But during the Vietnam War, Elliott recommended Kerry
for the Silver and Bronze Star medals for valor in
combat and gave him the highest possible praise in his
officer efficiency reports.

"In a combat environment often requiring independent,
decisive action, LTjg Kerry was unsurpassed," Elliott
wrote in 1969. He went on to rate Kerry as "calm,
professional and highly courageous in the face of
enemy fire."

Elliott added: "(Kerry) emerges as the acknowledged
leader in his peer group." In 16 categories on Kerry's
officer efficiency report, ranging from professional
knowledge to moral courage to military bearing to
reliability, Elliott gave Kerry the highest possible
rating - "is not exceeded" - in 11 categories, and the
second highest, "one of the top 10" in five other
categories.

Elliott in 1996 supported Kerry in his re-election
campaign for the Senate and during an appearance in
Boston declared that Kerry had earned the Silver Star
"for an act of courage."

Another critic, Larry Thurlow, a fellow Swift boat
commander in the Mekong Delta in 1969, disputed
Kerry's claim that his boat and others in the
five-boat patrol came under enemy fire during a March
13, 1969, mission that earned Kerry a Bronze Star.

Thurlow said that although one of the Swift boats was
disabled by a mine explosion, there was no enemy fire
from shore, as Kerry and others testified, and that
Kerry's account was "a total fabrication." Thurlow
said in an affidavit: "I never heard a shot."

However, a citation for the Bronze Star with valor
awarded to Thurlow for that same mission stated that
his actions "took place under constant enemy small
arms fire which (Thurlow) completely ignored" while he
provided assistance to the damaged Swift boat and the
wounded aboard.

Thurlow said he had lost his medal citation for that
incident over two decades ago and stood by his account
that there was no enemy fire at the time.

His account was further called into question by a
battle damage assessment report on another Swift boat,
PCF-51, involved in the March 13 action. The report
listed three .30-caliber bullet holes in the
superstructure of the 50-foot patrol boat.

The Swift boat veterans also have cast doubt on
Kerry's account that a second mine explosion damaged
his boat, PCF-94, and blew an Army Special Forces
officer, Jim Rassmann, overboard. Kerry's Bronze Star
was awarded for his rescue of Rassmann, who credited
Kerry with saving his life.

Among the records was a battle damage report filed the
following day, March 14, which stated that PCF-94 had
three windows blown out, radios and radar inoperable,
the boat's auxiliary generator inoperable, screws
curled and chipped, aft helm steerage control not
working. The boat was judged incapable of executing
patrols without repairs.

In the TV ad Swift Boat veteran Adrian Lonsdale
declared Kerry "lacks the capacity to lead." Yet he,
too, appeared to support Kerry in 1996, saying of him:
"He was among the finest of those Swift boat drivers."

In a month when the Democratic nominee had hoped to
avoid running any ads to conserve funds for the final
sprint this fall, Kerry strategists instead prepared
to spend nearly $200,000 responding to the attack ads
of the veterans group in key states.

The bulk of the funding for the Swift Boat veterans'
group comes from wealthy Texas Republicans.

A new ad was scheduled to begin running shortly,
focusing this time on Kerry's testimony against the
Vietnam War in 1971.


Posted by richard at 11:32 AM

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s r

The Bush cabal is desperate. North Carolina is in play. Ohio, Fraudida and Misery are slipping away. These viscious lies are straws for their rapid rabble to clutch at. They are fighting for their own base, not the center or the "undecided." It is finished, unless they finish a significant % of the US electorate before the national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident. The "US mainstream news media"
pretend that this farce hurts Kerry-Edwards. IF there
is an election, they are going to be proven wrong, but
not only wrong, also IRRELEVANT...

MSNBC: A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry
campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John
Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling
point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a
complaint with federal officials that accused the
president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.
Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission
about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence”
that the veterans group is “coordinating its
expenditures on advertising and other activities
designed to influence the presidential election with
the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison
Dobson told NBC News.

Clease the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5771731/

Kerry says Bush broke the law in TV ad dispute President's campaign denies ties to vets' group
MSNBC staff and news service reports
Updated: 7:10 p.m. ET Aug. 20, 2004

A simmering feud between the Bush and Kerry campaigns over a TV ad that denigrates Sen. John Kerry’s Vietnam war record moved toward the boiling point Friday as the Democratic nominee filed a complaint with federal officials that accused the president’s re-election campaign of breaking the law.

Kerry’s complaint to the Federal Elections Commission
about the ads produced and aired by the Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth alleges "overwhelming evidence”
that the veterans group is “coordinating its
expenditures on advertising and other activities
designed to influence the presidential election with
the Bush-Cheney Campaign,” Kerry spokeswoman Allison
Dobson told NBC News.

The complaint comes at the end of a week in which
Kerry himself accused Bush of having the Swift Boat
veterans do “his dirty work” and media reports have
exposed connections between Bush, his family and other
high-profile Texas politicians. In a Thursday speech,
the Massachusetts senator said: “The fact that the
president won’t denounce what they’re up to tells you
everything you need to know.”

Steve Schmidt of the Bush campaign said charges that
Bush is in league with the veterans’ group are
“absolutely and completely false. The Bush campaign
has never and will never question John Kerry’s service
in Vietnam.” But the Bush campaign has, in fact,
refused to specifically disavow the Swift Boat
veterans’ ad, in which fellow Vietnam veterans say
Kerry acted dishonorably to win the Bronze and Silver
Stars and three Purple Hearts that he was awarded for
his service in Vietnam.

RELATED STORY
WashPost: Some veterans still bitter


Formal ties would be illegal
Any formal ties between the Bush campaign and the
veterans group would be against the law. Swift Boat
Veterans for the Truth is organized as a non-party,
independent political group under section 527 of the
Internal Revenue Code, and coordination between a 527
group and a presidential campaign is illegal.

The Republican National Committee and the Bush-Cheney
campaign filed a similar complaint last March that
accuses the Media Fund, America Coming Together and
several other anti-Bush groups of illegal use of
so-called soft money (unlimited donations) and of
illegal coordination with the Kerry campaign. And
three campaign finance watchdog groups also have filed
FEC complaints against the Swift Boat veterans group.

Any legal resolution of the matter would likely take
months, if not years, campaign law experts told
MSNBC.com.

In a campaign shadowed by the war on terrorism and in
Iraq, Kerry’s valorous combat experience is a
cornerstone of his campaign. After using the
Democratic National Convention to improve his poll
ratings on national security, Kerry remained silent as
the criticism led to growing indications — much of it
anecdotal, some in polling, party officials say — that
his gains were eroding.

His medals are supported by Navy documents and the
memories of all but one of the swift boat crewmates
who served beneath Kerry, then a Navy lieutenant. The
anti-Kerry group includes several veterans who say
they witnessed Kerry’s actions from nearby swift
boats.

Although the ad was released early in the month and
created a stir then, more contention over it erupted
this week when Kerry made his “dirty work” remarks at
a Boston campaign stop. Those remarks came the day
after the Washington Post published a story that
showed official military records countered the
statements made by one of Kerry’s most vocal critics,
Larry Thurlow. Thurlow has disputed Kerry’s Bronze
Star-winning assertion that he came under fire during
a mission in Viet Cong-controlled territory. But
Thurlow’s own military records contained several
references to small arms fire that day, according to
The Washington Post.

Thurlow said in a statement Thursday that his records
were based on Kerry’s account.

Knowing several news organizations, including the
Post, were investigating the claims of anti-Kerry
veterans, the Democratic campaign swung into action
late Wednesday — rewriting the candidate’s speech to a
firefighters’ union overnight, flying two of his swift
boat colleagues to Boston and producing a new campaign
commercial, despite earlier plans to stay off the air
until September.

The 30-second ad features a former Green Beret saying
Kerry saved his life under fire. “He risked his life
to save mine,” Jim Rassmann says.

On Friday, another newspaper report detailed ties
between the veterans' group, Bush and his family,
other high-profile Texas politicians and Bush’s chief
political aide. The piece, in the New York Times, also
listed inconsistencies in some of the veterans' own
public statements on their regard for Kerry.

How the group known as the Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth "came into existence is a story of how veterans
with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's antiwar
statements in the early 1970s allied themselves with
Texas Republicans," The Times said.

"A series of interviews and a review of documents show
a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile
Texas political figures and President Bush's chief
political aide, Karl Rove," the Times reported.
"Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry 'unfit' had
lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.


As Kerry denounced the criticism as “lies about my
record,” aides privately acknowledged that they and
their boss had been slow to recognize the damage being
done to his political standing.

Three Purple Hearts, Bronze and Silver Stars
Kerry won three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star and
Silver Star for Vietnam War combat. Bush served
stateside in the Texas Air National Guard. Both men
say the other served honorably, but their supporters
are pouring tens of thousands of dollars into
television ads and other tactics to insist otherwise.

MoveOn.org, a liberal group funded by Kerry
supporters, is airing an ad accusing Bush of using
family connections to avoid the Vietnam War.

Kerry advisers said they had heard from several
Democratic politicians that voters were starting to
ask questions about the candidate’s war record. The
politicians urged him to fight back. Internally, there
was an initial reluctance from senior advisers for
Kerry to respond — because they believed that Bush
would condemn the critical ad, or that the allegations
would blow over.

As for the candidate himself, this was personal, aides
said. He had heard the group was raising money for
more ads, and was tired of his integrity being
assaulted.

“Thirty years ago, official Navy reports documented my
service in Vietnam and awarded me the Silver Star, the
Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts,” Kerry said.
“Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam.”

Kerry aides said they will maintain the offensive
through surrogates, if not Kerry himself. Democrats
welcomed the response.

“Out of desperation, the Bush campaign has picked the
wrong fight with the wrong veteran,” said Jim Jordan,
former Kerry campaign manager who now runs an outside
group airing ads against Bush. “Today’s the start of
the mother of all backlashes.”

Kerry surrounded himself with friendly veterans and
union workers to criticize the group airing the ad
against him.

Bush and the White House refused to condemn the
anti-Kerry ad, which stopped airing this week. When
Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., asked Kerry to condemn the
MoveOn.org ad, Kerry quickly did so — though he has
personally raised questions about Bush’s Vietnam-era
service.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which is funded in
large part by Bob Perry, a Texas Republican, has
knocked the Democratic nominee's campaign off stride
with a small but effective advertising buy in the
battleground states of Ohio, West Virginia and
Wisconsin. The group spent about $500,000 on the ad,
but its allegations that Kerry exaggerated his combat
record to win medals have been on the Internet, the
24-hour cable channels and, most recently, the
nation's major television networks and newspapers.

Bush leads in veterans' votes
During the week ending Aug. 8, 966,000 people visited
the anti-Kerry group's Web site, 34,000 fewer than
those who visited Kerry's official site, according to
Nielsen/Net Ratings. The new CBS poll found Kerry
winning 37 percent of veterans' votes to Bush's 55
percent. (The two were tied at 46 percent after last
month's Democratic National Convention, where Kerry
highlighted his service.)

"They have been very effective at using the August
lull to drive a story" in news outlets, said Rep. Rahm
Emanuel (D-Ill.). Kerry, who planned to conserve
resources by not buying television ads this month,
will spend at least $180,000 to respond, his aides
said.

Posted by richard at 11:30 AM

Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

Even the NYTwits, as hard as they try, cannot blur the
naked truth of it, or avoid telling it...

KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG, New York Times:
Records show that the group received the bulk of its
initial financing from two men with ties to the
president and his family - one a longtime political
associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the
foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential
library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr.
Bush's father for his debate when he was running for
vice president provided them with strategic advice.
And the group's television commercial was produced by
the same team that made the devastating ad mocking
Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he
and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988
presidential election.
The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately
paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby
killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted
in his war medals. But on close examination, the
accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be
riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material
offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by
official Navy records and the men's own statements...
Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican
ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor.
They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar
worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan
administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was
married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations
executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.
In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that
ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John
McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's
in crucial states during their fierce primary battle.
The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air,
was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr.
Bush, Sam Wyly.
Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the
Reagan White House, where the president's aides had
enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare
George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984.
She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms.
Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had
ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was
running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.
When asked if she had ever visited the White House
during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said
that she had been there only once, in 2002, when
Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week
Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in
the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White
House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman,
public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that she had worked with other administration officials, Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you refresh my memory.''

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/20/politics/campaign/20swift.html?hp


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

August 20, 2004
Friendly Fire: The Birth of an Anti-Kerry Ad
By KATE ZERNIKE and JIM RUTENBERG

After weeks of taking fire over veterans' accusations
that he had lied about his Vietnam service record to
win medals and build a political career, Senator John
Kerry shot back yesterday, calling those statements
categorically false and branding the people behind
them tools of the Bush campaign.

His decision to take on the group directly was a
measure of how the group that calls itself Swift Boat
Veterans for Truth has catapulted itself to the
forefront of the presidential campaign. It has
advanced its cause in a book, in a television
advertisement and on cable news and talk radio shows,
all in an attempt to discredit Mr. Kerry's war record,
a pillar of his campaign.

How the group came into existence is a story of how
veterans with longstanding anger about Mr. Kerry's
antiwar statements in the early 1970's allied
themselves with Texas Republicans.

Mr. Kerry called them "a front for the Bush campaign"
- a charge the campaign denied.

A series of interviews and a review of documents show
a web of connections to the Bush family, high-profile
Texas political figures and President Bush's chief
political aide, Karl Rove.

Records show that the group received the bulk of its
initial financing from two men with ties to the
president and his family - one a longtime political
associate of Mr. Rove's, the other a trustee of the
foundation for Mr. Bush's father's presidential
library. A Texas publicist who once helped prepare Mr.
Bush's father for his debate when he was running for
vice president provided them with strategic advice.
And the group's television commercial was produced by
the same team that made the devastating ad mocking
Michael S. Dukakis in an oversized tank helmet when he
and Mr. Bush's father faced off in the 1988
presidential election.

The strategy the veterans devised would ultimately
paint John Kerry the war hero as John Kerry the "baby
killer" and the fabricator of the events that resulted
in his war medals. But on close examination, the
accounts of Swift Boat Veterans for Truth' prove to be
riddled with inconsistencies. In many cases, material
offered as proof by these veterans is undercut by
official Navy records and the men's own statements.

Several of those now declaring Mr. Kerry "unfit" had
lavished praise on him, some as recently as last year.


In an unpublished interview in March 2003 with Mr.
Kerry's authorized biographer, Douglas Brinkley,
provided by Mr. Brinkley to The New York Times, Roy F.
Hoffmann, a retired rear admiral and a leader of the
group, allowed that he had disagreed with Mr. Kerry's
antiwar positions but said, "I am not going to say
anything negative about him." He added, "He's a good
man."

In a profile of the candidate that ran in The Boston
Globe in June 2003, Mr. Hoffmann approvingly recalled
the actions that led to Mr. Kerry's Silver Star: "It
took guts, and I admire that."

George Elliott, one of the Vietnam veterans in the
group, flew from his home in Delaware to Boston in
1996 to stand up for Mr. Kerry during a tough
re-election fight, declaring at a news conference that
the action that won Mr. Kerry a Silver Star was "an
act of courage." At that same event, Adrian L.
Lonsdale, another Vietnam veteran now speaking out
against Mr. Kerry, supported him with a statement
about the "bravado and courage of the young officers
that ran the Swift boats."

"Senator Kerry was no exception," Mr. Lonsdale told
the reporters and cameras assembled at the Charlestown
Navy Yard. "He was among the finest of those Swift
boat drivers."

Those comments echoed the official record. In an
evaluation of Mr. Kerry in 1969, Mr. Elliott, who was
one of his commanders, ranked him as "not exceeded" in
11 categories, including moral courage, judgment and
decisiveness, and "one of the top few" - the
second-highest distinction - in the remaining five. In
written comments, he called Mr. Kerry "unsurpassed,"
"beyond reproach" and "the acknowledged leader in his
peer group."

The Admiral Calls

It all began last winter, as Mr. Kerry was wrapping up
the Democratic nomination. Mr. Lonsdale received a
call at his Massachusetts home from his old commander
in Vietnam, Mr. Hoffmann, asking if he had seen the
new biography of the man who would be president.

Mr. Hoffmann had commanded the Swift boats during the
war from a base in Cam Ranh Bay and advocated a
search-and-destroy campaign against the Vietcong - the
kind of tactic Mr. Kerry criticized when he was a
spokesman for Vietnam Veterans Against the War in
1971. Shortly after leaving the Navy in 1978, he was
issued a letter of censure for exercising undue
influence on cases in the military justice system.

Both Mr. Hoffmann and Mr. Lonsdale had publicly lauded
Mr. Kerry in the past. But the book, Mr. Brinkley's
"Tour of Duty," while it burnished Mr. Kerry's
reputation, portrayed the two men as reckless leaders
whose military approach had led to the deaths of
countless sailors and innocent civilians. Several
Swift boat veterans compared Mr. Hoffmann to the
bloodthirsty colonel in the film "Apocalypse Now" -
the one who loves the smell of Napalm in the morning.

The two men were determined to set the record, as they
saw it, straight.

"It was the admiral who started it and got the rest of
us into it," Mr. Lonsdale said.

Mr. Hoffmann's phone calls led them to Texas and to
John E. O'Neill, who at one point commanded the same
Swift boat in Vietnam, and whose mission against him
dated to 1971, when he had been recruited by the Nixon
administration to debate Mr. Kerry on "The Dick Cavett
Show."

Mr. O'Neill, who pressed his charges against Mr. Kerry
in numerous television appearances Thursday, had spent
the 33 years since he debated Mr. Kerry building a
successful law practice in Houston, intermingling with
some of the state's most powerful Republicans and
building an impressive client list. Among the
companies he represented was Falcon Seaboard, the
energy firm founded by the current lieutenant governor
of Texas, David Dewhurst, a central player in the
Texas redistricting plan that has positioned state
Republicans to win more Congressional seats this fall.


Mr. O'Neill said during one of several interviews that
he had come to know two of his biggest donors, Harlan
Crow and Bob J. Perry, through longtime social and
business contacts.

Mr. Perry, who has given $200,000 to the group, is the
top donor to Republicans in the state, according to
Texans for Public Justice, a nonpartisan group that
tracks political donations. He donated $46,000 to
President Bush's campaigns for governor in 1994 and
1998. In the 2002 election, the group said, he donated
nearly $4 million to Texas candidates and political
committees.

Mr. Rove, Mr. Bush's top political aide, recently said
through a spokeswoman that he and Mr. Perry were
longtime friends, though he said they had not spoken
for at least a year. Mr. Rove and Mr. Perry have been
associates since at least 1986, when they both worked
on the gubernatorial campaign of Bill Clements.

Mr. O'Neill said he had known Mr. Perry for 30 years.
"I've represented many of his friends,'' Mr. O'Neill
said. Mr. Perry did not respond to requests for
comment.

Mr. O'Neill said he had also known Mr. Crow for 30
years, through mutual friends. Mr. Crow, the
seventh-largest donor to Republicans in the state
according to the Texans for Public Justice, has
donated nowhere near as much money as Mr. Perry to the
Swift boat group. His family owns one of the largest
diversified commercial real estate companies in the
nation, the Trammell Crow Company, and has given money
to Mr. Bush and his father throughout their careers.
He is listed as a trustee of the George Bush
Presidential Library Foundation.

One of his law partners, Margaret Wilson, became Mr.
Bush's general counsel when he was governor of Texas
and followed him to the White House as deputy counsel
for the Department of Commerce, according to her
biography on the law firm's Web site.

Another partner, Tex Lezar, ran on the Republican
ticket with Mr. Bush in 1994, as lieutenant governor.
They were two years apart at Yale, and Mr. Lezar
worked for the attorney general's office in the Reagan
administration. Mr. Lezar, who died last year, was
married to Merrie Spaeth, a powerful public relations
executive who has helped coordinate the efforts of
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth.

In 2000, Ms. Spaeth was spokeswoman for a group that
ran $2 million worth of ads attacking Senator John
McCain's environmental record and lauding Mr. Bush's
in crucial states during their fierce primary battle.
The group, calling itself Republicans for Clean Air,
was founded by a prominent Texas supporter of Mr.
Bush, Sam Wyly.

Ms. Spaeth had been a communications official in the
Reagan White House, where the president's aides had
enough confidence in her to invite her to help prepare
George Bush for his vice-presidential debate in 1984.
She says she is also a close friend of Senator Kay
Bailey Hutchison of Texas, a client of Mr. Rove's. Ms.
Spaeth said in an interview that the one time she had
ever spoken to Mr. Rove was when Ms. Hutchison was
running for the Texas treasurer's office in 1990.

When asked if she had ever visited the White House
during Mr. Bush's tenure, Ms. Spaeth initially said
that she had been there only once, in 2002, when
Kenneth Starr gave her a personal tour. But this week
Ms. Spaeth acknowledged that she had spent an hour in
the Old Executive Office Building, part of the White
House complex, in the spring of 2003, giving Mr.
Bush's chief economic adviser, Stephen Friedman,
public speaking advice. Asked if it was possible that
she had worked with other administration officials,
Ms. Spaeth said, "The answer is 'no,' unless you
refresh my memory.''

"Is the White House directing this?" Ms. Spaeth said
of the organization. "Absolutely not.''

Another participant is the political advertising
agency that made the group's television commercial:
Stevens Reed Curcio & Potholm, based in Alexandria,
Va. The agency worked for Senator McCain in 2000 and
for Mr. Bush's father in 1988, when it created the
"tank" advertisement mocking Mr. Dukakis. A spokesman
for the Swift boat veterans said the organization
decided to hire the agency after a member saw one of
its partners speaking on television.

About 10 veterans met in Ms. Spaeth's office in Dallas
in April to share outrage and plot their campaign
against Mr. Kerry, she and others said. Mr. Lonsdale,
who did not attend, said the meeting had been planned
as "an indoctrination session."

What might have been loose impressions about Mr. Kerry
began to harden.

"That was an awakening experience," Ms. Spaeth said.
"Not just for me, but for many of them who had not
heard each other's stories."

The group decided to hire a private investigator to
investigate Mr. Brinkley's account of the war - to
find "some neutral way of actually questioning people
involved in these incidents,'' Mr. O'Neill said.

But the investigator's questions did not seem neutral
to some.

Patrick Runyon, who served on a mission with Mr.
Kerry, said he initially thought the caller was from a
pro-Kerry group, and happily gave a statement about
the night Mr. Kerry won his first Purple Heart. The
investigator said he would send it to him by e-mail
for his signature. Mr. Runyon said the edited version
was stripped of all references to enemy combat, making
it look like just another night in the Mekong Delta.

"It made it sound like I didn't believe we got any
returned fire," he said. "He made it sound like it was
a normal operation. It was the scariest night of my
life."

By May, the group had the money that Mr. O'Neill had
collected as well as additional veterans rallied by
Mr. O'Neill, Mr. Hoffmann and others. The expanded
group gathered in Washington to record the veterans'
stories for a television commercial.

Each veteran's statement was written down as an
affidavit and sent to him to sign and have notarized.
But the validity of those affidavits soon came into
question.

Mr. Elliott, who recommended Mr. Kerry for the Silver
Star, had signed one affidavit saying Mr. Kerry "was
not forthright" in the statements that had led to the
award. Two weeks ago, The Boston Globe quoted him as
saying that he felt he should not have signed the
affidavit. He then signed a second affidavit that
reaffirmed his first, which the Swift Boat Veterans
gave to reporters. Mr. Elliott has refused to speak
publicly since then.

The Questions

The book outlining the veterans' charges, "Unfit for
Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against Kerry,"
has also come under fire. It is published by Regnery,
a conservative company that has published numerous
books critical of Democrats, and written by Mr.
O'Neill and Jerome R. Corsi, who was identified on the
book jacket as a Harvard Ph.D. and the author of many
books and articles. But Mr. Corsi also acknowledged
that he has been a contributor of anti-Catholic,
anti-Muslim and anti-Semitic comments to a right-wing
Web site. He said he regretted those comments.

The group's arguments have foundered on other
contradictions. In the television commercial, Dr.
Louis Letson looks into the camera and declares, "I
know John Kerry is lying about his first Purple Heart
because I treated him for that injury." Dr. Letson
does not dispute the wound - a piece of shrapnel above
Mr. Kerry's left elbow - but he and others in the
group argue that it was minor and self-inflicted.

Yet Dr. Letson's name does not appear on any of the
medical records for Mr. Kerry. Under "person
administering treatment" for the injury, the form is
signed by a medic, J. C. Carreon, who died several
years ago. Dr. Letson said it was common for medics to
treat sailors with the kind of injury that Mr. Kerry
had and to fill out paperwork when doctors did the
treatment.

Asked in an interview if there was any way to confirm
he had treated Mr. Kerry, Dr. Letson said, "I guess
you'll have to take my word for it."

The group also offers the account of William L.
Schachte Jr., a retired rear admiral who says in the
book that he had been on the small skimmer on which
Mr. Kerry was injured that night in December 1968. He
contends that Mr. Kerry wounded himself while firing a
grenade.

But the two other men who acknowledged that they had
been with Mr. Kerry, Bill Zaladonis and Mr. Runyon,
say they cannot recall a third crew member. "Me and
Bill aren't the smartest, but we can count to three,"
Mr. Runyon said in an interview. And even Dr. Letson
said he had not recalled Mr. Schachte until he had a
conversation with another veteran earlier this year
and received a subsequent phone call from Mr. Schachte
himself.

Mr. Schachte did not return a telephone call, and a
spokesman for the group said he would not comment.

The Silver Star was awarded after Mr. Kerry's boat
came under heavy fire from shore during a mission in
February 1969. According to Navy records, he turned
the boat to charge the Vietcong position. An enemy
solider sprang from the shore about 10 feet in front
of the boat. Mr. Kerry leaped onto the shore, chased
the soldier behind a small hut and killed him, seizing
a B-40 rocket launcher with a round in the chamber.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth describes the man Mr.
Kerry killed as a solitary wounded teenager "in a
loincloth," who may or may not have been armed. They
say the charge to the beach was planned the night
before and, citing a report from one crew member on a
different boat, maintain that the sailors even schemed
about who would win which medals.

The group says Mr. Kerry himself wrote the reports
that led to the medal. But Mr. Elliott and Mr.
Lonsdale, who handled reports going up the line for
recognition, have previously said that a medal would
be awarded only if there was corroboration from others
and that they had thoroughly corroborated the
accounts.

"Witness reports were reviewed; battle reports were
reviewed," Mr. Lonsdale said at the 1996 news
conference, adding, "It was a very complete and
carefully orchestrated procedure." In his statements
Mr. Elliott described the action that day as "intense"
and "unusual."

According to a citation for Mr. Kerry's Bronze Star, a
group of Swift boats was leaving the Bay Hap river
when several mines detonated, disabling one boat and
knocking a soldier named Jim Rassmann overboard. In a
hail of enemy fire, Mr. Kerry turned the boat around
to pull Mr. Rassmann from the water.

Mr. Rassmann, who says he is a Republican, reappeared
during the Iowa caucuses this year to tell his story
and support Mr. Kerry, and is widely credited with
helping to revive Mr. Kerry's campaign.

But the group says that there was no enemy fire, and
that while Mr. Kerry did rescue Mr. Rassmann, the
action was what anyone would have expected of a
sailor, and hardly heroic. Asked why Mr. Rassmann
recalled that he was dodging enemy bullets, a member
of the group, Jack Chenoweth, said, "He's lying."

"If that's what we have to say," Mr. Chenoweth added,
"that's how it was."

Several veterans insist that Mr. Kerry wrote his own
reports, pointing to the initials K. J. W. on one of
the reports and saying they are Mr. Kerry's. "What's
the W for, I cannot answer," said Larry Thurlow, who
said his boat was 50 to 60 yards from Mr. Kerry's. Mr.
Kerry's middle initial is F, and a Navy official said
the initials refer to the person who had received the
report at headquarters, not the author.

A damage report to Mr. Thurlow's boat shows that it
received three bullet holes, suggesting enemy fire,
and later intelligence reports indicate that one
Vietcong was killed in action and five others wounded,
reaffirming the presence of an enemy. Mr. Thurlow said
the boat was hit the day before. He also received a
Bronze Star for the day, a fact left out of "Unfit for
Command."

Asked about the award, Mr. Thurlow said that he did
not recall what the citation said but that he believed
it had commended him for saving the lives of sailors
on a boat hit by a mine. If it did mention enemy fire,
he said, that was based on Mr. Kerry's false reports.
The actual citation, Mr. Thurlow said, was with an
ex-wife with whom he no longer has contact, and he
declined to authorize the Navy to release a copy. But
a copy obtained by The New York Times indicates "enemy
small arms," "automatic weapons fire" and "enemy
bullets flying about him." The citation was first
reported by The Washington Post on Thursday.

Standing Their Ground

As serious questions about its claims have arisen, the
group has remained steadfast and adaptable.

This week, as its leaders spoke with reporters, they
have focused primarily on the one allegation in the
book that Mr. Kerry's campaign has not been able to
put to rest: that he was not in Cambodia at Christmas
in 1968, as he declared in a statement to the Senate
in 1986. Even Mr. Brinkley, who has emerged as a
defender of Mr. Kerry, said in an interview that it
was unlikely that Mr. Kerry's Swift boat ventured into
Cambodia at Christmas, though he said he believed that
Mr. Kerry was probably there shortly afterward.

The group said it would introduce a new advertisement
against Mr. Kerry on Friday. What drives the veterans,
they acknowledge, is less what Mr. Kerry did during
his time in Vietnam than what he said after. Their
affidavits and their television commercial focus
mostly on those antiwar statements. Most members of
the group object to his using the word "atrocities" to
describe what happened in Vietnam when he returned and
became an antiwar activist. And they are offended,
they say, by the gall of his running for president as
a hero of that war.

"I went to university and was called a baby killer and
a murderer because of guys like Kerry and what he was
saying," said Van Odell, who appears in the first
advertisement, accusing Mr. Kerry of lying to get his
Bronze Star. "Not once did I participate in the
atrocities he said were happening."

As Mr. Lonsdale explained it: "We won the battle.
Kerry went home and lost the war for us.

"He called us rapers and killers and that's not true,"
he continued. "If he expects our loyalty, we should
expect loyalty from him."

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home |
Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Back to Top

Posted by richard at 11:27 AM

August 20, 2004

Sidney Blumenthal: Isn't This A Democracy?

The LNS Editor in Chief, like LNS hero Sen. Robert
Byrd (D-WV), carries a small copy of the US
Constitution (including the Amendments) with him
wherever he goes. Of course, the LNS Editor in Chief
also carries a small copy of the UN Charter (and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights) with him
wherever he goes...In a climate in which Sen. Ted
Kennedy (D-Camelot) is being harrassed by the Dept of
Homeland Insecurity whenever he boards a plane, we
suggest you do the same...At least until the November
referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and
CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident...IF the impending Electoral
Uprising is somehow short-circuited, that small copy
of the US Constitution will be either little more than
something to include in a time capsule or a call to
the streets...Remember, 2+2=4, 2+2=4, 2+2=4..."Let us
not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Sidney Blumenthal, Salon: Since the birth of the
American party system, presidential candidates have
always gone directly to the sovereign people, who are
the only source of legitimacy and power, to make their
case. After the Democratic Convention, Kerry traveled
from New England to the Pacific Northwest doing just
that. Not one of the hundreds of thousands who
attended his open-air rallies had to pledge allegiance
to him, and he encountered organized Bush hecklers as
part of the price. At Bush's rallies he is the
packaged president as pseudo-populist. But these
controlled environments reflect his deeper view of the
presidency as sovereign, preempting democracy.

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/082004C.shtml

Isn't This a Democracy?
By Sidney Blumenthal
Salon

Thursday 19 August 2004

At staged "Ask President Bush" events, audience
members have to pledge their allegiance to his
reelection to gain admission. Bush has forgotten who's
sovereign in America.

Before attending a rally to hear Vice President Dick
Cheney, citizens in New Mexico were required to sign a
political loyalty oath approved by the Republican
National Committee. "I, (full name) ... do herby (sic)
endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
States." The form noted: "In signing the above
endorsement you are consenting to use and release of
your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President
Bush."

Around the country, Bush is campaigning at events
billed as "Ask President Bush." Only supporters are
allowed entrance. Talking points are distributed to
questioners. In Traverse City, Mich., a 55-year-old
social studies teacher who wore a small Kerry sticker
on her blouse had her ticket torn up at the door. "How
can anyone in the United States deny someone entry?"
she asked. "Isn't this a democracy?"

At every "Ask President Bush" rally, Bush repeats
the same speech, touting a "vibrant economy" and his
leadership in a war where "you cannot show weakness."
He introduces local entrepreneurs who praise his tax
cuts. (More than 1 million jobs have been lost in his
term, the worst record since Herbert Hoover.) Then
Bush calls on questioners. More than one-fifth of them
profess their evangelical faith or denounce gay
marriage. In Niceville, Fla., one said: "This is the
very first time that I have felt that God was in the
White House." "Thank you," replied Bush. Another: "Mr.
President, as a child how can I help you get votes?"
In Albuquerque, he received this question: "It's an
honor every day when I get to pray for you as
president." And this one: "Thank God we finally have a
commander in chief." Others repeat attack lines on
John Kerry's military record to which Bush responds
with an oblique but encouraging "thanks."

Bush's overriding strategy is to bolster his
credential as a decisive military figure and to impugn
his opponent's manhood. In his latest TV commercial,
he says, "We cannot hesitate, we cannot yield, we must
do everything in our power to bring an enemy to
justice before they hurt us again." But, according to
the Washington Post, for the last two years he has
uttered the elusive Osama bin Laden's name only 10
times, and "on six of those occasions it was because
he was asked a direct question ... Not once during
that period has he talked about bin Laden at any
length, or said anything substantive." At "Ask
President Bush" events, he mentions Sept. 11 only to
raise the threat of Saddam Hussein.

Vice President Dick Cheney (who had five draft
deferments during Vietnam, saying he had "other
priorities") sneered at John Kerry for even using the
word "sensitive" with respect to counterterrorism. Not
one war was "won by being sensitive," mocked Cheney.
Kerry, in fact, had called for fighting "a more
effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations and brings them to our side and
lives up to American values in history." Cheney's
distortion is calculated to attempt to portray Kerry
as somehow effeminate.

At the same time, a Republican front group of
Vietnam veterans financed by a major Bush contributor
is running an ad campaign claiming Kerry's account of
his military record is false. But not one of these
veterans served with him on his boat. They remain
enraged that he had the temerity to return home
decorated with combat medals to become a leader
against the war.

During the Vietnam War, of course, Bush famously
used his father's connections to get a posting as a
pilot in the Texas Air National Guard, known as the
"Champagne Unit" because it was filled with the sons
of privilege. After refusing to submit to a routine
drug test, he was suspended and never flew again. He
got himself transferred to the Alabama National Guard,
but apparently never turned up for his tour of duty.
Not one person has stepped forward to claim he served
with Bush there. Since then, he has withheld his full
military records. Now he encourages smears that claim
a genuine war hero, wounded three times, has lied
about his service and is a coward. But this is more
than a classic case of projection. The more profound
issue is not who served in Vietnam and who dodged. It
is whether the president is a sovereign.

Since the birth of the American party system,
presidential candidates have always gone directly to
the sovereign people, who are the only source of
legitimacy and power, to make their case. After the
Democratic Convention, Kerry traveled from New England
to the Pacific Northwest doing just that. Not one of
the hundreds of thousands who attended his open-air
rallies had to pledge allegiance to him, and he
encountered organized Bush hecklers as part of the
price. At Bush's rallies he is the packaged president
as pseudo-populist. But these controlled environments
reflect his deeper view of the presidency as
sovereign, preempting democracy.

Floundering in the polls, without a strategy for
Iraq, unwilling to say the name of bin Laden, he is
always secure in the knowledge that the cheering
multitudes before him have been carefully selected.
Strutting and swaggering on the stage as though he has
conquered the crowd, he plays to true believers. But a
55-year-old social studies teacher from small-town
Michigan who would not bend her knee had her ticket to
see her president ripped up. "Ask President Bush" has
crystallized the essential underlying question, framed
succinctly by the greatest American poet of democracy,
Walt Whitman, who wrote, "The President is there in
the White House for you, it is not you who are here
for him."

About the writer: Sidney Blumenthal, a former
assistant and senior advisor to President Clinton and
the author of "The Clinton Wars," is writing a column
for Salon and the Guardian of London. Join Sid
Blumethal along with Ann Richards, David Talbot and
others on the Salon Cruise.


Posted by richard at 12:35 PM

CIA Expert: We could have stopped him

From America's best newspaper...

Julian Borger, Guardian: But the two reports, by the
September 11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence
Committee respectively, were also testaments to
political expedience. Both panels were made up of
Republican and Democratic loyalists who reached a
political compromise by going relatively easy on both
Clinton and Bush administrations, and focused on
institutional culprits. The CIA, without a defender
after the resignation in July of its long-serving
director, George Tenet, presented the easiest target.
Yet most of the agency's rank and file believe they
have done little wrong. They were the first to raise
the alarm over the danger posed by Osama bin Laden,
long before the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
In 1996 they set up a unit called the Bin Laden Issue
Station, codenamed "Alex", dedicated to tracking him
down, only to have one operation after another aborted
as too politically dangerous.
There are a lot of angry spies at Langley, and one of
the angriest is Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence
officer who led the Bin Laden station for four years.
While some of his colleagues have vented their
frustrations through leaks, Scheuer has done what no
serving American intelligence official has ever done -
published a book-length attack on the establishment.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/alqaida/story/0,12469,1287015,00.html

We could have stopped him

The CIA has taken much of the blame for the security
lapses that led to 9/11 and the false intelligence on
Iraq's WMDs. But now one spy has broken ranks to point
the finger at the politicians - and warn that the war
on terror could plunge the US into even greater
danger. By Julian Borger

Friday August 20, 2004
The Guardian

These are not happy times at the CIA. In the space of
a few short months, two official reports have found
the agency principally to blame for failing to prevent
the September 11 al-Qaida attack and for claiming that
Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. There is no
doubt there is a lot of blame to go round. The twin
fiascos rank as the worst intelligence failures since
the second world war. But the two reports, by the
September 11 Commission and the Senate Intelligence
Committee respectively, were also testaments to
political expedience. Both panels were made up of
Republican and Democratic loyalists who reached a
political compromise by going relatively easy on both
Clinton and Bush administrations, and focused on
institutional culprits. The CIA, without a defender
after the resignation in July of its long-serving
director, George Tenet, presented the easiest target.
Yet most of the agency's rank and file believe they
have done little wrong. They were the first to raise
the alarm over the danger posed by Osama bin Laden,
long before the 1998 embassy bombings in East Africa.
In 1996 they set up a unit called the Bin Laden Issue
Station, codenamed "Alex", dedicated to tracking him
down, only to have one operation after another aborted
as too politically dangerous.

There are a lot of angry spies at Langley, and one of
the angriest is Mike Scheuer, a senior intelligence
officer who led the Bin Laden station for four years.
While some of his colleagues have vented their
frustrations through leaks, Scheuer has done what no
serving American intelligence official has ever done -
published a book-length attack on the establishment.

His book, Imperial Hubris: Why the West is Losing the
War on Terror, is a fire-breathing denunciation of US
counter-terrorism policy. In it, Scheuer addresses the
missed opportunities of the Clinton era, but he
reserves his most withering attack for the Bush
administration's war in Iraq.

He describes the invasion as "an avaricious,
premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed
no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer
economic advantage". He even goes so far as to call on
America's generals to resign rather than execute
orders that "they know [...] will produce more, not
less, danger to their nation". Bin Laden, he believes,
is not a lonely maverick, but draws support from much
of the Islamic world, which resents the US not for
what it is, but for what it does - supporting Israel
almost uncritically, propping up corrupt regimes in
the Arab world, garrisoning troops on the Saudi
peninsula near Islam's most holy sites to safeguard
access to cheap oil.

"America ought to do what's in America's interests,
and those interests are not served by being dependent
on oil in the Middle East and by giving an open hand
to the Israelis," Scheuer argues. "If we're less
open-handed to Israel over time we can cut down Bin
Laden's ability to grow. Right now he has unlimited
potential for growing." What makes these comments the
more challenging to the Bush administration is that
they come from a self-described conservative and
instinctive Republican voter.

It seems extraordinary that Scheuer's bosses allowed
him to publish his book at all. They had already
permitted him one book, Through Our Enemies' Eyes,
written anonymously, but that was a more analytical
work on Bin Laden and al-Qaida. Imperial Hubris is
altogether different: a bitter polemic against
orthodoxy and the powers that be.

Scheuer was given the green light only on condition
that he stuck to a set of ground rules: he would
continue to write as Anonymous, he would not reveal
his job or employer, and he would refer only to
information that is already "open source" - ie in the
public domain. Inevitably, however, given the
controversy surrounding the book, his identity has
been leaked (first by a liberal weekly, the Boston
Phoenix, then this week by the New York Times). Even
now, he sticks closely to his employers' guidelines,
refusing formally to confirm his identity, while
describing his employers vaguely as "the intelligence
community". (It is for this reason that he is not
permitted by the CIA to be photographed except in
silhouette.) Having initially been allowed to give
media interviews to promote his book, Scheuer was told
earlier this month that he has to ask permission for
every interview and to submit an outline of what he is
going to say. So far, no interviews have been granted
under the new guidelines.

His interview with the Guardian is one of Scheuer's
last before being gagged. Burly, bearded and in jeans
and a loose shirt, his forceful vocabulary is a far
cry from the cautious obfuscation that is the native
tongue in Washington. Not that he minds rocking the
boat a little. "If getting in somebody's face [helps]
prevent the death of 3,000 Americans in New York or
the sinking of the Cole in Yemen, or two embassies in
East Africa, then I'm in your face," he says.

His bosses at the CIA have not confronted him over the
book, other than to tell him what he can or cannot do
with the press. "I don't think they get it yet. I
still think there's a large group in the American
intelligence community who talk about the next big
attack but really believe 9/11 was a one-off," he
says. "I think they believe their own rhetoric that
they've killed two-thirds of the al-Qaida leadership,
when they killed two-thirds of what they knew of."

Scheuer says that nearly three years after the
September 11 attacks the US intelligence team
dedicated to tracking down Bin Laden is still less
than 30 strong - the size it was when he left in 1999.
The CIA claims that the Bin Laden team is hundreds
strong, but Scheuer is insistent that the apparent
expansion is skin-deep. "The numbers are big, but it's
a shell game. It's people they move in for four or
five months at a time and then bring in a new bunch.
But the hard core of expertise, of experience, of
savvy really hasn't expanded at all since 9/11."

The morass in Iraq, meanwhile, is a "big factor in not
allowing us to develop much expertise" on Bin Laden.
"I think [director of central intelligence George
Tenet] said we had enough people to do two wars at
once, and clearly that was a fantasy."

The conclusion of the September 11 Commission - that
the al-Qaida plot might have been broken up if the
intelligence agencies had cooperated better and shared
more information - was accompanied by recommendations
for the creation of a national counter-terrorist
centre and a national director of intelligence to
coordinate the CIA, FBI and other agencies. Scheuer
believes this is a classic bureaucratic fix. "I've
never known a dysfunctional bureaucracy made better by
being made bigger." His answer to the al-Qaida threat,
unsurprisingly, is to give his old unit at the CIA,
the Bin Laden station, more resources and more
firepower.

It is a solution forged by the accumulated bitterness
of missed opportunities. In one year under his watch,
from May 1998 to May 1999, Scheuer reckons the US had
up to a dozen serious chances to kill or capture Bin
Laden. Only one was taken - a missile attack on an
Afghan training camp in August 1998 - but either the
al-Qaida leader was not there, or he had left before
the missiles landed.

Months earlier, however, Scheuer believes there was a
far better opportunity to grab Bin Laden. The CIA had
made a deal with a group of Afghan tribesmen to raid
Bin Laden's headquarters near Kandahar and then take
him to a desert landing strip, where a US plane would
take him either to America or another country for
trial. The plan, rehearsed several times over many
months, was in Scheuer's view "almost a perfect
operation in the sense that there was no US hand
visible". But on May 29 1998, according to the
narrative in the September 11 Commission's report,
Scheuer was informed that the operation had been
cancelled because of the risk of civilian casualties.

The pattern was repeated on December 20 the same year,
when Scheuer's agents were virtually certain that Bin
Laden would be staying the night at a guest house in
the Kandahar governor's compound. President Clinton's
principal national security advisers once more decided
that the danger of collateral damage was too high.
Afterwards Scheuer wrote to the top CIA agent in the
region, Gary Schroen, saying that he had been unable
to sleep after this decision. "I'm sure we'll regret
not acting last night," he predicted. Yet another
opportunity, in Afghanistan, was missed in 1999.

Other intelligence veterans are more sympathetic to
the policymakers' dilemma, pointing out that if the US
had shot and missed Bin Laden, while killing others,
the country would have been condemned around the
world, potentially winning more recruits for al-Qaida.
"Mike's is the viewpoint of the soldier versus the
viewpoint of a general," argues Vincent Cannistraro, a
former chief of operations at the CIA's
Counter-Terrorist Centre. "There are political
judgments made at a higher pay grade. I've been at
both sides of that equation and they are difficult
judgments to make."

Scheuer counters that the policymakers are just not
asking the right questions. "The question is always
what happens if we do this and we fail. The question
is never what happens to Americans if we don't try
this," he says. "When I took my oath of office, it was
to preserve and protect and defend the constitution of
the US. It wasn't 'to preserve and protect and defend
as long as you don't kill an Arab prince, as long as
you don't offend the Europeans, as long as you don't
hit a mosque with shrapnel'." Scheuer's constant
complaints eventually got him removed from his
position at the head of the Bin Laden unit and shifted
to a more nebulous training role.

To his detractors in the administration, Scheuer is no
more than a rogue spy whose career did not turn out
the way he had hoped. Certainly he is bitter at being
"sidetracked for the past five years without any sort
of explanation from my employers", but he insists that
the issues he raises are far more important than his
career. He says his recent adoption of a child
deepened his anxiety about the future of the next
American generation if the country sticks to its
present course.

But even if the US scores some significant victories
against al-Qaida, Scheuer believes the conflict with
Islamic extremism will continue to spiral without a
fundamental rethink of US priorities in Iraq and a
relationship with Israel that "drains resources, earns
Muslim hatred and serves no vital US national
interest". It is a depressingly pessimistic
assessment. Ultimately, "we only have the choice
between war and endless war".

· Imperial Hubris is published today by Brassey's,
price £12.95.


Posted by richard at 12:32 PM

Yes, WW III is just a few stupid chess moves away...

Did you know there were already several thousand
Chinese troops in the Sudan? (And yes, they are on the
wrong side of that horror.) Yes, WW III is just a few stupid chess moves away...Security is the central
issue of this campaign: National Security, Economic
Security and Environmental Security. Are you safer
than you were four years ago? No. Are we discussing
it? Not really. Mostly, this week, the "US mainstream
news media" is spending far more time pretending to
"sort out" the military record of Sen. John F. Kerry
(D-Mekong Delta), as if there were any shred of
credibility to the savage Bush cabal's filth machine
attacks against him...What is happening in this
country? How many of your fellow citizens realize that
we are heading into a "Perfect Storm" of global
warming, AIDS in Africa and Asia, a "holy war" with
the Arabs, an oil war with China, a broken and
drifting Western Alliance, deepening political
tensions and economic conflict with the EU, rapidly
dwindling natural resources, and an UN*civil* war with
the Expanded Confederacy here at home...we need a
Lincoln, and we do not have any more time to
waste...we have already lost four years we could not
spare...War is peace? Love is hate? Sound familiar?
"The hour is getting late."

Newsday Editorial: The conflict is unavoidable. It
could create geopolitical tensions and cause dramatic
shifts in U.S. foreign policy that may overshadow
today's preoccupation with global terrorism. And there
are no easy solutions to avert it, only regrets over
this nation's missed opportunities in decades past to
develop viable alternative energy sources to lessen
U.S. dependence on imported oil.
Any such program, initiated today, will take far too
long to bear fruit in time to avoid an economic and
political clash with China over oil...
While Washington has begged the world -- and pressured
the United Nations Security Council -- to send
peacekeeping troops to Sudan to quell the sectarian
fighting that has put a million refugees at risk,
China has already deployed 4,000 troops to Sudan. But
those troops are there only to protect China's
investment in an oil pipeline. China is concerned that
civil unrest could wreck the oil project. It has
actually been hostile to U.S. pressure to impose
economic sanctions on the Arab government in Khartoum,
a key Chinese client, buyer of Chinese arms and
partner in oil exploration.
It was also telling that China was a major opponent at
the Security Council of the war against Iraq, in large
part because China had obtained prospective contracts
with Saddam Hussein for exclusive exploitation of some
oil fields. But perhaps the most worrisome prospect
for U.S. policymakers is China's burgeoning attempt to
secure ties with Saudi Arabia, the world's arbiter of
the oil market, taking advantage of the Saudi regime's
tensions with Washington since the 9/11 attacks.
All these are disquieting harbingers of Beijing's
coming conflict with the United States over oil. It
will come sooner than expected and the United States
is not prepared for it. This president or his
successor must, at the very least, alert the nation
about its consequences, initiate a national
conversation about it and encourage a program of
energy conservation to alleviate the obvious economic
pressures we will all face.

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vpts0815,0,692217,print.story?coll=ny-opinion-headlines

1.3 billion reasons to worry about oil

American leaders have good reason to worry about the
price of oil. Oil price shocks can play a decisive
role in ending a presidency, as in the cases of
Presidents Jimmy Carter and George H. W. Bush. The
Nov. 2 election may well hinge on the cooling of the
economic recovery caused by sustained high levels of
oil prices. But that's not really what the next
president should be so concerned about. The real oil
shocks -- much more damaging and sustained than ever
before -- will come a bit later, but much sooner than
anyone had expected, from a part of the world not even
discussed seriously in the current campaign:

China.

With 1.3 billion people, a phenomenal rate of economic
growth, and an insatiable consumer demand for cars,
China will soon come into direct conflict with the
United States over oil, the world's most valuable and
increasingly scarce industrial commodity.

The pressure on supply will inevitably jack up prices
to levels that would make today's motorists and
electricity customers blanch.

The conflict is unavoidable. It could create
geopolitical tensions and cause dramatic shifts in
U.S. foreign policy that may overshadow today's
preoccupation with global terrorism. And there are no
easy solutions to avert it, only regrets over this
nation's missed opportunities in decades past to
develop viable alternative energy sources to lessen
U.S. dependence on imported oil.

Any such program, initiated today, will take far too
long to bear fruit in time to avoid an economic and
political clash with China over oil.

Just a quick glimpse at the figures involved makes
clear the dimensions of the problem. China's economic
growth has bubbled along at a steamy pace of 8 to 10
percent a year for the past decade.

With that growth, private auto sales in that vast
nation have skyrocketed from token levels 10 years ago
-- only 220,000 were sold as recently as 1999 -- to
nearly 2 million this year. Last year alone, China's
automobile sales increased by a staggering 69 percent.

More cars than U.S. by 2030

It's estimated that China could have nearly 30 million
automobiles by 2010. By 2030, China is expected to
have more cars than the United States and import as
much oil as the U.S. does today.

Already, China has overtaken Japan as the world's
second biggest importer of oil, after the United
States. And its appetite is huge and growing. As
Daniel Yergin of Cambridge Energy Research Associates
puts it, "China has gone from being a minor player in
world commodity markets, if a player at all, to being
the decisive dynamic factor today. In terms of oil, 40
percent of the entire growth in oil demand since the
year 2000 has been China."

In this quarter alone, China's demand for oil is
projected to increase 21 percent. That follows a
19-percent increase during the first quarter of this
year.

Nor are Chinese consumers, especially those in the
growing middle class produced by a booming technology
sector, particularly interested in fuel-efficient
small cars. Gas-guzzling sport utility vehicles are
not simply an American passion. They are in great
demand in China, too.

In a report from China broadcast on National Public
Radio in June, a 35-year-old woman in Beijing, Sia
Lan, an executive in China's expanding advertising
industry, said she, like many other of her friends,
prefers to drive SUVs. "I have a sedan car, too, which
I used to drive to work because my Jeep guzzles a lot
more gas," she said. "But I prefer my Jeep because I
can see over all the other cars."

A Chinese environmentalist, Liang Congjie, is
distressed by the implications. "If each Chinese
family has two cars like U.S. families, then the cars
needed by China, something like 600 million vehicles,
will exceed all the cars in the world combined."

The prospect is daunting, not only for the effects it
would have on the world's production of greenhouse
gases to accelerate global warming, but also for the
incredible pressure it would put on the world's oil
supply.

Just 10 years ago, China was self-sufficient in oil
and actually exported small quantities to other Asian
nations. Now, imports account for more than one- third
of Chinese oil consumption. And rather than relying on
foreign oil companies to supply it with oil, China
wants its own oil firms to go directly overseas to
secure supply sources it can exploit itself.

Clash with U.S. in Mideast

This is where China's quest for more oil will come
directly in conflict with the concerns of U.S. foreign
policy -- particularly in the Middle East.

During the Cold War, China stayed away from the Middle
East. That region's geographic distance and political
instability deterred it from securing ties with its
major oil-exporting nations and, at least until a
decade ago, the old China of ox carts and bicycles did
not need to import oil.

But now the Middle East and relations with
oil-producing nations have become key interests in
China's foreign policy, perhaps second only to its
obsession with Taiwan.

Exploring the world

Today, nearly 60 percent of China's oil imports come
from that region. Through bilateral agreements, rather
than international mechanisms, and using arms sales
and dual-use technology transfers -- nuclear
equipment, guidance systems for missiles -- to cement
ties, China has obtained oil exploration and
exploitation rights in some of the most turbulent
nations in the Middle East and North Africa -- Iran,
Sudan, Libya, Algeria and, until the recent war, Iraq.

The case of Sudan, where international concern for the
humanitarian disaster in the Darfur region is
intensifying, puts China's role in perspective. It
illustrates how Beijing's oil interests could come in
direct conflict with U.S. policy.

Chinese troops in Sudan

While Washington has begged the world -- and pressured
the United Nations Security Council -- to send
peacekeeping troops to Sudan to quell the sectarian
fighting that has put a million refugees at risk,
China has already deployed 4,000 troops to Sudan. But
those troops are there only to protect China's
investment in an oil pipeline. China is concerned that
civil unrest could wreck the oil project. It has
actually been hostile to U.S. pressure to impose
economic sanctions on the Arab government in Khartoum,
a key Chinese client, buyer of Chinese arms and
partner in oil exploration.

It was also telling that China was a major opponent at
the Security Council of the war against Iraq, in large
part because China had obtained prospective contracts
with Saddam Hussein for exclusive exploitation of some
oil fields. But perhaps the most worrisome prospect
for U.S. policymakers is China's burgeoning attempt to
secure ties with Saudi Arabia, the world's arbiter of
the oil market, taking advantage of the Saudi regime's
tensions with Washington since the 9/11 attacks.

All these are disquieting harbingers of Beijing's
coming conflict with the United States over oil. It
will come sooner than expected and the United States
is not prepared for it. This president or his
successor must, at the very least, alert the nation
about its consequences, initiate a national
conversation about it and encourage a program of
energy conservation to alleviate the obvious economic
pressures we will all face.

China's need for oil is the proverbial 800-pound
gorilla in the room, and no one seems willing to
confront it or even acknowledge it -- until it's too
late.
Copyright © 2004, Newsday, Inc.

Posted by richard at 12:30 PM

Ottawa Business Journal: A key forward-looking gauge of the U.S. economy fell for the second month in a row in July, according to a report Thursday, suggesting the nation's recovery still faces a bumpy road.

It's how the Media reports on the Economy, Stupid.

Ottawa Business Journal: A key forward-looking gauge
of the U.S. economy fell for the second month in a row
in July, according to a report Thursday, suggesting
the nation's recovery still faces a bumpy road..."The
latest decline in the Leading Index reflects a loss of
forward momentum," Conference Board economist Ken
Goldstein said in the report. "There are growing
concerns about the high cost of gasoline and milk, as
well as worries about where economic growth will come
from now that tax refunds have been spent and
short-term interest rates are rising."

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.ottawabusinessjournal.com/281248160680619.php

U.S. leading indicator down again in July
By Ottawa Business Journal Staff
Thu, Aug 19, 2004 10:00 AM EST

A key forward-looking gauge of the U.S. economy fell for the second month in a row in July, according to a report Thursday, suggesting the nation's recovery still faces a bumpy road.

The U.S Conference Board said its Composite Index of
Leading Economic Indicators fell in July by 0.3 per
cent to 116. That followed a revised decline of 0.1
per cent in June. June's decline was the first in more
than a year.

Analysts polled by Bloomberg news expected a smaller
decline in July of 0.1 per cent, on average.

The index is designed to forecast where the U.S.
economy will be in the next three to six months.

"The latest decline in the Leading Index reflects a
loss of forward momentum," Conference Board economist
Ken Goldstein said in the report. "There are growing
concerns about the high cost of gasoline and milk, as
well as worries about where economic growth will come
from now that tax refunds have been spent and
short-term interest rates are rising."

In the past six weeks, the U.S Federal Reserve stepped
in for the first time in four years to raise its key
lending rate. The two hikes raised the key rate from
one per cent to 1.5 per cent.

Bloomberg News quoted Credit Suisse First Boston Corp
economist Jay Feldman as saying it's "still premature
to say the drop in the index is meaningful, but the
risks to the economy are to the downside, mostly
because of the rise in crude oil prices".

Posted by richard at 12:27 PM

August 19, 2004

Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta): "More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson. When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do today."

Yes. Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) has seen the
whites of their eyes, and has commenced firing...It
has begun...This is not Dukakis, or Mondale, or
McGovern, or even the old Al Gore, this is the new
Lincoln for the coming *Civil* War...

Associated Press: Sen. John Kerry accused President
Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups to
challenge his record of valor in Vietnam, asserting,
"He wants them to do his dirty work."
Defending his record, the Democratic presidential
candidate said, "Thirty years ago, official Navy
reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded
me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts."
"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam."
In addition to Kerry's speech before an audience of
firefighters, his campaign released a new 30-second
campaign commercial that features a former Green Beret
saying the young Navy lieutenant saved his life under
fire...
In his speech, Kerry employed a wartime metaphor.
"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson.
When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn
your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do
today."
Speaking of the organization airing the ads that
challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this
group isn't interested in the truth and they're not
telling the truth. ...
"But here's what you really need to know about them.
They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars
from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a
front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the
President won't denounce what they're up to tells you
everything you need to know. He wants them to do his
dirty work."

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhaw Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/19/kerry.ap/index.html

Kerry blasts Bush over attack ads
Thursday, August 19, 2004 Posted: 10:41 AM EDT (1441
GMT)

Sen. John Kerry speaks Thursday to members of the
International Association of Fire Fighters in Boston.

Manage alerts | What is this?

BOSTON, Massachusetts (AP) -- Sen. John Kerry accused
President Bush on Thursday of relying on front groups
to challenge his record of valor in Vietnam,
asserting, "He wants them to do his dirty work."

Defending his record, the Democratic presidential
candidate said, "Thirty years ago, official Navy
reports documented my service in Vietnam and awarded
me the Silver Star, the Bronze Star and three Purple
Hearts."

"Thirty years ago, this was the plain truth. It still
is. And I still carry the shrapnel in my leg from a
wound in Vietnam."

Kerry received five medals for his service in Vietnam
a generation ago, but his record has come under
campaign challenge in television commercials aired by
Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, funded by supporters of
the president.

Bush and the White House have refused to condemn the
ads, despite calls to do so -- from Sen. John McCain,
R-Arizona, a former Vietnam prisoner of war, as well
as from Democrats.

Senior Democrats, including some inside the
presidential campaign, have urged Kerry to respond
forcefully to the criticism, fearing that if left
unanswered, it could hamper his quest for the White
House.

In addition to Kerry's speech before an audience of
firefighters, his campaign released a new 30-second
campaign commercial that features a former Green Beret
saying the young Navy lieutenant saved his life under
fire.

Recalling when his boat came under attack more than 30
years ago, Jim Rassmann says, "It blew me off the
boat. All those Viet Cong were shooting at me. I
expected I'd be shot. When he pulled me out of the
river, he risked his life to save mine."

Aides said the commercial would air in Ohio, West
Virginia and Wisconsin, three battleground states. The
decision to advertise even in a limited fashion marked
a change in course for the campaign, which had hoped
to remain off the air for August to conserve cash for
the fall campaign.

In his speech, Kerry employed a wartime metaphor.

"More than 30 years ago I learned an important lesson.
When you're under attack the best thing to do is turn
your boat into the attack. That's what I intend to do
today."

Speaking of the organization airing the ads that
challenge his war record, Kerry said, "Of course, this
group isn't interested in the truth and they're not
telling the truth. ...

"But here's what you really need to know about them.
They're funded by hundreds of thousands of dollars
from a Republican contributor out of Texas. They're a
front for the Bush campaign. And the fact that the
President won't denounce what they're up to tells you
everything you need to know. He wants them to do his
dirty work."

Bush spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "That charge
leveled by Senator Kerry is absolutely and completely
false."

"The Bush campaign has never and will never question
John Kerry's service in Vietnam. The president has
referred to John Kerry's service as noble service,"
the Bush spokesman said.

Kerry said, "Of course, the president keeps telling
people he would never question my service to our
country. Instead, he watches as a Republican-funded
attack group does just that. Well, if he wants to have
a debate about our service in Vietnam, here is my
answer: 'Bring it on."'

Kerry's comments drew boisterous cheers from members
of the union that had endorsed him last year at a time
his candidacy was struggling.

Rassmann, too, played a pivotal role in Kerry's
campaign turnaround last winter. With the kickoff Iowa
caucuses days away, the former Green Beret contacted
the campaign and volunteered to appear with the
Massachusetts senator and talk about his action in
Vietnam.

Rassmann has since become the best known member of a
group of veterans that Kerry calls his "band of
brothers" -- a stress on military service designed to
erode the traditional Republican campaign advantage on
national security issues.

Kerry's response came as The Washington Post reported
that a Vietnam veteran who claims Kerry lied about
being under fire during a Mekong Delta engagement that
won Kerry a Bronze Star was under constant fire
himself during the same skirmish according to the
man's own medal citation.

The newly obtained records of Larry Thurlow show that
he, like Kerry, won a Bronze Star in the engagement
and that Thurlow's citation says he also was under
attack, the Post reported.

Thurlow, also like Kerry, commanded a Navy swift boat
during Vietnam. He swore in an affidavit last month
that Kerry was "not under fire" when he rescued
Rassmann from the Bay Hap River.

Thurlow's records, obtained by the Post under the
Freedom of Information Act, include references to
"enemy small arms and automatic weapons fire" directed
at all five boats in the flotilla that day. In his
Bronze Star citation, Thurlow is praised for helping a
damaged swift boat "despite enemy bullets flying about
him."

Thurlow is a leading member of Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth, a public advocacy group of Vietnam veterans who
have aired a television advertisement attacking
Kerry's war record.

Thurlow, a registered Republican, said he was angry
with Kerry for anti-war activities after his return to
the United States, especially his claim that U.S.
troops committed war crimes with the knowledge of
their officers up the chain of command.

Thurlow told the Post that he got the award for
helping to rescue a boat that was mined. He said he
believed his own award would be fraudulent if it was
based on coming under enemy fire.

He speculated that Kerry could have been the source of
at least some of the language used in the citation.

Members of Kerry's crew have said Kerry is telling the
truth. Rassmann said he has vivid memories of enemies
firing at him from both banks.

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

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press. All rights
reserved.This material may not be published,
broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

Posted by richard at 02:09 PM

F.A.I.R.: Media's picture of Kerry based on RNC distortions

It's the Media, Stupid.

Peter Hart, www.fair.org: "Like a caged hamster,
Senator John Kerry is restless on the road," wrote the
New York Times' Jodi Wilgoren (6/13/04), beginning a
piece that promised "authentic insights" into the
Democratic presidential candidate. Aside from the
banalities (Kerry dislikes wearing suits on hot, humid
days, and uses a cellphone more than John Glenn did
when he ran for president in 1984), what's most
striking about the piece is how closely it mirrors the
Republican caricature of Kerry, portraying him as an
elitist with "a prep-school cultivated competitive
sensibility," whose speeches "are filled with
multisyllabic upper-crust phrasing," and as a
"contradictory" character who "is anything but simple
and straightforward." Even his playing a musical
instrument is portrayed as somehow weird and
un-American: "And where former President Bill Clinton
plays cards and President Bush turns to the treadmill,
Senator Kerry strums his Spanish classical guitar in a
kind of musical meditation."

Break the Corporatis Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.fair.org/extra/0407/caged-hamster.html

Extra!, August 2004
Covering the "Caged Hamster"

Media's picture of Kerry based on RNC distortions

By Peter Hart

"Like a caged hamster, Senator John Kerry is restless
on the road," wrote the New York Times' Jodi Wilgoren
(6/13/04), beginning a piece that promised "authentic
insights" into the Democratic presidential candidate.
Aside from the banalities (Kerry dislikes wearing
suits on hot, humid days, and uses a cellphone more
than John Glenn did when he ran for president in
1984), what's most striking about the piece is how
closely it mirrors the Republican caricature of Kerry,
portraying him as an elitist with "a prep-school
cultivated competitive sensibility," whose speeches
"are filled with multisyllabic upper-crust phrasing,"
and as a "contradictory" character who "is anything
but simple and straightforward." Even his playing a
musical instrument is portrayed as somehow weird and
un-American: "And where former President Bill Clinton
plays cards and President Bush turns to the treadmill,
Senator Kerry strums his Spanish classical guitar in a
kind of musical meditation."

Wilgoren's piece, with its effect of amplifying Bush
campaign allegations about Kerry, is typical of 2004
presidential campaign coverage. This phenomenon is
seen not only in the media's frequent forays into
trivia, but also in their attempts to cover
substantive issues—as in February, when the Republican
National Committee (2/22/04) released a list of
weapons systems that Kerry allegedly "voted against."

Partisan TV pundits like Fox News Channel's Sean
Hannity (3/1/04) quickly echoed these charges,
claiming, "He's voting against every major weapons
system we now use in our military." The partisan
Hannity's participation in the RNC's attack was
perhaps to be expected, but he was not the only media
figure to pass along the Republican allegations
without examination. CNN anchor Judy Woodruff
(2/25/04) framed the issue this way in an interview
with Rep. Norm Dicks (D.-Wash.): "The Republicans list
something like 13 different weapons systems that they
say the record shows Senator Kerry voted against. The
Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile
and on and on and on."

Embarrassingly, Dicks had to explain to Woodruff that
most of the weapons "votes" weren't individual votes
at all, but a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991
appropriations bill. Woodruff responded to this
information with surprise: "Are you saying that all
these weapons systems were part of one defense
appropriations bill in 1991?"

But Woodruff wasn't alone. When Bush/Cheney campaign
strategist Ralph Reed explained to CNN anchor Wolf
Blitzer (2/3/04) that Kerry's record was one of
"voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems," Blitzer
responded to Reed's deceptive spin by turning to guest
Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee and
saying, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's
been some opposition research done."

One of the few reporters to take a serious look at the
RNC's list—on which 10 of the 13 items refer to the
single 1991 vote on an appropriations bill—was Slate's
Fred Kaplan (2/25/04). Kaplan noted that 16 senators,
including five Republicans, voted against the bill,
and concluded that the claim against Kerry "reeks of
rank dishonesty." Kaplan also pointed out that at the
time of the 1991 vote, deeper cuts in military
spending were being advocated by some prominent
Republicans—including then-President George H.W. Bush
and Dick Cheney, who was secretary of defense at the
time.

As Kaplan noted, Cheney appealed for more cuts from
Congress: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and
horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on
weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of
tight budgets and new requirements." Cheney went on to
name the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters—all
of which would later appear on the RNC's list—as
systems that "we have enough of."

For many reporters, though, such facts weren't allowed
to get in the way of what they seemed to consider the
standard back-and-forth of a political campaign. Fox
News Channel's Carl Cameron (2/27/04) was typical:
"With the GOP attacking John Kerry's votes to cut
defense over the years, the Democratic frontrunner,
once again, counter-attacked what he calls the
president's 'mishandling' of the war on terror."
Associated Press reporter Nedra Pickler (2/27/04)
likewise noted that "the Bush campaign has criticized
Kerry in recent days for voting against some increases
in defense spending and military weapons programs
during his 19-year congressional career." NBC anchor
Tom Brokaw (3/2/04, MSNBC) also seemed to accept the
charges at face value, noting that "the vice president
just today was talking about [Kerry's] votes against
the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and
also weapons systems. Isn't [Kerry] going to be very
vulnerable come the fall when national security is
such a big issue in this country?"

"Kerry propaganda"

Brokaw alluded to a new allegation against Kerry that
emerged in March: According to the Bush campaign, Sen.
Kerry had tried to cut $1.5 billion from the
intelligence budget, a move Bush called a "gutting."
Though you wouldn't have known it from most of the
coverage, the Washington Post noted on March 12 that
Kerry's proposed cut was actually smaller than the
eventual $3.8 billion cut passed by the Republican-led
Congress, which focused on a mismanaged intelligence
program that had accumulated excess funds. But some
outlets aren't interested in such nuance. Later that
day, on Fox News Channel's Special Report, panelist
Juan Williams seemed to have read the Post article,
arguing that Republicans had pushed the same kinds of
cuts. Fellow Fox panelist Mort Kondracke cut him off:
"That's Kerry propaganda."

It's good to see that pundits recognize the concept of
propaganda; that might have helped them to interpret
the Bush campaign's claim that Kerry has voted "for
higher taxes" more than 350 times. This number, as
commentators like Michael Kinsley pointed out
(Washington Post, 3/24/04), is deeply misleading,
counting votes to keep tax rates the same, or even to
lower them by less than Republicans wanted, as votes
for "higher taxes." Even with this dubious definition,
the Republican list counts the same votes multiple
times.

Nonetheless, some journalists allowed the charge to be
repeated without correction. CBS reporter Byron Pitts
(3/5/04), for example, announced a Republican claim
that the Bush tax cuts would be in jeopardy under a
Kerry administration, then turned to Commerce
Secretary Don Evans, who stated, "Senator Kerry has
voted for tax increases over 350 times." While Evans
exaggerated an already misleading claim, CBS viewers
were not told that there was anything questionable
about the 350 figure.

On rare occasions, some outlets do step back and take
a look at the big picture on truth in campaign
advertising. A Washington Post report (5/31/04) on
Bush and Kerry ads used rather blunt language in
concluding that many of the claims made about Kerry by
the Bush campaign—on issues like the Patriot Act, No
Child Left Behind and gasoline taxes—are simply false.
According to the Post, the ads "distort Kerry's record
and words to undermine the candidate or reinforce
negative perceptions of him," with some ads amounting
to a "torrent of misstatements."

When NBC Nightly News (4/6/04) invited Brooks Jackson
of Factcheck.org to debunk misleading campaign ads,
Jackson called the taxes allegation "so bogus," and
dismissed another anti-Kerry ad about his alleged
support for a gas tax increase. But anchor Brian
Williams neutralized this attempt to set the record
straight: "It is hard to tell fact from fiction," he
concluded.

French connection?

CNN's Inside Edition took this practice of amplifying
GOP talking points to a new low with a segment
(5/25/04) devoted to the notion that John Kerry seems,
well, French. "He caught flak early in the campaign
for his French connections," explained anchor Judy
Woodruff. The "flak" seemed to consist of Republicans
making fun of Kerry for either "looking French" or
speaking the French language fluently. Anchor Wolf
Blitzer got the ball rolling by announcing that "the
French, of course, among other things helped to strain
the alliance between the United States and its
European allies over the war in Iraq." CNN then
explained that Kerry has French family, and has
summered in that country.

Then CNN turned the microphones on the American
public. Random people interviewed on the street
offered negative impressions of the French; they're
uppity, arrogant, and even "international." That last
word is trouble, at least to Woodruff: "A tricky word
to be saddled with if you're running to lead a
war-time White House and your relatives across the
pond have not embraced the war."

Viewers may have been left wondering what to make of
such a story: Various Republicans and right-wing
pundits have done their best to turn a bigoted view of
French people into a campaign issue. CNN took that
bigotry and, rather than denouncing or criticizing it,
decided to expand on it, connecting Kerry to various
negative stereotypes about French people. Ironically,
near the end of the piece Woodruff remarks that
connecting Kerry to these negative feelings about the
French might be dirty politics: "Some accused the GOP
of speaking in code." The same charge could be made
against CNN.

Kerry's "Missteps"

When not amplifying Bush talking points, media were
focusing on Kerry's alleged gaffes or misstatements,
ranging from convoluted explanations of his Senate
voting record to whether or not he owns a sports
utility vehicle. But while these relatively trivial
aspects of John Kerry's record have come under intense
and prolonged media scrutiny, journalists have shown a
reluctance to highlight much more significant
falsehoods by Kerry's main rival, George W. Bush (FAIR
Media Advisory, 5/20/04).

Time magazine's May 10 story, "What Kerry Means to
Say," is a typical example of recent Kerry coverage.
After noting Kerry's opportunities to score points
against a White House besieged by questions about
Iraq, the September 11 commission and the Supreme
Court, reporter Karen Tumulty asks, "But what did the
challenger find himself talking about for three days?
The answer is whether or not Kerry threw away his
medals or his ribbons in the early 1970s."

Tumulty attributes this story line to a personal flaw
in Kerry: The campaign has often been about the "traps
that the Bush campaign is adept at setting for Kerry,
and the personality trait that makes Kerry walk right
into them." Of course, Kerry "found himself" talking
about the distinctions between ribbons and medals
because these were the topics that journalists were
asking him about. And on occasions like the "medals"
flap, the press corps seemed to smell blood, latching
on to stories of dubious importance that seem to
portray Kerry as faltering or changing course.

Thus, before the medals "controversy," media interest
was centered on claims about Kerry's medical records
from Vietnam. After Kerry pledged on NBC's Meet the
Press to release medical records from his service in
Vietnam, ABC World News Tonight (4/21/04) reported
that Kerry's service "has become the subject of
controversy" because some of his critics were raising
doubts about his first Purple Heart. When the medical
records did little to bolster their case, the press
corps switched to another GOP spin point: Kerry didn't
get the records out fast enough. ABC's report included
a soundbite from RNC chair Ed Gillespie: "When
President Bush committed to release all his military
records on the same program, he kept his word. John
Kerry should do the same." The fact that Bush took
five days after his Meet the Press appearance to get
his records out while Kerry took three did not deter
media outlets from doing stories on this nonexistent
issue. (Bush has yet to release his pay records or his
final personnel evaluation, claiming that they are no
longer available—Salon, 2/18/04—surely an issue of
greater weight than how many days a document release
took.)

Throughout the various reports of Kerry "missteps" is
the sense that the Kerry campaign is in a state of
disarray, and unable to deal with such problems: "Bad
Timing as Kerry Slips Out of Picture," claimed one New
York Times headline (4/1/04); "Kerry Struggling to
Find a Theme, Democrats Fear," claimed another piece a
month later (5/2/04).

The microscopic scrutiny the press corps pays to
Kerry's statements is jarring, considering the
obviously lenient attitude journalists takes when it
comes to Bush's much more important "flip-flops." A
Time magazine piece (4/12/04) wondered why Kerry's
alleged inconsistencies were more important than
Bush's. The magazine offered one explanation: "How
tight the label sticks depends a lot on the impression
voters have already formed, which means that a less
well-known candidate can be vulnerable in ways a
familiar one may not be." Not mentioned was the rather
significant role played by the press corps in
determining whether such a label "sticks."

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

Was this article helpful to you?

It was made possible by the subscribers to Extra!.

Please subscribe and support our work.


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

Extra! | FAIR Home | Contact Us | Search
©Copyright by Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting.


Posted by richard at 02:06 PM

Gene Lyons: Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large, volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing state" polls.

Why listen to the innane and duplicitous drivel of
Bill Schnookerd and Jeff Greenfold (SeeNotNews' lead
propapunditgandists) when you can revel in the
insights of the incomparable Gene Lyons...
Enjoy this reality-check from the campaign trail, and
keep the DNC exhortation of another great
American from Arkansas (Bubba) in your consciousness,
"Remember the Scripture, Be Not Afraid."

Gene Lyons, Arkansas Democrat Gazette: As the
incumbent, Bush is conducting one of the oddest
campaigns in American history. Because he can’t easily
run on vanishing jobs, humongous budget deficits and
the mess in Iraq, or say much about the future, what’s
he going to promise, bigger tax cuts? Bush preaches to
the converted at invitation-only events limited to
campaign volunteers, congregations from conservative
churches and people willing to sign party loyalty
oaths. Anybody wearing a John Kerry T-shirt is hustled
off the premises. Avoiding the national press, he
holds so-called "Ask President Bush" sessions at which
preselected voters toss him verbal bouquets. Miss
America contestants face tougher cross-examination...
Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large, volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing state" polls.

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nwanews.com/adg/story_Editorial.php?storyid=22035

Thursday, August 19, 2004
Playing not to lose
Gene Lyons

Posted on Wednesday, August 18, 2004

As the presidential campaign drifts

through the August doldrums,

President Bush appears to be playing not to lose. In
sports, the phrase is used to criticize teams that
play too timidly. In politics, it means waiting for
your opponent to make a blunder. As the incumbent,
Bush is conducting one of the oddest campaigns in
American history. Because he can’t easily run on
vanishing jobs, humongous budget deficits and the mess
in Iraq, or say much about the future, what’s he going
to promise, bigger tax cuts? Bush preaches to the
converted at invitation-only events limited to
campaign volunteers, congregations from conservative
churches and people willing to sign party loyalty
oaths. Anybody wearing a John Kerry T-shirt is hustled
off the premises. Avoiding the national press, he
holds so-called "Ask President Bush" sessions at which
preselected voters toss him verbal bouquets. Miss
America contestants face tougher cross-examination. In
the aptly named Niceville, Fla., one fellow announced,
"I’m 60 years old and I’ve voted Republican from the
very first time I could vote. And I also want to say
this is the very first time that I have felt that God
was in the White House."

Blessedly, Bush did appear uneasy with the notion he
might actually be God, cleverly diverting attention to
his brother, Jeb, the Florida governor. When a woman
in Beaverton, Ore., asked him to pray for the state
because of its high proportion of "unchurched"
citizens, Bush awkwardly reminded her that "people can
choose church or not church, and they’re equally
American." Thank God for that.

Besides avoiding skeptics and collecting warm fuzzies,
such rallies hold another advantage for Bush: Slimy
insinuations by GOP dirty-tricks ops like the Swift
Boat Veterans for Truth come from other people’s
mouths. Also at Beaverton, Bush took a question from a
guy, who claimed to have served six tours in Vietnam,
who questioned Kerry’s Purple Hearts. "We’ve got a
candidate for president out here with two
self-inflicted scratches," he said, "and I take that
as an insult."

Actually, Kerry earned three Purple Hearts during his
second tour in Vietnam and carries shrapnel in his
leg. Bush, whose own Pentagon records show no evidence
he drilled with his National Guard unit in 1972, had a
swell chance to repudiate the Swift Boat calumnies
paid for by Texas Republicans, contradicted by
voluminous military records and publicized by Merrie
Spaeth, the widow of his 1994 gubernatorial running
mate, the late Tex Lezar. "Thank you for your
service," he said. "Six tours? Whew. That’s a lot of
tours."

If Bush had a rock band, he could dub his campaign the
"No Class" tour and sell T-shirts. Which, come to
think of it, illuminates his dilemma. The purpose of
Bush’s restricted-access events is to generate
feel-good images on local TV. But ask anybody who’s
seen the Rolling Stones live if it was more
stimulating than an HBO concert. There’s a visceral
excitement at live campaign rallies that can’t be
matched by TV.

To prevail, Bush needs to win over voters who didn’t
support him in 2000 or didn’t vote at all. Campaigning
in his own traveling White House Rose Garden won’t get
it done.

Meanwhile, the Kerry-Edwards duo are drawing large,
volatile crowds. It’s not news that Democrats are
energized, but the big turnout may tell more about the
race’s momentum than Kerry’s steady climb in "swing
state" polls.

Even Kerry’s convoluted speaking style may be turning
to his advantage. Two recent attempts by Bush and Dick
Cheney to portray him as a "flip-flopper" may have
awakened a slumbering press corps. From inside the
bubble, Bush claimed that Kerry had voted for the Iraq
war, morphed into an "anti-war" candidate, then
flipped back.

But a careful analysis by Slate’s Will Saletan showed
that Kerry’s stance hasn’t changed: It was right to
give the president authority to threaten force to make
Iraq admit United Nations arms inspectors, wrong of
Bush to alienate U.S. allies and stampede to war. On
MSNBC’s "Hardball," Chris Matthews confronted a Bush
spokesman with repeated showings of a video clip GOP
imagineers had twisted to distort Kerry’s meaning. If
that kind of journalism becomes trendy, Bush may have
to appear at country clubs only. Meanwhile, Cheney
went on rightwing talk radio to mock Kerry for backing
a more "sensitive" war on terror. Laughing, he said,
"It strikes me the two words don’t really go together,
sensitive and war. If you look at our history, I don’t
think any of the wars we’ve won were won by us being,
quote, ‘ sensitive. ’" Same show, minutes later: Why
weren’t U.S. troops storming the Imam Ali shrine in
Najaf where Shiite militiamen are holed up? "Well,
from the standpoint of the shrine," Cheney said,
"obviously it is a sensitive area, and we are very
much aware of its sensitivity."

• Free-lance columnist Gene Lyons is a Little Rock
author and recipient of the National Magazine Award.


Posted by richard at 01:57 PM

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," Bereuter said.

Powerful and courageous condemnation...from a
Republican congressman from NEBRASKA...Rep. Doug
Bereuter (R-NE) wrote them in a letter to his
constituents...There are no more red states or blue
states, there are only red, white and blue states for
the national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE
and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and
incredibly shrinking _resident...BTW, Bereuter (who
LNS Foreign Correspondent Dunston Woods as dubbed Rep.
Barricuda) is Vice Chairman of Porter Goss' House
Intelligence Committtee...Hmmm...

Ted Barret, CNN: Breaking ranks with his party and
reversing his earlier stance, a senior Republican
lawmaker who is retiring said Wednesday the military
strike against Iraq was "a mistake," and he blasted a
"massive failure" of intelligence before the war.
The unexpected four-page statement came from Rep. Doug
Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was
vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a
panel that reviewed much of the evidence the Bush
administration cited before going to war.
"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now
that the inadequate intelligence and faulty
conclusions are being revealed, that all things being
considered, it was a mistake to launch that military
action, especially without a broad and engaged
international coalition," Bereuter wrote in a
four-page letter to his constituents.
"The cost in casualties is already large and growing,
and the immediate and long-term financial costs are
incredible."
"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action," Bereuter said.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html


Retiring GOP congressman breaks ranks on Iraq
Nebraska's Bereuter calls war 'a mistake'
From Ted Barrett
CNN Washington Bureau


WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Breaking ranks with his party and
reversing his earlier stance, a senior Republican
lawmaker who is retiring said Wednesday the military
strike against Iraq was "a mistake," and he blasted a
"massive failure" of intelligence before the war.

The unexpected four-page statement came from Rep. Doug
Bereuter of Nebraska, who until earlier this month was
vice chairman of the House Intelligence Committee -- a
panel that reviewed much of the evidence the Bush
administration cited before going to war.

"I've reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now
that the inadequate intelligence and faulty
conclusions are being revealed, that all things being
considered, it was a mistake to launch that military
action, especially without a broad and engaged
international coalition," Bereuter wrote in a
four-page letter to his constituents.

"The cost in casualties is already large and growing,
and the immediate and long-term financial costs are
incredible."

Bereuter was particularly critical of the prewar
intelligence, which described an arsenal of weapons of
mass destruction in Iraq. But no such weapons have
been found since the U.S.-led invasion in 2003.

Bereuter voted in support of an October 2002
resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq, but
he said that vote was based on what he had been told
about the weapons threat from Iraq.

"Left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was
intentionally misconstrued to justify military
action," Bereuter said.

After 26 years on Capitol Hill, Bereuter is retiring
next month, and he will become the president of Asia
Foundation.

Congressional Republicans appeared surprised and angry
at Bereuter's comments.

Rep. Ray LaHood, R-Illinois, a member of the
intelligence panel, described Bereuter as "very
bitter" for having been passed over in recent years to
head the intelligence and international relations
committees. He suggested Bereuter's comments were a
parting shot to House GOP leaders and President Bush.

An aide denied Bereuter was motivated to write the
letter because he didn't get the appointments.

Rep. James Gibbons, R-Nevada, who is also on the
intelligence panel, said Bereuter's new conclusions
are wrong.

"The facts don't change. Iraq was a dangerous place,"
Gibbons said. "Mr. Bereuter is entitled to his
opinion."

Bush officials tried to downplay the congressman's
statement.

"He is not an opinion maker or someone who has taken a
leadership role. I don't think you can take this as a
sign his comments are a barometer of other Republican
thinking," one Bush political aide said.

Bereuter's critique of the administration on Iraq was
sharp.

He said the administration was wrong to disband the
Iraqi army -- because so many of its members joined
forces with the insurgents -- and was wrong to rely on
the Defense Department instead of the State Department
to spearhead reconstruction and the interim
government.

He also said the administration was wrong to ignore
military leaders who warned many more troops would be
needed in Iraq to maintain the postwar peace.

"Now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess and
there is no easy and quick way to end our
responsibilities in Iraq without creating bigger
future problems in the region and, in general, in the
Muslim world," Bereuter said.

Bereuter said it was important for the executive and
legislative branches of government to learn from the
"errors and failures" relating to the war in Iraq and
its aftermath.

Some Democrats see Beureter's comments as a political
plus in part because he argued the president should
have gone to war in Iraq with a broader international
coalition, as Sen. John Kerry, the Democratic
presidential nominee, has said.

But Bush aides pointed out a key difference between
the two that could benefit the president politically:
Kerry, answering a direct challenge from Bush, said
recently he does not regret voting to authorize war.

Bush officials said they are in constant contact with
congressional Republicans. They said they want to to
keep these lawmakers engaged in the president's
campaign, and behind his argument that even knowing
what he knows now, war in Iraq was the right thing to
do.

CNN's Dana Bash contributed to this report.





Find this article at:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/18/congressman.iraq/index.html

Posted by richard at 01:53 PM

August 18, 2004

Al Gore: 'Boiling Point': Who's to Blame for Global Warming?

Another US soldier died in Iraq today. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. MEANWHILE, the Global Warming story that should be one of the major stories of the last four years, i.e., leading the evening news and capturing the front page headlines, is instead relegated to the NYTwit book reviews. And the man who was elected US President in 2000, has been relegated to writing a book review that relates to his signature accomplishment, the Kyoto Protocols, instead of leading the US and the world thru Kyoto and beyond. Yes, the national security issue (identified as such by the Clinton-Gore administration) that should be at the top of the list of priorities for the US federal government relegated to further *study* on the part of the Bush abomination and the psuedo-scientists of the Corporatist cabal, and of course the "US mainstream news media" does not challenge them, despite the concerned consensus of the world's scientific community....Yes, Rome burned while Nero fiddled, now the Earth itself is on a slow broil, while the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident plays PNACkle...There is no more compelling reason to vote for Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong) and in the process to repudiate not only the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident but also the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader (and
his INEXCUSABLE LIE that there was no difference
between Gore and Bush), yes, yes...think about
it...Almost 1000 US soldiers killed have been killed so far in a
foolish military adventure predicated on LIES, many thousands injured, many maimed for life, the US isolated in the world, the Arab Street ablaze with
hate, the Western Alliance seriously fractured, the Geneva Accords abandoned and the stench of Abu Ghraib on high officials and on the White House itself the US military disillusioned and over-extended, hundreds of billions of dollars in Federal deficit this year alone to float a tax break two-thirds of which went to the wealthiest Americans (those making over 200K a year), and the looming naming of a Chief Justice Scalia or a Chief Justice Thomas as well as the packing of the court well to the Right if there is a second term for the Bush abomination...and so much more...but perhaps worst of all, FOUR YEARS LOST in the struggle to come to grips with Global Warming and our addiction to fossil fuels...

Al Gore, New York Times: When Gelbspan addresses the
subject of solutions, he first gives a detailed
analysis of all the significant plans that have been
offered, and then endorses a maximalist approach
called the World Energy Modernization Plan, developed
six years ago by an ad hoc group that met at the
Harvard Medical School. His basic argument is that it
is far too late in the game to waste time on
strategies that might be more politically feasible but
don't actually do enough to begin to solve the
problem.
He may be right, but the plan's authors, though
distinguished, remind me of Sam Rayburn's remark that
he'd feel a lot better "if just one of them had ever
run for sheriff."
THE fact is, many who have worked on this problem
believe it may be essential to begin with a binding
agreement among nations and then, after governments
and industries shift direction, toughen the goals.
That is the formula used successfully in the Montreal
Protocol in 1987 to begin reducing the emissions that
cause destruction of stratospheric ozone. Three years
later, the standards were dramatically tightened in
the London Amendments, and by then most resistance had
dissipated.
The Kyoto Protocol (which may soon become legally
effective if Russia ratifies it, even though the
United States has not) has been criticized by many,
including Gelbspan, for not going nearly far enough to
reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But it
has simultaneously been condemned from the opposite
side for going too far. If Kyoto does take effect, we
may find that after industries and countries begin to
comply, it will be easier to expand the limits of what
is politically possible.

Save the Environment, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704G.shtml
'Boiling Point': Who's to Blame for Global Warming?
By Al Gore
The New York Times

Sunday 15 August 2004

The blend of passionate advocacy and lucid analysis
that Ross Gelbspan brings to this, his second book
about global warming, is extremely readable because
the author's voice is so authentic. When Gelbspan
first encountered the issue as a reporter nine years
ago, he writes, he had no inkling of how it would
change his life. But as he put together the evidence
of the global climate crisis he describes in this
book, he found himself pulled inexorably to do more
than simply write about it. So he now feels called to
a kind of mission: to describe what is happening, to
single out the specific failures and misdeeds of
politicians, energy companies, environmental activists
and journalists who share responsibility for our
predicament, and then propose bold solutions that --
unlike more timid blueprints already on the public
agenda -- would in his view actually solve the
problem.
For a Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter at the top of
his game, this is a career detour requiring courage I
greatly admire. Moreover, he candidly describes how,
as he opened himself to the implications of what he
was learning in his dogged pursuit of this story, he
has undergone something of a personal transformation.
He writes that it has become "an excruciating
experience to watch the planet fall apart piece by
piece in the face of persistent and pathological
denial." He describes how mountain glaciers around the
world are melting, most of them rapidly. And he cites
early examples of environmental refugees like those
created in recent weeks in Bangladesh, vulnerable to
catastrophic flooding as sea levels rise.

In the course of this transformation, Gelbspan has
become a different kind of reporter, one who recalls
the great reforming journalists of the first decade of
the 20th century -- Upton Sinclair, Ida Tarbell,
Lincoln Steffens and others -- who not only reported
on political corruption and corporate excesses but
connected them to larger destructive patterns that had
developed in the economy and politics of their time.
They agitated for policy reforms, many of which were
enacted into statutes when they became part of the
progressive movement's agenda: antitrust laws, the
Food and Drug Administration, railroad regulation,
wage and hour laws, workmen's compensation and child
labor laws, to name a few.

It is in that spirit that Gelbspan pursues solutions
for climate change that can "also begin to reverse
some very discouraging and destructive political and
economic dynamics as well."

Part of what makes this book important is its
indictment of the American news media's coverage of
global warming for the past two decades. Indeed, when
the author investigates why the United States is
virtually the only advanced nation in the world that
fails to recognize the severity of this growing
crisis, he concludes that the news coverage is "a
large reason for that failure."

At a time when prominent journalists are writing mea
culpas for allowing themselves to be too easily misled
in their coverage of the case for war in Iraq,
Gelbspan presents a devastating analysis of how the
media have been duped and intimidated by an aggressive
and persistent campaign organized and financed by coal
and oil companies. He recounts, for example, a
conversation with a top television network editor who
was reluctant to run stories about global warming
because a previous story had "triggered a barrage of
complaints from the Global Climate Coalition" -- a
fossil fuel industry lobbying group -- "to our top
executives at the network."

He also describes the structural changes in the news
media, like increased conglomerate ownership, that
have made editors and reporters more vulnerable to
this kind of intimidation -- and much less aggressive
in pursuing inconvenient truths.

Gelbspan's first book, "The Heat Is On" (1997),
remains the best, and virtually only, study of how the
coal and oil industry has provided financing to a
small group of contrarian scientists who began to make
themselves available for mass media interviews as
so-called skeptics on the subject of global warming.
In fact, these scientists played a key role in
Gelbspan's personal journey on this issue. When he got
letters disputing the facts in his very first article,
he was at first chastened -- until he realized the
letters were merely citing the industry-funded
scientists. He accuses this group of "stealing our
reality."

In this new book, Gelbspan focuses his toughest
language by far on the coal and oil industries. After
documenting the largely successful efforts of
companies like ExxonMobil to paralyze the policy
process, confuse the American people and cynically "
'reposition global warming as theory rather than
fact,"' as one strategy paper put it, he concludes
that "what began as a normal business response by the
fossil fuel lobby -- denial and delay -- has now
attained the status of a crime against humanity."

I wouldn't have said it quite that way, but I'm glad
he does, and his exposition of the facts certainly
seems to support his charge.

Gelbspan also criticizes the current administration,
documenting its efforts to "demolish the diplomatic
foundations" of the international agreement known as
the Kyoto Protocol, and describing its approach to
energy and environmental policy as "corruption
disguised as conservatism." Again, he backs up his
charge with impressive research. Moreover, his
critique is far from partisan. He takes on
environmental groups for doing way too little and for
focusing on their own institutional agendas rather
than the central challenges.

When Gelbspan addresses the subject of solutions, he
first gives a detailed analysis of all the significant
plans that have been offered, and then endorses a
maximalist approach called the World Energy
Modernization Plan, developed six years ago by an ad
hoc group that met at the Harvard Medical School. His
basic argument is that it is far too late in the game
to waste time on strategies that might be more
politically feasible but don't actually do enough to
begin to solve the problem.

He may be right, but the plan's authors, though
distinguished, remind me of Sam Rayburn's remark that
he'd feel a lot better "if just one of them had ever
run for sheriff."

THE fact is, many who have worked on this problem
believe it may be essential to begin with a binding
agreement among nations and then, after governments
and industries shift direction, toughen the goals.
That is the formula used successfully in the Montreal
Protocol in 1987 to begin reducing the emissions that
cause destruction of stratospheric ozone. Three years
later, the standards were dramatically tightened in
the London Amendments, and by then most resistance had
dissipated.

The Kyoto Protocol (which may soon become legally
effective if Russia ratifies it, even though the
United States has not) has been criticized by many,
including Gelbspan, for not going nearly far enough to
reduce the emissions that cause global warming. But it
has simultaneously been condemned from the opposite
side for going too far. If Kyoto does take effect, we
may find that after industries and countries begin to
comply, it will be easier to expand the limits of what
is politically possible.

But Gelbspan's point is a powerful one and is well
argued. And he has, in any case, performed a great
service by writing an informative book on a difficult
but crucial subject.

--------

Al Gore, formerly vice president of the United
States, is the author of "Earth in the Balance:
Ecology and the Human Spirit."

Posted by richard at 03:11 PM

C.I.A. Officer Denounces Agency and Sept. 11 Report

The name of Michael F. Scheuer, aka Anonymous, is, of
course, already scrawled on the John P. O'Neill Wal of
Heroes...Litchblau's story, though, is typically
NYTwit, referrring to the "largely glowing reaction"
to the 9/11 Commission Report, without referring to
Sibel Edmonds in particular, and writing that an
"intelligence official said that the C.I.A. quadrupled
the number of counterterrorism analysts and doubled
the number of counterterrorism officers in the year
after the Sept. 11 attacks<' without noting or at
least wondering aloud how many of them were assigned
to Iraq and Saddam instead of Al Qaeda and Osama. As
usual, no CONTEXT, no CONTINUITY.

"Out, out damn spot!"

Eric Lichtblau, New York Times: A senior officer for
the Central Intelligence Agency who led the unit that
tracked Osama bin Laden has written a blistering
letter to the Sept. 11 commission, attacking both the
C.I.A. and the commission itself over what he sees as
a failure to punish "bureaucratic cowards" in the
intelligence agencies.
The officer, Michael F. Scheuer, has written a
best-selling book under the pseudonym "Anonymous" that
is sharply critical of the way the United States has
pursued its global campaign against terrorism.
In a signed e-mail letter sent to the commission, he
lashed out in angry and highly personal tones at the
failure by the commission and the C.I.A. to hold
anyone directly accountable for Sept. 11 failures and
aimed sharp criticism at George J. Tenet, the former
director of central intelligence, without mentioning
his name.
In the Sept. 11 commission's final report, "you never
mention that the D.C.I. starved and is starving the
bin Laden unit of officers while finding plenty of
officers to staff his personal public relations
office, as well as the staffs that handled diversity,
multiculturalism, and employee newsletters," he wrote
in a letter that was sent July 31.
He also said that the United States gave short shrift
to protecting American lives before the Sept. 11
attacks so that it could pursue the sale of fighter
jets to an unnamed Arab government, which other
officials identified as the United Arab Emirates.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/17/politics/17intel.html

C.I.A. Officer Denounces Agency and Sept. 11 Report
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

Published: August 17, 2004


ASHINGTON, Aug. 16 - A senior officer for the Central
Intelligence Agency who led the unit that tracked
Osama bin Laden has written a blistering letter to the
Sept. 11 commission, attacking both the C.I.A. and the
commission itself over what he sees as a failure to
punish "bureaucratic cowards" in the intelligence
agencies.


The officer, Michael F. Scheuer, has written a
best-selling book under the pseudonym "Anonymous" that
is sharply critical of the way the United States has
pursued its global campaign against terrorism.

In a signed e-mail letter sent to the commission, he
lashed out in angry and highly personal tones at the
failure by the commission and the C.I.A. to hold
anyone directly accountable for Sept. 11 failures and
aimed sharp criticism at George J. Tenet, the former
director of central intelligence, without mentioning
his name.

In the Sept. 11 commission's final report, "you never
mention that the D.C.I. starved and is starving the
bin Laden unit of officers while finding plenty of
officers to staff his personal public relations
office, as well as the staffs that handled diversity,
multiculturalism, and employee newsletters," he wrote
in a letter that was sent July 31.

He also said that the United States gave short shrift
to protecting American lives before the Sept. 11
attacks so that it could pursue the sale of fighter
jets to an unnamed Arab government, which other
officials identified as the United Arab Emirates.

Mr. Scheuer's e-mail, a copy of which was made
available to The New York Times, was a dissenting note
in what has otherwise been largely glowing reaction to
the Sept. 11 commission's final report last month,
which has set off broad debate about how best to
restructure the intelligence community. His letter,
which says restructuring is not the answer, is also
extraordinary in that it comes from a current senior
case officer at the C.I.A., where internal
whistle-blowers are rare. From 1996 to 1999, he led
the C.I.A. unit that tracked Osama bin Laden in
Afghanistan and he continues to serve in a senior
counterterrorism post.

While some intelligence officials took issue with Mr.
Scheuer's version of events, the C.I.A. and the Sept.
11 commission declined to respond to his specific
accusations.

"A lot of people call and e-mail us with their
thoughts," said Al Felzenberg, spokesman for the Sept.
11 commission. "Some people criticize us, some people
praise us and we don't respond. The report is out
there for the American people to judge. "

In recent weeks, Mr. Scheuer has given numerous
anonymous interviews promoting his book, "Imperial
Hubris," including some television appearances in
which his face was not shown. But the C.I.A. has now
ordered him to curtail his public commentary sharply,
and to get advance approval for future statements. A
publicist for Mr. Scheuer's book said Monday that he
could not comment on the letter to the commission
because of the C.I.A.'s new restrictions.

While some Web sites and media outlets have disclosed
Mr. Scheuer's identity before, The Times has
previously referred to him only as "Mike" at the
request of an intelligence official because of
concerns about his safety. Now that he has signed his
name in his letter to the Sept. 11 commission and the
C.I.A. has sought to curb his public comments, the
newspaper is using his name.

Some government officials, speaking on condition of
anonymity, said Monday that they regarded Mr.
Scheuer's latest accusations as exaggerated or
unfounded.

On the question of whether Mr. Tenet put public
relations staffing ahead of combating terrorism, for
instance, an intelligence official said that the
C.I.A. quadrupled the number of counterterrorism
analysts and doubled the number of counterterrorism
officers in the year after the Sept. 11 attacks and
that these numbers have risen further since then.

A second intelligence official noted that Mr. Scheuer
had testified privately at length before the Sept. 11
commission. "If they didn't buy what he had to say,
that ought to tell you something," the official said.

Posted by richard at 03:00 PM

The Washington Post still doesn’t get it.

Yes, it's STILL the Media, Stupid.

Matt Taibbi, New York Press: The problem with these
newsprint confessions is not that they are craven,
insufficient and self-serving, which of course they
are. The problem is that, on the whole, they do not
correct the pre-war mistakes, but actually further
them. The Post would have you believe that its
"failure" before the war was its inability/reluctance
to punch holes in Bush's WMD claims.
Right. I marched in Washington against the war in
February 2003 with about 400,000 people, and I can
pretty much guarantee that not more than a handful of
those people gave a shit about whether or not Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
because we knew what the Post and all of these other
papers still refuse to admit—this whole thing was
never about weapons of mass destruction. Even a five-
year-old, much less the literate executive editor of
the Washington Post, could have seen, from watching
Bush and his cronies make his war case, that they were
going in anyway.
For God's sake, Bush was up there in the fall of 2002,
warning us that unmanned Iraqi drones were going to
spray poison gas on the continental United States. The
whole thing—the "threat" of Iraqi attack, the link to
terrorism, the dire warnings about Saddam's
intentions—it was all bullshit on its face, as stupid,
irrelevant and transparent as a cheating husband's
excuse. And I don't know a single educated person who
didn't think so at the time.
The story shouldn't have been, "Are there WMDs?" The
story should have been, "Why are they pulling this
stunt? And why now?" That was the real mystery. It
still is.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.nypress.com/17/33/news&columns/MATTTAIBBI.cfm

SORRY, OUR BAD
The Washington Post still doesn’t get it.

By Matt Taibbi

WITH ALL DUE respect to the Washington Post's Howard
Kurtz, who was polite to me when we spoke on the phone
earlier this year, I had to laugh at his 3000-word "We
Fucked Up on Iraq" piece that came out last week.

Kurtz's Aug. 12 piece, entitled "The Post on WMDs: An
Inside Story; Prewar Articles Questioning Threat Often
Didn't Make Front Page," was the latest in what is
likely to be a long series of tepid media mea culpas
about pre-war Iraq reporting. The piece comes on the
heels of the New York Times' infamous "The Bitch Set
Us Up" piece from this past May, in which that paper
implicitly blamed hyperambitious hormone-case Judith
Miller for its hilarious prewar failures.

The Kurtz article was a curious piece of writing. In
reading it, I was reminded of a scene I once witnessed
at the New England Aquarium in Boston, in the
aqua-petting-zoo section on the second floor.

The petting pool contained a sea cucumber. Now, anyone
who has ever made it through seventh-grade science
class knows what a sea cucumber does when threatened.
Unfortunately, some parent unleashed a sixth-grader on
the pool unattended. The kid started fucking with the
sea cucumber, poking and prodding it like crazy. So
the sea cucumber pulled out its only defense
mechanism, turning itself inside out and showing its
nasty guts to the poor kid, who immediately thought
he'd killed the thing and ran away crying. Later, when
I made another turn through the same area of the
aquarium, the cucumber had reconstituted itself and
was sitting in its usual log-like position.

It is hard to imagine a better metaphor for these
post-invasion auto-crucifixions our papers of record
have been giving us lately.

The Post piece featured an array of senior and
less-senior reporters who let us in on the shocking
revelation that stories questioning the Bush
administration's pre-war intelligence claims were
often buried deep in the news section, while Bush
claims ran on the front. Revelations included the
heartwarming Thelma & Louise tale of Walter Pincus and
Bob Woodward teaming up to get Pincus' WMD skepticism
piece into the paper just days before the country went
over the cliff into Iraq. In fact, the second
paragraph of the piece is devoted to this tale of
editorial foxhole heroism:


…his piece ran only after assistant managing editor
Bob Woodward, who was researching a book about the
drive toward war, "helped sell the story," Pincus
recalled. "Without him, it would have had a tough time
getting into the paper." Even so, the article was
relegated to Page A17.


Quite a lot of Kurtz's article is devoted to such
backdoor compliments, with numerous reminders
throughout the text that the Post, relatively
speaking, did a better job than most papers on Iraq.
Much of the piece was framed in this "But on the other
hand…" rhetorical format, in which admissions of poor
performance surfed home on waves of somber
self-congratulation. Some examples:


The Post published a number of pieces challenging the
White House, but rarely on the front page.

The result was coverage that, despite flashes of
groundbreaking reporting, in hindsight looks
strikingly one-sided at times.

Quoting media critic Michael Massing: "'In covering
the run-up to the war, The Post did better than most
other news organizations…' But on the key issue of
Iraq's weapons of mass destruction, the paper was
generally napping along with everyone else."

Given The Post's reputation for helping topple the
Nixon administration… the paper's shortcomings did not
reflect any reticence about taking on the Bush White
House.

Liz Spayd, the assistant managing editor for national
news, says The Post's overall record was strong. "I
believe we pushed as hard or harder than anyone to
question the administration's assertions on all kinds
of subjects related to the war..."

Bob Woodward: "We did our job but we didn't do
enough."


When the Post wasn't reassuring readers of its
competence, it was offering excuses—lots of them. The
list is really an extraordinary one. According to
Kurtz's interview subjects, the Post was slow on Iraq
because: a) Walter Pincus is a "cryptic" writer who
isn't "storifyable"; b) there is limited space on the
front page, and executive editor Leonard Downie Jr.
likes to have health and education and Orioles
coverage and other stuff there; c) the paper got a lot
of depressing hate mail questioning its patriotism
whenever it questioned the Bush administration; d)
their intelligence sources wouldn't go on the record,
while Bush and Powell were up there openly saying all
this stuff; e) the paper had to rely on the
administration because Bob Woodward and Walter Pincus
had no "alternative sources of information," and
particularly couldn't go to Iraq "without getting
killed"; f) the paper, including Woodward, was duped
by highly seductive intelligence-community
"groupthink"; g) too many of the dissenting sources
were retired from government or, even worse, not in
government at all; h) stories on intelligence are
"difficult to edit"; g) there was "a lot of
information to digest"; h) the paper is "inevitably a
mouthpiece for whatever administration is in power";
i) a flood of copy about the impending invasion kept
skeptical coverage out [Note: This is my favorite.
We're already covering the war, so it's too late to
explain why we shouldn't go to war.]; and finally, j)
none of it matters, because even if the Post had done
a more thorough job, there would have been a war
anyway.

Here's how Downie put that last excuse:


People who were opposed to the war from the beginning
and have been critical of the media's coverage…have
the mistaken impression that somehow if the media's
coverage had been different, there wouldn't have been
a war.


Nothing like an editor with a firm grasp of
metaphysics. "It doesn't matter what we write, the
universe is still going to keep expanding…"

The problem with these newsprint confessions is not
that they are craven, insufficient and self-serving,
which of course they are. The problem is that, on the
whole, they do not correct the pre-war mistakes, but
actually further them. The Post would have you believe
that its "failure" before the war was its
inability/reluctance to punch holes in Bush's WMD
claims.

Right. I marched in Washington against the war in
February 2003 with about 400,000 people, and I can
pretty much guarantee that not more than a handful of
those people gave a shit about whether or not Saddam
Hussein had weapons of mass destruction. That's
because we knew what the Post and all of these other
papers still refuse to admit—this whole thing was
never about weapons of mass destruction. Even a five-
year-old, much less the literate executive editor of
the Washington Post, could have seen, from watching
Bush and his cronies make his war case, that they were
going in anyway.

For God's sake, Bush was up there in the fall of 2002,
warning us that unmanned Iraqi drones were going to
spray poison gas on the continental United States. The
whole thing—the "threat" of Iraqi attack, the link to
terrorism, the dire warnings about Saddam's
intentions—it was all bullshit on its face, as stupid,
irrelevant and transparent as a cheating husband's
excuse. And I don't know a single educated person who
didn't think so at the time.

The story shouldn't have been, "Are there WMDs?" The
story should have been, "Why are they pulling this
stunt? And why now?" That was the real mystery. It
still is.

We didn't need a named source in the Pentagon to tell
us that. And neither did the Washington Post. o

Volume 17, Issue 33
©2004 All rights reserved.
No part of this website may be reproduced in any
manner without written permission of the publisher.


Posted by richard at 02:57 PM

Pearl Family: Keep Daniel's Name Out of Politics

The botched, bungled, mis-named "war on terrorism" is
not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the
SHAME of the Bush abomination.

Editors and Publishers: Responding to a statement by
Vice President Dick Cheney last Thursday, the family
of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl has asked
that his name not be used in any political context in
this year's election campaign.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000613369

Pearl Family: Keep Daniel's Name Out of Politics

By E&P Staff

Published: August 17, 2004

NEW YORK Responding to a statement by Vice President
Dick Cheney last Thursday, the family of Wall Street
Journal reporter Daniel Pearl has asked that his name
not be used in any political context in this year's
election campaign.

Mocking Sen. John Kerry's pledge to fight a "more
sensitive" war on terror, Cheney had said, "The men
who beheaded Daniel Pearl will not be impressed by our
sensitivity."

Pearl was kidnapped and beheaded in Pakistan two years
ago.

Pearl's father, Judea Pearl, 67, said the request was
meant to reduce the chances of inflaming hatred.

"We don't take sides between Bush and Kerry," he told
The New York Times. "I don't even know who I'm going
to vote for."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
E&P Staff

Posted by richard at 02:53 PM

August 17, 2004

"STEPFORD! No other word can describe the work of your post-human press corps this weekend..."

It's the Media, Stupid.

www.dailyhowler.com: Stepford!! No other word can
describe the work of your post-human “press corps”
this weekend. The scribes provided a range of
examples. Just try to believe that they did it:
PART ONE—FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS: In this morning’s
Washington Post, John Harris gushes over George Bush’s
style on the stump. And he stresses the candidate’s
casual clothing. Headline: “Shirtsleeves Style Is a
Strong Suit for Bush.” Indeed, Harris just loves
Bush’s clothes:
HARRIS (pgh 1): President Bush has formidable
obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last
week that he is a politician with formidable
strengths.
(2) Anyone who doubts it should spend some time
watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of
energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush
looked and sounded like someone dropping by a
neighbor's lawn party—no coat, no tie, rolled-up
sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he
implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the
job done."
(3) In loosening his style, Bush tightened his
message. Fielding friendly questions at “Ask President
Bush” forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep
rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he
presented his case for reelection with a force and
fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments
over the past year...
Why is this piece by Harris so striking? Because of
the way his cohort treated this non-topic four years
ago. In Campaign 2000, Candidate Gore appeared in
casual clothing right from the start, in March 1999,
when he spent his first weekend out on the trail. And
early profiles of Gore’s campaigning sounded much like
Harris’ piece. Gore had “[l]ost the suit and tie to
demonstrate that he can connect with voters,” Susan
Page wrote in USA Today in May 1999. Other scribes
noted Gore’s casual clothes, and explained his
wardrobe is much the same way. It’s true, the subject
was barely worth mentioning. But, early on in Campaign
2000, everyone knew why Candidate Gore was appearing
in shirtsleeves, not suits.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh081604.shtml

STEPFORD! No other word can describe the work of your post-human press corps this weekend: MONDAY, AUGUST 16, 2004

STEPFORD: Stepford!! No other word can describe the
work of your post-human “press corps” this weekend.
The scribes provided a range of examples. Just try to
believe that they did it:
PART ONE—FOREVER IN BLUE JEANS: In this morning’s
Washington Post, John Harris gushes over George Bush’s
style on the stump. And he stresses the candidate’s
casual clothing. Headline: “Shirtsleeves Style Is a
Strong Suit for Bush.” Indeed, Harris just loves
Bush’s clothes:

HARRIS (pgh 1): President Bush has formidable
obstacles to reelection, but he served a reminder last
week that he is a politician with formidable
strengths.
(2) Anyone who doubts it should spend some time
watching the shirtsleeves campaign. In five days of
energetic campaigning through five swing states, Bush
looked and sounded like someone dropping by a
neighbor's lawn party—no coat, no tie, rolled-up
sleeves, and conversational speeches in which he
implored voters to "put a man in there who can get the
job done."

(3) In loosening his style, Bush tightened his
message. Fielding friendly questions at “Ask President
Bush” forums, or lathering up the crowds at pep
rallies like the one here on Saturday afternoon, he
presented his case for reelection with a force and
fluency that sometimes eluded him at important moments
over the past year.

A Post photo also stresses Bush’s clothing. “A
casually dressed President Bush holds a baby at the
end of a campaign rally in Sioux City,” the caption
says.
Why is this piece by Harris so striking? Because of
the way his cohort treated this non-topic four years
ago. In Campaign 2000, Candidate Gore appeared in
casual clothing right from the start, in March 1999,
when he spent his first weekend out on the trail. And
early profiles of Gore’s campaigning sounded much like
Harris’ piece. Gore had “[l]ost the suit and tie to
demonstrate that he can connect with voters,” Susan
Page wrote in USA Today in May 1999. Other scribes
noted Gore’s casual clothes, and explained his
wardrobe is much the same way. It’s true, the subject
was barely worth mentioning. But, early on in Campaign
2000, everyone knew why Candidate Gore was appearing
in shirtsleeves, not suits.

Yes, Gore was campaigning in casual clothes, just as
Bush is doing now. But in Campaign 2000, the press
corps conducted a War Against Gore, and soon they
started attacking Gore’s clothes as a symbol of, yes,
his unsuitability. In the fall of 1999, Ceci
Connolly—right at Harris’ paper—made up a phony tale
about Gore. Gore had recently “ditched his suits,” she
falsely said, because Bill Bradley was gaining in the
Dem Party polls. This explanation was patently bogus,
as Connolly and others clearly knew, but every
reporter knew to repeat it. Soon, Brian Williams was
worrying hard, night after night, about Gore’s deeply
troubling wardrobe. Gore was “wearing polo shirts
twenty-four hours a day,” he complained on his 10/6/99
MSNBC program. The polo shirts “don’t always look
natural on him,” he grumbled again two nights later.
Williams pretended that Gore was wearing the shirts in
some sort of effort to fool female voters; he
repeatedly asked his guests when Gore’s clever
strategy would “all start becoming so transparent
[that] no one is fooled” (October 6) or (October 8)
whether the strategy would “become absolutely
transparent when they go out into the hinterlands and
try to sell it?” Incredibly, Williams raised the
question of Gore’s polo shirts five separate nights in
one eight-day period, from October 4 through October
11. A few weeks, the press corps (once again prompted
by Connolly) created a major flap about Gore’s
troubling use of “earth-toned” clothing. The clowning
was endless, disturbed, universal. But today, Harris
notes Bush in casual clothes—and praises him for his
brilliant good judgment. When Gore did it, he was a
fake. When Bush does it, he’s a great candidate.

Harris, of course, pretends to forget what happened to
Gore four years ago. But then, Harris, like the rest
of his Android Chorale, is programmed to hide his
group’s recent history. Other colleagues simply lied
when they trashed Gore for his casual clothing (links
below). We’ve told this story many times. But Harris
is programmed to forget it.

No, there’s nothing wrong with Bush’s clothing. But
something was wrong four years ago when the press
trashed Gore for wearing such clothes. But you won’t
recall that in this morning’s report. Stepford
then—and Stepford now! Harris is wired to “forget.”

PART TWO—TROUBLING JOKES: If you want to think your
“press corps” is human, you have to account for Jodi
Wilgoren. Most recently, you have to deal with
Sunday’s report in the great New York Times. Wilgoren
spent an entire report puzzling about a remarkable
fact—Kerry tells different jokes in different
locations! Only an android could find this surprising.
But it’s Big News in the Times:

WILGOREN: Asked aboard his campaign plane Thursday
night where he gets this material, Mr. Kerry hurried
back to his cabin without answering.
But then, what normal human wouldn’t run from someone
asking such oddball questions? Finally, a Kerry aide
is forced to answer. He pretends that it all makes
good sense.
Yes, aides have to put their suspicions aside. But for
those who claim Wilgoren is human, one part of her
kooky report will surely be hard to explain:

WILGOREN: The local crowds generally eat it up, their
laughter and applause drowning out the collective
groan from the traveling press corps.
Oops! Normally, reporters describe their colleagues
groaning in pain when they hear the same speeches
night after night. With her wiring somehow crossed,
Wilgoren says the tribe now groans when they hear
different jokes.
May we offer an explanation? Wilgoren, like the rest
of her group, is programmed to look for “flip-flops”
from Kerry. When the hopeful changed his jokes,
inadequate programming led her to pen this plainly
post-human report.

PART THREE—WEIRDLY INSENSITIVE: When Chris Wallace
asked the first time, Richard Lugar tried to duck.
Lugar was guesting on Fox News Sunday. Note how the
solon tried to avoid his host’s query:

WALLACE (8/15/04): Senator, I want to switch subjects
with you, and I want to play a couple of clips from
the campaign trail in recent days. Take a look:
KERRY (videotape): I believe I can fight a more
effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more
proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches
out to other nations.

DICK CHENEY (videotape): America has been in too many
wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was
won by being sensitive.

WALLACE: Senator, in the context in which Senator
Kerry was speaking, “being sensitive to reach out to
other countries”—anything wrong with fighting a
sensitive war on terror?

Wallace was begging Lugar to state the obvious—this is
a ludicrous, fake, phony issue. And Lugar, a
Republican, is known for good sense. Sensibly, he
attempted to duck:
LUGAR (continuing directly): Well, we should reach out
to other countries. And we're doing that in North
Korea, obviously, with the six-power talks and with
all of the talks that are involved in Iran—and, for
that matter, with Iraq. We are eager for anyone to
come in and to help us; encouraging people to do that.
So there's no difference really in the reaching-out
process here. I think I would just say Senator Kerry
is really moving against a false target. The
reaching-out process is really profound.

Knowing how stupid this whole topic is, Lugar, a
moderate, tried to avoid it. Indeed, he seemed to say
that we’re already being sensitive. But Wallace saw
that Lugar had basically ducked. So he asked again—and
Lugar relented:
WALLACE (continuing directly): But when he says, “I
want to fight a thoughtful, effective, sensitive war
on terror,” is there anything wrong with sensitive?
Because the Republicans have been making fun of him
for saying that.
LUGAR: Well, I think the word “sensitive” has become a
campaign issue itself. And you saw, as I did, the two
clips that were brought at the fore. It is not an
appropriate word, given, I suspect, the dangers that
are involved.

Principally we've been talking about Iraq. There's
nothing sensitive about the situation there for the
moment. This is a tough business as to who is going to
prevail and what kind of winds of political change
could make possible a democracy in a tough situation.

It is not an appropriate word! It was sad to see Lugar
stoop, pretending this was a serious issue.
But Lugar, of course, is a GOP pol. Major TV pundits
are not. But so what? It was almost impossible, over
the weekend, to find a pundit willing to say that this
whole foolish flap was a big, screaming joke. On a
Sunday night Hardball, Chris Matthews continued to
trash Bush and Cheney for promoting this fake, stupid
issue. But strings of pundits on weekend shows
struggled and strained to gloss over the question. No
one seemed to think this was phony! Indeed, on Meet
the Press, guest host Andrea Mitchell offered some
comic relief. When John Harwood pretended the
“sensitive” matter was serious, she offered this comic
reaction:

MITCHELL: Of course, George Bush has also used the
word "sensitive," but that gets kind of glossed over.
Anne Kornblut, you've been out with the Kerry
campaign. You've watched him in action. Why is he
having such a hard time explaining his vote on Iraq?
Saying that Bush’s use of the word gets “glossed
over,” Mitchell glossed over the issue itself! No tape
was played of Bush and Cheney saying the things for
which they trashed Kerry. Instead, Mitchell quickly
threw to Kornblut, who gave a skillful non-answer
answer about the whole “sensitive” foofaw:
KORNBLUT: I would say on the question of the word
“sensitive,” it's not a debate that's over yet. We had
John Edwards come out a couple days ago and defend
John Kerry. It's part of the sort of rhetorical
back-and-forth that they're having. George Bush was
using the phrase "turn the corner" for a while, and
Kerry fought him on that. And so each of them is sort
of parrying and sparring over specific words that they
then drop and abandon.
Thanks for saying nothing at all! But on to Roger
Simon we went. Sadly, Simon was eager to tell a
“French” joke—and to describe the Stepford Logic that
rules your android press corps:
MITCHELL (continuing directly): Roger, I see you
nodding.
SIMON: "Sensitive" is the kind of word a French
candidate for president would use. [Laughter] It's not
a word that Kerry needed. He went one adjective too
far in responding to that question. George Bush has,
indeed, used the same word in approximately the same
context, but no one has ever accused George Bush of
being overly sensitive about anything. John Kerry has
been accused of being overly sensitive and overly
nuanced.

Could any human follow such logic? Bush has used the
same word in the same context, Simon says. But it’s OK
for Bush, and not for Kerry, based on what people have
previously charged. The merits of this don’t make any
difference. It’s all about what folks have said.
If the Washington press corps was actually human,
don’t you think that someone would take offense at the
nonsense these pundits described? If the press was
actually human, wouldn’t someone say something like
this—perhaps with a hint of real feeling?

WHAT SOME HUMAN WOULD SURELY SAY: But Bush and Cheney
have said very similar things! This is a totally fake,
phony issue. Out on the trail, Cheney is acting like
Kerry was recommending “sensitivity” toward
terrorists. Obviously, that isn’t what Kerry was
saying, and Cheney knows it. Cheney is totally faking
on this. [To panel] I’m amazed you don’t come out and
say so.
If your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t someone
say something like this? But if you watched their
recitals this weekend, you didn’t see that statement
made. For the record, the androids on Washington Week
were the worst. But we didn’t tape their performance,
and the show hasn’t posted it yet.
PART FOUR—WHAT THEM WORRY: How do you know your
pundits aren’t human? On Saturday, Nicholas Kristof
published Part 2 of his ongoing Times report (see THE
DAILY HOWLER, 8/11/04). His headline read, “The
Nuclear Shadow.” Here’s the way he started:

KRISTOF: If a 10-kiloton terrorist nuclear weapon
explodes beside the New York Stock Exchange or the
U.S. Capitol, or in Times Square, as many nuclear
experts believe is likely in the next decade, then the
next 9/11 commission will write a devastating critique
of how we allowed that to happen.
As I wrote in my last column, there is a general
conviction among many experts—though, in fairness, not
all—that nuclear terrorism has a better-than-even
chance of occurring in the next 10 years. Such an
attack could kill 500,000 people.

Yet U.S. politicians have utterly failed to face up to
the danger.

Experts predict a domestic nuclear attack in the next
decade. Kristof reported this two times this week. If
your pundits were actually human, wouldn’t
someone—somebody, somewhere—have reacted this weekend
to that? But your pundits aren’t programmed to talk
about that. They talked about clothing, fake claims,
stupid jokes. Substance “kind of gets glossed over,”
Mitchell said. Someone should tighten her wiring.
GLOSSING HARD: Harris keeps glossing a Standard Bush
Charge. For about the ten millionth time, he penned an
Official Preferred Recitation. He had lots of space to
discuss it:

HARRIS: [T]his background serves mostly as preface to
an attack on Kerry. At each stop last week, Bush
regaled his audiences by noting that the Democrat
voted for the Iraq war resolution and then "declared
himself the antiwar candidate" in last winter's
primaries, and now, having "found a new nuance," has
said he still "agrees it was the right decision to go
into Iraq."
"And I want to thank Senator Kerry for clearing that
up," Bush chortled. "Although I caution you, there are
still 80 days left where he could change his mind
again."

He continues by noting that everyone in Congress voted
for his $87 billion appropriations request on Iraq
except for a "small what I would call
out-of-the-mainstream minority of 12" Democrats, "and
two of those 12 are my opponent and his running mate."


"You might remember his initial explanation," Bush
told partisans at the Iowa event. "He said, 'I
actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted
against it.' That doesn't sound like the way people in
Sioux land talk. The pressure got on a little bit
about that vote. Then he said, well, he's proud of the
vote. And he went on to say, the whole thing is a
complicated matter."

Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat."

Harris wrote over a thousand words in all. He had
plenty of time to describe Bush’s clothes—and five
grafs to lavish on this Standard Story. But why
wouldn’t a human who had words to waste give readers a
few basic facts?
WHAT HARRIS COULD HAVE WRITTEN: "You might remember
his initial explanation," Bush told partisans at the
Iowa event. "He said, 'I actually did vote for the $87
billion before I voted against it.' That doesn't sound
like the way people in Sioux land talk. The pressure
got on a little bit about that vote. Then he said,
well, he's proud of the vote. And he went on to say,
the whole thing is a complicated matter."
Then came what is becoming one of the standard
applause lines in Bush's stump speech: "There's
nothing complicated about supporting our troops in
combat." Of course, though Bush says this matter
wasn’t complicated, he himself threatened to veto the
$87 billion six days after Kerry’s “no” vote. Bush was
concerned that the bill might include loans to Iraq,
not outright grants.

Omigod! Harris could even ask the Bush camp a
question. He could ask why Bush keeps saying “nothing
complicated” when he himself said he would veto the
bill! But functioning androids don’t do things like
that. They just type Approved Press Corps Stories.
VISIT OUR INCOMPARABLE ARCHIVES: The press corps
trashed Gore’s clothes for two years. The extent of
this story is hard to believe. See THE DAILY HOWLER,
3/4/03, with links to prior reporting.

STARTING TOMORROW: Don’t read Clinton’s book, the
Times said. In four parts, we help you know why.

ALSO: The Androids have agreed on some pro-Kerry
stories. More on those topics this week.

Posted by richard at 01:56 PM

William Rivers Pitt: Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today, George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the first 16 days of August...thirty more people who would not now be dead but for your decisions and your actions and your appalling

The Emperor has no uniform...

William Rivers Pitt: There is, of course, the nearly
3,000 dead Americans from September 11th. The 9/11
Commission broke out some buckets of whitewash, and
like a group of dutiful Tom Sawyers, painted over the
grim realities of that day. It couldn't be stopped,
they said in their report. People like Richard Clarke,
Sibel Edmonds and the families of the lost who know
more about the events of that day than anyone on the
planet, disagree.
"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to
the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going
to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, a 9/11 widow who has become a leader in the
truth movement. The thing is, Mindy, Mr. Rumsfeld was
probably fine-tuning the Iraq invasion plan he'd been
working on for years. He is, after all, a
professional.
Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today, George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the first 16 days of August. That's thirty more names to be added to the commemorative wall which will appear somewhere in Washington DC someday. Thirty more etchings in ebon stone, thirty more people who would not now be dead but for your decisions and your actions and your appalling dishonesty.
I'm pretty bored with those commonly accepted
standards that are supposed to be applied in the
treatment of a sitting President. Too many people have
been playing patty-cake with you over the last three
years, George. Too many journalists looking to keep
their sweet seat in the press crunch at the White
House, too many television news anchors who think
research and context is for other people, too many
media outlet owners - read: 'massive corporations' -
whose profit margins are intimately wed to your
suicidal policies, and, frankly, too many politicians
for the 'loyal opposition' who have been tested in the
forge of true crisis these last years, and been found
to be sorely wanting.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081704A.shtml

Brain Dead, Made of Money, No Future at All
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Tuesday 17 August 2004

To: George W. Bush
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Washington, DC 20500

Dear George:

A pretty awful joke has been making the rounds
lately. Some might say it's an awful joke because of
the comparison. Most, however, think it's an awful
joke because it isn't funny. It's too close to the
truth to be funny.

The joke: What is the difference between President
George W. Bush and President Ted Bundy?

The answer: Bush killed more people than Bundy.

See? I told you it was a terrible joke. On the one
hand, it is in poor taste by commonly accepted
standards to compare a sitting President to a
notorious serial killer. On the other hand, though,
the 943 dead American soldiers in Iraq, the more than
ten thousand dead Iraqi civilians, the more than five
thousand dead civilians in Afghanistan, and let's not
forget the large crowd of Americans you toddled off to
the Texas killing bottle while Governor, pretty much
means you have left Mr. Bundy in the deep shade when
it comes to the body count.

There is, of course, the nearly 3,000 dead Americans
from September 11th. The 9/11 Commission broke out
some buckets of whitewash, and like a group of dutiful
Tom Sawyers, painted over the grim realities of that
day. It couldn't be stopped, they said in their
report. People like Richard Clarke, Sibel Edmonds and
the families of the lost who know more about the
events of that day than anyone on the planet,
disagree.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to
the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going
to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, a 9/11 widow who has become a leader in the
truth movement. The thing is, Mindy, Mr. Rumsfeld was
probably fine-tuning the Iraq invasion plan he'd been
working on for years. He is, after all, a
professional.

Three more American kids got killed in Iraq today,
George. That makes 30 dead American soldiers in the
first 16 days of August. That's thirty more names to
be added to the commemorative wall which will appear
somewhere in Washington DC someday. Thirty more
etchings in ebon stone, thirty more people who would
not now be dead but for your decisions and your
actions and your appalling dishonesty.

I'm pretty bored with those commonly accepted
standards that are supposed to be applied in the
treatment of a sitting President. Too many people have
been playing patty-cake with you over the last three
years, George. Too many journalists looking to keep
their sweet seat in the press crunch at the White
House, too many television news anchors who think
research and context is for other people, too many
media outlet owners - read: 'massive corporations' -
whose profit margins are intimately wed to your
suicidal policies, and, frankly, too many politicians
for the 'loyal opposition' who have been tested in the
forge of true crisis these last years, and been found
to be sorely wanting.

So let's not have any patty-cake between us, George.
Let's get down to brass tacks. Your people compared
Senator Max Cleland to Osama bin Laden and Saddam
Hussein during the 2002 midterm campaign. Cleland left
two legs and an arm in Vietnam, but your people did
that to him anyway. A little hard talk, East Texas
style, shouldn't be anything new to you.

A wiser man once wrote this:

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation,
whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an
invasion, and you allow him to do so, whenever he may
choose to say he deems it necessary for such a
purpose, and you allow him to make war at
pleasure...if, today, he should choose to say he
thinks it necessary to invade Canada, to prevent the
British from invading us, how could you stop him? You
may say to him, 'I see no probability of the British
invading us' but he will say to you, 'Be silent; I can
see it, if you don't.'"

The wiser man who wrote these words was Abraham
Lincoln, in a letter to his law partner Billy Hendron.
Lincoln wrote this letter in 1848 while serving in the
House of Representatives, years before he himself
would assume the office of the Presidency. Lincoln
became, in the fullness of time, a war President who
unwillingly inherited his war, and then pursued it
with grim determination.

He summoned Generals like Ulysses Grant, whose
essential demeanor, in the words of Civil War
historian Bruce Catton, "was that of a man who had
made up his mind to drive his head through a stone
wall." From March of 1864 to April of 1865, Grant used
the mighty Army of the Potomac as Lincoln's merciless
fist, until the white flags were raised over bloodied
ground at Appomattox.

Lincoln was a war President who won his war, though
the fighting of it was not his choice. He fought the
enemies arrayed before him, and did not invent enemies
out of whole cloth. Imagine Lincoln, faced with the
Confederate insurrection, deciding to undertake an
invasion of Greenland. He would have been laughed out
of the White House. That's basically what you've done
in Iraq.

You fancy yourself a war President, right? "I'm a
war President," you said on television not long ago.
"I make decisions in the Oval Office with war on my
mind." Your war in Iraq is a war of choice, not of
necessity. It had nothing to do with September 11,
weapons of mass destruction, or bringing democracy to
the Iraqi people. It had nothing to do with defending
the American people.

Your boys wanted to get paid. Cash money on the
barrelhead for Halliburton, right? Almost twelve
billion dollars they've made to this point. Hey, it's
good work if you can get it. All you had to do was use
September 11th against your own people for months,
scare them to death, denigrate the work of the weapons
inspectors you agreed to send in there, flap around
some claims about weapons of mass destruction (26,000
liters of anthrax, 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin,
500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX gas, per your own
words from your 2003 State of the Union Address), and
then fly onto an aircraft carrier and declare victory
while your people were still dying.

As if that wasn't bad enough, you're also losing
your war of choice.

Hard to believe, isn't it? Your daddy rolled up Iraq
like a windowshade when it was his turn at the big
wheel. Your daddy made it look easy, which is perhaps
why you thought you could take care of business over
there on the cheap. Do you have trouble looking daddy
in the eyes these days?

Right now, the soldiers you sent into harm's way are
fighting a running battle in the holy city of Najaf,
which is home to the Shrine to Ali. Ali, in case you
didn't know, is considered to be the legitimate heir
to Mohammed himself by followers of the Shi'ite faith.
Shi'ites all around the world - millions of them in
places like Iran and India and right here in America -
are reacting to this action in the same way Catholic
parishioners in Boston would react if someone rolled
tanks on the Vatican. If you so much as chip the paint
on that shrine, you're going to unite yet another
group of people in explosive rage against the United
States.

The gap between you and Abraham Lincoln is so wide,
George, that it cannot be measured by any scientific
instruments currently known to modern science. Abe had
you pegged, though, 156 years ago. You were allowed to
make war at your pleasure, and the world entire is
desperately wondering how you can be stopped.

You might have heard, George, about a fellow named
Hugo Chavez winning the referendum on his Presidency
in Venezuela. Millions of poor people flooded out of
the hills to cast their votes for him, because he uses
his nation's oil revenues to pay for their food and
education. Quite a novel idea, yes? How many schools
could we have built - schools like citadels - with the
twelve billion dollars you have thrown at Halliburton?
How many hungry people in your own country could have
been fed? How many jobs programs could have been
funded? How many catastrophically polluted Superfund
sites could have been cleaned?

That apparently wasn't on your program, George. You
have eviscerated OSHA regulations - those pesky things
that keep workers from getting injured and killed on
the job - because you want to appear
'business-friendly.' The $1.5 million you got from the
chemical industry in campaign funding compelled you to
lower the safety standards for chemicals used in the
production of superconductors, chemicals that are
believed to cause miscarriages in pregnant workers.
You eliminated overtime pay for six million workers,
going so far as to have tips for employers posted on
your administration's Labor Department website which
will help them screw employees out of the wages they
earn. You have obliterated environmental protections
across the board.

The list goes on. For a man who fashions his
political persona as a "regular fella," you have
delivered a large screwing to the real regular fellas
who are going to have to plow through the wreckage
you've left in your wake.

I worry about you, George. You live in a stark
black-and-white world, and you actually think God
speaks to you. There are a lot of people in padded
rooms, wearing coats that button up the back, because
they have had similar delusions. You see monsters
everywhere. Some of them do exist, to be sure, but I
am forced to remember the words of Frederich
Nietzsche: "Whoever fights monsters should see to it
that in the process he does not become a monster. And
when you look into the abyss, the abyss also looks
into you."

You have become a monster, George, and the abyss is
staring into your eyes. I wonder what it sees there. I
know what I see.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and
international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq:
What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The
Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

Posted by richard at 01:51 PM

August 16, 2004

Agence France Press: Never a hostile question for campaigning Bush

At least three more US Marines died in Iraq this
weekend. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three
Stooges Reich? Yes, certainly. Anything else? If you
recall, in the weeks and months immediately after the
Supreme Injustice decision in Bush vs. Gore, we
referred to *him* as the _resident, and as the devastation
that his economic misdeeds and national security
blunders have visited on this country became so
painfully evident that it even seeped through into the
"US mainstream news media," and his facade started to
crumble, we began to refer to him as the incredibly
shrinking _resident, and then, as the disintegration
of his political base started to take a psychological
toll on him and his own smirking demeanour became
disturbed, we began to refer to him as the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident...Here is an extraordinary story from Agence
France Press...How embarrassing...not just for the
man, or for his political party but, more importantly,
for the Republic that he has so deeply wronged...Read
this story, please, and and share it with your friends
and colleagues...and ask yourselves: Is this the
America that those three young US Marines (and almost
one thousand other men and women of the US military)
died for? Is this man fit to be their
commander-in-chief?

Agence France Press: Billed as informal
question-and-answer opportunities for curious voters
to quiz the most powerful man in the world, the
carefully choreographed campaign events usually
recycle the central points from his stump speech...
At an "Ask President Bush" in Oregon Friday, he was
asked to appoint conservative judges; heard that his
tax cuts promote growth; and received an emotional
tribute from the sister-in-law of an Iraq-bound US
soldier.
While he has yet to face a hostile questioner, angry
attacks on Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry
(news - web sites) abound.
In Beaverton, Bush supporters accused the
Massachusetts senator of having a "fuzzy memory," of
winning two of his five Vietnam war medals for
"self-inflicted scratches."
But would-be Bush hecklers face daunting obstacles:
Loyalists handle giving out tickets to the event;
home-made signs and banners are often forbidden; and
in some cases access hinges on signing a loyalty oath.

Save the US Constitution, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040815/ts_alt_afp/us_vote_bush_ask&cid=1506&ncid=2043


Never a hostile question for campaigning Bush

Sun Aug 15, 6:56 PM ET

SIOUX CITY, United States (AFP) - President George W.
Bush (news - web sites) famously dislikes press
conferences but has embraced "Ask President Bush (news
- web sites)" sessions packed with supporters at least
as eager to pay tribute to him as get an answer.

"Mr President, I don't have a question. I've got three
'thank-yous'," one man told him at such an event in
Ohio.

Billed as informal question-and-answer opportunities
for curious voters to quiz the most powerful man in
the world, the carefully choreographed campaign events
usually recycle the central points from his stump
speech.

"We're going to call on some of your citizens to help
me make some points," he said at the Ohio event.

Bush's well-honed address includes a vow to appoint
conservative judges, a defense of his tax cuts as
promoting growth, and an emotional argument that going
to war with Iraq (news - web sites) was the right
decision.

At an "Ask President Bush" in Oregon Friday, he was
asked to appoint conservative judges; heard that his
tax cuts promote growth; and received an emotional
tribute from the sister-in-law of an Iraq-bound US
soldier.

While he has yet to face a hostile questioner, angry
attacks on Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry
(news - web sites) abound.

In Beaverton, Bush supporters accused the
Massachusetts senator of having a "fuzzy memory," of
winning two of his five Vietnam war medals for
"self-inflicted scratches."

But would-be Bush hecklers face daunting obstacles:
Loyalists handle giving out tickets to the event;
home-made signs and banners are often forbidden; and
in some cases access hinges on signing a loyalty oath.


"First priority goes to volunteers and supporters and
then we reach out to people who are undecided and want
to hear what the president has to say," according Bush
campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel.


The result is a friendly crowd eager to see the
candidate they hope will win the November 2 election,
while authorities banish protesters to heavily policed
sidewalks blocks away.


In fact, the only question that left Bush briefly at a
loss for words in Oregon came from a child who stumped
him by asking why a school superintendent who "makes
200,000 dollars" would fire the school librarian.


"I can't answer your question why. But (First Lady)
Laura (Bush) was a librarian, so maybe the
superintendent ought to talk to the librarian, Laura.
But, no, I don't know," the president said.


Another child, however, had a more campaign-friendly
question -- "Mr president, as a child how can I help
you get votes?" -- and received a more confident
answer.


"First, you can put signs up in people's yards who
want the signs in their yards," said Bush, who urged
the tot to find a friend with a sibling over the
minimum voting age of 18.


"Say to them, register to vote, and then please do me
a favor, vote on my behalf for George W. Bush," said
the president, who won laughter from his hand-picked
audience.

Posted by richard at 03:26 PM

Suppress the Vote?

At least three more US Marines died in Iraq over the weekend. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich, yes, but anything else? Did they die for the America that this story points to? Was this kind of voter intimidation what they sacrificed their lives to protect? Here is an ugly glimpse into the greatest threat to your way of life, a greater threat than Al Qaeda, a greater threat job loss or the Federal deficit or even the Mega-Mogadishu in Iraq...Here is a painful, vivid example of why so many of us REFUSED to "get over it" in the wake of Fraudida 2000 debacle...Either commit
your lives, your fortunes and your sacred honors to an
Electoral Uprising in November 2004 or lose this
Republic, because just as surely as the sun rose this
morning, it is being cooked slowly like a frog in a
pot on a slow slimmer...so that the victim ("We, the
People...") will not know until it is too late...

Bob Herbert, New York Times: State police officers
have gone into the homes of elderly black voters in
Orlando and interrogated them as part of an odd
"investigation" that has frightened many voters,
intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown a chill over
efforts to get out the black vote in November.
The officers, from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they
are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came
up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.
Officials refused to discuss details of the
investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots
are involved. They said they had no idea when the
investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may
continue right through the presidential election...
The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes,
have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some
of those questioned have been volunteers in
get-out-the-vote campaigns.

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/08/16/opinion/16herbert.html?hp

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

August 16, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Suppress the Vote?
By BOB HERBERT

he big story out of Florida over the weekend was the
tragic devastation caused by Hurricane Charley. But
there's another story from Florida that deserves our
attention.

State police officers have gone into the homes of
elderly black voters in Orlando and interrogated them
as part of an odd "investigation" that has frightened
many voters, intimidated elderly volunteers and thrown
a chill over efforts to get out the black vote in
November.

The officers, from the Florida Department of Law
Enforcement, which reports to Gov. Jeb Bush, say they
are investigating allegations of voter fraud that came
up during the Orlando mayoral election in March.

Officials refused to discuss details of the
investigation, other than to say that absentee ballots
are involved. They said they had no idea when the
investigation might end, and acknowledged that it may
continue right through the presidential election.

"We did a preliminary inquiry into those allegations
and then we concluded that there was enough evidence
to follow through with a full criminal investigation,"
said Geo Morales, a spokesman for the Department of
Law Enforcement.

The state police officers, armed and in plain clothes,
have questioned dozens of voters in their homes. Some
of those questioned have been volunteers in
get-out-the-vote campaigns.

I asked Mr. Morales in a telephone conversation to
tell me what criminal activity had taken place.

"I can't talk about that," he said.

I asked if all the people interrogated were black.

"Well, mainly it was a black neighborhood we were
looking at - yes,'' he said.

He also said, "Most of them were elderly."

When I asked why, he said, "That's just the people we
selected out of a random sample to interview."

Back in the bad old days, some decades ago, when
Southern whites used every imaginable form of
chicanery to prevent blacks from voting, blacks often
fought back by creating voters leagues, which were
organizations that helped to register, educate and
encourage black voters. It became a tradition that
continues in many places, including Florida, today.

Not surprisingly, many of the elderly black voters who
found themselves face to face with state police
officers in Orlando are members of the Orlando League
of Voters, which has been very successful in
mobilizing the city's black vote.

The president of the Orlando League of Voters is Ezzie
Thomas, who is 73 years old. With his demonstrated
ability to deliver the black vote in Orlando, Mr.
Thomas is a tempting target for supporters of George
W. Bush in a state in which the black vote may well
spell the difference between victory and defeat.

The vile smell of voter suppression is all over this
so-called investigation by the Florida Department of
Law Enforcement.

Joseph Egan, an Orlando lawyer who represents Mr.
Thomas, said: "The Voters League has workers who go
into the community to do voter registration, drive
people to the polls and help with absentee ballots.
They are elderly women mostly. They get paid like $100
for four or five months' work, just to offset things
like the cost of their gas. They see this political
activity as an important contribution to their
community. Some of the people in the community had
never cast a ballot until the league came to their
door and encouraged them to vote."

Now, said Mr. Egan, the fear generated by state police
officers going into people's homes as part of an
ongoing criminal investigation related to voting is
threatening to undo much of the good work of the
league. He said, "One woman asked me, 'Am I going to
go to jail now because I voted by absentee ballot?' "

According to Mr. Egan, "People who have voted by
absentee ballot for years are refusing to allow
campaign workers to come to their homes. And
volunteers who have participated for years in
assisting people, particularly the elderly or
handicapped, are scared and don't want to risk a
criminal investigation."

Florida is a state that's very much in play in the
presidential election, with some polls showing John
Kerry in the lead. A heavy-handed state police
investigation that throws a blanket of fear over
thousands of black voters can only help President
Bush.

The long and ugly tradition of suppressing the black
vote is alive and thriving in the Sunshine State.

Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company | Home |
Privacy Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help |
Back to Top


Posted by richard at 03:21 PM

Newspapers help elevate an issue the White House wants to dominate the fall campaign. But the sources are usually unnamed, the evidence old or contradictory.

It's the Media, Stupid.

William E. Jackson, Jr., www.editorsandpublishers.com: There is one inescapable conclusion from recent press coverage of the steady streams of threat information emanating from Washington and London and Pakistan.
National newspapers, however unwittingly, have been
drawn into "flooding the zone" with stories that move
to the forefront of public consciousness the issue
that the White House would like to have at the top of
the agenda in this election season: domestic security
and threats to the homeland.
On any given day, it is clear that presidential staff,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, or an anonymous
intelligence official, can crank up the cycle again by
feeding the frenzy. Consider two stories that ran on
August 13 in the country's two leading newspapers...
This sort of "warnings roulette" will play out over
and over again, whenever the executive branch wants to
inform us, and to scare us, with the White House
calling balls and strikes in a one-sided game.
It is so subtle, yet so obvious.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://editorandpublisher.com/eandp/columns/shoptalk_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000612547

The Al Qaeda Express: Newspapers help elevate an issue the White House wants to dominate the fall campaign. But the sources are usually unnamed, the evidence old or contradictory.

By William E. Jackson Jr.

(August 14, 2004) -- Last week I asked a sterling
reporter for a national newspaper: "Do you fellows
sometimes feel like you are on a runaway horse, and
cannot get off?" My point was that, starting with the
morning headlines of August 2, the national newspapers
have been preoccupied with government-inspired stores
citing anonymous sources (in the U.S., Britain and
Pakistan), talking about a "treasure trove" of old
discovered documents, just-captured agents of al
Qaeda, and fresh "streams of intelligence."

The Tom Ridge press conference of nearly two weeks ago
started the summer snowball rolling, and here has been
little sign of it slowing down. Just yesterday, on
Friday the 13th, came reports that the White House
really, really, expects a massive terrorist strike to
influence the election.

Headlines for the past twelve days recorded unfolding
events, based on carefully doled-out information, that
added up to a steadily evolving image of America at
war at home.

On Monday, August 2, every national newspaper led with
the raising of the color-coded alert to orange and
warnings from the chief of Homeland Security of al
Qaeda plans to attack major financial institutions.
The warnings were based on what all the papers at
first called new intelligence based on recently
discovered documents, chilling in their specificity.

By the next day, however, there was skepticism in the
air, reflected by The New York Times head: "Reports
That Led to Terror Alert Were Years Old, Officials
Say." On August 4 the administration counter-attacked.
The Washington Post observed: "Seriousness of Threat
Defended Despite Dated Intelligence."

The rest of the week's meatiest headlines on homeland
security trumpeted intelligence revelations, arrests
abroad, al Qaeda on the prowl, all occurring within a
remarkably short time frame. By Monday, August 9, the
immediacy of the danger from domestic terrorists
was kicked up a notch, with "Tourist Copters in New
York City a Terror Target" and "Capitol Still Al Qaeda
Target, Official Says."

In all of this, the vast majority of stories in The
New York Times, to cite one example,originated with,
or relied upon, information from unnamed sources.

There is one inescapable conclusion from recent press
coverage of the steady streams of threat information
emanating from Washington and London and Pakistan.
National newspapers, however unwittingly, have been
drawn into "flooding the zone" with stories that move
to the forefront of public consciousness the issue
that the White House would like to have at the top of
the agenda in this election season: domestic security
and threats to the
homeland.

On any given day, it is clear that presidential staff,
the Secretary of Homeland Security, or an anonymous
intelligence official, can crank up the cycle again by
feeding the frenzy. Consider two stories that ran on
August 13 in the country's two leading newspapers.

Mike Allen reported in The Washington Post: "The Bush
administration believes more strongly than ever that
al Qaeda terrorists plan to try to influence the
presidential race with a massive pre-election attack,
a strike that is more likely to come in August or
September than in October, a White House official said
yesterday. The official ratcheted up administration
warnings of an election-related
attack on a day when President Bush and Vice President
Cheney were on the campaign trail contending that Sen.
John F. Kerry (D-Mass.) would be a weak commander in
chief. Some Democrats accuse the White House of
issuing repeated
terrorism warnings to inspire fear so voters will
hesitate to change leaders with the nation under
threat.

"The White House official, who spoke to reporters on
the condition of anonymity, said the government had
not gleaned any new information about political
motives for an attack since the spring, when
administration officials began saying they were
concerned about an attack in conjunction with the Nov.
2 election. Nothing to date indicates 'an imminent
operation,' the official said."

Meanwhile, David Johnston and David Sanger of The New
York Times reported: "Al Qaeda operatives updated
surveillance conducted at five financial institutions
in New York, New Jersey and Washington as recently as
this spring, according to a senior White House
official who said on Thursday that the authorities
still had no direct evidence of an active terror
plot."

Then, in Saturday's Post, Dan Eggen and John Lancaster
declared: "The new evidence suggests that al Qaeda is
battered but not beaten, and that a motley collection
of old hands and recent recruits has formed a nucleus
in Pakistan that is pushing forward with plans for
attacks in the United States, according to U.S. and
Pakistani officials....

"The Bush administration generally views the recent
arrests and intelligence discoveries not only as a
window into al Qaeda's operations, but also as a
serious blow to what remains of the network....Some
Pakistani intelligence officials are more cautious.
They say that such arrests may have a limited impact
both on al Qaeda, which they view as already
dispersed, and Islamist terrorists who are inspired by
bin Laden but not beholden to him."

This sort of "warnings roulette" will play out over
and over again, whenever the executive branch wants to
inform us, and to scare us, with the White House
calling balls and strikes in a one-sided game.

It is so subtle, yet so obvious.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William E. Jackson Jr. ,a frequent contributor, served
as executive director of President Carter's General
Advisory Committee on Arms Control.

Posted by richard at 03:17 PM

August 15, 2004

Top Bush supporter funds attacks on Kerry's war record

The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's top fund-raising in Mass. is funding
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader, the
increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's top fund-raiser in TX (well, Kenny Boy has
run into some trouble) is funding the disgusting
attack smearing Sen. John F. Kerry's extraordinary
record of courage on the battlefield (condemned even
by the recently politically spayed Sen. John McCain
(R-AZ)...When Howard Dean (D-Jeffords) challenged
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader about
the Bush cabal's Mass. fat cat funding his campaign,
the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader said,
"Maybe he cares about civil liberties." What will he
say about this guy? That he's deeply committed to
veterans affairs? And where are the
propapunditgandists of cable news networks and the
sunday morning shows (Fork the Nation, Meat the Press
and Week in Revision)? Where are the Editorial page
writers for the NYTwits and the WASHPs(who provide
cover for the lie-proffering that goes their front
pages)? AWOL, and on the dole. Well, it is all going to blow up
in their faces (politiically for the GOP and economically for the "US mainstream news media"), unless, of course, they don't blow
something up in our faces first (literally)...

Scott Gold, LA Times: A homebuilder who lives lakeside
in this Houston suburb, Perry has helped bankroll the
widespread success of Republican candidates here, has
long-standing ties to many close associates of
President Bush, and has contributed to Bush's last
four campaigns. According to interviews and campaign
documents, he has given a total of more than $5
million to scores of political candidates.
''And the vast majority of those people have never
laid eyes on him," said Court Koenning, executive
director of the Republican Party in Harris County,
which includes the Houston metropolitan area.
Despite the enormous influence of his money, Perry,
71, is reticent and guarded, and remains something of
a mystery in Texas. But his largess has now crept onto
the national stage.
A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched
television ads last week accusing Kerry, a
Massachusetts senator and the Democratic presidential
nominee, of lying about his military record. A
$100,000 check that Perry wrote to the group this year
represented about two-thirds of the money in its
accounts as of June 30, according to financial
documents.
The Bush campaign says it has no ties to the group.
The advertisements, running in the battleground states
of Wisconsin, Ohio, and West Virginia, are part of a
multimedia campaign questioning Kerry's fitness as a
leader and commander in chief. A book written by one
of the group's leaders, Houston lawyer John E.
O'Neill, is scheduled to be released today.

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and
Its War Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/08/15/top_bush_supporter_funds_attacks_on_kerrys_war_record/

Top Bush supporter funds attacks on Kerry's war record
Homebuilder is longtime force in Texas GOP
By Scott Gold, Los Angeles Times | August 15, 2004

NASSAU BAY, Texas -- Robert J. Perry, the main
financier behind the effort to discredit Senator John
F. Kerry's military record, is the most prolific
political donor in Texas.

A homebuilder who lives lakeside in this Houston
suburb, Perry has helped bankroll the widespread
success of Republican candidates here, has
long-standing ties to many close associates of
President Bush, and has contributed to Bush's last
four campaigns. According to interviews and campaign
documents, he has given a total of more than $5
million to scores of political candidates.

''And the vast majority of those people have never
laid eyes on him," said Court Koenning, executive
director of the Republican Party in Harris County,
which includes the Houston metropolitan area.

Despite the enormous influence of his money, Perry,
71, is reticent and guarded, and remains something of
a mystery in Texas. But his largess has now crept onto
the national stage.

A group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth launched
television ads last week accusing Kerry, a
Massachusetts senator and the Democratic presidential
nominee, of lying about his military record. A
$100,000 check that Perry wrote to the group this year
represented about two-thirds of the money in its
accounts as of June 30, according to financial
documents.

The Bush campaign says it has no ties to the group.

The advertisements, running in the battleground states
of Wisconsin, Ohio, and West Virginia, are part of a
multimedia campaign questioning Kerry's fitness as a
leader and commander in chief. A book written by one
of the group's leaders, Houston lawyer John E.
O'Neill, is scheduled to be released today.

''Bob Perry is a very generous guy with his political
donations," Koenning said. ''His primary interest is
good government. . . . Everybody agrees that John
Kerry's service to this country is admirable. But if
he lied about it, that speaks to his character."

Kerry was awarded three Purple Hearts, a Bronze Star,
and a Silver Star for his service in Vietnam. Upon his
return, he became a leader of a veterans group that
declared the war a mistake. His military service is a
cornerstone of his presidential campaign, one his
advisers believe contrasts sharply with Bush's service
in the Texas Air National Guard.

None of the veterans featured in the advertisements
served on the river patrol boats Kerry commanded
during Vietnam.

Several of Kerry's crewmates have condemned the
advertisements, and Senator John McCain, Republican of
Arizona, once a prisoner of war in Vietnam, called
them ''dishonest and dishonorable."

''Bob Perry pulls the strings and never gets his hands
dirty. But even by his standards, this latest deal is
just over the top," said Charles Soechting, chairman
of the Texas Democratic Party.

Perry declined to comment through his spokesman, Bill
Miller, an Austin political consultant. Continued...

Page 2 of 2 -- Perry has been a political donor for years, working with White House political director Karl Rove during Rove's Texas years, contributing to Texas Governor Rick Perry's rise in politics and giving $20,000 to Bush's two campaigns for governor in the 1990s.

But Perry, no relation to the governor, began increasing his donations in 2000. Today, campaign documents and his representatives confirm that he has given more money to campaigns and political organizations in the past four years than any other Texan. A few of his donations have gone to Democratic candidates, but most have gone to Republicans and conservative causes.

He has given almost $1 million to the Texas Republican Party. He has donated at least $200,000 to Texans for Lawsuit Reform, one of the most successful ''tort reform" organizations in the nation.

In the 2002 election cycle, he also provided about $700,000 for the GOP's effort to dominate Texas politics. That included $165,000 given to Texans for a Republican Majority, an offshoot of US House majority leader Tom DeLay's Americans for a Republican Majority, formed to help conservatives get elected.

The election that year of a slate of DeLay-backed Republicans -- all supported by Perry -- gave the GOP control of the state House for the first time in 130 years. That paved the way for passage of a host of conservative measures, such as abortion restrictions and limits on medical malpractice cases. The GOP also redrew congressional maps for Texas, a move designed to shore up Republican control of Congress.

Perry is largely unknown outside campaign finance databases and a small group of political leaders, shunning social activities often embraced by major donors. Many of the politicians who have received Perry's money say they have never met him. One who has, Texas Agriculture Commissioner Susan Combs, said he wanted to know just one thing before supporting her: ''Are you a straight-talking, straight-shooting person who is going to represent Texas well?"

''I just think he's an unassuming guy," Combs said.

Born in a tiny ranching community in Bosque County, Texas, Perry attended Baylor University and then taught high school for a while, like his father before him. In 1968, he started a home-building business in Houston.

Today, Perry Homes does business across central and eastern Texas. The company's website lists 48 communities in the Houston area alone where the company is building or selling houses, which range from $110,000 to more than $400,000.

© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.

Posted by richard at 11:59 AM

Harkin calls Cheney a 'coward' and criticizes 'backdoor draft'

As Jimmy Carter said at the DNC, "At stake is nothing
less than our nation's soul." As Theres Heinz Kerry
said at the DNC, "In America, true patriots speak
truth to power."

Associated Press: Sen. Tom Harkin called Vice
President Dick Cheney a "coward" for avoiding service
in Vietnam and called on President Bush to end the
"backdoor draft."
The Iowa Democrat was responding Friday to the call-up
of a Des Moines police officer who has already
completed his eight-year military commitment.
Harkin echoed comments earlier this week by Des Moines
Police Chief William McCarthy, who said the military's
treatment of Des Moines Police Officer Rodell Nydam
was "evil."
Harkin, who served as a jet pilot in the Navy, said
the exemption wasn't intended for situations like the
war in Iraq. He said first responders like Nydam are
needed to protect the community...
He noted that Cheney had several student deferments
that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam.
"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a
coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it
makes my blood boil," Harkin said. "Those of us who
served and those of us who went in the military don't
like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and
he wants to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be
tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's
kids. But not when it was his turn to go."

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.wcfcourier.com/articles/2004/08/14/news/breaking_news/0dff4c5470efba8a86256ef00074d537.txt

Harkin calls Cheney a 'coward' and criticizes 'backdoor draft'

By The Associated Press

DES MOINES -- Sen. Tom Harkin called Vice President
Dick Cheney a "coward" for avoiding service in Vietnam
and called on President Bush to end the "backdoor
draft."

The Iowa Democrat was responding Friday to the call-up
of a Des Moines police officer who has already
completed his eight-year military commitment.

Harkin echoed comments earlier this week by Des Moines
Police Chief William McCarthy, who said the military's
treatment of Des Moines Police Officer Rodell Nydam
was "evil."

Nydam, 26, is being called back to Iraq despite
finishing his National Guard commitment in April. He's
being called up under the military's "stop loss"
exemption, which can extend duty in wartime.

Harkin, who served as a jet pilot in the Navy, said
the exemption wasn't intended for situations like the
war in Iraq. He said first responders like Nydam are
needed to protect the community.

"The part of the U.S. code that provides for this
anticipates major wars, major national emergencies,"
Harkin said. "That is not what we're confronting right
now. You think about using this law only in (extreme
cases), only when we're really in dire, dire need."

Harkin also shot back at Cheney, who said in a visit
to Iowa on Tuesday that presidential candidate John
Kerry lacks a basic understanding of the war on
terrorism and cannot make America safer.

He noted that Cheney had several student deferments
that allowed him to skip serving in Vietnam.

"When I hear this coming from Dick Cheney, who was a
coward, who would not serve during the Vietnam War, it
makes my blood boil," Harkin said. "Those of us who
served and those of us who went in the military don't
like it when someone like a Dick Cheney comes out and
he wants to be tough. Yeah, he'll be tough. He'll be
tough with somebody else's blood, somebody else's
kids. But not when it was his turn to go."

David James, a spokesman for the Republican National
Committee, dismissed Harkin's attacks.

"His shrill negative attacks did nothing to get Howard
Dean elected or get the nomination during the
caucuses," James said, referring to Harkin's
endorsement of the former Vermont governor before the
Iowa caucuses."


Posted by richard at 11:56 AM

Agence France Press: Kerry leading Bush in key swing states

There are no red states or blue states in this
national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and
CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident. There are only red, white and
blue states. Here are some numbers (the most important
numbers), tabultaed by Agence France Press (Vive la
France!) that you are not hearing on SeeBS (CBS),
NotBeSeen (NBC), AnythingButSee (ABC) or SeeNotNews
(CNN)...P.S. It is a cautious count, and therefore a
very credible one. However, in the LNS's view, the
evidence for an Uprising at the Ballot Box in November
are stronger than indicated here...unless, of course,
many of us are roasted before then, or they *postpone*
it...

It's the Electoral College, Stupid.

Agence France Press: But with the electorate highly
polarized and largely decided, Kerry seemed to have an
advantage among the 16 "battleground" states
stretching from Oregon to Florida that are considered
still up for grabs.
The states account for 177 of the 270 electoral votes
needed to win. Polls show the Democrat leading in 10
states with 119 electoral votes, Bush ahead in one
state with six, and five states with 52 electors a
tossup.
Added to the other states where no change is believed
likely from 2000, the breakdown would give Kerry a
291-195 lead in electoral votes. But with 11 weeks to
go before the election, the political chessboard could
be easily upset.

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20040815/pl_afp/us_vote_040815092928
Kerry leading Bush in key swing states

Sun Aug 15, 5:29 AM ET Add Politics - AFP to My
Yahoo!


WASHINGTON (AFP) - Although polls show the US
presidential race a virtual dead heat, Democrat John
Kerry (news - web sites) appears to be gaining an edge
over George W. Bush among the key states that could
decide the outcome.


An AFP review of various polls showed the
Massachusetts senator leading in the hunt for the
decisive 538 electoral votes that are apportioned
among the states and awarded in separate
winner-take-all contests.


Nationwide, the November 2 election is shaping up as
every bit as close as the 2000 cliffhanger in which
outgoing vice president Al Gore (news - web sites) won
the popular tally but lost to the Republican Bush by
five electoral votes.


Voter surveys show Bush and Kerry running even. A Pew
Research Center poll released Thursday put Kerry ahead
47-45 percent while a Gallup study Friday had Bush on
top 48-47 percent, both margins statistically
insignificant.


But with the electorate highly polarized and largely
decided, Kerry seemed to have an advantage among the
16 "battleground" states stretching from Oregon to
Florida that are considered still up for grabs.


The states account for 177 of the 270 electoral votes
needed to win. Polls show the Democrat leading in 10
states with 119 electoral votes, Bush ahead in one
state with six, and five states with 52 electors a
tossup.


Added to the other states where no change is believed
likely from 2000, the breakdown would give Kerry a
291-195 lead in electoral votes. But with 11 weeks to
go before the election, the political chessboard could
be easily upset.


If Bush once looked comfortable in the midwestern
state of Ohio, which he won in 2000, Kerry has inched
ahead in some polls. But the president is making a
strong move in neighboring Pennsylvania, where he lost
four years ago.


In some states it would take tantalizingly little to
overturn the previous result: 6,765 votes in Oregon,
5,708 in Wisconsin, 4,144 in Iowa, 366 in New Mexico,
and the famous 537 in Florida that clinched the deal
for Bush.


So both candidates have been investing most of their
time and media dollars in the battlegrounds, putting
their chips down and hoping they can make the math
come out right.


It's no coincidence that seven of the eight states on
Bush's campaign tour last week were battlegrounds.
Kerry's "Believe in America" road trip hit 13 of the
16 swing states.


The patchwork nature of US elections obliges the
candidates to mix their broader pronouncements on Iraq
(news - web sites), terrorism and the economy with
attention to particular local sore points that could
win or cost votes.


It might be rural education in Arkansas, immigration
in Florida and New Mexico, nuclear waste disposal in
Nevada, or the loss of jobs just about across the
board -- the message gets tailored to the audience.


The importance of the swing states has raised the
profile of voting communities such as Hispanics, who
may be a minority but are strong in several coveted
areas such as Florida, New Mexico and Nevada.


Even native Americans have made it onto the political
radar screen. Indians are just one percent of the US
population but 9.5 percent of New Mexico, so the
Republicans have started to air radio spots in Navajo.

The system has also kept independent candidate Ralph
Nader (news - web sites) alive as a spoiler. Current
polls show him with two percent support in Florida,
slightly more than in 2000 when he arguably siphoned
off critical votes from Gore.


The latest polls come after last month's Democratic
convention, which produced only a marginal boost for
Kerry. Republicans are playing down Bush's chances of
doing much better when their gala opens in two weeks
in New York.

But as both sides gear up for the home stretch run of
their marathon campaign, they are mindful of Gore's
agony when he beat Bush by 544,000 votes nationwide
but lost the presidency after a bitter recount fight
in Florida.

Gore, only the fourth man in US history to win the
popular vote but lose the White House, joked at his
party's convention, "You know the old saying: You win
some, you lose some. And then there's that
little-known third category."

A lesson from the Electoral College (news - web
sites).


Posted by richard at 11:54 AM

The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

Here's the naked truth from the truly bi-partisan
Congressional Budget Office (CBO). But, of course,
it's not the naked truth that has the most impact
--because the naked truth is almost never allowed to
escape into the air waves. It's how the Media covers
the Economy, Stupid.

Vicki Allen, Reuters: One-third of President Bush's
tax cuts have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of
Americans, shifting more burden to middle-income
taxpayers, congressional analysts said on Friday...
Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said
the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million
per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460
this year, and have seen their share of the total tax
burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1
percent.
In contrast, the report showed that households in
the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000
per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090 while
their share of the tax burden would move to 10.5
percent from 10.4 percent.
The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits from the cuts went to households in the top 20 percent, with an average income of $203,740.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show
Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081504E.shtml

CBO Report: Bush Tax Cuts Tilted to Rich
By Vicki Allen
Reuters

Saturday 14 August 2004

WASHINGTON - One-third of President Bush's tax cuts
have gone to the wealthiest 1 percent of Americans,
shifting more burden to middle-income taxpayers,
congressional analysts said on Friday.

The report by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget
Office and calculations by congressional Democrats
based on the CBO findings fueled the debate over the
cuts between Bush and his Democratic challenger in
November, Sen. John Kerry.

Using the CBO's figures, Democrats in Congress said
the top 1 percent, with incomes averaging $1.2 million
per year, will receive an average tax cut of $78,460
this year, and have seen their share of the total tax
burden fall roughly 2 percentage points to 20.1
percent.

In contrast, the report showed that households in
the middle 20 percent, with incomes averaging $57,000
per year, will receive an average cut of $1,090 while
their share of the tax burden would move to 10.5
percent from 10.4 percent.

The CBO report said about two-thirds of the benefits
from the cuts went to households in the top 20
percent, with an average income of $203,740.

People with earnings in the lowest 20 percent, which
averaged $16,620, saw their effective tax rate fall to
5.2 percent from 6.7 percent, the CBO said. But
Democrats said that meant their average tax cut was
only $250.

Democrats said the CBO calculations, which they
requested, confirm the view of independent tax
analysts that the tax cuts enacted in 2001 and 2003
have heavily favored the wealthiest taxpayers.

"It is bad enough that George Bush has no plan to
help middle-class families squeezed by declining wages
and skyrocketing costs for healthcare, energy and
college tuition," Kerry said in a statement.

"Now we find that he is deliberately stacking the
deck against them. This is the straw that will break
the back of middle-class families."

But Republicans said the CBO numbers showed Bush has
provided tax relief for people of all income levels.

Rep. Bill Thomas of California, chairman of the
House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee,
said the report showed Bush's tax cuts "have made the
tax code more progressive and taxpayers across the
income spectrum will be saddled with higher tax
burdens if the tax cuts are not made permanent."

Bush has said the cuts provided crucial support to
the U.S. economy after the Sept. 11 attacks and the
three-year decline in U.S. stocks.

But Kerry, who wants to roll back the cuts for
households whose incomes top $200,000 a year, has said
the cuts did little for the economy, and helped cause
the federal budget to swing from a more than $100
billion surplus in 2001 to a projected deficit
exceeding $400 billion this year.

-------



Posted by richard at 11:52 AM

August 14, 2004

Welcome to the Rabbit Hole of the "US Mainstream News Media"

Almost one thousand US soldiers have been killed in
the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident's foolish military adventure in Iraq, tens
of thousands US soldiers have been injured, many
maimed for life. The US is isolated in the world, it
has lost its credibility and its moral leadership. The
Western Alliance is seriously fractured. The future of
NATO is troubled. The Arab Street is on fire with
hatred. The White House and the Pentagon blew off the
Geneva Conventions and even our own military code and
federal laws to authorize a torture campaign (FOOLISH
as well as ILLEGAL) at Abu Ghraib and elsewhere, exposing
US soldiers and (if there is justice in the
end) high officials to war crimes trials here at home
or in the Hague. Dear God, there are video tapes of
young boys being sodomized in US custody (although
wholly unreported by the "US mainstream news media").
There were no WMDs in Iraq. Even David Kay, their own
hand-picked WMD inspector, has rebuked them. They
lied about Niger yellow cake. GHW Bush's own
highly commended Ambassador to Iraq, Joe Wilson,
denounced them and revealed their lies about Niger.
And to discredit him and threaten anyone else who
might speak out against them, someone in their
operation, violated a sacred trust and Federal law to
out his wife as a CIA agent. Meanwhile, the Bush cabal
has done more for Al Qaeda recruitment than any sane
person could have imagined in the aftermath of 9/11.
Al Qaeda was not a force in Iraq before this foolish
military adventure, but they are now. And they have
brought forth demon spawn from Jakarta to Casablanca
with the ooze of stupidity from the neo-con wet dream.
Instead working with allies and friends to isolate the
infection and cleanse the wound, the Bush cabal has
spread the infection throughout the Moslem world...So
what does the WASHP headline read: Kerry on Defensive
about Iraq. What is happening in this country? The
WASHPs indulge in false "self-criticism" about their
complicity in the ramp up to the war, but they have
not changed their behaviour...Look at how they are
covering what is happening now...the chaos after the
"handover," the increase in the deaths of US military
after the "handover," the US military's inability to
gain control of either Falluja or Najaf, the
extraordinary evidence of corruption involving
Halliburton...Yes, they are still carrying the filthy
water of Rove and the RNC, both on Iraq and on the
campaign of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta)...Here is an excellent analysis by William Saletan in Slate. The LNS does not agree with him on his caricaturization of JFK but we offer it as factually flawless and an example of what the propupunditgandists refuse to do -- tell the truth about a Democratic contender for the White House. They distorted, denigrated, defamed and deceived the US electorate about Al Gore in 2000 and they are doing it today...It's the Media, Stupid...

William Saletan, Slate: Lesley Stahl tells him: "You
voted for this war. Was that vote, given what you know
now, a mistake?" Kerry answers: "What I voted
for—Lesley, you see, you're playing here. What I voted
for was an authority for the president to go to war as
a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm and we
needed to go to war." Stahl persists, "But I'm trying
to find out if you today, now that you know about [the
absence of WMD], think the war was a mistake?" Kerry
stonewalls, "I think I answered your question. I think
the way he went to war was a mistake."
Kerry sticks to his position. He doesn't answer
Stahl's question. But this time, somebody who can
speak English is sitting next to Kerry: John Edwards.
Seconds after the RNC cuts away from the interview,
Edwards steps in to rescue his running mate.
Edwards: I'm going to finish this. The difference is,
if John Kerry were president of the United States, we
would never be in this place. He would never have done
what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work
to build the alliances and the support system. …
Stahl: Why build an alliance if they didn't have
weapons of mass destruction?
Edwards: We would have found out.
Kerry: That is it.
Edwards and Kerry (in unison): That's the point.
Kerry: That is exactly the point.
There you have it. Edwards says if Kerry had been
president, we would have found out Iraq had no WMD,
and "we would never be in this place." Kerry
emphatically agrees with this translation. It makes
pretty clear that given Kerry's principles, and given
what we now know about the absence of WMD, Kerry
wouldn't have gone to war.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://slate.msn.com/id/2105096/

Would Kerry Vote Today for the Iraq War? No.
By William Saletan
Posted Thursday, Aug. 12, 2004, at 3:36 PM PT



Why won't he just tell us?

Last Friday, President Bush challenged Sen. John
Kerry: "My opponent hasn't answered the question of
whether, knowing what we know now, he would have
supported going into Iraq." On Monday, pressed by a
reporter to answer Bush, Kerry said, "Yes, I would
have voted for the authority. I believe it was the
right authority for a president to have."

Bush argues that this is yet another Kerry flip-flop
and that Kerry now endorses Bush's war. At a campaign
rally on Tuesday, Bush asserted,

My opponent has found a new nuance. He now agrees it
was the right decision to go into Iraq. After months
of questioning my motives and even my credibility,
Senator Kerry now agrees with me that even though we
have not found the stockpile of weapons we believed
were there, knowing everything we know today, he would
have voted to go into Iraq and remove Saddam Hussein
from power.

Does Kerry now agree with Bush's decision? Would Kerry
have gone into Iraq? Would he have voted to give Bush
the authorization had Kerry known what he now knows
about the absence of WMD and about how Bush would use
the authorization?


The answer, if you look closely at Kerry's statements
over the past three years, is no. But Kerry refuses to
make this clear, so let's go to the
videotape—specifically, a 12-minute videotape of
Kerry's statements, compiled by the Republican
National Committee and posted on the Web. These
statements, in the RNC's judgment, make the strongest
case that Kerry has flip-flopped on Iraq.

The first significant clip shows Kerry on The O'Reilly
Factor on Dec. 11, 2001. "We ought to put the heat on
Saddam Hussein," he says. Kerry adds that when U.N.
weapons inspector Richard Butler provided evidence
that inspections should continue, "I criticized the
Clinton administration for backing off of the
inspections."

Summary: Kerry wants pressure and inspections.

The next significant clip shows Kerry on Hardball on
Feb. 5, 2002. The host, Chris Matthews, asks Kerry
whether Iraq "can be reduced to a diplomatic
problem—can we get this guy to accept inspections of
those weapons of mass destruction potentially and get
past a possible war with him?" Kerry answers: "Outside
chance, Chris. Could it be done? The answer is yes. He
would view himself only as buying time and playing a
game, in my judgment. Do we have to go through that
process? The answer is yes."

Summary: Kerry doubts Iraq would comply with
inspections, but he thinks we have to go through the
process of trying.

The next significant quote comes from Kerry's speech
to the Democratic Leadership Council on July 29, 2002.
"I agree completely with this administration's goal of
a regime change in Iraq," Kerry says. He calls Saddam
a "renegade" who has betrayed the terms of his 1991
cease-fire. However, the RNC omits Kerry's next two
sentences: "But the Administration's rhetoric has far
exceeded their plans or their groundwork. In fact,
their single-mindedness, secrecy, and high-blown
rhetoric has alienated our allies and threatened to
unravel the stability of the region."

Summary: Kerry agrees that regime change is a "goal."
He doesn't clarify how he would pursue it. The part
edited out by the RNC suggests that Kerry doesn't like
the way Bush is pursuing the goal, particularly
because it "alienated our allies."

The video then shows Kerry speaking at a Democratic
presidential primary debate in South Carolina on May
3, 2003. Kerry tells moderator George Stephanopoulos,
"I said at the time I would have preferred if we had
given diplomacy a greater opportunity. But I think it
was the right decision to disarm Saddam Hussein. And
when the president made the decision, I supported him,
and I support the fact that we did disarm [Saddam]."

Stephanopoulos' question, edited out of the video,
was, "On March 19, President Bush ordered Gen. Tommy
Franks to execute the invasion of Iraq. Was that the
right decision at the right time?" Kerry takes the
question in two parts: No to the timing ("I would have
preferred if we had given diplomacy a greater
opportunity"), yes to the "decision to disarm." But in
his final sentence, Kerry conveys that his agreement
with Bush on the decision is more important than their
disagreement on the timing: "When the president made
the decision, I supported him, and I support the fact
that we did disarm [Saddam]."

This appears to be the first time Kerry endorses the
war as Bush conducted it.

It also appears to be the last. The next clip in the
RNC video shows Kerry on Meet the Press on Aug. 31,
2003. "In the resolution that we passed, we did not
empower the president to do regime change," says
Kerry. That's consistent with Kerry's previous
statements calling for "heat," "inspections,"
"process," and cooperation with "allies."

The video shows Kerry announcing his presidential
candidacy on Sept. 2, 2003. "I voted to threaten the
use of force to make Saddam Hussein comply with the
resolutions of the United Nations," he says. The video
omits Kerry's next sentence: "I believe that was
right, but it was wrong to rush to war without
building a true international coalition and with no
plan to win the peace."

No conflict here. Kerry thinks he was voting to turn
up the heat and get compliance with inspections. He
thinks Bush betrayed two of Kerry's principles:
process and allies.

The video shows Kerry on ABC's This Week on Oct. 12,
2003. The administration "rushed to war," Kerry
complains. "They did not give legitimacy to the
inspections. We could have still been doing
inspections even today."

This is a telling remark. Take Kerry's stated
principles: inspections, process, allies. Apply these
to the trends of the winter of 2002-03: restored
inspections and grudging Iraqi concessions. Combine
the principles and the trend with the evidence we have
today that Iraq's WMD programs had disintegrated. The
most plausible conclusion is that if Kerry were
president, we would still be doing inspections, as he
suggests.

The video shows Kerry again on Hardball on Jan. 6,
2004. Chris Matthews asks him, "Are you one of the
antiwar candidates?" "I am, yeah—" says Kerry. The
video cuts off the rest of the sentence, which
continues: "in the sense that I don't believe the
president took us to war as he should have, yes,
absolutely."

This is classic Kerry: emphasizing the right half of
his position when it's convenient, then the left half
when that's more convenient. But it isn't a change of
position.

At this point, the video takes us back to Kerry's
appearance on This Week on Feb. 22, 1998, when Saddam
was harassing U.N. weapons inspectors. "We have to be
prepared to go the full distance" to disrupt Saddam's
regime, Kerry says. Cokie Roberts asks him, "Does that
mean ground troops in Iraq?" Kerry replies, "I'm
personally prepared, if that's what it meant." The RNC
deletes the next seven sentences, so that Kerry's next
words appear to be, "He can rebuild both chemical and
biological, and every indication is because of his
deception and duplicity in the past, he will seek to
do that. So we will not eliminate the problem for
ourselves or for the rest of the world with a bombing
attack."

Sounds like a call for war. But let's read the whole
quote, including the part the RNC left out:

I am personally prepared, if that's what it meant. I
don't think you have to start there. I think there are
a number of other options. But what I hear from the
administration, thus far, is if he doesn't comply,
then we will hit him. The obvious question is, after
you've hit him, have you opened up your inspections?
Well, I think the answer is probably not, certainly
not in the near term. After you've hit him, is he
still in power, capable of building weapons again?
Every bit of intelligence John [McCain] and I have
says within various periods of time, he can rebuild
both chemical and biological, and every indication is
because of his deception and duplicity in the past, he
will seek to do that. So we will not eliminate the
problem for ourselves or for the rest of the world
with a bombing attack.

This is the same position Kerry has stated all along:
compliance, inspections, skepticism, process. He says
we shouldn't start with an invasion. He rejects
bombing not because it will fail to change the regime,
but because it will fail to restore inspections. And
look at the sentence the RNC cut in half, about Saddam
having the ability to rebuild the chemical and
biological weapons programs he had lost in the early
1990s. Notice what the RNC removed: Kerry's
attribution of that assessment to the "intelligence"
he had been shown.

If the basis of Kerry's concern about Iraqi WMD was
the intelligence, and the intelligence turns out to be
mistaken, does this change Kerry's view of the war?

That's the focus of the video's final clip. It shows
Kerry's on 60 Minutes a month ago. Lesley Stahl tells
him: "You voted for this war. Was that vote, given
what you know now, a mistake?" Kerry answers: "What I
voted for—Lesley, you see, you're playing here. What I
voted for was an authority for the president to go to
war as a last resort if Saddam Hussein did not disarm
and we needed to go to war." Stahl persists, "But I'm
trying to find out if you today, now that you know
about [the absence of WMD], think the war was a
mistake?" Kerry stonewalls, "I think I answered your
question. I think the way he went to war was a
mistake."


Kerry sticks to his position. He doesn't answer
Stahl's question. But this time, somebody who can
speak English is sitting next to Kerry: John Edwards.
Seconds after the RNC cuts away from the interview,
Edwards steps in to rescue his running mate.

Edwards: I'm going to finish this. The difference is,
if John Kerry were president of the United States, we
would never be in this place. He would never have done
what George Bush did. He would have done the hard work
to build the alliances and the support system. …

Stahl: Why build an alliance if they didn't have
weapons of mass destruction?

Edwards: We would have found out.

Kerry: That is it.
Edwards and Kerry (in unison): That's the point.

Kerry: That is exactly the point.

There you have it. Edwards says if Kerry had been
president, we would have found out Iraq had no WMD,
and "we would never be in this place." Kerry
emphatically agrees with this translation. It makes
pretty clear that given Kerry's principles, and given
what we now know about the absence of WMD, Kerry
wouldn't have gone to war.

Last Thursday, Kerry gave the RNC more comic material.
He told a conference of minority journalists,

I voted to hold Saddam Hussein accountable, because
had I been president, I would have wanted that
authority, because that was the way to enforce the
U.N. resolutions and be tough with the prospect of his
development of weapons of mass destruction. … Now,
might we have wound up going to war with Saddam
Hussein? You bet we might have—after we exhausted
those remedies and found that he wasn't complying, and
so on and so forth. But not in a way that provides,
you know, 90 percent of the casualties are American,
and almost all of the cost.

This is the kind of endless, backside-covering nuance
that earned Kerry two months of "Kerryisms" in Slate.
But it doesn't change his position: United Nations,
WMD, compliance, process. And it includes a very
important phrase: "[B]ecause had I been president, I
would have wanted that authority."

Only when you remember that phrase does the meaning of
Kerry's statement on Monday become clear. When Kerry
says he would have voted for war authority because "it
was the right authority for a president to have," the
president he's thinking of—"a president," as he puts
it—isn't Bush. It's himself.

So the question that now needs to be put to Kerry is
this one: "Knowing what you know now—not only about
the absence of weapons of mass destruction, but also
about the way President Bush would use the authority
given to him by that resolution—would you still have
voted to give him that authority?" Good luck getting
him to answer it.


William Saletan is Slate's chief political
correspondent and author of Bearing Right: How
Conservatives Won the Abortion War.

Photograph of John Kerry by Hyungwon Kang/Reuters.


Posted by richard at 12:29 PM

Six Global Organizations Join Forces Against Bribery for Media Coverage

Bribery, both blatant and subtle, is another aspect of
the Corporatist stranglehold on the "US mainstream
news media." But it is not talked about, or
investigated, often enough...Here is an encouraging
story...Yes, it's the Media, Stupid.

Institute for Public Relations: Six global
organizations have announced their support for a set
of principles designed to foster greater transparency
in the dealings between public relations professionals
and the media, and to end bribery for media coverage
throughout the world. The organizations are the
International Press Institute, the International
Federation of Journalists, Transparency International,
the Global Alliance for Public Relations and
Communications Management, the Institute for Public
Relations, and the International Public Relations
Association.
The principles, embodied in the Charter on Media
Transparency developed by the International Public
Relations Association, are that:
-- News material should appear as a result of the news
judgment of journalists and editors, and not as a
result of any payment in cash or in kind, or any other
inducements.
-- Material involving payment should be clearly
identified as advertising, sponsorship or promotion.
-- No journalist or media representative should ever
suggest that news coverage will appear for any reason
other than its merit.
-- When samples or loans of products or services are
necessary for a journalist to render an objective
opinion, the length of time should be agreed in
advance and loaned products should be returned
afterward.
-- The media should institute written policies
regarding the receipt of gifts or discounted products
and services, and journalists should be required to
sign the policy.
"In too many countries, bribery of the news media robs
citizens of truthful information that they need to
make individual and community decisions," said Dr.
Donald K. Wright, 2004 president of the International
Public Relations Association. "We started this
campaign with the goal of creating greater
transparency and eliminating unethical practices in
dealings between news sources and the media."

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
mainstream news media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://releases.usnewswire.com/GetRelease.asp?id=139-08132004

Six Global Organizations Join Forces Against Bribery for Media Coverage

8/13/2004 3:46:00 PM


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

To: National and International desks

Contact: Frank Ovaitt of the Institute for Public
Relations, 703-568-5611 or iprceo@jou.ufl.edu or Dr.
Donald K. Wright of the International Public Relations
Association, 251-380-0850 or DonaldKWright@aol.com
Johann P. Fritz of the International Press Institute,
43-1-512-90-11 or ipi@freemedia.at or Jeff Lovitt of
Transparency International, 49-30-3438-2045 or
jlovitt@transparency.org or Aidan White of the
International Federation of Journalists, 32-2-235-2200
or aidan.white@ifj.org or Jean Valin of Global
Alliance, 613-957-4215 or jean.valin@justice.gc.ca

LONDON, Aug. 13 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Six global
organizations have announced their support for a set
of principles designed to foster greater transparency
in the dealings between public relations professionals
and the media, and to end bribery for media coverage
throughout the world. The organizations are the
International Press Institute, the International
Federation of Journalists, Transparency International,
the Global Alliance for Public Relations and
Communications Management, the Institute for Public
Relations, and the International Public Relations
Association.

The principles, embodied in the Charter on Media
Transparency developed by the International Public
Relations Association, are that:

-- News material should appear as a result of the news
judgment of journalists and editors, and not as a
result of any payment in cash or in kind, or any other
inducements.

-- Material involving payment should be clearly
identified as advertising, sponsorship or promotion.

-- No journalist or media representative should ever
suggest that news coverage will appear for any reason
other than its merit.

-- When samples or loans of products or services are
necessary for a journalist to render an objective
opinion, the length of time should be agreed in
advance and loaned products should be returned
afterward.

-- The media should institute written policies
regarding the receipt of gifts or discounted products
and services, and journalists should be required to
sign the policy.

"In too many countries, bribery of the news media robs
citizens of truthful information that they need to
make individual and community decisions," said Dr.
Donald K. Wright, 2004 president of the International
Public Relations Association. "We started this
campaign with the goal of creating greater
transparency and eliminating unethical practices in
dealings between news sources and the media."

"The International Press Institute's General Assembly
has endorsed these principles because all attempts to
corrupt the media compromise the freedom of expression
that protects all other rights," said Johann P. Fritz,
director of the International Press Institute.

Peter Eigen, chairman of the Board of Transparency
International, said, "We have long believed in the
power of coalitions to combat corruption in all its
forms. The media has an important watchdog role to
hold to account those in positions of power. To be
credible in this role, it is essential that
journalists refuse bribes and the corporate sector
desists from offering bribes. It is also crucial that
editors, publishers and media owners give journalists
all the support they need to implement the media
transparency principles announced today."

"Courageous reporters risk life and limb every day to
defend press freedom and human rights," said Aidan
White, general secretary of the International
Federation of Journalists. "We cannot stand by while
bribery mocks those sacrifices, anywhere in the
world."

"We represent professional public relations
associations in 53 countries, and we want to bring
that grassroots strength to this coalition for media
transparency," said Jean Valin, chair of the Global
Alliance for Public Relations and Communications
Management. "This is closely linked to ethics in
organizations, which is a cornerstone of effective and
credible communication with the public."

"Last year the Institute for Public Relations joined
with the International Public Relations Association to
release a comprehensive index that ranks 66 nations
for the likelihood that print journalists will seek or
accept cash for news coverage," said Frank Ovaitt,
president and CEO-Elect of the Institute. "We continue
to believe this is a critical issue that serious
journalists and public relations people must address
together."

------

The International Public Relations Association is the
premier association for senior international public
relations professionals, with over 1000 members
worldwide.

The International Press Institute is a global
organization with members in 115 countries dedicated
to the promotion and protection of press freedom and
the improvement of the practices of journalism. IPI's
membership is made up of editors, media executives and
leading journalists working for some of the world's
most respected media outlets.

The International Federation of Journalists is the
world's largest organization of journalists. The
Federation represents around 500,000 members in more
than 100 countries and promotes international action
to defend press freedom and social justice through
strong, free and independent trade unions of
journalists.

Transparency International, founded in Berlin,
Germany, is a nonprofit worldwide coalition which is
committed exclusively to fighting corruption. It
raises public awareness of the damaging impact of
corruption on social and economic development, and
mobilizes the government, private sector and civil
society to work together.

The Global Alliance is composed of over 50 member
organizations, representing more than 150,000
individuals, with a mission to unify the profession
and provide a framework for collaboration among the
public relations profession and its practitioners
throughout the world.

The Institute for Public Relations, located at the
University of Florida, is dedicated to improving the
professional practice of public relations through
research, education, measurement and evaluation. The
Institute's study of bribery for news coverage can be
accessed at:
http://www.instituteforpr.com/international.phtml?article_id=bribery_index

http://www.usnewswire.com/

-0-

/© 2004 U.S. Newswire 202-347-2770/



Printer Friendly Format
© 2004 U.S. Newswire

Posted by richard at 12:23 PM

OSCE Mission Will Whitewash US Election?

The LNS is not so convinced that the OSCE monitoring
will be a whitewash of a Bush cabal "re-election"
theft, because the Bush cabal can no longer control
significant elements with the US foreign policy
estabslishment, the US military and the US
intelligence community...There are too many patriot
professionals who understand the foolish military
adventure in Iraq for what it is, a Mega Mogadishu and
a staggering historial mistake, and there are too many
patriot professionals who know more than is
acknowledged about the Bush cabal's pre-9/11
incompetence (at best) and post-9/11 blunders in the
botched, bungled, mis-named "war on terrorism." No,
OSCE monitoring could well back-fire on the Bush
cabal...The Allies know what time it is, NATO knows
what time is it, much of Beltwayistan itself knows
what time it is...There are many forces at work in
this struggle who would be quite comfortable with a
whitewash in Georgia that will not allow one here for
the very same overarching reasons, national security
and global security...Nevertheless, this bloggers
cautionary tale about the OCSE is very important, and
could turn out to be prophetic. Of course, it would be
better if not only the OCSE, but also the UN and the
Csrter Center were involved...Russo's article on the
OCSE in Georgia (the country) is particularly
poignant, since Georgia (the state)is one of those
that has been severly compromised with "electronic
voting." The LNS does not believe that Max Cleland
lost his US Senate seat in 2002 by the will of the
voters. Of course, the LNS doesn't think that bad
weather took the life of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D-MN)
either.

Tim Russo: Reality check, folks. The State Dept.
jumped at this because it isn't a threat.
Anyone who has participated in any OSCE election
observation mission (I've been on three) knows that
the verdict of the mission will be written by OSCE
member state ambassadors, who have political agendas
to grind. Guess who is the most important member
state of the OSCE - the US. Guess who appoints the
ambassador to the OSCE - GW Bush.
In January, I wrote a piece for the London Sunday
Times on the impending OSCE election observation
mission in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia,
warning of a whitewash (which happened.) It's a good
primer on the OSCE's internal processes...
The OSCE will then have a choice between issuing a
statement, the first draft of which is likely already
written, that reports what actually happens, or one
that will predictably refer to these practices as not
having `affected the outcome', that despite these
shortcomings, the result will have `reflected the will
of the people'. It is a crucial moment for the OSCE,
an organization that appears to be attempting to
rehabilitate its credibility. Perhaps the OSCE will
finally get the timing right.


Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/8/10/101655/478


OSCE Mission Will Whitewash US Election
by grassy

Reality check, folks. The State Dept. jumped at this
because it isn't a threat.
Anyone who has participated in any OSCE election
observation mission (I've been on three) knows that
the verdict of the mission will be written by OSCE
member state ambassadors, who have political agendas
to grind. Guess who is the most important member
state of the OSCE - the US. Guess who appoints the
ambassador to the OSCE - GW Bush.

In January, I wrote a piece for the London Sunday
Times on the impending OSCE election observation
mission in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia,
warning of a whitewash (which happened.) It's a good
primer on the OSCE's internal processes.

I pasted it here (you can't get it online unless you
subscribe to the Sunday Times.)

Georgia vs. the election observers.
By Tim Russo

"You're joking," my British friend whispered to me
as he came to a stop after racing into the building
with urgency.

We stood at the back of an old auditorium, packed with
international press, government officials, embassy
staff, and observers of the 1998 presidential election
in Armenia. The head of the Organization for Security
and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) international
observation mission sat at a table in the front,
calmly reading the delegation's preliminary statement
on the conduct of the election the previous day. I
looked down at the ground in stunned silence.

"I just got back from my count," my friend said in
disbelief.

"Have you even showered?" I asked.

"Haven't showered in a day and a half," he said. "We
went to the OSCE office, they told us to come here,"
he said. "I just got out of the car after an eight
hour drive," he finished, panting.

I feared what was coming.

He'd just been an observer at a late night vote count
in a remote, mountainous border region where military
manipulation of the election was expected, and turned
out to be particularly egregious. "Where do I take
these?" he said waving a stack of notes and documents
in the air, his voice now frustrated. I just looked
at him and shook my head, having spent the previous
night at an equally farcical vote count myself until 9
a.m. that morning.

He started looking around for someone in charge.
"What is going on here? Why is the statement being
issued, I haven't even reported from my assignment?"
I just rubbed my forehead as my friend kept charging
about the back of the room with his documents, his
desperation telling it all about how the election must
have gone where he'd observed it.

Then we heard from the podium, "...a step forward for
democracy..."

My friend lost it. He stopped in his tracks. I
walked over to try and calm him down, but he just
looked at me in shock, shoving my outstretched arm
away. "What a fucking joke...," he said with one last
wave of his notes, then he threw them to the floor
angrily, turned around, and marched out of the
building in disgust, as the head of the delegation
calmly continued reading his verdict of approval.

Since the soviet collapse, it seems every new election
in the post soviet republics deteriorates into more of
a sham than the one before it, 2003 proving a banner
year for post soviet electoral fraud. This year, the
OSCE, post soviet international election observers of
record, condemned various elections in Armenia,
Azerbaijan, Georgia, and even Russia, whose December 7
parliamentary election it described in its preliminary
statement as `overwhelmingly distorted'.

The people of Georgia, however, finally refused to
accept yet another fraudulent election. Helped along
by the condemnation of election observers (OSCE as
well as domestic observers), the people power in the
streets of Tbilisi in November forced out the
president, Edward Shevardnadze. Enough had become
enough, and now there is great hope for a new era in
Georgia of elections free of manipulation, beginning
with the presidential election January 4.

As my British friend would agree, Georgia need look no
further than its rugged southern border for guidance
in the days ahead. In 1998, Armenia faced very
similar circumstances. A president who relied on
electoral fraud to stay in power was forced to resign.
A new election was scheduled, the OSCE descended en
masse to observe. And a similar hope for a future of
free and fair elections was in the air. But Georgians
should watch the OSCE as carefully as they watch their
election processes, for the OSCE's recent boldness in
the aftermath of this year's many sham elections is
very recent indeed.

Run by member states, OSCE observation missions exist
in a diplomatic no mans land; on the one hand
dedicated to promote integrity in the democratic
process, but on the other, representing the political
and economic policy interests of the member states.
The result is that far from being disinterested
guarantors of democratic integrity, OSCE election
observation missions, and especially the statements
they make in the immediate aftermath of an election,
are not unblinking verdicts by a referee, but more
often are delicate balancing acts of high diplomacy.

It is a balance the OSCE has often gotten exactly
wrong at precisely the wrong moment. As the new
democracies of the former Soviet Union were finding
their feet, and member states of the OSCE were
assessing the new geopolitical realities, OSCE
election observation missions found ever more creative
ways to gloss over the ever more fraudulent elections.
Whatever the competing interest, the commitment to
helping these new democracies create fair electoral
processes regularly took a back seat, with the
perverse result that messy elections were not only
ignored, but made even messier by the OSCE and the
increasing caricature of their increasingly
predictable whitewashes.

Armenia's presidential election in 1998 was a prime
example. As an observer within the OSCE mission at
the time, I had a front row seat to not only observe
the pervasive electoral fraud, but also the OSCE's
delicate balancing act between the compelling
observations the observers kept reporting, and the
member states' interest in ignoring them. The
resulting OSCE verdict, a masterfully acrobatic
navigation of statements and reports that managed the
least amount of honesty when it was most needed,
rubber stamped an election widely described by
experienced observer delegates at the time as perhaps
the most sophisticated electoral fraud they'd ever
witnessed.

The timing of the OSCE's abdication of its
responsibility in Armenia in 1998 could not have been
worse. After years of preceding electoral
manipulation, as a chance arose for democracy to
change the course of a troubled country, the OSCE
hailed a thorough fraud as a `step forward' for
democracy, writing off the blatant joke of precincts
reporting 300% turnout as not causing them `to
question the result'. The result in the years since
has been the rapidly accelerating rot of Armenia's
democracy.

The OSCE should be applauded for its honesty in 2003,
but perhaps with a slow hand clap rather than a
standing ovation. Its talk this year is quite cheap.
For when it mattered most, when a credible
international organization's verdict on the conduct of
an election could have affected democratic processes
for the better, the OSCE too often has blinked.
Elections in Armenia, Russia, Georgia, or the other
former soviet republics, did not suddenly become
`overwhelmingly distorted' overnight and in secret;
they've been deteriorating predictably and in full
view for more than a decade. The OSCE's sudden, too
little, and far too late honesty about electoral
processes which are rotten to the core - processes
the OSCE itself has had a hand in perpetuating - might
actually be comic if it weren't so tragic.

Georgia in 2004 may be different. The OSCE did have
an effect on the November election. And if they are
willing and able to stay as honest about the next one,
Georgia may finally find the courage to not only
refuse their legacy of electoral fraud, but work to
eradicate it.
It is likely, however, that the OSCE balancing act is
in full swing already. The likely next president,
Mikhail Saakashvilli, is a friendly protégé of the
OSCE member states. He will likely win in a
landslide, whether or not there is any fraud, and the
OSCE will want nothing to taint his victory. Clean
reporting of electoral manipulation may already be
taking a back seat to the rise of a friendly new ally
in a difficult and unstable region.

Fraud there will certainly be. It is tempting to
think that the people power in Georgia that refused
the latest fraud can herald a new interest in fair and
clean processes, that somehow the disappearance of a
corrupt figurehead will result in the disappearance of
the deep rooted structure of electoral manipulation
that kept him there.

But the practices of looking the other way while a
ballot box is stuffed, or taking advantage of
miserably inaccurate voter lists, forging a signature
here or a vote total there, bribing or blackmailing
voters with meager amounts of money that are many
times their monthly salaries, have a way of sticking
around and metastasizing into a permanent cancer if
ignored for too long.

The OSCE will then have a choice between issuing a
statement, the first draft of which is likely already
written, that reports what actually happens, or one
that will predictably refer to these practices as not
having `affected the outcome', that despite these
shortcomings, the result will have `reflected the will
of the people'. It is a crucial moment for the OSCE,
an organization that appears to be attempting to
rehabilitate its credibility. Perhaps the OSCE will
finally get the timing right.

For Georgia, though, much more is at stake than
institutional credibility. It will soon have a new
president who will likely bring hope for a new future.
Whether or not his election will herald a new, freer
democracy, is an open question.

Posted by richard at 12:20 PM

August 13, 2004

LNS Friday the 13th Special Edition Part Two -- Gail Sheehy: Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11

At the DNC, Bill Clinton said, "Remember the
Scripture, Be not afraid." Yes, there will be a Day of
Reckoning over the Bush abomination's pre-9/11
INCOMPETENCE (at best) and their post-9/11 BLUNDERS
(alientating the world, inflaming the Arab Street, and
draining our own resources away from the hunt for Al
Qaeda)...The 9/11 Commission wasted an extraordinary opportunity to finish off the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's SHAMEFUL performance, although it revealed more about his INCOMPETENCE (at best) and BLUNDERS than the "US mainstream news media" will serve up to you, BUT the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's Day of Reckoning is coming -- at the ballot box -- in November 2004...There is a Electoral Uprising coming...The SILENCED Majority is about to cry out...Michael Moore poured the political gasoline, Bruce Springsteen and the Dixie Chicks are about to light the political fuse, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) and his "Band of Brothers" will soon kick down the front door of the White House with a CONSTITUTIONAL ramrod (Electoral College victory) and end this Chickenhawk Coup...And then in January after there is an orderly transition of power, Al Qaeda will get its Day of Reckoning. At the DNC, Sen. John Edwards said, "And we, John and I, we will have one clear unmistakable message for al Qaeda and these terrorists: You cannot run. You cannot hide. We will destroy you."

Friday the 13th P.S. from Dunston Woods: "Now that the woods are inside the castle walls, just call me Freddie."

Gail Sheehy, LA Times: "Two planes hitting the twin
towers did not rise to the level of Rumsfeld's leaving
his office and going to the War Room? How can that
be?" asked Mindy Kleinberg, one of the widows known as
the Jersey Girls, whose efforts helped create and
guide the 9/11 commission. The fact that the final
report failed to offer an explanation is one of the
infuriating holes in an otherwise praiseworthy
accounting...
Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March
was bizarre. Asked point-blank by Commissioner Jamie
Gorelick what he had done to protect the nation — or
even the Pentagon — during the "summer of threat"
preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that
"it was a law enforcement issue." That obfuscation —
was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with
shoulder-launched missiles? — has been accepted at
face value by the commission and media...
The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system;
they were human failures. Yet, so far, no one has been
fired, which leaves the 9/11 families — and all of us
— in a conundrum.
The inaction of both the president and the Defense
chief under the ultimate test offer little reassurance
to a nervous nation under the shadow of new terror
warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire
security system, shouldn't our government look first
at why the people in charge failed to communicate or
coordinate a response to the catastrophe?

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-sheehy13aug13,1,571727.story?coll=la-news-comment-opinions

COMMENTARY
Rumsfeld and Bush Failed Us on Sept. 11
By Gail Sheehy

August 13, 2004

Donald Rumsfeld, one of the chief opponents of
investing real power over purse and personnel in a new
national intelligence chief, told the 9/11 commission
that an intelligence czar would do the nation "a great
disservice." It is fair to ask what kind of service
Rumsfeld provided on the day the nation was under
catastrophic attack.

"Two planes hitting the twin towers did not rise to
the level of Rumsfeld's leaving his office and going
to the War Room? How can that be?" asked Mindy
Kleinberg, one of the widows known as the Jersey
Girls, whose efforts helped create and guide the 9/11
commission. The fact that the final report failed to
offer an explanation is one of the infuriating holes
in an otherwise praiseworthy accounting.

Rumsfeld was missing in action that morning — "out of
the loop" by his own admission. The lead military
officer that day, Brig. Gen. Montague Winfield, told
the commission that the Pentagon's command center had
been essentially leaderless: "For 30 minutes we
couldn't find" Rumsfeld.

For more than two hours after the Federal Aviation
Administration became aware that the first plane had
been violently overtaken by Middle Eastern men, the
man whose job it was to order air cover over
Washington did not show up in the Pentagon's command
center. It took him almost two hours to "gain
situational awareness," he told the commission. He
didn't speak to the vice president until 10:39 a.m.,
according to the report. Since that was more than 30
minutes after the last hijacked plane crashed, it
would seem to be an admission of dereliction of duty.

Rumsfeld's testimony before the commission last March
was bizarre. Asked point-blank by Commissioner Jamie
Gorelick what he had done to protect the nation — or
even the Pentagon — during the "summer of threat"
preceding the attacks, Rumsfeld replied simply that
"it was a law enforcement issue." That obfuscation —
was the FBI expected to be out on the Beltway with
shoulder-launched missiles? — has been accepted at
face value by the commission and media.

Rumsfeld is in charge of NORAD, which has the specific
mission of protecting the United States and Canada by
responding to any form of air attack. The official
chain of command in the event of a hijacking calls for
the president to empower the secretary of Defense to
send up a military escort and, if necessary, give
shoot-down orders.

Yet President Bush told the panel he spoke to Rumsfeld
for the first time that morning shortly after 10 a.m.
— 23 minutes after the Pentagon was hit and moments
before the last plane went down. It was, says the
report, "a brief call in which the subject of
shoot-down authority was not discussed."

As a result, NORAD's commanders were left in the dark
about what their mission was. When fighters were told
to scramble from Langley, Va., they were sent not to
cover Washington but on a fool's mission to tail and
identify American Airlines Flight 11, which was
already boiling the first Trade Center tower to the
ground.

Why wasn't Rumsfeld able to see on TV what millions of
civilians already knew? After the Pentagon was
attacked, why did he run outside to play medic instead
of moving to the command center and taking charge? The
9/11 report records the fatal confusion in which
command center personnel were left: Three minutes
after the FAA command center told FAA headquarters in
an update that Flight 93 was 29 minutes out of
Washington, D.C., the command center said, "Uh, do we
want to, uh, think about scrambling aircraft?"

FAA headquarters: "Oh, God, I don't know."

Command center: "Uh, that's a decision somebody's
going to have to make probably in the next 10
minutes."

But nobody did. Three minutes later, Flight 93 was
wrestled to the ground by heroic civilians.

How is it that civilians in a hijacked plane were able
to communicate with their loved ones, grasp a totally
new kind of enemy and weaponry and act to defend the
nation's Capitol, yet the president had "communication
problems" on Air Force One and the nation's defense
chief didn't know what was going on until the horror
was all over?

The failures of 9/11 were not inherent in the system;
they were human failures. Yet, so far, no one has been
fired, which leaves the 9/11 families — and all of us
— in a conundrum.

The inaction of both the president and the Defense
chief under the ultimate test offer little reassurance
to a nervous nation under the shadow of new terror
warnings. Before we attempt to revamp the entire
security system, shouldn't our government look first
at why the people in charge failed to communicate or
coordinate a response to the catastrophe?

*


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gail Sheehy reported on the 9/11 commission's findings
for Mother Jones. She is the author of "Middletown,
America: One Town's Passage From Trauma to Hope"
(Random House, 2003).


If you want other stories on this topic, search the
Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options


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


Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times

Posted by richard at 05:56 PM

LNS Friday the 13th Special Edition: One of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's "Rangers" maxes out himself and his children for the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader

At least two more US soldiers died in Iraq within the
last 48 hours. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a
Three Stooges Reich. Meanwhile, more abysmal news on
the Bush Economy: Reuters reports that "the U.S. trade
deficit widened much more than expected in June,
hitting a record $55.8 billion as the biggest drop in
exports in nearly three years combined with record
imports, the government said on Friday," and CNBC
reports that "from the ports to the planes, the cost
of crude oil is eating into the bottom line. The
airlines alone are expected to spend another $4
billion on fuel this year compared to last." So what's
Rove going to do? FOLLOW THE MONEY. When will
www.commondreams.org and KPFA (Pacifica Radio) stop
coddling the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader and
also pitifully carrying the Bush cabal's filthy water
in the distortion of what Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong
Delta) says about the war in Iraq. These progressive
news sources are passing on the Rove/RNC distortions
of JFK's positions, just like the "US Mainstream News
Media," and even worse, they are looking the other way
and refusing to come to grips with the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader's BETRAYAL of all that is good...How fast can you say "Chief Justice Scalia" or even more insidiously (and ridiculously) "Chief Justice Thomas"? How do you feel about four more years of being AWOL on Global Warming?

Associated Press: Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard
Egan, the Bush campaign's finance chairman in John
Kerry's home state, has personally contributed the
maximum amount allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's
presidential campaign. Egan's son John and daughter in
law have each also "maxed out," bringing the family's
total to $6,000. Bush backers are hoping Nader will
siphon enough votes from Kerry to tip the election to
President Bush. The co-founder of data storage giant
EMC Corp. and Bush's former ambassador to Ireland,
Egan is legendary in Republican circles for his
ability to collect hundreds of thousands in campaign
dollars. He's a member of an elite group of Bush
fund-raisers known as "Rangers" -- those who have
helped raised more than $200,000 for the campaign.
Egan's two sons are also Rangers...
"He's an American citizen who is a Republican, just
happens to believe in civil liberties maybe," Nader
said during the debate on National Public Radio. "I
don't even know the man."

Save the US Constituion, Save the Environment, Restore
Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Repudiate
the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Support Our
Troops, Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential
Election, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush
(again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/081304V.shtml

BREAKING: Bush Finance Honcho Donated to Nader
The Associated Press

Thursday 12 August 2004

BOSTON - Ralph Nader has found an unexpected friend
in Massachusetts.

Hopkinton computer tycoon Richard Egan, the Bush
campaign's finance chairman in John Kerry's home
state, has personally contributed the maximum amount
allowed by law -- $2,000 -- to Nader's presidential
campaign. Egan's son John and daughter in law have
each also "maxed out," bringing the family's total to
$6,000. Bush backers are hoping Nader will siphon
enough votes from Kerry to tip the election to
President Bush. The co-founder of data storage giant
EMC Corp. and Bush's former ambassador to Ireland,
Egan is legendary in Republican circles for his
ability to collect hundreds of thousands in campaign
dollars. He's a member of an elite group of Bush
fund-raisers known as "Rangers" -- those who have
helped raised more than $200,000 for the campaign.
Egan's two sons are also Rangers.

Egan, who is retired from EMC and stepped down last
year as ambassador, has an unlisted phone number. A
message left for John Egan was not immediately
returned on Thursday.

While Nader has criticized both Kerry and Bush, it
is Democrats who fear him most. Many blame him for
luring away enough disgruntled Democrats in 2000 to
cost Al Gore the presidency.

During a debate last month with former Democratic
presidential hopeful Howard Dean, Nader said he didn't
know Egan, but defended his right to accept money from
Republicans.

"He's an American citizen who is a Republican, just
happens to believe in civil liberties maybe," Nader
said during the debate on National Public Radio. "I
don't even know the man."

Nader's prospects for getting on the ballot in
Massachusetts are unclear. He needs to submit
certified signatures from 10,000 registered voters by
Aug. 31. Democratic Secretary of State William Galvin
has said Nader may not pass that threshold.

Gary Hoffman, a spokesman for the Nader campaign in
Massachusetts, said the campaign has close to the
10,000 signatures and is confidentNader will get a
spot on the ballot.

-------

Posted by richard at 12:49 PM

August 12, 2004

Robert Scheer, CBS News -- Bush's Big Blunder: Chalabi

Chalabi, Abu Ghraib, Plame, WMD lies, Enron and the phoney "California energy crisis," the August 6th 2001 PDB, the fracturing of the Western Alliance, the MegaMogadishu that will soon claimed the 1000th US soldier's life, the gutting of the federal surplus and the $400 billion plus federal deficit, Medifraud, the prostitution of the EPA, four years lost in the struggle to cope with the Global Warming crisis...Drip, drip, drip...Only "drip, drip, drip" because the anchor men of the major network news shows have their fingers in the dike...But look, Robert Sheer with a CBS News by-line..."Something is happening here, but you don't know what it is, do you Mr. Rove?"

Robert Scheer, CBS News: In January, when President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech to Congress celebrating the success of the "pre-emptive" war against Iraq, a controversial Iraqi exile named Ahmad Chalabi sat in a place of honor behind First Lady Laura Bush...How ironic that a close alliance between Iraq and the fanatical ayatollahs of Iran is the most likely accomplishment of the U.S. invasion. That would lend credence to the claim in a revealing Newsweek cover story on Ahmad Chalabi's checkered past that "the Bushies were bamboozled by a Machiavellian con man for the ages."

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/11/opinion/main635384.shtml

Bush's Big Blunder: Chalabi
By Robert Scheer
CBS News
Originally Appearing in The Nation

Wednesday 11 August 2004

In January, when President Bush delivered his State of the Union speech to Congress celebrating the success of the "pre-emptive" war against Iraq, a controversial Iraqi exile named Ahmad Chalabi sat in a place of honor behind First Lady Laura Bush.

The symbolism was no accident: Despite being a fugitive from Jordan for a conviction in absentia on bank fraud charges, this darling of neoconservative hard-liners was the Pentagon's and White House's favored and well-paid advisor on all things Iraq -- including weapons of mass destruction, ties with al Qaeda and the odds for a post-invasion insurgency. As is now apparent, he and his cronies seemed to have lied spectacularly about it all.

Then, as part of the invasion in 2003, Chalabi and a ragtag militia were flown into Iraq at U.S. taxpayer expense. Soon he was appointed by the U.S.-led coalition authority to the Iraqi Governing Council, and his power was enhanced as relatives and members of the organization he headed, the Iraq National Congress, were appointed to key ministries.

When his nephew Salem was named the lead prosecutor of Saddam Hussein, it appeared clear that despite polls showing him to be the least trusted politician in Iraq, Ahmad Chalabi was doing quite well for himself. Salem bragged on his law firm's website that through his influence, foreign investors could profitably participate in Iraq's $75 billion reconstruction effort.

Today, however, it is hard to imagine that anybody would want to be in Ahmad Chalabi's shoes -- or those of the many top officials of Bush's White House, including Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, who so assiduously backed him. The story reads like a trashy summer spy novel: Over the weekend while he was at his vacation home in Iran -- you know, one of the "axis of evil" countries that actually has a nuclear weapons program -- Chalabi was charged with counterfeiting by a U.S.-appointed judge in Iraq. Salem, in London at the moment, was charged with murder. The elder Chalabi is also still being investigated by U.S. intelligence agencies for his possible role in passing top-secret data to Iran.

For those keeping score at home, that's two indicted Chalabis, one huge black eye for the Bush Administration and a healthy dose of vindication for the CIA and the State Department, both of which decided long ago that Ahmad Chalabi wasn't trustworthy and strongly objected to his being tapped as a handy George Washington for "liberated" Iraq.

Both Chalabis are declaring their innocence. Steady Chalabi defenders, led by New York Times columnist William Safire, and Ahmad Chalabi himself claim that all his problems stem from a vendetta by L. Paul Bremer III, the recently departed U.S. administrator of occupied Iraq. Could that possibly explain why Chalabi, once the U.S. invasion's loudest Iraqi backer, is now calling on fundamentalist Shiites to expel the Americans?

Ahmad Chalabi may be able to defend himself against these latest fraud charges, but that will hardly clear his name. His strong and continuing ties to Tehran and allegations that he has spied for Iran raise a very serious question few seem eager to confront: 'Was Our Man Chalabi' a double agent working for the theocratic ayatollahs when he helped lobby and lie the United States into overthrowing Hussein, Iran's despotic but secular enemy?

And beyond Chalabi, why did it so thoroughly escape the Bush Administration and much of the media that in deposing the secular Sunni tyrant Hussein we would open the door for the Iraqi Shiite majority to create its own regime -- one that would most likely be sympathetic to Shiite Iran not only for religious reasons but because many of its new leaders had been sheltered, armed and financially supported by Tehran when they were in exile.

How ironic that a close alliance between Iraq and the fanatical ayatollahs of Iran is the most likely accomplishment of the U.S. invasion. That would lend credence to the claim in a revealing Newsweek cover story on Ahmad Chalabi's checkered past that "the Bushies were bamboozled by a Machiavellian con man for the ages."

Of course, if we re-elect this President, then we'll be the dumbest marks of all.

-------

Robert Scheer is a contributing editor to The Nation.

-------

Jump to TO Features for Friday August 13, 2004

Posted by richard at 08:57 PM

Economy is Bush's downfall

It's how the Media covers the Economy, Stupid. Here is a rare departure from the Orwellian distortion, excuses and convenient memory lapses that DIStinguish the the "US mainstream news media" coverage of the Bush Economy.

David Lazarus, S.F. Chronicle: Here are just a few of the numbers:

-- When Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 10,587.59. It closed Tuesday at 9,944.67.

-- When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. It's now 5.5 percent, according to the Labor Department.

-- When Bush took office, U.S. consumer debt totaled almost $1.7 trillion. It's now $2.038 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.
-- When Bush took office, bankruptcy filings during the previous year totaled almost 1.3 million, down 5 percent from a year before. By Dec. 31, 2003, bankruptcies had hit a record of nearly 1.7 million, up 5.2 percent from 2002, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.
-- When Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for three straight years and was, in the 2000 fiscal year, running a surplus of $236 billion -- the largest in U.S. history. The White House is projecting a record budget deficit this year of $445 billion.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2004/08/11/BUGNE85QFS1.DTL


LAZARUS AT LARGE

Economy is Bush's downfall

David Lazarus
Wednesday, August 11, 2004

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


Sometimes I sympathize with President Bush. Really.

Last week's dismal report on job creation -- a scant 32,000 jobs created versus 240,000 expected -- left our re-election-seeking president little wiggle room on the economic front.

"Economic growth is strong and getting stronger," Bush told a gathering of minority journalists after the jobs number was released.

It can't be easy to have to defend your economic policies when all evidence suggests that average Americans are worse off today than they were four years ago.

Here are just a few of the numbers:

-- When Bush took office on Jan. 20, 2001, the Dow Jones industrial average was at 10,587.59. It closed Tuesday at 9,944.67.

-- When Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent. It's now 5.5 percent, according to the Labor Department.

-- When Bush took office, U.S. consumer debt totaled almost $1.7 trillion. It's now $2.038 trillion, according to the Federal Reserve.

-- When Bush took office, bankruptcy filings during the previous year totaled almost 1.3 million, down 5 percent from a year before. By Dec. 31, 2003, bankruptcies had hit a record of nearly 1.7 million, up 5.2 percent from 2002, according to the American Bankruptcy Institute.

-- When Bush took office, the federal budget had been balanced for three straight years and was, in the 2000 fiscal year, running a surplus of $236 billion -- the largest in U.S. history. The White House is projecting a record budget deficit this year of $445 billion.

All this must be placed in context, though. When Bush came to power, the U.S. economy was at the tail end of a dot-com-fueled bubble that couldn't have been sustained under any circumstances. A recession, most economists believe, was all but inevitable.

Then there was Sept. 11.

A tough hand

"Every president is dealt a hand of cards," said John Shoven, a Stanford University economist and senior fellow at the conservative Hoover Institution. "Bush inherited a pretty tough hand."

The average American is indeed worse off now than four years ago, he said. But Shoven gives Bush "a passing grade, maybe a B-plus," for his handling of the economy.

"Overall, the economy has performed pretty well given the shocks it has faced," he said, adding that credit for this "has to be significantly shared with Alan Greenspan," the Fed chief, who boosted a key interest rate Tuesday by a quarter-point.

Jared Bernstein, senior economist at the liberal Economic Policy Institute in Washington, agreed that Bush was dealt a tough hand when he took office.

"What he failed to do, though, was take decisive action to ameliorate the problems he inherited," Bernstein said.

The president's key economic error, he said, was to attempt to stimulate the economy by skewing the benefits of three tax cuts toward wealthy Americans.

According to Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal-leaning Washington think tank, nearly 40 percent of the benefits from Bush's tax cuts will go to the richest 1 percent of Americans, those earning on average $1 million a year.

By contrast, only about 17 percent of the benefits will go to the 60 percent of the population earning $45,000 or less.

"The tax cuts made no sense as a stimulus measure," said Bob McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice. "If you want to stimulate the economy, you have to give money to people who don't already have it."

Bernstein said a crucial problem for many Americans today is that wages are significantly lagging behind inflation.

Prices up 3%

During the past 12 months, average hourly earnings increased by 1.9 percent, according to the Labor Department. Consumer prices, meanwhile, have risen by about 3 percent.

"The middle-income family is definitely worse off than four years ago," Bernstein said.

He noted that it would take extraordinary growth -- about 400,000 new jobs a month between now and November -- for Bush to avoid the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to see a net decline in jobs during a term of office.

"We are more than a million jobs below where we were at the employment peak in March 2001," Bernstein observed.

Even Shoven at the Hoover Institution had to acknowledge the seriousness of the job-loss situation. "It's bad," he said.

People I spoke with in random encounters this week conveyed a clear perception that things are tougher for them economically than when Bush first took power.

"Real estate's through the roof, gas prices, tolls, food, movies, cigarettes -- everything's gone up," observed Ron Cairns, 40, a Redwood City electrician. "But wages have stayed the same."

Cairns, a Democrat, blamed Bush for most of the current difficulties.

"Everyone's in a state of fear," he said, "worrying about the war and worrying about their next paycheck."

Niles Helmboldt, 37, a San Francisco banker and a Republican, offered an almost identical perspective.

"I'm not as well off as I was," he acknowledged. "My cost of living has gone up, but wages have not kept pace."

Not helping

Is this Bush's fault?

"I don't see his economic policies helping," Helmboldt replied. "It's not a pretty picture."

After it was reported last week that just 32,000 jobs were created in July and that 61,000 fewer jobs were created in May and June than previously estimated, the president did his best to put all the grim news in a positive light.

"Today's employment report shows our economy is continuing to move forward," he said. "And it reminds us that we're in a changing economy and we've got more to do.

"I'm not going to be satisfied until everybody who wants to work can find a job," Bush added. "I'm running (for re-election) because I understand how to take a strong economy and make it stronger."

All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding.

David Lazarus' column appears Wednesdays, Fridays and Sundays. He also can be seen regularly on KTVU's "Mornings on 2." Send tips or feedback to dlazarus@sfchronicle.com.


Posted by richard at 03:29 PM

Rassman in the Wall Street Journal -- Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush: John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.

If you want the TRUTH about the zombies that the Bush cabal has unleashed to smear the reputation of Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta), go to David Brock's www.mediamatters.org. Brock is doing an extraordinary job of dissecting the liars and their lies...Media Matters has become a vital resource for the Information Rebellion...But for the TRUTH about JFK, here is Jim Rassman, speaking out in the WSJ..

Jim Rassmann, Wall Street Journal: I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democray in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110005460

CAMPAIGN 2004

Shame on the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush: John Kerry saved my life. Now his heroism is being questioned.

BY JIM RASSMANN
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 12:01 a.m. EDT

I came to know Lt. John Kerry during the spring of 1969. He and his swift boat crew assisted in inserting our Special Forces team and our Chinese Nung soldiers into operational sites in the Cau Mau Peninsula of South Vietnam. I worked with him on many operations and saw firsthand his leadership, courage and decision-making ability under fire.

On March 13, 1969, John Kerry's courage and leadership saved my life.

While returning from a SEA LORDS operation along the Bay Hap River, a mine detonated under another swift boat. Machine-gun fire erupted from both banks of the river, and a second explosion followed moments later. The second blast blew me off John's swift boat, PCF-94, throwing me into the river. Fearing that the other boats would run me over, I swam to the bottom of the river and stayed there as long as I could hold my breath.

When I surfaced, all the swift boats had left, and I was alone taking fire from both banks. To avoid the incoming fire, I repeatedly swam under water as long as I could hold my breath, attempting to make it to the north bank of the river. I thought I would die right there. The odds were against me avoiding the incoming fire and, even if I made it out of the river, I thought I'd be captured and executed. Kerry must have seen me in the water and directed his driver, Del Sandusky, to turn the boat around. Kerry's boat ran up to me in the water, bow on, and I was able to climb up a cargo net to the lip of the deck. But, because I was nearly upside down, I couldn't make it over the edge of the deck. This left me hanging out in the open, a perfect target. John, already wounded by the explosion that threw me off his boat, came out onto the bow, exposing himself to the fire directed at us from the jungle, and pulled me aboard.

For his actions that day, I recommended John for the Silver Star, our country's third highest award for bravery under fire. I learned only this past January that the Navy awarded John the Bronze Star with Combat V for his valor. The citation for this award, signed by the Commander of U.S. Naval Forces, Vietnam, Vice Admiral Elmo Zumwalt, read, "Lieutenant (junior grade) Kerry's calmness, professionalism and great personal courage under fire were in keeping with the highest traditions of the United States Naval Service." To this day I am grateful to John Kerry for saving my life. And to this day I still believe that he deserved the Silver Star for his courage.

It has been many years since I served in Vietnam. I returned home, got married, and spent many years as a deputy sheriff for Los Angeles County. I retired in 1989 as a lieutenant. It has been a long time since I left Vietnam, but I think often of the men who did not come home with us.

I am neither a politician nor an organizer. I am a retired police officer with a passion for orchids. Until January of this year, the only public presentations I made were about my orchid hobby. But in this presidential election, I had to speak out; I had to tell the American people about John Kerry, about his wisdom and courage, about his vision and leadership. I would trust John Kerry with my life, and I would entrust John Kerry with the well-being of our country.

Nobody asked me to join John's campaign. Why would they? I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans. I volunteered for his campaign because I have seen John Kerry in the worst of conditions. I know his character. I've witnessed his bravery and leadership under fire. And I truly know he will be a great commander in chief.

Now, 35 years after the fact, some Republican-financed Swift Boat Veterans for Bush are suddenly lying about John Kerry's service in Vietnam; they are calling him a traitor because he spoke out against the Nixon administration's failed policies in Vietnam. Some of these Republican-sponsored veterans are the same ones who spoke out against John at the behest of the Nixon administration in 1971. But this time their attacks are more vicious, their lies cut deep and are directed not just at John Kerry, but at me and each of his crewmates as well. This hate-filled ad asserts that I was not under fire; it questions my words and Navy records. This smear campaign has been launched by people without decency, people who don't understand the bond of those who serve in combat.

As John McCain noted, the television ad aired by these veterans is "dishonest and dishonorable." Sen. McCain called on President Bush to condemn the Swift Boat Veterans for Bush ad. Regrettably, the president has ignored Sen. McCain's advice.

Does this strategy of attacking combat Vietnam veterans sound familiar? In 2000, a similar Republican smear campaign was launched against Sen. McCain. In fact, the very same communications group, Spaeth Communications, that placed ads against John McCain in 2000 is involved in these vicious attacks against John Kerry. Texas Republican donors with close ties to George W. Bush and Karl Rove crafted this "dishonest and dishonorable" ad. Their new charges are false; their stories are fabricated, made up by people who did not serve with Kerry in Vietnam. They insult and defame all of us who served in Vietnam.
But when the noise and fog of their distortions and lies have cleared, a man who volunteered to serve his country, a man who showed up for duty when his country called, a man to whom the United States Navy awarded a Silver Star, a Bronze Star and three Purple Hearts, will stand tall and proud. Ultimately, the American people will judge these Swift Boat Veterans for Bush and their accusations. Americans are tired of smear campaigns against those who volunteered to wear the uniform. Swift Boat Veterans for Bush should hang their heads in shame.

Mr. Rassmann, a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department, served with the U.S. Army 5th Special Forces Group in Vietnam 1968-69.

RESPOND TO THIS ARTICLE READ RESPONSES E-MAIL THIS TO A FRIEND PRINT FRIENDLY FORMAT

HOME TOP OF PAGE BOOKMARK THIS SITE ARCHIVE

SUBSCRIBE TO THE WALL STREET JOURNAL ONLINE OR TAKE A TOUR

Posted by richard at 03:25 PM

August 11, 2004

Senator hires former Clinton lawyer for leak probe: Shelby served as chairman of intelligence panel

"Out, out damn spot!"
Another of America's true warriors persecuted by the Bush abomination...His name has been scrawled on the John O'Neill Wall of Heroes...
Is Sen. Richard Shelby (x-AL) coming home?

Associated Press: A Washington attorney who represented President Clinton at his impeachment trial and has a long association with Democrats will defend Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, against possible ethics charges that he leaked classified information to the media.
Gregory Craig, a partner at Williams & Connolly, will represent Shelby in an expected investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Craig's office confirmed Wednesday. Craig and Shelby's spokeswoman, Virginia Davis, both declined to comment on the case.
At issue are two messages intercepted by the National Security Agency on the eve of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Those messages contained the words "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero day" but they were not translated from Arabic until September 12.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/08/11/shelby.leak.ap/index.html

Senator hires former Clinton lawyer for leak probe: Shelby served as chairman of intelligence panel
Wednesday, August 11, 2004 Posted: 5:51 PM EDT (2151 GMT)



Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama



WASHINGTON (AP) -- A Washington attorney who represented President Clinton at his impeachment trial and has a long association with Democrats will defend Sen. Richard Shelby, R-Alabama, against possible ethics charges that he leaked classified information to the media.

Gregory Craig, a partner at Williams & Connolly, will represent Shelby in an expected investigation by the Senate Select Committee on Ethics, Craig's office confirmed Wednesday. Craig and Shelby's spokeswoman, Virginia Davis, both declined to comment on the case.

At issue are two messages intercepted by the National Security Agency on the eve of the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. Those messages contained the words "the match begins tomorrow" and "tomorrow is zero day" but they were not translated from Arabic until September 12.

The Justice Department has investigated whether Shelby leaked the classified information to news organizations in 2002.

Last month, the department referred the matter to the ethics committee, signaling criminal charges are unlikely. Shelby, the former chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, who was vice chairman at the time of the leak, has said he has never "knowingly compromised classified information."

Besides serving as a lead attorney in Clinton's impeachment proceedings, Craig represented the father of Cuban immigrant Elian Gonzalez in a highly publicized custody battle. His numerous high-profile criminal cases included representing President Reagan's attempted assassin, John Hinckley, and Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Massachusetts, when he was a witness in the rape trial of Kennedy's nephew, William Kennedy Smith.

A former Kennedy adviser on defense, foreign policy and national security, Craig also was director of policy planning for Clinton's secretary of state, Madeleine Albright.

Although Shelby was a Democrat earlier in his career, he has cut most of those ties, so the choice of Craig to represent him raised some eyebrows. But unlike most standing committees, where Republicans have the majority, the ethics panel is made up of three Democrats and three Republicans.

Shelby, up for re-election in November, doesn't appear to be in jeopardy of losing that race, regardless of how the ethics probe turns out.

Posted by richard at 07:33 PM

Pennsacola News Journal: Kerry strongmen gather area support

After "four years of hell," there are no more "Red"
and "Blue" states. There are only "Red, White and
Blue" states. The "US mainstream news media" and its
propapunditgandists are broadcasting to empty living
rooms. America is in the streets and on the
Internet...Here is a report from the real world, the
reason the increasingly unhinged and incredibly
shrinking _resident went to Pennsacola yesterday...to
protect his flank, and stop the bleeding from his
base...There is an Electoral Uprising is coming in
November 2004...

Doug Haller, Pensacola News Journal: Sen. Bob Graham led a spirited rally against President Bush on Monday at Seville Quarter's Heritage Hall in
downtown Pensacola, saying the president has no plan
for health care and no vision for the war in Iraq.
Former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia and Jim
Rassmann, a Vietnam veteran who credits Democratic
presidential hopeful John Kerry with saving his life
in combat, joined Graham in an hourlong event that
drew applause, chants and arguments with Republican
supporters lined across the street in protest.
"I thought our driver had picked a special route
because every other house had a Kerry/Edwards sign,''
said Graham, D-Miami Lakes. "But he said we could've
gone another way, and there were even more Kerry
signs. So you don't have to ask (about the region's
persuasion). You just have to open your eyes.''

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/news/html/70DD2DDF-2BCF-406D-8F29-ED713CEE1A55.shtml#

Kerry strongmen gather area support
Graham, Cleland, Rassmann speak at Seville
August 10, 2004
Doug Haller

@PensacolaNewsJournal.com


Joyce Lund , left and Harold Webb hoist their
pro-Kerry signs as the guest speakers arrive at the
rally held inside Heritage Hall in downtown Pensacola.
Photo by Gary McCracken @PensacolaNewsJournal.comU.S.

Sen. Bob Graham led a spirited rally against President
Bush on Monday at Seville Quarter's Heritage Hall in
downtown Pensacola, saying the president has no plan
for health care and no vision for the war in Iraq.

Former U.S. Sen. Max Cleland of Georgia and Jim
Rassmann, a Vietnam veteran who credits Democratic
presidential hopeful John Kerry with saving his life
in combat, joined Graham in an hourlong event that
drew applause, chants and arguments with Republican
supporters lined across the street in protest.

About 350 Panhandle residents attended the Democratic
rally, cramming into every corner of Heritage Hall,
leaning against the wall, sitting on the floor,
straining to hear every word, overflowing into
Government Street.

They chanted "Kerry! Kerry!'' They laughed at Bush's
expense.

More than a dozen veterans stood behind the speakers,
including one man who held a black cane in the one
hand, a "WWII Veterans Support Kerry'' sign in the
other.

The event preceded the president's three-stop
Panhandle tour today, which starts this morning at the
Pensacola Civic Center, where every seat has been
claimed. Republicans hope the president's arrival
again will nail down the conservative, military-rich
Panhandle, which vaulted Bush and vice-presidential
running mate Dick Cheney into power four years ago.

Graham, however, said he wasn't sure history would
repeat. Arriving at 2:20 p.m., he talked about his
ride in from Pensacola Aviation at PensacolaRegional
Airport, and the campaign signs he saw planted in
front yards.

"I thought our driver had picked a special route
because every other house had a Kerry/Edwards sign,''
said Graham, D-Miami Lakes. "But he said we could've
gone another way, and there were even more Kerry
signs. So you don't have to ask (about the region's
persuasion). You just have to open your eyes.''

Graham spoke about rising health-care costs and how
they have crippled many American families. He cited
reports that insurance costs for Americans have
increased by an average of $50 per month during Bush's
3½ years in office.

"President Bush has no clue how to control one of the
most out-of-control costs, because he has no plan for
it,'' said Graham, who dropped his presidency bid in
the fall. "John Kerry has a plan, and when he gets to
the White House, that's when we're going to see some
results.''

Cleland greeted Monday's crowd by saying he was
reporting for duty, playing off Kerry's speech at the
Democratic National Convention in Boston.

Known as a moderate Democrat during his six years in
the Senate, Cleland lost both legs and his right arm
to a grenade explosion in Vietnam. He later became the
youngest administrator of the Veterans Administration.

Cleland sarcastically mentioned that he wasn't invited
to Bush's Civic Center rally, but he still had
questions for the president, hoping someone would pass
them along.

Specifically, he wanted to know how Bush has managed
to squander all the international goodwill accumulated
after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

And what about the 60,000 jobs Florida has lost during
Bush's term in office, Cleland wondered. What about
the rising bankruptcy rate in Florida? What about the
lack of funding for veterans hospitals?

"These are the questions we need to be asking,''
Cleland said.

Rassmann admitted all this was new to him. Months ago,
he was just a retired California cop, planting flowers
in his garden. He chuckled at how his life has
changed.

In 1969, Rassmann was a Green Beret in Vietnam, riding
in a river boat on the Hap River. The boat hit a mine
and came under enemy fire. Rassmann could have died,
but then-Navy Lt. Kerry ordered his boat to turn
around and help.

Kerry, wounded himself, ordered his gunners to provide
suppressing fire, then risked his life to pull
Rassmann from the river. Kerry earned one of his three
Purple Hearts for the act of bravery. He also captured
a future supporter in a presidential race that could
be tight.

Rassmann said he originally supported the war. He felt
it was the right thing to do. He argued with friends,
who told him he was naive -- that our leaders had no
idea what they were doing, that forcing war with
little international support was the wrong move.

"I argued, and I was wrong,'' Rassmann said.

He called Kerry's campaign office on the eve of the
Iowa caucuses in January and since has been involved
in the Massachusetts senator's election efforts.

"We have to do what's intelligent,'' Rassmann said.
"We have squandered (billions of dollars). But more
important: We have squandered 925 lives. Our brothers,
sons and fathers, and in some cases our daughters and
mothers.''

Zoya Webster-Phillips, 61, of Pensacola watched from a
corner of Heritage Hall, an approving grin on her
face. After the rally, she said she thought the
speakers were awesome.

She motioned to Cleland, who was shaking hands from
his wheelchair just yards away.

"I wish he was running,'' Webster-Phillips said. "He's
a living witness. He risked his life to fight. I value
his opinion. '

©The Pensacola News Journal
August 10, 2004
Copyright © 1997- 2004 The Pensacola News Journal,
Pensacola, Florida. Use of this site signifies your
agreement to the Terms of Service (updated
12/20/2002). TODAY'S LOCAL NEWS


Posted by richard at 06:16 PM

LA Times: White House Has Some Terror Experts Worried: Officials here and overseas say U.S. alerts and release of information could hinder broader investigations.

The botched, bungled mis-named "war on terrorism" is
not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the
SHAME of the Bush abomination...Are you safer today
than you were four years ago? No.

Jeffrey Fleishman, Los Angeles Times: Heightened
terror alerts and high-profile arrests of suspected
Islamic extremists have international security experts
and officials concerned that the Bush administration's
actions could jeopardize investigations into the Al
Qaeda network.
European terrorism analysts acknowledge that the U.S.
and its allies are under threat by Al Qaeda, but some
suggest that the White House is unnecessarily adding
to public anxiety with vague and dated intelligence
about possible attacks. Some in Western Europe suspect
the administration is using fear to improve its
chances in the November election.
Terrorism experts say too much publicity about
possible plots and raids of Islamic extremist
networks, including the arrest of 13 suspects in
Britain last week, could hurt wider investigations.
American politicians have called for an examination of
that contention. Officials in Pakistan reportedly said
Tuesday that Washington's recent disclosure of the
arrest of a suspected Al Qaeda operative, Mohammed
Naeem Noor Khan, allowed other extremists under
surveillance to disappear.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-terror11aug11.story
August 11, 2004 E-mail story Print

White House Has Some Terror Experts Worried: Officials here and overseas say U.S. alerts and release of information could hinder broader investigations.

By Jeffrey Fleishman, Times Staff Writer


BERLIN — Heightened terror alerts and high-profile
arrests of suspected Islamic extremists have
international security experts and officials concerned
that the Bush administration's actions could
jeopardize investigations into the Al Qaeda network.

European terrorism analysts acknowledge that the U.S.
and its allies are under threat by Al Qaeda, but some
suggest that the White House is unnecessarily adding
to public anxiety with vague and dated intelligence
about possible attacks. Some in Western Europe suspect
the administration is using fear to improve its
chances in the November election.

Terrorism experts say too much publicity about
possible plots and raids of Islamic extremist
networks, including the arrest of 13 suspects in
Britain last week, could hurt wider investigations.
American politicians have called for an examination of
that contention. Officials in Pakistan reportedly said
Tuesday that Washington's recent disclosure of the
arrest of a suspected Al Qaeda operative, Mohammed
Naeem Noor Khan, allowed other extremists under
surveillance to disappear.

"It causes a problem. There's no doubt about that,"
said Charles Heyman, editor of Jane's World Armies.
"The moment you make any announcement, you tell the
other side what you know. As a rule of thumb, you
should keep quiet about what you know."

British security officials are angry over recent U.S.
revelations of terrorist threats and arrests, said
Paul Beaver, an international defense analyst based in
London. He said the attitude among some British
intelligence officials was that the "Americans have a
very strange way of thanking their friends, by
revealing names of agents, details of plots and
operations."

Along with such criticism, the administration faces
questions at home about how it handles terrorism
investigations and alerts. It insists it hasn't used
the alerts to further Bush's political campaign, but
some Democrats disagree.

Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) asked the White
House, in a letter to national security advisor
Condoleezza Rice, to explain how Khan's name was made
public and whether the disclosure had jeopardized any
investigations.

Rice said over the weekend that she did not know
whether Khan was cooperating with Pakistani
authorities, and she said his name had not been
disclosed publicly by the administration. The
administration has tried to find a middle ground
between informing the public and keeping
investigations secret, she said.

"We've tried to strike a balance," Rice said. "We
think for the most part we've struck a balance, but
it's indeed a very difficult balance to strike."

Several senior U.S. counterterrorism officials have
expressed concern in the last week about the amount of
information leaking out, saying it has begun to have a
direct and negative effect on efforts to round up
suspects and gain insight into any conspirators.

"It is really hurting our efforts in a very
demonstrable way," said one official, who declined to
elaborate.

Larry Johnson, a former senior counterterrorism
official at the State Department and CIA, said Tuesday
that the leaks were part of a pattern in which the
administration had undercut its own efforts to fight
terrorism by divulging details when doing so was
deemed politically advantageous.

The administration "has a dismal track record in
protecting these secrets," said Johnson, deputy
director of the State Department's Office of
Counterterrorism from 1989 to 1993.

"We have now learned, thanks to White House leaks,
that the Al Qaeda operative was being used to help
authorities around the world locate and apprehend
other Al Qaeda terrorists," Johnson said, citing
reports that the disclosures "enabled other Al Qaeda
operatives to escape."

"Protecting secrets and sources is serious business,"
he added. "Regrettably, the Bush administration
appears to be putting more emphasis on politicizing
intelligence and the war on terror. That approach
threatens our national security, in my judgment."

Officials in Western Europe are reluctant to speak
even off the record on intelligence matters. Most
governments here are more circumspect in announcing
possible terrorist threats and are concerned that
Washington is acting too quickly on intelligence that
has not been thoroughly analyzed. Germany, France and
Britain have not raised their terror alerts during the
August vacation season.

"The Code Orange disaster in the U.S. last week was
quickly followed by raids in Pakistan and arrests in
Britain, which all help the Bush administration show
there is a global terrorist network," said Kai
Hirschmann, deputy director of the Institute for
Terrorism Research in Essen, Germany. "But I think
there's a bit of politics behind it.

"What makes it complex is that we know there are
dangers out there, and that makes it difficult to tell
fact from fiction," he said. "With all this media
attention, one has to wonder what else is at work."

But other countries, such as Italy, one of the closest
U.S. allies on Iraq, have followed Washington's lead.
Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi's government has
issued numerous terrorist warnings. Thousands of extra
Italian police have been deployed after threats on an
Islamic website said terrorists would strike if Rome
did not withdraw its troops from Iraq by Aug. 15.

Europeans discovered in March that terrorists like to
attack at symbolic times: The Madrid train bombings
that killed 191 people sent a shudder through the
continent just days before Spanish elections. But
skepticism toward Washington means many in Europe are
wondering if the threats recently reported in the U.S.
are genuine or political spin.

In Britain, the recent raids followed last month's
seizure in Pakistan of computer files belonging to
Khan. The disclosure of his arrest and identity
allowed some Al Qaeda suspects under Pakistani
surveillance to slip away, officials told Associated
Press in Islamabad, the Pakistani capital.

The files also led to Britain's arrest of Abu Eisa al
Hindi, who U.S. authorities allege was enlisted by
Khan to spy on financial institutions in New York and
Washington. Hindi had been under observation by
British security officials for months. There were
indications that the British government, forced to act
after Washington's disclosures about Khan's files,
felt stung by the exposure of his sudden arrest.

"It looks as though there has been some irritation at
fairly high levels in both Pakistan and Britain" over
U.S. revelations, said Timothy Garden, a security
analyst at the Royal Institute of International
Affairs.

British Home Secretary David Blunkett, echoing
concerns raised by U.S. lawmakers about identifying
suspects, said he would not divulge intelligence to
"feed the news frenzy." The British government, he
added, does not want to "undermine in any way our
sources of information or share information which
could place investigations in jeopardy…. We don't want
to do or say anything that would prejudice any trial."


The U.S. has been less forthcoming with intelligence
when it comes to Germany's attempts to prosecute
suspected terrorists. It is refusing to allow alleged
Al Qaeda operatives in its custody to testify at a
retrial of a suspected extremist that began Tuesday in
Hamburg. Saying it would harm ongoing intelligence
gathering, the U.S. is denying the court access to
Ramzi Binalshibh and Khalid Shaikh Mohammed.

In a letter this week to German authorities, the State
Department said it would provide only unclassified
summaries of interrogations with certain suspects. The
decision, German prosecutors say, jeopardizes the case
against Mounir Motassadeq, a Moroccan accused of
having links to the Sept. 11 hijackers. A second
Moroccan in Germany was acquitted this year on similar
charges after a judge found he could not get a fair
trial without access to Binalshibh or his
interrogation transcripts.

The Bush administration is "creating an overall
tension that has both tactics and politics around it,"
Hirschmann said. "When I hear things about concrete
targets such as airports and stock exchanges, I am
less worried something will happen there. You don't
publicize things. You don't communicate what you know
through the media."

In Italy, terrorist alerts have created an atmosphere
similar to that in the U.S. The Berlusconi government
and the Italian media have heavily reported threats
made by militant groups to attack the country unless
Rome withdraws from Iraq.

In a front-page editorial last week, La Repubblica
said Italy was in a "poisoned climate." It said the
threats had "to be weighed carefully. It would be
irresponsible to ignore them, but it would also [be
wrong] to exaggerate them to create panic and … a
psychological war."


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Times staff writers Janet Stobart in London, Maria De
Cristofaro in Rome and Josh Meyer in Washington
contributed to this report.


If you want other stories on this topic, search the
Archives at latimes.com/archives.

Article licensing and reprint options




Copyright 2004 Los Angeles Times
By visiting this site, you are agreeing to our Privacy
Policy
Terms of Service.


Posted by richard at 06:12 PM

August 10, 2004

The Nation: Kerry on Media

Here is another reason NOT to throw away your vote on
the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader(as if
the real possibility of a Chief Justice Scalia or
Thomas and two or three Supreme Court appoinments from
the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking
_resident were not incentive enough), and further
evidence that the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader has
either lost his marbles or his morals...It's the Media, Stupid...

John Nichols interviews Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong
Delta) for The Nation: In particular, Kerry said he
was upset that the nation's commercial broadcast
networks -- including ABC, CBS and NBC -- decided not
to air any coverage on the second night of the
convention in Boston. That was the night when Illinois
U.S. Senate candidate Barack Obama delivered a
much-praised keynote address, Ron Reagan broke ranks
with the Republican Party to criticize President
Bush's limits on stem-cell research, and Teresa Heinz
Kerry spoke about her husband.
"My wife gave a wonderful speech, Ronald Reagan,
Barack Obama, it was a brilliant night," said Kerry.
"I think it's very disappointing that the American
people, at least the people who watch the networks,
missed it. I talked to several of the anchors
beforehand but, you know, that's the way they decided.
Obviously, I disagreed."
...If Kerry is elected president, he will be in a
position to influence the media landscape. Encouraged
by President Bush and lobbyists for the major
networks, a Republican-dominated Federal
Communications Commission sought last year to ease
limits on media consolidation at the local and
national levels. Kerry, who notes that he voted in the
Senate to maintain the controls against consolidation,
says he would set a different course by appointing FCC
commissioners who are more sympathetic to diversity of
ownership, competition and local control. Several days
after he sat down for the interview that is recounted
here, Kerry amplified the point when he promised a
gathering of minority journalists that, "I will
appoint people to the FCC, and I will pursue a policy,
that tries to have as diverse and broad an ownership
as possible."
Distinguishing himself from President Bush, Kerry
says, "I'm against the ongoing push for media
consolidation. It's contrary to the stronger interests
of the country." Diversity of media ownership and
content, the candidate explains, "is critical to who
we are as a free people. It's critical to our
democracy."

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US
Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.thenation.com/thebeat/index.mhtml?bid=1&pid=1671

John Kerry and George W. Bush, the Democrat and
Republican who will compete this November for the
presidency, both attended similar New England
preparatory schools, both graduated from Yale, and
both received advanced degrees from prestigious east
coast colleges. But, somewhere along the way, they
developed dramatically different reading habits.

Where Bush says he does not read newspapers, Kerry
says he cannot get enough of them. And that
distinction, Kerry suggested when he sat down with
this reporter for a rare extended interview on media
issues this week, sums up a radically different vision
of how a president should gather and process
information they must use to make fundamental
decisions about the direction of the nation and the
world.

"I read four or five papers a day if I can," said
Kerry, when asked about his newspaper reading habits.
"It depends obviously on where I am and what I'm
doing. I always pick up a local paper in the hotel I'm
staying at, or two depending on what the city is. And
I try to get the Washington Post, New York Times, Wall
Street Journal, USA Today, papers like that. I try to
read as much as I can."

Those patterns are similar to most former presidents.
Dwight Eisenhower read nine papers daily, Ronald
Reagan was such an avid consumer of newspapers that
his ex-wife Jane Wyman complained about his print
media obsessions, and Presidents George H.W. Bush and
Bill Clinton were known to go through stacks of papers
each day. But Kerry's penchant for the papers clearly
distinguishes him from the current President Bush.

When asked last fall by Fox News anchor Brit Hume how
he gets his news, Bush said he asks an aide, "What's
in the newspapers worth worrying about?" The president
added that, "I glance at the headlines just to kind of
(get) a flavor of what's moving. I rarely the
stories..."

Instead of gathering information himself, Bush said he
prefers to "get briefed by people who probably read
the news themselves" and "people on my staff who tell
me what's happening in the world."

Kerry shook his head in disagreement as Bush's
comments were recounted to him.

"I can't imagine being president and not reading as
much as I can about what people are saying," explained
Kerry. "I don't want (information) varnished by staff.
I don't want it filtered by staff. I want it the way
it is. And I think you get a much better sense of
what's going in the country (when you gather
information yourself). I think one of the reasons we
have some problems today is that we have an
administration that's out of touch with the problems
of average people. They don't know how people are
struggling. They don't know what's happening with
health care, employment. They don't know, or they
don't care, that's their choice."

As a constant consumer of news, Kerry says he spends a
good deal of time thinking about the role of media in
a democratic society. And he gets frustrated when
television networks fail to live up to the
responsibility that should go with a license to use
the people's airwaves.

When it was mentioned that many Americans had
expressed disappointment with the decision of the
nation's broadcast television networks to air only
three hours of Democratic convention coverage, Kerry
said, "I share the disappointment. We're a democracy,
and the strength of our democracy is in the ability of
citizens to be informed. If the major media are
unwilling to inform -- and simply because there is not
a clash or a conflict or something doesn't mean (a
convention) is not informative -- I personally think
it's a derogation of their responsibility (that goes
with using) the broadcast airwaves."

In particular, Kerry said he was upset that the
nation's commercial broadcast networks -- including
ABC, CBS and NBC -- decided not to air any coverage on
the second night of the convention in Boston. That was
the night when Illinois U.S. Senate candidate Barack
Obama delivered a much-praised keynote address, Ron
Reagan broke ranks with the Republican Party to
criticize President Bush's limits on stem-cell
research, and Teresa Heinz Kerry spoke about her
husband.

"My wife gave a wonderful speech, Ronald Reagan,
Barack Obama, it was a brilliant night," said Kerry.
"I think it's very disappointing that the American
people, at least the people who watch the networks,
missed it. I talked to several of the anchors
beforehand but, you know, that's the way they decided.
Obviously, I disagreed."

Asked if he thought the decision of the networks to
downplay the coverage of the convention sent a signal
that told Americans not to take what happened in
Boston seriously, Kerry said, "I don't know if its
that message or not. I think most Americans are smart
enough to understand (that it does matter)."

But Teresa Heinz Kerry, who was seated next to her
husband, interrupted him and said, "That is the
message, I think. I agree that it hurts."

Concerns about consolidated media, particularly
consolidated media that does not see itself as having
a responsibility to cover politics seriously and to
question those in positions of authority, have been
highlighted in recent documentaries such as Robert
Greenwald's "Outfoxed," a critique of the conservative
bias of Rupert Murdoch and his Fox News programs, and
Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9-11." Kerry has not yet
seen "Fahrenheit 9-11," but he described its success
as "remarkable." And he made it clear that he shares
the view of those who believe that media consolidation
is a significant issue in contemporary America.

If Kerry is elected president, he will be in a
position to influence the media landscape. Encouraged
by President Bush and lobbyists for the major
networks, a Republican-dominated Federal
Communications Commission sought last year to ease
limits on media consolidation at the local and
national levels. Kerry, who notes that he voted in the
Senate to maintain the controls against consolidation,
says he would set a different course by appointing FCC
commissioners who are more sympathetic to diversity of
ownership, competition and local control. Several days
after he sat down for the interview that is recounted
here, Kerry amplified the point when he promised a
gathering of minority journalists that, "I will
appoint people to the FCC, and I will pursue a policy,
that tries to have as diverse and broad an ownership
as possible."

Distinguishing himself from President Bush, Kerry
says, "I'm against the ongoing push for media
consolidation. It's contrary to the stronger interests
of the country." Diversity of media ownership and
content, the candidate explains, "is critical to who
we are as a free people. It's critical to our
democracy."





Posted by richard at 04:48 PM

Foreign Monitors to Report on U.S. Presidential Vote

The hour is getting late."

Saul Hudson, Reuters: Major international monitors
will issue an unprecedented report on the handling of
this year's U.S. presidential election, after the 2000
vote raised concerns of disenfranchisement, U.S.
officials said on Monday.
The Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe will a send a team to observe the vote in a
move applauded by Democrats who had sought monitors
because they felt ballots were unfairly left uncounted
last time, particularly in Florida...
The OSCE, which groups 55 countries, does not have a
mandate to judge the fairness of this year's vote.
Still, while some OSCE representatives have observed
U.S. presidential votes before, this year will be the
first time they will report publicly afterward on any
shortcomings it finds, according to State Department
officials.
"This represents a step in the right direction toward
ensuring that this year's elections are fair and
transparent," Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat,
said in a statement. "We sincerely hope that the
presence of the monitors will make certain that every
person's voice is heard, every person's vote is
counted."

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=politicsNews&storyID=5916368

Foreign Monitors to Report on U.S. Presidential Vote
Mon Aug 9, 2004 07:43 PM ET

By Saul Hudson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Major international monitors
will issue an unprecedented report on the handling of
this year's U.S. presidential election, after the 2000
vote raised concerns of disenfranchisement, U.S.
officials said on Monday.

The Organization for Security and Cooperation in
Europe will a send a team to observe the vote in a
move applauded by Democrats who had sought monitors
because they felt ballots were unfairly left uncounted
last time, particularly in Florida.

In 2000, voters split down the middle in Florida,
which was ridiculed worldwide as it spawned court
battles over whether and how to count imperfect
ballots. The U.S. Supreme Court eventually ruled
George W. Bush was the winner by 537 votes, which put
him in the White House.

With polls showing this year's election between Bush
and Democrat John Kerry will also be tight, civil
rights groups have raised concern over a repeat of the
2000 debacle.

The OSCE, which groups 55 countries, does not have a
mandate to judge the fairness of this year's vote.
Still, while some OSCE representatives have observed
U.S. presidential votes before, this year will be the
first time they will report publicly afterward on any
shortcomings it finds, according to State Department
officials.

"This represents a step in the right direction toward
ensuring that this year's elections are fair and
transparent," Rep. Barbara Lee, a California Democrat,
said in a statement. "We sincerely hope that the
presence of the monitors will make certain that every
person's voice is heard, every person's vote is
counted."

Lee was one of a group of Democrats in the House of
Representatives who initially wanted U.N. monitors.
Republicans complained a U.N. mission would make the
world's superpower look like a third world nation and
passed an amendment in the House banning the use of
federal funds to make such a request.

The OSCE traditionally has monitored elections in
fragile democracies to determine if they were fair.
But in the last few years it has also observed votes
in major Western powers, such as France and Spain, in
a new program to help its members learn from others'
examples.

The State Department, which traditionally invites OSCE
observers, requested the mission under that new
program.

Focusing on Florida, an OSCE mission observed the 2002
mid-term U.S. congressional elections to see what
changes had been put in place "to address the
challenges of the 2000 presidential election," the
OSCE vote report said.

The report noted "remedial measures" had significantly
addressed the shortcomings of two years earlier in
Florida but said "room for some further improvement
remains."

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

© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Any
copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters
content or of any content used on this site, including
by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited
without prior written consent of Reuters.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal
information only, and are not intended for trading
purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its
data providers shall not be liable for any errors or
delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions
taken in reliance thereon.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or
redistribution of Reuters content, including by
caching, framing or similar means, is expressly
prohibited without the prior written consent of
Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are
registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters
group of companies around the world.

Posted by richard at 04:44 PM

August 09, 2004

Ray McGovern: Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots

Ray McGovern understands what the time it is in
America, do you? "Let us not talk falsely now, the
hour is getting late."

Ray McGovern, www.buzzflash.com:
Perhaps most worrisome of all from the
administration’s point of view are the fresh photos,
film footage, and other reporting of torture in
U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and elsewhere that will
surface in the coming weeks. This round is said to
include details of the rape and other abuse of some of
the Iraqi women and the hundred or so children—some as
young as 10 years old—held in jails like Abu Graib.
U.S. Army Sergeant Samuel Provance, who was stationed
there, has blown the whistle on the abuse of children
as well as other prisoners. He recounted, for example,
how interrogators soaked a 16-year-old, covered him in
mud, and then used his suffering to break the youth’s
father, also a prisoner, during interrogation.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/04/08/con04327.html

August 9, 2004 SEND THIS PAGE TO A FRIEND

Not Scared Yet? Try Connecting These Dots

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION
by Ray McGovern

"Pre-election period…pre-election plot…pre-election
threats:" These rolled off National Security Adviser
Condoleezza Rice’s lips no less than seven times
yesterday on CNN’s Late Edition as she discussed the
likely timing of a terrorist attack. She stayed on
message.

Dr. Rice said the government had actually "picked up
discussion" relating to "trying to do something in the
pre-election period," and added that information on
the threat came from "active multiple sources."

I found myself wondering if those sources are any
better than those cited by Attorney General John
Ashcroft on May 26, when he launched this campaign,
citing "credible intelligence from multiple sources
that al-Qaeda plans an attack on the United States"
before the November election. Ashcroft’s warning came
out of the blue, without the customary involvement of
the directors of the C.I.A. and Department of Homeland
Security (although the latter quickly fell in line).

In support of his warning, Ashcroft cited "an al-Qaeda
spokesman," who the FBI later was embarrassed to admit
is "The Abu Hafs al-Masri Brigades." Sinister sounding
though the name may be, this "group" is thought to
consist of no more than one person with a fax machine,
according to a senior U.S. intelligence official. That
fax is notorious for claiming credit for all manner of
death and destruction.

Are the recent warnings and heightened alerts
legitimate or contrived? Is this yet another case of
"intelligence" being conjured up to serve the
political purposes of President Bush and his top
advisers? The record of the past three years gives
rise to the suspicion that this is precisely what is
afoot.

Running Scared

While Iraq generally has moved off the front page,
those paying attention to developments there have
watched a transition from mayhem to bedlam in recent
days. Worse still, the U.S. economy is again faltering
as the election draws near.

Perhaps most worrisome of all from the
administration’s point of view are the fresh photos,
film footage, and other reporting of torture in
U.S.-run prisons in Iraq and elsewhere that will
surface in the coming weeks. This round is said to
include details of the rape and other abuse of some of
the Iraqi women and the hundred or so children—some as
young as 10 years old—held in jails like Abu Graib.
U.S. Army Sergeant Samuel Provance, who was stationed
there, has blown the whistle on the abuse of children
as well as other prisoners. He recounted, for example,
how interrogators soaked a 16-year-old, covered him in
mud, and then used his suffering to break the youth’s
father, also a prisoner, during interrogation.

I suspect it is the further revelations of torture
that worries the White House most. Adding to its woes,
last week over a hundred lawyers, including seven past
presidents of the American Bar Association and former
FBI Director William Sessions, issued a statement
strongly condemning the legal opinions of government
attorneys holding that torture might be legally
defensible. The lawyers called for an investigation
regarding whether there is a connection between those
legal opinions and the abuses at Abu Graib and
elsewhere.

While Bush administration officials have tried to
distance themselves from the opinions and claim that
the president did not authorize the torture of
suspected al-Qaeda or Taliban fighters, the
photographic evidence speaks for itself. And
neo-conservative William Kristol’s bragging Sunday on
ABC’s This Week that this administration’s
interrogation techniques have been successful because
they are "rougher than what John Kerry would approve
of" does not help the administration’s case.

With each new revelation of torture, the
"few-bad-apples" explanation strains credulity closer
to the breaking point. Nor can it be denied that the
abuse took place on this administration’s watch. Thus,
there are likely to be increasing demands that the
commander-in-chief—or at least his defense
secretary—take responsibility. Where is it that the
buck is supposed to stop?

Connecting Dots

What has all this to do with Condoleezza Rice’s
multiple mention of "pre-election threats?" Can these
two dots be connected? I fear they can.

When John Ashcroft fired the opening shot in this
campaign to raise the specter of a "pre-election"
terrorist event, it seemed to me that the
administration might be beginning to prepare the
American people to accept postponement or cancellation
of the November election as a reasonable option.

Tom Ridge’s warning in early July that Osama bin Laden
is "planning to disrupt the November elections" added
to my concern, as did;

-- Word that Ridge has asked the Department of Justice
to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit
postponement of the election;

-- The request by the Director of the Election
Assistance Commission for Ridge to provide
"guidelines" for canceling or rescheduling the
election in the event of a terror attack;

-- The matter-of-fact tone of a recent vote on CNN’s
website: "Should the United States postpone the
election in the event of a terrorist attack?" That
vote seems to have been greeted more by yawns than by
any expression of outrage.

That the House of Representatives on July 22 passed a
resolution by a 419-2 vote denying any agency or
individual the authority to postpone a national
election suggests that many in Congress are taking the
various trial balloons and other hints seriously.

The Emperor’s New Suit of Clothes

It seems a safe bet that President Bush is not
sleeping as soundly as he did before the abuse of
prisoners came to light. He may feel thoroughly
exposed in the magic suit of sold him by Ashcroft’s
tailor/lawyers together with those working for White
House counsel Alberto Gonzales, and may wish he had
paid more attention to the strong cautions of
Secretary of State Colin Powell against playing fast
and loose with the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of
War.

The president can take little consolation in Gonzales’
reassurance that there is a "reasonable basis in law"
that could provide a "solid defense," should an
independent counsel at some point in the future
attempt to prosecute him under the U.S. War Crimes Act
of 1996 for exempting the Taliban and perhaps others
from the protections of the Geneva Conventions, to
which the War Crimes Act is inextricably tied.

Meaning? Meaning that if the president’s numbers look
no better in October than they do now, there will be
particularly strong personal incentive on the part of
the president, Rumsfeld, and Vice President Cheney to
pull out all the stops in order to make four more
years a sure thing. What seems increasingly clear is
that putting off the election is under active
consideration—a course more likely to be chosen to the
extent it achieves status as just another option.

How Would Americans React?

On Friday I listened to a reporter asking a tourist in
Washington, DC, whether he felt inconvenienced by all
the blockages and barriers occasioned by the
heightened alert. While the tourist acknowledged that
the various barriers and inspections made it difficult
to get from one place to another, he made his overall
reaction quite clear: "Safety first! I don’t want to
see another 9/11. Whatever it takes!" I was struck a
few hours later as I tuned into President Bush
speaking at a campaign rally in Michigan: "I will
never relent in defending America. Whatever it takes."

How prevalent this sentiment has become was brought
home to me as Rep. Dennis Kucinich (D-Ohio) quizzed
9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey (a former Democrat
Senator from Nebraska) at a hearing last week on the
commission’s sweeping recommendation to centralize
foreign and domestic intelligence under a new National
Intelligence Director in the White House. Kerrey grew
quite angry as Kucinich kept insisting on an answer to
his question: "How do you protect civil liberties amid
such a concentration of information and power?"

Kerrey protested that the terrorists give no priority
to civil liberties. He went on to say that individual
liberties must, in effect, be put on the back burner,
while priority is given to combating terrorism.
Whatever it takes.

Does this not speak volumes? Would Kerrey suggest that
Americans act like the "good Germans" of the 1930s,
and acquiesce in draconian steps like postponement or
cancellation of the November election?

These are no small matters. It is high time to think
them through.

A BUZZFLASH GUEST CONTRIBUTION

Ray McGovern worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years,
from the administration of John F. Kennedy to that of
George H. W. Bush. He is a member of the Steering
Group of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for
Sanity.

Posted by richard at 04:52 PM

William Rivers Pitt: The Writing on the Latrine Walls

The Emperor has no uniform...

William Rivers Pitt, www.truthout.org: The soldiers
over there are hip to the jive at this point. Michael
Hoffman, a Marine corporal in artillery, was part of
the original March invasion. Before Hoffman's unit
shipped out, his battery first sergeant addressed all
the enlisted men. "Don't think you're going to be
heroes," said Hoffman's sergeant. "You're not going
over there because of weapons of mass destruction.
You're not going there to get rid of Saddam Hussein,
or to make Iraq safe for democracy. You're going there
for one reason and one reason alone: Oil."

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004:
Defeat Bush (again

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080904A.shtml


The Writing on the Latrine Walls
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective

Monday 09 August 2004

I sat with a photographer from Reuters who had
just returned from a six-month tour of Iraq. He had
been tagging along with the Kellogg Brown & Root
operation, subsidiary of Halliburton, and saw
everything there was to see. He went from new military
base to new military base, from the oil work in the
north and back to the south, observing how busy were
the contactors for Halliburton.

"I feel like I compromised every one of my
principles by even being over there," he told me after
the story had been spun out a bit. His eyes, which had
seen too many things through the lens of his camera,
were haunted.

It was two years ago that talk about invading Iraq
began to circulate. Reasons for the invasion were
bandied about - they had weapons of mass destruction,
they had a hand in September 11, they will welcome us
as liberators - but it wasn't until the Project for
the New American Century got dragged into the
discussion that an understanding of the true motives
behind all this became apparent.

The Project for the New American Century, or PNAC
for short, is just another right-wing think tank,
really. One cannot swing one's dead cat by the tail in
Washington D.C. without smacking some prehensile
gnome, pained by the sunlight, scuttling back to its
right-wing think tank cubicle. These organizations are
all over the place. What makes PNAC different from all
the others?

The membership roll call, for one thing:


Dick Cheney, Vice President of the United States,
former CEO of Halliburton;
Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense;
Paul Wolfowitz, Deputy Secretary of Defense;
Elliot Abrams, National Security Council;
John Bolton, Undersecretary for Arms Control and
International Security;
I. Lewis Libby, Cheney's top National Security
assistant;
Quite a roster.

These people didn't enjoy those fancy titles in
2000, when the PNAC manifesto 'Rebuilding America's
Defenses' (Adobe document) was first published. Before
2000, they were just a bunch of power players who had
been shoved out of the government in 1993. In the time
that passed between Clinton and those hanging chads,
these people got together in PNAC and laid out a
blueprint. 'Rebuilding America's Defenses' was the
ultimate result, and it is a doozy of a document. 2000
became 2001, and the PNAC boys - Cheney and Rumsfeld
specifically - suddenly had the fancy titles and a
chance to swing some weight.

'Rebuilding America's Defenses' became the roadmap
for foreign policy decisions made in the White House
and the Pentagon; PNAC had the Vice President's office
in one building, and the Defense Secretary's office in
the other. Attacking Iraq was central to that roadmap
from the beginning. When former Counterterrorism Czar
Richard Clarke accused the Bush administration of
focusing on Iraq to the detriment of addressing
legitimate threats, he was essentially denouncing them
for using the attacks of September 11 as an excuse to
execute the PNAC blueprint.

Iraq, you see, has been on the PNAC menu for
almost ten years.

The goals codified in 'Rebuilding America's
Defenses,' the manifesto, can be boiled down to a few
sentences: The invasion and occupation of Iraq, for
reasons that had nothing to do with Saddam Hussein.
The building of several permanent military bases in
Iraq, the purpose of which are to telegraph force
throughout the region. The takeover by Western
petroleum corporations of Iraq's nationalized oil
industry. The ultimate destabilization and overthrow
of a variety of regimes in the Middle East, friend and
foe alike, by military or economic means, or both.

"Indeed," it is written on page 14 of 'Rebuilding
America's Defenses,' "the United States has for
decades sought to play a more permanent role in Gulf
regional security. While the unresolved conflict with
Iraq provides the immediate justification, the need
for a substantial American force presence in the Gulf
transcends the issue of the regime of Saddam Hussein."


Two years after the talk began, the invasion is
completed. There are no weapons of mass destruction,
there is no connection to September 11, and the Iraqi
people have in no way welcomed us as liberators. The
cosmetic rationales for the attack have fallen by the
wayside, and all that remains are the PNAC goals, some
of which have been achieved in spectacularly
profitable fashion.

The stock in trade of Halliburton subsidiary
Kellogg Brown & Root is the construction of permanent
military bases. The Reuters reporter I spoke to had
been to several KBR-built permanent American military
bases in his six month tour of Iraq. "That's where the
oil industry money is going," he told me. "Billions of
dollars. Not to infrastructure, not to rebuilding the
country, and not to helping the Iraqi people. It's
going to KBR, to build those bases for the military."

According to the Center for Public Integrity,
Halliburton subsidiary Kellogg Brown & Root has made
$11,475,541,371 in Iraq as of July 1. So that's one
PNAC goal checked off the list.

As for the corporate takeover of the Iraqi oil
industry, that has become the prime mission of the
American soldiers engaged there. Kellogg Brown & Root
also does a tidy business in the oil-infrastructure
repair market. "The troops aren't hunting terrorists
or building a country," said the Reuters photographer.
"All they do is guard the convoys running north and
south. The convoys north are carrying supplies and
empty tankers for the oil fields around Mosul and
Tikrit. The convoys south bring back what they pull
out of the ground up there. That's where all these
kids are getting killed. They get hit with IEDs while
guarding these convoys, and all hell breaks loose."

That last goal, about overthrowing other regimes
in the region, hasn't been as easy to follow through
on as the PNAC boys might have hoped. The Iraqi people
are fighting back, and the small-by-comparison force
Rumsfeld said would be enough to do the job can't seem
to pacify the country. Perhaps that is because too
many troops are dedicated to guarding the oil supply
lines. More likely, however, it is because of the
sincere belief among the Iraqi people that they have
been conquered - not 'liberated' but conquered - and
their conquerors don't give a tinker's damn whether
they live or die.

"The Americans over there have all these terms for
people who aren't Americans," the Reuters photographer
said. "The Iraqi people are called LPs, or 'Local
Personnel.' They get killed all the time, but it's
like, 'Some LPs got killed,' so it isn't like real
people died. Iraqi kids run along the convoys, hoping
a soldier will throw them some food or water, and
sometimes they get crushed by the trucks. Nothing
stops, those are the orders, so some LPs get killed
and the convoy keeps rolling. The labels make it
easier for them to die. The people are depersonalized.
No one cares."

"Everyone is an 'insurgent' over there," the
photographer told me. "That's another label with no
meaning. Everyone is against the Americans. There is a
$250,000 bounty on the head of every Westerner over
there, mine too, while I was there. The Americans
working the oil industry over there are the dumbest,
most racist jackasses I've ever seen in my life.
That's the American face on this thing, and the Iraqi
people see it."

930 American soldiers have died to achieve goals
the PNAC boys gamed out before they ever came in with
this Bush administration. Well over 10,000 Iraqi
civilians have likewise died. Over $200 billion has
been spent to do this. Fighting today rages across
several sections of Iraq, and the puppet 'leaders'
installed by U.S. forces are about to drive a final
stake into the heart of the liberation rhetoric by
declaring nationwide martial law.

Two enemies of the United States - the nation of
Iran and Osama bin Laden - are thrilled with the
outcome to date. Saddam Hussein was an enemy to both
Iran and bin Laden, and he has been removed. The
destabilization and innocent bloodshed bolsters Iran's
standing against the U.S., and sends freshly motivated
martyrs into the arms of Osama.

Yes, the Halliburton contracting in Iraq for
military bases and petroleum production is a cash cow
for that company. The bases are being built. The oil
industry has been privatized. The resulting chaos of
the PNAC blueprint, however, has left the entire
theater of the war in complete chaos. The Bush
administration has insisted all along that this
invasion was central to their 'War on Terror.' It has,
in truth, become a failed experiment in global
corporate hegemony writ large, foisted upon us by some
men named Cheney and Rumsfeld who thought it would all
work out as they had planned it in 2000.

It hasn't, except for the profiteering. For all
their white papers, for all their carefully-laid
plans, for all the power and fancy titles these
erstwhile think-tankers managed to gather unto
themselves, their works are now blood-crusted dust.
They are clearly not as smart as they thought they
were. The overall 'War on Terror' itself has plenty of
examples of these boys not being too swift on the
uptake. Iraq is only the largest, and costliest,
example.

The case of Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan is another
perfect example. Khan was a mole, deep undercover
within the ranks of al Qaeda, who was sending vital
data on the terror organization from Pakistan to
British and American intelligence. But officials with
the Bush administration, desperate to show the
American people they were making headway in the terror
war, barfed up Khan's name to the press while bragging
about recent arrests. Khan's position as a mole within
al Qaeda was summarily annihilated. The guy we had
inside was blown.

Pretty smart, yes? "The whole thing smacks of
either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a
security expert who writes for Jane's Defense
publications, in a Reuters article on the blown agent.
"You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a
deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to
get these guys in there in the first place? It goes
against all the rules of counter-espionage,
counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's
not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's
on the front pages every time there's a development,
is it?"

This would be the second agent we know of who has
been blown by the arrogant stupidity of the Bush
administration. The other, of course, was Valerie
Plame. Plame was a 'Non-Official Cover' agent, or NOC,
for the CIA. NOC designates the deepest cover an agent
can have. Plame's deep-cover assignment was to run a
network dedicated to tracking any person, nation or
group that might give weapons of mass destruction to
terrorists. Because her husband, Ambassador Joseph
Wilson, had the temerity to accuse the Bush
administration of lying in the public prints, the
administration blew Plame's cover as a warning to
Wilson and any other whistleblowers who might have
thought of coming forward.

The Bush administration blew Khan's cover because
they wanted to get a soundbite out for the election
campaign. They blew Plame out of sheer spite, and out
of desperation. The mole we had inside al Qaeda, and
an agent we had tracking the movement of weapons of
mass destruction, are both finished now because the
PNAC boys are watching all their plans go awry, and
they don't quite know what to do about it. That makes
them stupid and exceedingly dangerous.

The soldiers over there are hip to the jive at
this point. Michael Hoffman, a Marine corporal in
artillery, was part of the original March invasion.
Before Hoffman's unit shipped out, his battery first
sergeant addressed all the enlisted men. "Don't think
you're going to be heroes," said Hoffman's sergeant.
"You're not going over there because of weapons of
mass destruction. You're not going there to get rid of
Saddam Hussein, or to make Iraq safe for democracy.
You're going there for one reason and one reason
alone: Oil."

The Reuters photographer I spoke to couldn't get
any soldiers to talk about how they felt when
surrounded by their fellow soldiers. "They don't talk
in the ranks, or just about anywhere on base," he
said. "You have to go out to the latrine area, to the
Port-O-Potties. For some reason, they talk there. You
can read how they really feel - all the anti-Bush
stuff, all the wanting to go home - in the writing on
the shithouse walls."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and
international bestseller of two books - 'War on Iraq:
What Team Bush Doesn't Want You To Know' and 'The
Greatest Sedition is Silence.'

Posted by richard at 04:50 PM

"Federal law provides individuals who are congressional witnesses or assisting congressional investigations protection from retaliation," Grassley wrote.

"Out, out damn spot!"

Boston Globe: In blunt, private letters, the Senate
Finance Committee chairman has told Attorney General
John Ashcroft he believes the Justice Department has
retaliated against prosecutors in a Detroit terror
trial because they cooperated with Congress...In one
letter, Grassley demanded that Assistant U.S. Attorney
Richard Convertino and his colleagues in Detroit "be
made whole and not suffer reprisals." The senator
asked Ashcroft to rectify the matter before it begins
"exposing the department to public criticisms."
Grassley also dismissed as "bureaucratic, legalistic
spin" the department's explanations for why the
prosecution team was subjected to internal
investigation.
"Federal law provides individuals who are congressional witnesses or assisting congressional investigations protection from retaliation," Grassley wrote.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/08/gop_sen_comes_to_us_attorneys_defense/


GOP sen. comes to U.S. attorneys' defense
August 8, 2004

WASHINGTON --In blunt, private letters, the Senate
Finance Committee chairman has told Attorney General
John Ashcroft he believes the Justice Department has
retaliated against prosecutors in a Detroit terror
trial because they cooperated with Congress.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has written Ashcroft or
his deputies at least three times to accuse department
officials of taking "hostile actions" and "reprisals"
against the trial prosecutors.

In one letter, Grassley demanded that Assistant U.S.
Attorney Richard Convertino and his colleagues in
Detroit "be made whole and not suffer reprisals." The
senator asked Ashcroft to rectify the matter before it
begins "exposing the department to public criticisms."

Grassley also dismissed as "bureaucratic, legalistic
spin" the department's explanations for why the
prosecution team was subjected to internal
investigation.

"Federal law provides individuals who are
congressional witnesses or assisting congressional
investigations protection from retaliation," Grassley
wrote.

Justice officials declined comment.

Convertino, a 14-year career prosecutor, helped win
the convictions of three men accused of operating a
terror cell in Detroit last summer, but he came under
investigation when his bosses learned Grassley's
committee had subpoenaed him to testify, said Bill
Sullivan, Convertino's attorney.

Sullivan said Convertino had been asked by Grassley's
committee last fall to narrowly testify about terror
financing schemes, and had no intention of discussing
the friction with Washington or the missed evidence
opportunities that arose during the trial.

Convertino remains employed by Justice but has been
detailed to Congress to assist Grassley. He recently
sued Ashcroft, accusing Justice officials of
interfering with the case and retaliating against him.

"The complaints that Rick has must be appropriately
answered so that no other prosecutors ever be faced
with the obstacles that were imposed in the Detroit
case," Sullivan said.


© Copyright 2004 The New York Times Company

Posted by richard at 04:48 PM

August 08, 2004

Sidney Blumenthal: What the terror alerts really tell us -- There is a vacuum at the heart of Bush's second-term programme.

Two more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Third Stooges Reich...Nothing more...Illegitimate, incompetent and corrupt.

Sidney Blumenthal, Guardian: The 9/11 commission
report is a devastating record of Bush's passivity on
terrorism, beginning with his first act: the demotion
of the counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke. The
report documents that the administration "was not
ready to confront Islamabad" on its support for the
Taliban or to "engage actively against al-Qaida" and
that it "did not develop new diplomatic initiatives on
al-Qaida with the Saudi government". Bush told the
commission that the August 6 2001 presidential daily
brief, "Bin Laden Determined To Strike In US" was
"historical in nature", though it contained current
information. The neoconservatives, such as deputy
secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz, are depicted as
dismissive - Wolfowitz opposed retaliation for the
al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole as "stale" -and
obsessed with Iraq as the source of all terrorism.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/story/0,3604,1276187,00.html

What the terror alerts really tell us -- There is a vacuum at the heart of Bush's second-term programme.

Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday August 5, 2004
The Guardian

The fog of war has descended over the campaign. Within
72 hours of the end of the Democratic convention, the
department of homeland security declared a new terror
alert, and the colour-coded level was jacked up to
orange, verging on red. The reason, the government
reported, was that the computer of an al-Qaida
operative captured in Pakistan contained precise
information about threats to five financial
institutions in New York and Washington.
Then additional information was released: the
intelligence was mostly three years old, the al-Qaida
surveillance of US buildings had been mostly conducted
through the internet, the computer file had been
opened again in January for uncertain reason and with
no new surveillance data added to it, and Pakistani
officials said that the captured material indicated no
new al-Qaida planning.

The effect of the alert has been to throw the campaign
into turmoil and momentarily freeze it. John Kerry
decided to accept the administration's explanations at
face value. His critique of Bush's war on terrorism
must be made with iron discipline, based on the facts,
not suspicions. Yet other Democrats claimed the
administration was using the situation for political
advantage, putting additional pressure on Kerry, who
has to hold fast.

In part, the level of partisanship increased because
of the clumsy performance of Tom Ridge, the secretary
of homeland security, who turned the announcement into
a political rally. "We must understand that the kind
of information available to us today is the result of
the president's leadership in the war against terror,"
he said. Whether planned politically or not, the alert
exposed that, for Bush, it is the irreducible basis of
his campaign. And while it starkly elevated his
profile as the "war president" again, it also revealed
indirectly the vacuum of his second-term programme.
His hard-right issues are insufficient for a national
majority, he is weak on the realities of homeland
security, and he is desperate to smudge the history of
his inactions leading to 9/11 and his responsibility
for the deterioration of the Iraqi situation.

The 9/11 commission report is a devastating record of
Bush's passivity on terrorism, beginning with his
first act: the demotion of the counterterrorism chief,
Richard Clarke. The report documents that the
administration "was not ready to confront Islamabad"
on its support for the Taliban or to "engage actively
against al-Qaida" and that it "did not develop new
diplomatic initiatives on al-Qaida with the Saudi
government". Bush told the commission that the August
6 2001 presidential daily brief, "Bin Laden Determined
To Strike In US" was "historical in nature", though it
contained current information. The neoconservatives,
such as deputy secretary of defence Paul Wolfowitz,
are depicted as dismissive - Wolfowitz opposed
retaliation for the al-Qaida attack on the USS Cole as
"stale" -and obsessed with Iraq as the source of all
terrorism.

Bush's campaign must try to blur memory of his
history. When Kerry seized upon the commission's
recommendations, Bush reacted by endorsing a new
national intelligence chief. But he would give this
new post no control over budget, no White House
office, no power over personnel, and no authority over
intelligence operations. Once again, he appeared to be
acting only on political motives.

Various bills for homeland security languish before
the Congress, as Bush neglects them. His paltry $46m
proposal for port security is more than $1bn short of
what the US Coast Guard says is required. On port
security, 10 Democratic amendments have already been
defeated while Bush has slept. He prefers the money to
be appropriated for tax cuts for the upper bracket.

Bush is haunted not only by the ghosts of his own past
but the ghosts of other presidents past. While he
attempts to redeem his father's political fall by
avoiding his mistakes, his effort at reversal is
creating a similar estrangement from the voters. Elder
Bush won his war against Iraq and withdrew without
toppling Saddam; his ratings were then at their peak.
But his obliviousness to economic circumstances
undermined the heroic image. Lyndon Johnson had an
ambitious domestic agenda backed by a landslide
mandate. But he squandered it in the Vietnam quagmire;
his political credibility undermined his party's for a
generation. Now, Bush's faltering credibility is
tearing at trust in US national security. Perversely,
his campaign must exploit the fears that his failures
have helped engender. For him, this is not a war of
choice, but necessity.

· Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to
President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of
salon.com

sidney_blumenthal@yahoo.com

Posted by richard at 04:56 PM

Thursday's outburst had been brewing since LePore's handling of the 2000 election, and it escalated about a month ago when Klein, the Florida Senate Democratic leader, came to her office with a three-page list of questions and the suggestion that she simp

Some of those with eyes to see and ears to hear, who were
watching C-SPAN in 2000 during the post-election
Fraudida debacle, had to wonder if Theresa LePore,
like the-shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader,
is not what she purports to be...

Dara Kam, Palm Beach Post: Sen. Ron Klein and Palm
Beach County Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore
agree on one thing: They've both had it. Thursday's
outburst had been brewing since LePore's handling of
the 2000 election, and it escalated about a month ago
when Klein, the Florida Senate Democratic leader, came
to her office with a three-page list of questions and
the suggestion that she simply isn't doing her job.

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/content/news/epaper/2004/08/07/s1a_vote_0807.html

Elections chief, senator fire back
By Dara Kam

Saturday, August 07, 2004

TALLAHASSEE — Sen. Ron Klein and Palm Beach County
Supervisor of Elections Theresa LePore agree on one
thing: They've both had it. Thursday's outburst had been brewing since LePore's handling of the 2000 election, and it escalated about a month ago when Klein, the Florida Senate Democratic leader, came to her office with a three-page list of questions and the suggestion that she simply isn't doing her job.

The tension between the two elected officials came to
the boiling point Thursday, after LePore learned that
Klein wants voters in the 15 counties that use
touch-screen voting machines to be able to cast their
ballots on paper.

"I've been holding back in saying this, but I've just
about had it," LePore said.

"I have intentionally not been going after her, but
I've about had it," Klein said upon hearing that she
slammed his three-point plan to increase voter
confidence.

When told that LePore said she has worked in the
elections office since 1971 — longer than Klein has
lived in Florida — he retorted: "That doesn't mean
she's doing it well, though."

Klein, of Delray Beach, reiterated Friday that he is
"very, very concerned" that LePore isn't doing
everything she should to ensure that Palm Beach County
citizens feel confident that their votes will be
counted.

The standoff between them has become so bad, he said,
that she refuses to return his calls. Since last week,
Klein said, he has called LePore's assistant eight
times and had yet to receive a response by early
Friday evening.

"Can you even imagine that?" an indignant Klein asked.
"If my office responded that way to one constituent —
forget being a state senator — any constituent, they
should hang me out to dry."

LePore, who said her assistant had just a single call
from Klein's staff, said she feels he's been hounding
her and that she's fed up with his accusations, many
of which she says are based on his ignorance of
election laws.

"To be quite honest, I don't answer to Senator Klein,"
she said. "I answer to the constituents of Palm Beach
County. I've got a job to do, and I can't have
legislators trying to tell me how to do my job when
they're not familiar with the process."

Klein says he has voted using the touch-screen
machines and has no problem with them.

But he says he believes that many area residents are
worried that their votes may again go uncounted, after
reports of the machines' malfunctions in Miami-Dade
County and in other states, error rates higher than
those found with optical-scan machines and lingering
doubts of voters still smarting from the specter of
hanging, pregnant and dimpled chads.

Klein's plan would require placing at least one
optical-scan machine, which range in price from $4,100
to $5,500 apiece, in each precinct to tabulate the
paper ballots. LePore said the county now owns four
such machines and would need at least 696 more to meet
Klein's demands — adding up to $2.8 million, at least.

"That's real money," LePore said.

"If that's the case then that's the case," Klein said.
"We need to have one. Whatever we have to do to make
it right, that's what we should do. I don't want to
hear excuses from the Division of Elections. I don't
want to hear excuses from the governor. I don't want
to hear excuses from the supervisors of elections. How
much would it cost to screw it up again? We made
serious mistakes in Florida. But we should have
learned lots of lessons in this."

Klein's attitude, LePore said, exemplifies his lack of
knowledge of the mechanics of running an election.

"Can the manufacturer manufacture that many machines
in that short amount of time? No," an obviously
irritated LePore said. "Can you train the poll workers
in that short amount of time? No. Do we have the
storage space in our current facility? No.

"You've got the paper issues, printing issues,
security issues. There are a whole lot of issues that
the advocates of the paper ballot don't comprehend or
don't want to understand."

If it weren't for the gravity of the issue at stake —
fair and open elections — the sniping about the
questions and answers after last month's nearly
two-hour meeting with the state senator during one of
LePore's busiest times of the year, would carry the
he-said, she-said quality of schoolyard bickering.

"It's never been about her," Klein said. "I'm not
going to get dragged in the mud on whether she's a
nice lady or not. That's not my issue here. I am just
concerned that her office does the important things to
make sure people are properly trained and that people
know where to go and how to vote and that their votes
get counted."

Klein took LePore's answers to the three-page
questionnaire he had presented LePore during their
meeting and sent them to his constituents in an August
newsletter, but he's still not satisfied.

His focus is what he characterizes as a lack of
information from LePore's office to the entire
electorate of the county.

This includes, Klein said, the standardized sample
ballot that LePore plans to send out this year. He
said this one-size-fits-all ballot will just confuse
people.

LePore countered that sample ballots customized for
each precinct would be cost-prohibitive.

"All they had to do was look at the number and look at
the page and be done with it," LePore said of the
standardized ballot. "God forbid we have to read and
follow instructions."

Klein also said LePore hasn't done enough to let
elderly voters know they can fill out a form that
allows them to update their signatures and not be
turned away from the polls because their signature
doesn't match the one on file.

Workers in the Delray Beach elections office on
Thursday did not know when the absentee ballots would
be mailed, Klein said. LePore said she could not have
predicted when they would be sent out until they all
came back from the printer. They arrived Friday, and
LePore said they would be sent to voters Monday.

"I think Senator Klein is nitpicking on a lot of
things that he knows nothing about," LePore said.

Klein did praise LePore for her thoroughness in
testing every machine and offered to assist her to get
the word out to voters.

"Time's a-wasting," he said. "We need to take action
and make sure these procedures are put to bed. And if
she needs help in getting the word out, I'll talk to
every media outlet in town."

That's where he and LePore agree.

"I need to get on with my job and I need to get back to concentrating on putting on a good election Aug. 31 and Nov. 2," she said on her way to demonstrate voting machines Friday evening. "I don't have time for this nonsense."

Posted by richard at 04:51 PM

August 07, 2004

July Surprised

Three more US soldiers have died in Iraq. For what? The neo-con wet dream of a Three Stooges Reich. The 2004 US Presidential Election is a national referendum on the CREDIBILITY, COMPETENCE and CHARACTER of the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident. The central issue is SECURITY: National Security, *Economic Security* and Environmental Security. Are you safer today than you were four years ago? The botched, bungled, mis-named "war on terrorism" is not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the SHAME of the Bush abomination...

John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari, The New Republic: But some American and Pakistani intelligence and counterterrorism officials do question the timing of the announcement. After his arrest, Ghailani's Pakistani captors, with assistance from FBI officials, set to work getting him to talk. While they had little initial success, a source privy to the interrogations says, "It might have taken awhile, but he would ultimately have broken down," at which point Ghailani might well have shared information, such as the names of Qaeda associates, that the Pakistanis could have acted on. But, before that could happen, according to an ISI officer, FBI officials, who had initially insisted on keeping the arrest secret, told officials in Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government that Islamabad should announce Ghailani's capture. An ISI official explains, "When it comes to matters especially pertaining to Al Qaeda, it is always the U.S. administration that takes most of the decisions, while the Pakistani government simply plays the role of a front man." This official and another ISI official believe that the driving factor behind the announcement was U.S. politics. "What else could explain it?" the second official says.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.tnr.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=aaj081604
July Surprised
By John B. Judis, Spencer Ackerman & Massoud Ansari
The New Republic

Monday 16 August Issue

July 29, Faisal Saleh Hayyat, Pakistan's interior minister, announced the arrest of a high-ranking Al Qaeda figure on local television. After a tense standoff in Gujrat, a city some 100 miles southeast of Islamabad, Pakistani security forces had captured the Tanzanian jihadist Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, the FBI's twenty-second "Most Wanted" terrorist and a suspected conspirator in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. A proud Hayyat dubbed the arrest "another crowning success of Pakistan's security apparatus in the fight against terrorism." But it is doubtful Hayyat was really addressing his fellow Pakistanis: He made the announcement at midnight. More likely, his intended audience was half a world away - in the United States, where, in the middle of the afternoon, John Kerry was preparing to deliver his nomination speech to the Democratic National Convention.

While media coverage of the capture didn't exactly overshadow Kerry - Ghailani isn't Osama bin Laden - the announcement's timing seemed suspicious. Ghailani wasn't apprehended on July 29 at all, but rather four days earlier. Last month, The New Republic reported that the Bush administration was pressuring the Pakistanis to deliver a "high-value target" (HVT) in time for the November elections ("July Surprise?" July 19). According to an official with Pakistan's powerful Inter Services Intelligence (ISI), a White House aide told ISI chief Ehsan ul-Haq during a spring visit to Washington that "it would be best if the arrest or killing of [any] HVT were announced on twenty-six, twenty-seven, or twenty-eight July," during the convention. When asked this week if the announcement of Ghailani's capture on July 29 confirmed tnr's reporting, National Security Council spokesman Sean McCormack told the Los Angeles Times, "There is no truth to that statement."

But some American and Pakistani intelligence and counterterrorism officials do question the timing of the announcement. After his arrest, Ghailani's Pakistani captors, with assistance from FBI officials, set to work getting him to talk. While they had little initial success, a source privy to the interrogations says, "It might have taken awhile, but he would ultimately have broken down," at which point Ghailani might well have shared information, such as the names of Qaeda associates, that the Pakistanis could have acted on. But, before that could happen, according to an ISI officer, FBI officials, who had initially insisted on keeping the arrest secret, told officials in Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf's government that Islamabad should announce Ghailani's capture. An ISI official explains, "When it comes to matters especially pertaining to Al Qaeda, it is always the U.S. administration that takes most of the decisions, while the Pakistani government simply plays the role of a front man." This official and another ISI official believe that the driving factor behind the announcement was U.S. politics. "What else could explain it?" the second official says.

Though there is no policy governing how long to keep such arrests secret, standard intelligence practices dictate that the capture should not have been made public until investigators had finished with Ghailani (and the laptop and computer disks he had been captured with). Indeed, Ghailani may still talk, but some current and former American officials fear that, by broadcasting his name around the world, the Pakistanis have reduced the value of the intelligence that interrogators can extract from him. "Now, anything that he was involved in is being shredded, burned, and thrown in a river," a senior counterterrorism official told the Los Angeles Times. "We have to assume anyone affiliated with this guy is on the run ... when, usually, we can get great stuff as long as we can keep it quiet." Adds former CIA operative Robert Baer: "It makes no sense to make the announcement then. Presumably, everything [Al Qaeda] does is compartmented. By announcing to everybody in the world that we have this guy, and he is talking, you have to assume that you shoot tactics. To keep these guys off-balance, a lot of this stuff should be kept in secret. You get no benefit from announcing an arrest like this. You always want to get these guys when they are on vacation, when they are not expecting you."

In fact, Al Qaeda has a history of adapting to intelligence penetrations. In 1998, a leak to The Washington Times detailing "an intelligence bonanza" from intercepted cell phone calls made by bin Laden and his cohorts resulted in the abrupt abandonment of the phones - and the end of the bonanza. Some CIA counterterrorism officials believe the premature announcements of the arrests of important Qaeda terrorists like Abu Zubaydah and Tawfiq bin Attash limited the value of the information they possessed about their comrades, who are believed to discard cell phones and e-mail addresses every two or three days. Daniel Benjamin, a counterterrorism official in the Clinton administration, says he doesn't know all the facts behind Ghailani's arrest, but he observes, "If you have that much stuff on a guy, I would think you would want to keep it quiet for awhile to follow up all the leads."

And there could well be leads to follow up, just as there were after the apprehension of Qaeda associates Musaad Aruchi in Karachi on June 12 and Muhammed Naeem Noor Khan in Lahore on July 13. Both suspected terrorists were captured along with laptops, computer disks, and maps indicating surveillance of U.S. installations in preparation for an attack, and their information led investigators to Ghailani - and contributed to the announcement of this week's Code Orange alert. "There is not a single significant Al Qaeda arrest that didn't yield us more," a senior Pakistani intelligence official told The Washington Post. But the arrests of Aruchi and Khan were kept secret for weeks - until reporters started investigating the Ghailani capture. "I'm definitely cynical enough to believe the timing [of these announcements] is always political," says a recently retired intelligence official. "I think the timing of a success announcement or a failure announcement is always optimized as much as whoever controls it can optimize it." But American and Pakistani security officials remain skeptical as to what the Ghailani announcement really optimized - the war on terrorism or George W. Bush's reelection campaign.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John B. Judis is a senior editor at TNR and a visiting scholar at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Spencer Ackerman is an assistant editor at TNR. Massoud Ansari is a senior reporter for Newsline, a leading Pakistani news magazine.

Posted by richard at 09:08 PM

Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder-Experts

The most INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT and ILLEGITIMATE regime in US history...

Reuters: "The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

MSNBC: "If it's true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation's intelligence agent, who appears to be working in the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw. It's also a monumental foreign relations blunder," security expert Paul Beaver, a former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080804W.shtml

Unmasking of Qaeda Mole a U.S. Security Blunder-Experts
By Peter Graff
Reuters

Saturday 07 August 2004

London - The revelation that a mole within al Qaeda was exposed after Washington launched its "orange alert" this month has shocked security experts, who say the outing of the source may have set back the war on terror.

Reuters learned from Pakistani intelligence sources on Friday that computer expert Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, arrested secretly in July, was working under cover to help the authorities track down al Qaeda militants in Britain and the United States when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

"After his capture he admitted being an al Qaeda member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz."

Last Sunday, U.S. officials told reporters that someone held secretly by Pakistan was the source of the bulk of the information justifying the alert. The New York Times obtained Khan's name independently, and U.S. officials confirmed it when it appeared in the paper the next morning.

None of those reports mentioned at the time that Khan had been under cover helping the authorities catch al Qaeda suspects, and that his value in that regard was destroyed by making his name public.

A day later, Britain hastily rounded up terrorism suspects, some of whom are believed to have been in contact with Khan while he was under cover. Washington has portrayed those arrests as a major success, saying one of the suspects, named Abu Musa al-Hindi or Abu Eissa al-Hindi, was a senior al Qaeda figure.

But British police have acknowledged the raids were carried out in a rush. Suspects were dragged out of shops in daylight and caught in a high speed car chase, instead of the usual procedure of catching them at home in the early morning while they can offer less resistance.

"Holy Grail" od Intelligence
Security experts contacted by Reuters said they were shocked by the revelations that the source whose information led to the alert was identified within days, and that U.S. officials had confirmed his name.

"The whole thing smacks of either incompetence or worse," said Tim Ripley, a security expert who writes for Jane's Defense publications. "You have to ask: what are they doing compromising a deep mole within al Qaeda, when it's so difficult to get these guys in there in the first place?

"It goes against all the rules of counter-espionage, counter-terrorism, running agents and so forth. It's not exactly cloak and dagger undercover work if it's on the front pages every time there's a development, is it?"

A source such as Khan - cooperating with the authorities while staying in active contact with trusting al Qaeda agents - would be among the most prized assets imaginable, he said.

"Running agents within a terrorist organization is the Holy Grail of intelligence agencies. And to have it blown is a major setback which negates months and years of work, which may be difficult to recover."

Rolf Tophoven, head of the Institute for Terrorism Research and Security Policy in Essen, Germany, said allowing Khan's name to become public was "very unclever."

"If it is correct, then I would say its another debacle of the American intelligence community. Maybe other serious sources could have been detected or guys could have been captured in the future" if Khan's identity had been protected, he said.

Britain, which has dealt with Irish bombing campaigns for decades, has a policy of announcing security alerts only under narrow circumstances, when authorities have specific advice they can give the public to take action that will make them safer.

Unnecessary Alarm
Home Secretary David Blunkett, responsible for Britain's anti-terrorism policy, said in a statement on Friday there was "a difference between alerting the public to a specific threat and alarming people unnecessarily by passing on information indiscriminately."

Kevin Rosser, security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said an inherent risk in public alerts is that secret sources will be compromised.

"When these public announcements are made they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said.

In the case of last week's U.S. alerts, officials said they had ordered tighter security on a number of financial sites in New York, Washington and New Jersey because Khan possessed reports showing al Qaeda agents had studied the buildings.

Although the casing reports were mostly several years old, U.S. officials said they acted urgently because of separate intelligence suggesting an increased likelihood of attacks in the runup to the presidential election in November.

U.S. officials now say Hindi, one of the suspects arrested after Khan's name was compromised, may have been the head of the team that cased those buildings.

But the Pakistani disclosure that Khan was under cover suggests that the cell had been infiltrated, and was under surveillance at the time Washington ordered the orange alert.

The security experts said that under such circumstances it would be extraordinary to issue a public warning, because of the risk of tipping off the cell that it had been compromised.

-------

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080804Z.shtml

Pakistan: U.S. Blew Undercover Operation
MSNBC

Friday 06 August 2004

Islamabad, Pakistan - The al-Qaida suspect named by U.S. officials as the source of information that led to this week's terrorist alerts was working undercover, Pakistani intelligence sources said Friday, putting an end to the sting operation and forcing Pakistan to hide the man in a secret location.

Under pressure to justify the alerts in three Northeastern cities, U.S. officials confirmed a report by The New York Times that the man, Mohammad Naeem Noor Khan, was the source of the intelligence that led to the decision.

A Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters on Friday that Khan, who was arrested in Lahore secretly last month, had been actively cooperating with intelligence agents to help catch al-Qaida operatives when his name appeared in U.S. newspapers.

Monday evening, after Khan's name appeared, Pakistani officials moved him to a secret location.

"After his capture [in July], he admitted being an al-Qaida member and agreed to send e-mails to his contacts," a Pakistani intelligence source told Reuters. "He sent encoded e-mails and received encoded replies. He's a great hacker, and even the U.S. agents said he was a computer whiz."

The Times published a story Monday saying U.S. officials had disclosed that a man arrested in Pakistan was the source of the bulk of information leading to the security alerts. The Times identified him as Khan, although it did not say how it had learned his name.

U.S. officials subsequently confirmed the name to other news organizations Monday morning. None of the reports mentioned that Khan was working under cover at the time, helping to catch al-Qaida suspects.

British swoop
In addition to ending the Pakistani sting, the premature disclosure of Khan's identity may have affected a major British operation in which 12 suspects were arrested in raids this week, one of whom U.S. officials said was a senior al-Qaida figure. One of the men was released Friday.

British police told Reuters on Friday that they had been forced to carry out the raids more hastily than planned, a day after Khan's name appeared in the Times.

Such raids are usually carried out late at night or in the early morning, when suspects might be at home and less likely to resist. But showing clear signs of haste, British police pounced in daylight. Some suspects were taken in shops; others were caught in a high-speed car chase.

A British anti-terrorism police source would not comment on the reason for their quick action, but he confirmed the raids were carried out faster than planned: "It would be a fair assessment to say there was an urgency. Something can happen that prompts us to take action faster than we would," he told Reuters.

U.S. officials told NBC News this week that one of the 12 British detainees, known as Abu Eisa al-Hindi, was a key al-Qaida operative in Britain.

'Genius student'
Britain's Press Association, quoting his father and one of his professors, described Khan as an unusually gifted computer expert in his mid-20s from Karachi, Pakistan.

The PA said Khan, who was arrested in Lahore on July 13, led authorities to another major al-Qaida figure, Ahmed Khalfan Ghailani, a Tanzanian with a $25 million U.S. bounty on his head for his role in the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, which killed more than 200 people.

Zafar Qasim, a computer science professor at Nadir Eduljee Dinshaw Engineering University, where Khan graduated in 2001, told the PA that Khan was a "genius student" who finished near the top of his class. He said Khan never appeared interested in any militant activity and never missed a class.

A senior intelligence official said Khan's wife was the sister of a "top ranking" leader of the Taliban, the former rulers of Afghanistan. The official said Khan had been to Britain four times, always on reduced-price tickets he got through his father, a flight attendant with Pakistan International Airlines, the PA reported.

Experts taken by surprise
Intelligence and security experts said they were surprised that Washington would reveal information that could expose the name of a source during an ongoing law enforcement operation.

"If it's true that the Americans have unintentionally revealed the identity of another nation's intelligence agent, who appears to be working in the good of all of us, that is not only a fundamental intelligence flaw. It's also a monumental foreign relations blunder," security expert Paul Beaver, a former publisher of Jane's Defense Weekly, told Reuters.

Kevin Rosser, a security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was a risk that came with staging public alerts but that authorities were supposed to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations.

"When these public announcements are made, they have to be supported with some evidence, and in addition to creating public anxiety and fatigue, you can risk revealing sources and methods of sensitive operations," he said.

Posted by richard at 09:00 PM

August 06, 2004

Today is the anniversary of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief, which warned of possible terrorist attacks in the U.S.

Yes, the neo-con wet dreamers wrote wistfully of their need for a "New Pearl Harbor" on Pg. 51 of the PNAC document, and they got what they said they needed on 9/11, but for us, August 6th 2001 is a "Day of Infamy" as well. The botched, bungled and misnamed "war on terrorisim" is not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the SHAME of the Bush abomination. "Out, out damp spot!"

Kerry-Edwards Press Release: “Today is the anniversary of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief, which warned of possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. Three years later, this administration has failed to adequately strengthen our intelligence services to make America more safe and secure. Now they’re even dragging their heels on fully implementing the 9-11 Commission Report’s recommendations. It’s time to act – we can’t wait any longer,” said Flynt Leveritt, former member of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s National Security Council.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0806c.html

August 6, 2004
August 6 Anniversary: Three Years Later, Problems Still Exist
For Immediate Release

“Today is the anniversary of the August 6th Presidential Daily Brief, which warned of possible terrorist attacks in the U.S. Three years later, this administration has failed to adequately strengthen our intelligence services to make America more safe and secure. Now they’re even dragging their heels on fully implementing the 9-11 Commission Report’s recommendations. It’s time to act – we can’t wait any longer,” said Flynt Leveritt, former member of the Bush-Cheney Administration’s National Security Council.


…They Acknowledged The Problem But Failed To Act
9-11 Attacks Due To Systematic Failures In Intelligence Sharing. Rice: “The really difficult thing for all of us -- and I’m sure for those who came before us, as well as for those of us who are here, is that the structural and systematic changes that needed to be made, not on July 5th or not on June 25th or not on January 1st, those structures and those changes needed to be made a long time ago so that the country was in fact hardened against the kind of threat that we faced on September 11th. The problem was that for a country that had not been attacked on its territory in a major way in almost 200 years, there were a lot of structural impediments to those kinds of attacks. Those changes should have been made over a long period of time.” [9-11 Commission Testimony, 4/8/04]


August 6, 2004: Bush Still Failing To Fix Problems
Bush Has Created a Figurehead. “The Sept. 11 commission also said the [national intelligence director] should have the power to hire and fire the heads of the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency, the FBI intelligence office and other agencies. Bush’s plan, however, simply envisions giving the director a say in those decisions.” [AP, 8/5/04]

Bush’s Intel Czar Has No Real Power. “Some members of Congress and 9/11 commissioners doubt Bush’s idea to allow the intelligence director to ‘coordinate’ foreign and domestic intelligence fully embraces the commission’s recommendation. The panel wants an intelligence czar with budget authority over the CIA, FBI, Defense Intelligence Agency and 12 other spy agencies, and the power to hire and fire their chiefs.” [USA Today, 8/4/04]

9-11 Staff Director: Position Pointless Without Real Power. Philip Zelikow, executive director of the 9-11 Commission said about the national intelligence director, “If Congress takes the shell of this idea and then dilutes the powers so that it looks like they’ve done it but they haven’t really done it, then you will have another bureaucratic layer, and I’ll just say here, if that’s the way it ends up, they might as well not do anything at all because they’ll make us more worse off than we were before.” [Newshour with Jim Lehrer, 7/23/04]


Posted by richard at 03:14 PM

In July, merely 32,000 jobs were created, marking the fourth month in a row during which employment creation declined.

James Carville's "axiom, "It's the Economy, Stupid," is, of course, still very relevant. But, sadly, over the course of the last few years, the LNS's paraphrase, "It's the Media, Stupid," has becomes *at least* as relevent to the outcome of national elections. Today, in acknowledgement of the extraordinary contortions that the "US mainstream news media" is going through in their attempts to cover for the Busb abomination, the LNS coins a new one: "It's How the Media Reports the Economy, Stupid."

Christian E. Weller, Center for American Progress: Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest figures on the state of the labor market. According to these statistics, the labor market continues to create jobs, but at a rapidly slowing pace. In July, merely 32,000 jobs were created, marking the fourth month in a row during which employment creation declined. Over the past 11 months, 1.5 million new jobs were created, which is far short of what the economy needs to even keep pace with population growth and it still leaves with 1.2 million fewer jobs than at the beginning of the recession. Hence, July also ended the weakest 32-month period in a recovery in terms of job growth with average monthly employment growth of 0.01 percent.

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=136591

Labor Market Recovery: Too Little, Too Late?

by Christian E. Weller
August 6, 2004

Today, the Bureau of Labor Statistics released its latest figures on the state of the labor market. According to these statistics, the labor market continues to create jobs, but at a rapidly slowing pace. In July, merely 32,000 jobs were created, marking the fourth month in a row during which employment creation declined. Over the past 11 months, 1.5 million new jobs were created, which is far short of what the economy needs to even keep pace with population growth and it still leaves with 1.2 million fewer jobs than at the beginning of the recession. Hence, July also ended the weakest 32-month period in a recovery in terms of job growth with average monthly employment growth of 0.01 percent.

However, the attention over the past few months has shifted away from employment gains to wage losses. And today’s figures give no reason to cheer about wage gains. Hourly earnings increased by 0.3 percent and weekly earnings by 0.6 percent. Yet, at the same time, prices have also been rising. Although we won’t know the exact extent of inflation for July, extrapolating from the price increases of the past 12 months, we can calculate inflation adjusted hourly and weekly earnings. Assuming that inflation in July equaled the average for the prior 12 months, average hourly earnings would have barely kept pace with inflation for a total gain of 0.1 percent in July and weekly earnings rose by 0.4 percent. This still leaves hourly and weekly earnings below their level at the start of the recovery.

Without stronger income gains from solid employment and wage gains, it is unclear whether the recovery is truly self-sustaining. For this recovery to be self-sustaining in the coming months and years, economic growth needs to fuel the labor market recovery and vice versa. However, the weakness in the labor market has already taken a toll on economic growth. In the second quarter of 2004, economic growth slowed markedly from previous quarters. This could largely be attributed to less consumption growth. Consumer spending increased by an annualized rate of only 1 percent in the second quarter equal to the second quarter of 2001 and otherwise the lowest increase since 1995.

And it seems that consumption turned around since then. The Department of Commerce reported just this week that personal spending declined by a stunning 0.7 percent in June - the largest monthly decline in almost three years. In addition, household spending on new construction, including home renovations, declined by 0.6 percent in June, the Census Bureau reported earlier this week.

The weakness of the labor market is only partly to blame for the slowdown in household spending. Another reason is the fact that households are heavily burdened by consumer credit and that interest rates have been rising. Consequently, measures of financial distress for households are likely to show increasing problems. Credit card default rates were already above 5 percent at the end of last year and the beginning of this year. And debt service burden rates – the share of disposable income that households need each quarter to pay back their loans – have been at or above 13 percent for 13 quarters through the first quarter of this year. As interest rates have risen substantially since the first quarter of this year and the labor market has weakened since then, especially with respect to wages, financial distress measures are likely to show more and more households cracking under these strains in the near future.

Couldn’t somebody else pick up the slack? The problem with that is that household consumption constitutes more than two-thirds of the U.S. economy. To compensate for the slow down in consumption, other sectors have to grow a lot faster. And here more problems loom. The federal government and state and local governments are still struggling with their own financial problems and are curtailing spending. And while exports seem to have gained some momentum, so have imports. In the second quarter of 2004, the U.S. economy marched to a new record trade deficit with 4.8 percent of gross domestic product. That leaves only business investment to offer some relief. While business spending has picked up, it is too early to tell whether this will be enough to sustain the recovery.

The data released over the past few weeks tell a fairly clear story. Without a strong labor market recovery, a strong recovery is likely not sustainable. And so far, the labor market has not shown the strength needed to make this recovery self-sustaining. Today’s numbers further prove the point.

Christian E. Weller is a senior economist at the Center for American Progress.


Posted by richard at 03:10 PM

August 05, 2004

Bruce Springsteen: Chords for Change

An Electoral Uprising is coming in November 2004. As Jimmy Carter said, the "soul of America itself is at stake." As Teresa Heinz Kerry said, "True patriots speak truth to power." You are not alone.


Bruce Springsteen, New York Times: Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."

Restore the Timeline, Show Uo for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080604Z.shtml

Chords for Change
By Bruce Springsteen
The New York Times

Thursday 05 August 2004

A nation's artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. Over the years I've tried to think long and hard about what it means to be American: about the distinctive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried. I've tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.

These questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. Personally, for the last 25 years I have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. Instead, I have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. This year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.

Through my work, I've always tried to ask hard questions. Why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? Why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? How do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? Why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?

I don't think John Kerry and John Edwards have all the answers. I do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. They understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all America's citizens, courage and faith.

People have different notions of these values, and they live them out in different ways. I've tried to sing about some of them in my songs. But I have my own ideas about what they mean, too. That is why I plan to join with many fellow artists, including the Dave Matthews Band, Pearl Jam, R.E.M., the Dixie Chicks, Jurassic 5, James Taylor and Jackson Browne, in touring the country this October. We will be performing under the umbrella of a new group called Vote for Change. Our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come November.

Like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, I felt the country's unity. I don't remember anything quite like it. I supported the decision to enter Afghanistan and I hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. Instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in Iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. We ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. We granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of "one nation indivisible."

It is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities - respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals - that we come to life in God's eyes. It is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. Our American government has strayed too far from American values. It is time to move forward. The country we carry in our hearts is waiting.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Springsteen is a writer and performer.
-------


Posted by richard at 04:49 PM

August 04, 2004

Springsteen, Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam stumping against Bush

There is an Electoral Uprising coming in November 2004. They cannot roast us all.

Larry McShane, Associated Press: In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts - including Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks - will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush.
The shows, which will begin Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.
"We're trying to put forward a group of progressive ideals and change the administration in the White House," Springsteen told The Associated Press in the most overtly political statements of his 30-year career. "That's the success or failure, very clear cut and very simple."

Restore the Timeline, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/politics/story/1542386p-9091771c.html

Springsteen, Dixie Chicks, Pearl Jam stumping against Bush
By LARRY McSHANE, Associated Press
Last Updated 6:13 am PDT Wednesday, August 4, 2004
NEW YORK (AP) - In an unprecedented series of concerts in nine swing states, more than 20 musical acts - including Bruce Springsteen, Pearl Jam and the Dixie Chicks - will perform fund-raising concerts one month before the Nov. 2 election in an effort to unseat President Bush.
The shows, which will begin Oct. 1 in Pennsylvania, will take an unusual approach: as many as six concerts on a single day in cities across the states expected to decide the November presidential race. Other stops on the tour are North Carolina, Ohio, Michigan, Iowa, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin and the key state in 2000, Florida.

"We're trying to put forward a group of progressive ideals and change the administration in the White House," Springsteen told The Associated Press in the most overtly political statements of his 30-year career. "That's the success or failure, very clear cut and very simple."


The artists of different generations and genres will tour under the name "Vote For Change," with shows Oct. 1-8. But the money generated will go to America Coming Together, which promises on its Web site to "derail the right-wing Republican agenda by defeating George W. Bush."
The anticipated millions of dollars will be spent in the swing states before the presidential election, said ACT president Ellen Malcolm.

The shows will be presented by MoveOn Pac, the electoral arm of the liberal interest group MoveOn.org, with an official announcement expected Wednesday.

There was no immediate word on prices for tickets, which were going on sale for all shows Aug. 21. The shows will pair artists, such as Springsteen and REM or the Dixie Chicks and James Taylor. There will be 34 shows in 28 cities.

Natalie Maines, of the Dixie Chicks, who memorably told a London audience last year that she was ashamed to share her home state of Texas with Bush, echoed a Springsteen comment that this was the most important election of their lives.

"A change is in order," Maines said. "There's never been a political climate like this, which is so the polar opposite of me as a person and what I believe in."

The idea was hatched by several of the acts' managers, and quickly expanded. "Once we started talking to each other, ideas started percolating and other artists started reaching out to us," said Jon Landau, Springsteen's manager.

Other artists participating in the shows include hip-hoppers Jurassic 5, John Mellencamp, Bonnie Raitt, Jackson Browne, Babyface, Bright Eyes and the Dave Matthews Band. Most have a history of social activism, from Browne's anti-nuclear concerts to Mellencamp's Farm Aid shows. Pearl Jam front man Vedder was a Ralph Nader backer in 2000.

"At some point, you can't sit still," said Vedder, a harsh critic of the Iraq war. "You can't spend your life, when people are getting killed, without asking serious questions about why."

Springsteen said he didn't fear any backlash over going public with his personal politics.

"It's a pretty clear-cut decision in November," said Springsteen, whose songs have provided a backdrop for some Kerry events. "We're chipping in our two cents. That's all we're trying to do."


Posted by richard at 01:50 PM

Wall St. Sees Little to Fear from Kerry Presidency

Some of the worst news that the increasingily unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident has ever heard. Is Greater Greenspania finally distancing itself from the Bush cabal? Yes.

Ritu Kalra, Reuters: It might be too early to say Wall Street's money managers are warming to the idea of John Kerry as president, but an increasing number are taking the idea seriously.
In early June, all 37 hedge fund managers surveyed by International Strategy & Investment thought George W. Bush would win a second term, but by last week, 53 percent were expecting a Kerry victory...Although many have concerns that Kerry's environmental and health-care policies could dampen profits of energy and pharmaceutical companies, some think the Democratic candidate can safely guide the economy and improve foreign relations. His emphasis on fiscal discipline, in particular, scores votes and even money from wealthy Wall Street backers.
"There are a lot of people here who have second thoughts about the war (in Iraq)," said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. "And there are far more than that who are concerned about fiscal responsibility in Washington."

Restore Fiscal Responsibility to the White House, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=reutersEdge&storyID=5848405

Wall St. Sees Little to Fear from Kerry Presidency
Mon Aug 2, 2004 01:28 PM ET

By Ritu Kalra
NEW YORK (Reuters) - It might be too early to say Wall Street's money managers are warming to the idea of John Kerry as president, but an increasing number are taking the idea seriously.

In early June, all 37 hedge fund managers surveyed by International Strategy & Investment thought George W. Bush would win a second term, but by last week, 53 percent were expecting a Kerry victory.

For mutual fund managers, the figures have not changed much, with about 80 percent still seeing Bush back in the White House.

On electronic betting exchanges like Dublin-based Intrade, the odds of Bush's re-election slipped from 75 percent in January to a low of 49 percent in mid-July, before regaining some ground to 54 percent on Monday.

Although many have concerns that Kerry's environmental and health-care policies could dampen profits of energy and pharmaceutical companies, some think the Democratic candidate can safely guide the economy and improve foreign relations. His emphasis on fiscal discipline, in particular, scores votes and even money from wealthy Wall Street backers.

"There are a lot of people here who have second thoughts about the war (in Iraq)," said Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. "And there are far more than that who are concerned about fiscal responsibility in Washington."

Friday's White House report saying the U.S. budget deficit will hit a record $445 billion this year stoked those concerns. Kerry has pledged to cut the deficit in half over the next four years.

DEMOCRATIC GAINS

"Once you get the budget under control, a lot of good things happen," Hormats said. "Kerry will be good for the economy, and therefore good for the markets."

History supports that notion. A Merrill Lynch study going back to 1943 showed the stock market returned 13.6 percent during Democratic administrations, more than the 11.7 percent it yielded when Republican were in the White House.

Some industries may actually benefit from a Kerry presidency. Alternative energy stocks, for example, could get a boost from the candidate's support for increased use of renewable energy, Smith Barney analyst David Smith said in a recent note to investors.

Even some defense stocks, long seen as Republican beneficiaries, could hold ground under Kerry. While the industry as a whole is vulnerable to cuts as the Iraq war winds down and the federal deficit takes center stage, a shift in priorities could boost some defense stocks over others, analysts say.

Bush came into office with the goal of transforming the military into a technology-savvy, networked system that could fight wars with fewer troops. But critics say that vision has left the military too thin, and Kerry has proposed 40,000 additional active-duty troops. Outfitting and equipping them will cost money.

"One thing that belies the stereotype, that mitigates against any investors selling defense stocks in the event of a Kerry victory, is the fact that Kerry has proposed 40,000 more troops and almost outflanks Bush," said Charles Gabriel, senior Washington strategist at Prudential Equity Group.

He said the "good old Army contractors" like General Dynamics Corp., Armor Holdings Inc. and Alliant Tech Systems stand to gain.

NO CLEAR DIRECTION

Beyond defense, energy and health-care, investors have had a tough time identifying industries that would be affected by a Kerry presidency, especially if Republicans dominate Congress.

"It's not like he is running on some clearly defined program," said Seven Bleiberg, head of global investment strategy at Citigroup Asset Management. "It's hard to figure out who'd be the winners and losers."

One major worry on Wall Street pertains to Kerry's tax policy. The Democratic hopeful plans to roll back recent tax cuts for people with incomes over $200,000. Economists say that would undo the fiscal stimulus that fueled consumer spending, the heart of last year's economic rebound.

Upscale retailers such as Neiman Marcus Group Inc. and Nordstrom Inc. have reported solid sales growth this year, while discount stores like Wal-Mart Stores Inc. have said steep gasoline prices are pinching consumers' pocketbooks.

As it stands, consumer spending rose at a paltry rate of 1 percent during the second quarter, the smallest increase since the 2001 recession.

As investors wrangle over new terrorist warnings and worry about whether corporate America can sustain profit growth, uncertainty about the government's regulatory orientation in coming years remains a vexing question.

Byron Wien, Morgan Stanley's chief U.S. strategist, expects stocks to improve during the second half of 2004, in part because by then the Kerry question will be settled.

"Fear of change seems worse than actual change," he wrote in a report last week. "And I think that will be true this year as well."

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

© Copyright Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Any copying, re-publication or re-distribution of Reuters content or of any content used on this site, including by framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without prior written consent of Reuters.
Quotes and other data are provided for your personal information only, and are not intended for trading purposes. Reuters, the members of its Group and its data providers shall not be liable for any errors or delays in the quotes or other data, or for any actions taken in reliance thereon.

© Reuters 2004. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.

Close This Window

Posted by richard at 01:47 PM

August 03, 2004

'Everything is at stake,' Kerry tells riverfront crowd. Race's intensity visible in exchanges with Bush supporters

The "US mainstream news media" is trying to deep-six Kerry-Edwards. It is not even subtle. The LNS has reviewed dozens of examples from the air waves and the print media, over the last several days, but we are tired of documenting it. We are not going to waste our time on it. Just do la ook up on "It's the Media, Stupid," in the LNS searchable database and you will have hundreds of examples. Turn-out is what everyone needs to focus on now, turn-out and toughness. Will enough of you show up on Election Day? And will you have the toughness between now and then to survive this revolting performance by the Corporatist media? Kerry-Edwards understand what's going on here. They know what time it is in America, even if some of our fellow citizens are living in a fantasy world. That's why Kerry-Edwards are going STRAIGHT to the Electorate, and even rolling into towns so small they have never been visited by a Presidential candidate...It is only going to get worse from here on out...Here is a report from the frontline...Remember, what Bill Clinton said at the DNC, "Remember the Scipture, "Be not afraid." Of course, he was not only talking about Al Qaeda, he was talking about the brown shirts of the "vast reich wing conspiracy" that wants to break you with the Corporatist media's propapunditgandists, and convince you that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) is just "not connecting" and that your fellow citizens feel "safer" with the Three Stooges Reich in command. Are we living in the Land of the Zombies. The LNS does not think so...We have squandered an unprecendented federal budget surplus and plunged the nation hundreds of billions of dollars of deficit this year alone because of tax cuts we didn't need, the US military is over-extended, disillusioned and trapped with no exit strategy, fighting against a hostile populace in a war we did not have to start and lied our way into, we have lost four years we did not have to spare in the struggle against global warming...No, we are not living in the Land of the Zombies, and yes, there is an Electoral Uprising coming in November 2004...TURNOUT and TOUGHNESS...That's the battlecry now..."Be not afraid."

CRAIG GILBERT and ALAN J. BORSUK, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel: After scooting across Lake Michigan by high-speed ferry, Democrat John Kerry staged a large, raucous rally along the Milwaukee River Monday night, deriding President Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism and portraying the election as an all-or-nothing pivot point in the nation's future.
"Everything is at stake!" Kerry told thousands of supporters who packed into Pere Marquette Park and lined the opposite side of the river. "Jobs! Health care! Education! Civil liberties! Civil rights! The Constitution! Social Security! Medicare! Our children! The environment! Our future! All of it is on the line."
The high-stakes intensity of the campaign could also be seen Monday in noisy confrontations between Kerry and Bush supporters and the use of bullhorns and air horns by a small group of Bush supporters to try to disrupt the speeches, prompting Kerry and his wife to respond to what the candidate termed "goons."
While she was introducing her husband, Teresa Heinz Kerry referred to the group's audible call for "Four more years."
Said Heinz Kerry, "They want four more years of hell."
The Kerry crowd followed with chants of "Three more months."
Kerry also responded to the pro-Bush chanters, saying they wanted to "drown people out" with their megaphones.
"We don't want to be drowned out," Kerry said. "I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work! Thank you!"

Be A Smash-Mouth Patriot, Show Up For Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

Original URL: http://www.jsonline.com/news/nat/aug04/248359.asp

'Everything is at stake,' Kerry tells riverfront crowd. Race's intensity visible in exchanges with Bush supporters
By CRAIG GILBERT and ALAN J. BORSUK
cgilbert@journalsentinel.com
Posted: Aug. 2, 2004
After scooting across Lake Michigan by high-speed ferry, Democrat John Kerry staged a large, raucous rally along the Milwaukee River Monday night, deriding President Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism and portraying the election as an all-or-nothing pivot point in the nation's future.

Kerry's Milwaukee Stop



"Everything is at stake!" Kerry told thousands of supporters who packed into Pere Marquette Park and lined the opposite side of the river. "Jobs! Health care! Education! Civil liberties! Civil rights! The Constitution! Social Security! Medicare! Our children! The environment! Our future! All of it is on the line."

The high-stakes intensity of the campaign could also be seen Monday in noisy confrontations between Kerry and Bush supporters and the use of bullhorns and air horns by a small group of Bush supporters to try to disrupt the speeches, prompting Kerry and his wife to respond to what the candidate termed "goons."

While she was introducing her husband, Teresa Heinz Kerry referred to the group's audible call for "Four more years."

Said Heinz Kerry, "They want four more years of hell."

The Kerry crowd followed with chants of "Three more months."

Kerry also responded to the pro-Bush chanters, saying they wanted to "drown people out" with their megaphones.

"We don't want to be drowned out," Kerry said. "I want to thank George Bush for sending the goons here tonight to excite us to do a little more work! Thank you!"

Kerry pressed his criticisms of Bush over the report of the 9-11 commission, calling the president slow and reluctant to react to the need to reform the intelligence system.

And Kerry said the country's ability to gather intelligence was undercut by poor relations with allies under Bush.

"The way you win the war on terror is know who they are, where they are, and being able to go get 'em before they get us. And that requires the best intelligence in the world. And that requires the best cooperation with other countries we've ever had," Kerry said.

"The one thing they do worst," he said of the Bush Administration, "we need to do better."

Kerry's visit came on day four of a two-week post-convention trek across the country, mostly by bus, partly by train.

Riding the new ferry from Muskegon, Mich. - Kerry's only stretch of boat travel on the coast-to-coast swing - was a touch of novelty and theatrics that also provided a quick beeline from one battleground state to another. The marathon trip was designed to build on last week's Democratic National Convention. Some polls have given Kerry a modest boost after the convention, others little or no boost.

Busing across southern Wisconsin today, Kerry will stop in Beloit for a town hall meeting and drive on to Iowa.

Kerry was joined on stage at the Milwaukee rally by Wisconsin's two Democratic U.S. senators, Herb Kohl and Russ Feingold, and rock musician Dave Grohl of the Foo Fighters.

In her lengthy introduction, Heinz Kerry, describing herself as a "sassy" grandmother, went through a litany of reasons to choose her husband over the Republican incumbent.

"It is important to have a president who not only understands, but enjoys complexity," she said.

"It is important to have a president that believes having friends and making friends in this world is not a sign of weakness but a sign of strength . . . It is important to have a president who can actually admit to success and failures, that learns from both. And it's vital for anyone intelligent to acknowledge mistakes and maybe change a position," she said.

Republicans have accused Kerry of flip-flopping.

Responding to Kerry's visit for the Bush campaign, Republican Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker accused Kerry of "talking down the future" in his downbeat assessment of how the nation is doing under Bush and "ignoring" his own Senate record.

"Wisconsin voters aren't going to trust a candidate who plays politics with the war on terror," said Walker in a statement, criticizing Kerry's vote against an $87 billion appropriation for the Iraq war and reconstruction.

In his speech, Kerry painted a grim portrait of the home front under Bush, from poverty and homelessness to shrinking wages.

"We think we can do better," said Kerry, who promised to roll back the Bush tax cuts for high-income Americans and "invest in education, health care and job creation."

About 30 Bush supporters chanted loudly during the speeches by Kerry and his wife, sometimes setting off air horns. The pro-Bush group was on the Kilbourn Ave. sidewalk overlooking Pere Marquette Park, almost a full block from the stage, but it could be heard throughout the park, including on stage.

Tom Lange, 18, of Waukesha said he was setting off an air horn during Kerry's remarks because "we want them to hear us and not hear what he has to say."

Lange said it's "probably not nice, but it's my beliefs."

Michael Gaspar, 18, of Waukesha used a bullhorn frequently before and during the rally to welcome Kerry supporters "to Bush-Cheney country" and to spur on the Bush supporters.

Asked why he was leading the Bush volunteers in loud chants while Kerry was speaking, he said, "I'm doing this to show my support for President George W. Bush."

"I have the right to speak also," he said. "I'm just attempting to get my voice heard."

There were several incidents of scuffling between Kerry and Bush supporters during the rally, including one in which it appeared a Kerry supporter attempted to throw a large Bush-Cheney sign into the Milwaukee River. Police and sheriff's deputies on foot and on horseback moved into the crowd several times and ordered people to move on and to break up their confrontations. No arrests were made, although one man was pinned to the ground by a sheriff's deputy at one point.

About 100 Bush supporters lined the Kilbourn Ave. sidewalk before the rally so that thousands of Kerry supporters had to slowly shuffle past them as they waited to go through security checks to get into the park. Supporters for each candidate exchanged chants of campaign slogans, mixed frequently with insults.

Many of the Bush supporters carried waffles or waved flip-flops in the air, symbols of their view of Kerry. Several held signs criticizing Kerry's views on abortion and challenging his standing as a Catholic.

In addition to the large crowd in Pere Marquette Park, more than 1,000 Kerry supporters lined the Marcus Center of the Performing Arts side of the river, where they were able to hear reasonably well and see the stage in the distance.

From the Aug. 3, 2004, editions of the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Get the Journal Sentinel delivered to your home. Subscribe now.

Posted by richard at 03:12 PM

Open Letter To Thomas Kean - Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission - From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

Remember, even though denizens of Beltwayistan, from both sides of the aisle, want you to forget, 2+2 still equals "4" in America...

Sibel Edmonds, Scoop: Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues...

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080304W.shtml

UQ Wire: Sibel Edmonds Letter To Thomas Kean
Scoop

Monday 02 August 2004

Open Letter To Thomas Kean - Chairman Of The 9/11 Commission - From FBI Whistleblower Sibel Edmonds

August 1, 2004

Thomas Kean, Chairman
National Committee on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States
301 7th Street, SW
Room 5125
Washington, DC 20407

Dear Chairman Kean:

It has been almost three years since the terrorist attacks on September 11; during which time we, the people, have been placed under a constant threat of terror and asked to exercise vigilance in our daily lives. Your commission, the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks upon the United States, was created by law to investigate "facts and circumstances related to the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001" and to "provide recommendations to safeguard against future acts of terrorism", and has now issued its "9/11 Commission Report". You are now asking us to pledge our support for this report, its recommendations, and implementation of these recommendations, with our trust and backing, our tax money, our security, and our lives. Unfortunately, I find your report seriously flawed in its failure to address serious intelligence issues that I am aware of, which have been confirmed, and which as a witness to the commission, I made you aware of. Thus, I must assume that other serious issues that I am not aware of were in the same manner omitted from your report. These omissions cast doubt on the validity of your report and therefore on its conclusions and recommendations. Considering what is at stake, our national security, we are entitled to demand answers to unanswered questions, and to ask for clarification of issues that were ignored and/or omitted from the report. I, Sibel Edmonds, a concerned American Citizen, a former FBI translator, a whistleblower, a witness for a United States Congressional investigation, a witness and a plaintiff for the Department of Justice Inspector General investigation, and a witness for your own 9/11 Commission investigation, request your answers to, and your public acknowledgement of, the following questions and issues:

After the terrorist attacks of September 11 we, the translators at the FBI's largest and most important translation unit, were told to slow down, even stop, translation of critical information related to terrorist activities so that the FBI could present the United States Congress with a record of 'extensive backlog of untranslated documents', and justify its request for budget and staff increases. While FBI agents from various field offices were desperately seeking leads and suspects, and completely depending on FBI HQ and its language units to provide them with needed translated information, hundreds of translators were being told by their administrative supervisors not to translate and to let the work pile up (please refer to the CBS-60 Minutes transcript dated October 2002, and provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This issue has been confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (Please refer to Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy's letters during the summer of 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This confirmed report has been reported to be substantiated by the Department of Justice Inspector General Report (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, almost three years after 9/11, and more than two years since this information has been confirmed and made available to our government, the administrators in charge of language departments of the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of the information front lines of the FBI's Counter terrorism and Counterintelligence efforts. Your report has omitted any reference to this most serious issue, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this issue, which when left un-addressed will have even more serious consequences. This issue is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and this serious issue despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Melek Can Dickerson, a Turkish Translator, was hired by the FBI after September 11, and was placed in charge of translating the most sensitive information related to terrorists and criminals under the Bureau's investigation. Melek Can Dickerson was granted Top Secret Clearance, which can be granted only after conducting a thorough background investigation. Melek Can Dickerson used to work for a semi-legit organizations that were the FBI's targets of investigation. Melek Can Dickerson had on going relationships with two individuals who were FBI's targets of investigation. For months Melek Can Dickerson blocked all-important information related to these semi-legit organizations and the individuals she and her husband associated with. She stamped hundreds, if not thousands, of documents related to these targets as ' Not Pertinent.' Melek Can Dickerson attempted to prevent others from translating these documents important to the FBI's investigations and our fight against terrorism. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, Mike Feghali, took hundreds of pages of top-secret sensitive intelligence documents outside the FBI to unknown recipients. Melek Can Dickerson, with the assistance of her direct supervisor, forged signatures on top-secret documents related to certain 9/11 detainees. After all these incidents were confirmed and reported to FBI management, Melek Can Dickerson was allowed to remain in her position, to continue the translation of sensitive intelligence received by the FBI, and to maintain her Top Secret clearance. Apparently bureaucratic mid-level FBI management and administrators decided that it would not look good for the Bureau if this security breach and espionage case was investigated and made public, especially after going through Robert Hanssen's case (FBI spy scandal). This case (Melek Can Dickerson) was confirmed by the Senate Judiciary Committee (Please refer to Senator Leahy and Grassley's letters dated June 19 and August 13, 2002, and Senator Grassley's statement on CBS-60 Minutes in October 2002, provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). This Dickerson incident received major coverage by the press (Please refer to media background provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). According to Director Mueller, the Inspector General criticized the FBI for failing to adequately pursue this espionage report regarding Melek Can Dickerson ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and additional documents. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

Today, more than two years since the Dickerson incident was reported to the FBI, and more than two years since this information was confirmed by the United States Congress and reported by the press, these administrators in charge of FBI personnel security and language departments in the FBI remain in their positions and in charge of translation quality and translation departments' security. Melek Can Dickerson and several FBI targets of investigation hastily left the United States in 2002, and the case still remains uninvestigated criminally. Not only does the supervisor facilitating these criminal conducts remain in a supervisory position, he has been promoted to supervising Arabic language units of the FBI's Counterterrorism and Counterintelligence investigations. Your report has omitted these significant incidents, has foregone any accountability what so ever, and your recommendations have refrained from addressing this serious information security breach and highly likely espionage issue. This issue needs to be investigated and criminally prosecuted. The translation of our intelligence is being entrusted to individuals with loyalties to our enemies. Important 'chit-chats' and 'chatters' are being intentionally blocked. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve this misconduct by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over three years ago, more than four months prior to the September 11 terrorist attacks, in April 2001, a long-term FBI informant/asset who had been providing the bureau with information since 1990, provided two FBI agents and a translator with specific information regarding a terrorist attack being planned by Osama Bin Laden. This asset/informant was previously a high-level intelligence officer in Iran in charge of intelligence from Afghanistan. Through his contacts in Afghanistan he received information that: 1) Osama Bin Laden was planning a major terrorist attack in the United States targeting 4-5 major cities, 2) the attack was going to involve airplanes, 3) some of the individuals in charge of carrying out this attack were already in place in the United States, 4) the attack was going to be carried out soon, in a few months. The agents who received this information reported it to their superior, Special Agent in Charge of Counterterrorism, Thomas Frields, at the FBI Washington Field Office, by filing "302" forms, and the translator translated and documented this information. No action was taken by the Special Agent in Charge, and after 9/11 the agents and the translators were told to 'keep quiet' regarding this issue. The translator who was present during the session with the FBI informant, Mr. Behrooz Sarshar, reported this incident to Director Mueller in writing, and later to the Department of Justice Inspector General. The press reported this incident, and in fact the report in the Chicago Tribune on July 21, 2004 stated that FBI officials had confirmed that this information was received in April 2001, and further, the Chicago Tribune quoted an aide to Director Mueller that he (Mueller) was surprised that the Commission never raised this particular issue with him during the hearing (Please refer to Chicago Tribune article, dated July 21, 2004). Mr. Sarshar reported this issue to your investigators on February 12, 2004, and provided them with specific dates, location, witness names, and the contact information for that particular Iranian asset and the two special agents who received the information (Please refer to the tape-recorded testimony provided to your investigators during a 2.5 hours testimony by Mr. Sarshar on February 12, 2004). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses, and documents I had seen. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). Mr. Sarshar also provided the Department of Justice Inspector General with specific information regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

After almost three years since September 11, many officials still refuse to admit to having specific information regarding the terrorists' plans to attack the United States. The Phoenix Memo, received months prior to the 9/11 attacks, specifically warned FBI HQ of pilot training and their possible link to terrorist activities against the United States. Four months prior to the terrorist attacks the Iranian asset provided the FBI with specific information regarding the 'use of airplanes', 'major US cities as targets', and 'Osama Bin Laden issuing the order.' Coleen Rowley likewise reported that specific information had been provided to FBI HQ. All this information went to the same place: FBI Headquarters in Washington, DC, and the FBI Washington Field Office, in Washington DC. Yet, your report claims that not having a central place where all intelligence could be gathered as one of the main factors in our intelligence failure. Why did your report choose to exclude the information regarding the Iranian asset and Behrooz Sarshar from its timeline of missed opportunities? Why was this significant incident not mentioned; despite the public confirmation by the FBI, witnesses provided to your investigators, and briefings you received directly? Why did you surprise even Director Mueller by refraining from asking him questions regarding this significant incident and lapse during your hearing (Please remember that you ran out of questions during your hearings with Director Mueller and AG John Ashcroft, so please do not cite a 'time limit' excuse)? How can budget increases address and resolve these problems and failure to follow up by mid-level bureaucratic management at FBI Headquarters? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, " Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

Over two years ago, and after two 'unclassified' sessions with FBI officials, the Senate Judiciary Committee sent letters to Director Mueller, Attorney General Ashcroft, and Inspector General Glenn Fine regarding the existence of unqualified translators in charge of translating high level sensitive intelligence. The FBI confirmed at least one case: Kevin Taskesen, a Turkish translator, had been given a job as an FBI translator, despite the fact that he had failed all FBI language proficiency tests. In fact, Kevin could not understand or speak even elementary level English. He had failed English proficiency tests and did not even score sufficiently in the target language. Still, Kevin Taskesen was hired, not due to lack of other qualified translator candidates, but because his wife worked in FBI Headquarters as a language proficiency exam administrator. Almost everybody in FBI Headquarters and the FBI Washington Field Office knew about Kevin. Yet, Kevin was given the task of translating the most sensitive terrorist related information, and he was sent to Guantánamo Bay to translate the interrogation of and information for all Turkic language detainees (Turkish, Uzbeks, Turkmen, etc.). The FBI was supposed to be trying to obtain information regarding possible future attack plans from these detainees, and yet, the FBI knowingly sent unqualified translators to gather and translate this information. Further, these detainees were either released or detained or prosecuted based on information received and translated by unqualified translators knowingly sent there by the FBI. Senator Grassley and Senator Leahy publicly confirmed Kevin Taskesen's case ( Please refer to Senate letters and documents provided to your investigators in January-February 2004). CBS-60 Minutes showed Kevin's picture and stated his name as one of the unqualified translators sent to Guantánamo Bay, and as a case confirmed by the FBI ( Please refer to CBS-60 Minutes transcript provided to your investigators). Department of Justice Inspector General had a detailed account of these problems ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After more than two years since Kevin Taskesen's case was publicly confirmed, and after almost two years since CBS-60 Minutes broadcasted Taskesen's case, Kevin Taskesen remains in his position, as a sole Turkish and Turkic language translator for the FBI Washington Field Office. After admitting that Kevin Taskesen was not qualified to perform the task of translating sensitive intelligence and investigation of terrorist activities, the FBI still keeps him in charge of translating highly sensitive documents and leads. Those individuals in the FBI's hiring department and those who facilitated the hiring of unqualified translators due to nepotism/cronyism are still in those departments and remain in their positions. Yet, your report does not mention this case, or these chronic problems within the FBI translation departments, and within the FBI's hiring and screening departments. The issue of accountability for those responsible for these practices that endangers our national security is not brought up even once in your report. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why did your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite the evidence and briefings you received? How can budget increases address and resolve the intentional continuation of ineptitude and incompetence by mid-level bureaucratic management? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

In October 2001, approximately one month after the September 11 attack, an agent from a (city name omitted) field office, re-sent a certain document to the FBI Washington Field Office, so that it could be re-translated. This Special Agent, in light of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, rightfully believed that, considering his target of investigation (the suspect under surveillance), and the issues involved, the original translation might have missed certain information that could prove to be valuable in the investigation of terrorist activities. After this document was received by the FBI Washington Field Office and retranslated verbatim, the field agent's hunch appeared to be correct. The new translation revealed certain information regarding blueprints, pictures, and building material for skyscrapers being sent overseas. It also revealed certain illegal activities in obtaining visas from certain embassies in the Middle East, through network contacts and bribery. However, after the re-translation was completed and the new significant information was revealed, the unit supervisor in charge of certain Middle Eastern languages, Mike Feghali, decided NOT to send the re-translated information to the Special Agent who had requested it. Instead, this supervisor decided to send this agent a note stating that the translation was reviewed and that the original translation was accurate. This supervisor stated that sending the accurate translation would hurt the original translator and would cause problems for the FBI language department. The FBI agent requesting the retranslation never received the accurate translation of that document. I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the name and date of this particular investigation, and the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this. (Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004). This information was also provided to the Department of Justice Inspector General (Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report).

Only one month after the catastrophic events of September 11; while many agents were working around the clock to obtain leads and information, and to investigate those responsible for the attacks, those with possible connections to the attack, and those who might be planning possible future attacks; the bureaucratic administrators in the FBI's largest and most important translation unit were covering up their past failures, blocking important leads and information, and jeopardizing on going terrorist investigations. The supervisor involved in this incident, Mike Feghali, was in charge of certain important Middle Eastern languages within the FBI Washington Field Office, and had a record of previous misconducts. After this supervisor's several severe misconducts were reported to the FBI's higher-level management, after his conducts were reported to the Inspector General's Office, to the United States Congress, and to the 9/11 Commission, he was promoted to include the FBI's Arabic language unit under his supervision. Today this supervisor, Mike Feghali, remains in the FBI Washington Field Office and is in charge of a language unit receiving those chitchats that our color-coded threat system is based upon. Yet your report contains zero information regarding these systemic problems that led us to our failure in preventing the 9/11 terrorist attacks. In your report, there are no references to individuals responsible for hindering past and current investigations, or those who are willing to compromise our security and our lives for their career advancement and security. This issue, as with others, is systemic and departmental. Why does your report choose to exclude this information and these serious issues despite all the evidence and briefings you received? Why does your report adamantly refrain from assigning any accountability to any individuals responsible for our past and current failures? How can budget increases address and resolve these intentional acts committed by self-serving career civil servants? How can the addition of a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, address and resolve this problem?

The latest buzz topic regarding intelligence is the problem of sharing information/intelligence within intelligence agencies and between intelligence agencies. To this date the public has not been told of intentional blocking of intelligence, and has not been told that certain information, despite its direct links, impacts and ties to terrorist related activities, is not given to or shared with Counterterrorism units, their investigations, and countering terrorism related activities. This was the case prior to 9/11, and remains in effect after 9/11. If Counterintelligence receives information that contains money laundering, illegal arms sale, and illegal drug activities, directly linked to terrorist activities; and if that information involves certain nations, certain semi-legit organizations, and ties to certain lucrative or political relations in this country, then, that information is not shared with Counterterrorism, regardless of the possible severe consequences. In certain cases, frustrated FBI agents cited 'direct pressure by the State Department,' and in other cases 'sensitive diplomatic relations' is cited. The Department of Justice Inspector General received detailed and specific information and evidence regarding this issue ( Please refer to DOJ-IG report Re: Sibel Edmonds and FBI Translation, provided to you prior to the completion of your report). I provided your investigators with a detailed and specific account of this issue, the names of other witnesses willing to corroborate this, and the names of certain U.S. officials involved in these transactions and activities. ( Please refer to tape-recorded 3.5 hours testimony by Sibel Edmonds, provided to your investigators on February 11, 2004).

After almost three years the American people still do not know that thousands of lives can be jeopardized under the unspoken policy of 'protecting certain foreign business relations.' The victims family members still do not realize that information and answers they have sought relentlessly for over two years has been blocked due to the unspoken decisions made and disguised under 'safeguarding certain diplomatic relations.' Your report did not even attempt to address these unspoken practices, although, unlike me, you were not placed under any gag. Your hearings did not include questions regarding these unspoken and unwritten policies and practices. Despite your full awareness and understanding of certain criminal conduct that connects to certain terrorist related activities, committed by certain U.S. officials and high-level government employees, you have not proposed criminal investigations into this conduct, although under the laws of this country you are required to do so. How can budget increases address and resolve these problems, when some of them are caused by unspoken practices and unwritten policies? How can a new bureaucratic layer, "Intelligence Czar", in its cocoon removed from the action lines, override these unwritten policies and unspoken practices incompatible with our national security?

I know for a fact that problems regarding intelligence translation cannot be brushed off as minor problems among many significant problems. Translation units are the frontline in gathering, translating, and disseminating intelligence. A warning in advance of the next terrorist attack may, and probably will, come in the form of a message or document in foreign language that will have to be translated. That message may be given to the translation unit headed and supervised by someone like Mike Feghali, who slows down, even stops, translations for the purpose of receiving budget increases for his department, who has participated in certain criminal activities and security breaches, and who has been engaged in covering up failures and criminal conducts within the department, so it may never be translated in time if ever. That message may go to Kevin Taskesen, or another unqualified translator; so it may never be translated correctly and be acted upon. That message may go to a sympathizer within the language department; so it may never be translated fully, if at all. That message may come to the attention of an agent of a foreign organization who works as a translator in the FBI translation department, who may choose to block it; so it may never get translated. If then an attack occurs, which could have been prevented by acting on information in that message, who will tell family members of the new terrorist attack victims that nothing more could have been done? There will be no excuse that we did not know, because we do know.

I am writing this letter in light of my direct experience within the FBI's translation unit during the most crucial times after the 9/11 terrorist attacks, in light of my first hand knowledge of certain problems and cases within the Bureau's language units, and in light of what has already been established as facts. As you are fully aware, the facts, incidents, and problems cited in this letter are by NO means based upon personal opinion or un-verified allegations. As you are fully aware, these issues and incidents were found confirmed by a Senior Republican Senator, Charles Grassley, and a Senior Democrat Senator, Patrick Leahy. As you know, according to officials with direct knowledge of the Department of Justice Inspector General's report on my allegations, 'none of my allegations were disproved.' As you are fully aware, even FBI officials 'confirmed all my allegations and denied none' during their unclassified meetings with the Senate Judiciary staff over two years ago. However, neither your commission's hearings, nor your commission's five hundred sixty seven-page report, nor your recommendations include these serious issues, major incidents, and systemic problems. Your report's coverage of FBI translation problems consists of a brief microscopic footnote (Footnote #25). Yet, your commission is geared to start aggressively pressuring our government to hastily implement your measures and recommendations based upon your incomplete and deficient report.

In order to cure a problem, one must have an accurate diagnosis. In order to correctly diagnose a problem, one must consider and take into account all visible symptoms. Your Commission's investigations, hearings, and report have chosen not to consider many visible symptoms. I am emphasizing 'visible', because these symptoms have been long recognized by experts from the intelligence community and have been written about in the press. I am emphasizing 'visible' because the few specific symptoms I provided you with in this letter have been confirmed and publicly acknowledged. During its many hearings your commission chose not to ask the questions necessary to unveil the true symptoms of our failed intelligence system. Your Commission intentionally bypassed these severe symptoms, and chose not to include them in its five hundred and sixty seven-page report. Now, without a complete list of our failures pre 9/11, without a comprehensive examination of true symptoms that exist in our intelligence system, without assigning any accountability what so ever, and therefore, without a sound and reliable diagnosis, your commission is attempting to divert attention from the real problems, and to prescribe a cure through hasty and costly measures. It is like attempting to put a gold-lined expensive porcelain cap over a deeply decayed tooth with a rotten root, without first treating the root, and without first cleaning/shaving the infected tooth.

Respectfully,

Sibel D. Edmonds

CC: Senate Judiciary Committee
CC: Senate Intelligence Committee
CC: House Government Reform Committee
CC: Family Steering Committee
CC: Press

-------

Posted by richard at 03:10 PM

August 02, 2004

While the Homeland Insecurity Secretary plays with his Crayolas...Calm 'Em Powell talks to the Plame Grand Jury, billions of US dollars are unaccounted for in Iraq, and the stench of Abu Ghraib is sticking, at least, to Rumsfeld

The LNS is posted today from the 33rd floor of a high
rise office building in the downtown financial
district in San Franciso...Secretary of Homeland
Insecurity Tom Ridge is playing with his Crayolas
again...and so, these scandal, as well as very bad
economic news, and, of course, the compelling message
of Kerry-Edwards, are kept off the air waves as much
as possible...But, in the spirit of the increasingly
unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's new
stress on the theme "RESULTS MATTER," the LNS wants to
make sure you don't miss the latest news on the MOST
INCOMPETENT, CORRUPT and ILLEGITIMATE administration
in US history...Does anyone care? What has happened in
this country? The LNS believes you do. The LNS feels
there is an Electoral Uprising coming in November
2004.

Associated Press: The U.S. grand jury investigating
the leak of an undercover CIA operative's name has
interviewed Secretary of State Colin Powell, but he is
not a subject of the inquiry, the State Department
said Sunday. Department spokesman Richard Boucher,
traveling with Powell on a diplomatic visit to Poland,
said Powell appeared on July 16 at the grand jury's
invitation. ``The secretary is not a subject of
inquiry,'' Boucher said. ``He was pleased to cooperate
with the grand jury.''

Matt Kelley, Associated Press: U.S. authorities in
Baghdad spent hundreds of millions of Iraqi dollars
without keeping good enough records to show whether
they got some services and products they paid for,
government investigators said.
Officials of the former Coalition Provisional
Authority did not have records to justify the $24.7
million cost for replacing Iraq's currency, according
to the report from the authority's inspector general.
The report also said the authority paid nearly
$200,000 for 15 police trucks without knowing if the
trucks were delivered.

Michael Hirsh and John Barry, Newsweek: Rumsfeld may
be rebuked by his own commission investigating prison
abuse. James Schlesinger has always been a hawk. But
in four decades of public life, the square-jawed
former professor has also been known as mulishly
independent, whether as Defense and Energy secretary
or CIA director. (President Gerald Ford, annoyed by
Schlesinger's arrogance, fired him.) All of which
could add up to an unpleasant surprise for another old
Washington lion who is not renowned for his humility:
Donald Rumsfeld. In mid-August, the commission that
Schlesinger chairs - handpicked by Rumsfeld from
members of his own Defense Policy Board - is expected
to issue its final report on abuses by U.S.
interrogators stemming from the Abu Ghraib Prison
scandal. NEWSWEEK has learned the Schlesinger panel is
leaning toward the view that failures of command and
control at the Pentagon helped create the climate in
which the abuses occurred.
The four-member commission's report is still being
drafted and its final conclusions are not yet
definite. But there is strong sentiment to assign some
responsibility up the line to senior civilian
officials at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, several
sources close to the discussions say. The Defense
secretary is expected to be criticized, either
explicitly or implicitly, for failing to provide
adequate numbers of properly trained troops for
detaining and interrogating captives in Afghanistan
and Iraq. His office may also be rebuked for not
setting clear interrogation rules and for neglecting
to see that guidelines were followed. The
commissioners "are taking an unvarnished look at the
issue as a whole," said a source close to the
commission. "A more extensive look than some people
had initially thought they might take."

Cleanse the White House of the Chickenhawk Coup and Its
War-Profiteering Cronies, Show Up for Democracy in
2004: Defeat Bush (again!)

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/international/AP-CIA-Leak-Powell.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position=--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

August 1, 2004
Grand Jury Hears Testimony From Powell
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS

Filed at 10:11 p.m. ET

WARSAW, Poland (AP) -- The U.S. grand jury
investigating the leak of an undercover CIA
operative's name has interviewed Secretary of State
Colin Powell, but he is not a subject of the inquiry,
the State Department said Sunday.

Department spokesman Richard Boucher, traveling with
Powell on a diplomatic visit to Poland, said Powell
appeared on July 16 at the grand jury's invitation.
``The secretary is not a subject of inquiry,'' Boucher
said. ``He was pleased to cooperate with the grand
jury.''

Powell is the latest official from the Bush
administration to be called before the grand jury in
Washington.

White House counsel Alberto Gonzales and spokesman
Scott McClellan have been summoned, and grand jury
investigators have interviewed President Bush and Vice
President Dick Cheney in their offices.

Powell's appearance was first reported Sunday by
Newsweek.

The grand jury investigation is to determine who
leaked the name of Valerie Plame to syndicated
columnist Robert Novak last July. Disclosure of an
undercover officer's identity can be a federal crime.

Novak revealed Plame's work for the CIA a week after
her husband, Joseph Wilson, a former ambassador,
criticized Bush's claim in the 2003 State of the Union
address that Iraq had tried to obtain uranium from
Niger, a major uranium-exporting nation in Africa.

The CIA had sent Wilson to Niger in mid-1992 to check
the allegation, and he concluded it was unfounded. The
administration has acknowledged that its inclusion in
the State of the Union address was a mistake.

In printing Plame's name, Novak wrote that two
administration officials said Wilson's wife suggested
that he be sent to Niger.

Boucher referred questions about Powell's testimony to
the Justice Department because grand jury operations
are secret.

Asked whether Powell called or talked to Novak about
Wilson's wife, Boucher said: ``Of course not!

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&u=/ap/20040730/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_audit_13&printer=1

Audit: Spending Records on Iraq Lacking

Fri Jul 30,11:23 AM ET

By MATT KELLEY

WASHINGTON - U.S. authorities in Baghdad spent
hundreds of millions of Iraqi dollars without keeping
good enough records to show whether they got some
services and products they paid for, government
investigators said.

Officials of the former Coalition Provisional
Authority did not have records to justify the $24.7
million cost for replacing Iraq (news - web sites)'s
currency, according to the report from the authority's
inspector general. The report also said the authority
paid nearly $200,000 for 15 police trucks without
knowing if the trucks were delivered.

The report, released in Washington late Wednesday, is
the first formal audit of contracting procedures under
the authority, which oversaw billions of dollars in
reconstruction spending that critics say was doled out
without proper controls.


The agency's defenders say it did the best it could
given the pressure of operating in a war zone and
trying to get reconstruction going quickly.


In a report to Congress being released Friday, the
authority's inspector general, Stuart W. Bowen Jr.,
said his teams found several management problems.
Bowen's office is investigating 27 possible criminal
cases and has closed or referred for prosecution 42
others.


One example was poor control over an oil pipeline
repair contract that resulted in more than $3 million
in overcharges, including billing for work not done.
Also, the assistant to the U.S. military coach for an
Iraqi sports team gambled away part of the $40,000
allocated for team travel to tournaments.


Officials have seized $29,000 in an investigation of
counterfeiting in Iraq, the report to Congress said.


The report did not say if any investigations had
resulted in criminal charges but noted that at least
two Americans had been fired and returned to the
United States. Iraqi prosecutors are handling the case
of an Iraqi who took payoffs while falsely claiming to
be with the Education Ministry, the report said.


The general overseeing reconstruction contracts in
Iraq said in response to the audit that the lack of
documentation did not prove the money was wasted.


"We believe the contracts awarded with Iraqi funds
were for the sole benefit of the Iraqi people, without
exception," Army Brig. Gen. Stephen M. Seay wrote to
the inspector general.


The authority ran Iraq from May 2003 until the United
States handed over power to an interim Iraqi
government on June 28. The authority used seized funds
from Saddam Hussein (news - web sites)'s government
and oil revenues to pay for 1,928 contracts worth
about $847 million, the inspector general's report
said.


An authority rule from last August called for
following international law and U.N. regulations while
spending Iraqi money. But the authority did not issue
standard operating procedures or develop effective
contract review, monitoring and evaluation, the report
said.


Seay said the authority's contracting office was
overworked, understaffed and under constant threat of
attack.


The investigators reviewed 43 contracts and found 29
had incomplete or missing documentation. For each of
the 29, "We were unable to determine if the goods
specified in the contract were ever received, the
total amount of payments made to the contractor or if
the contractor fully complied with the terms of the
contract," investigators wrote.


For example, the official overseeing a contract for 15
double-cab pickup trucks for an Iraqi police
department paid $87,500 before the trucks were
delivered and an additional $100,000 without getting
written records that the trucks arrived at the police
department, the report said. The report did not say
whether the trucks were ever delivered.


The report also criticized the contract for exchanging
Iraqi currency, which had been cited as a key success
by the authority's former administrator, L. Paul
Bremer.

Copyright 2004 The Associated Press | Home | Privacy
Policy | Search | Corrections | RSS | Help | Back to
Top

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080204Y.shtml

Battle Over Blame
By Michael Hirsh and John Barry
Newsweek

09 August 2004 Issue

Rumsfeld may be rebuked by his own commission
investigating prison abuse.
James Schlesinger has always been a hawk. But in
four decades of public life, the square-jawed former
professor has also been known as mulishly independent,
whether as Defense and Energy secretary or CIA
director. (President Gerald Ford, annoyed by
Schlesinger's arrogance, fired him.) All of which
could add up to an unpleasant surprise for another old
Washington lion who is not renowned for his humility:
Donald Rumsfeld. In mid-August, the commission that
Schlesinger chairs - handpicked by Rumsfeld from
members of his own Defense Policy Board - is expected
to issue its final report on abuses by U.S.
interrogators stemming from the Abu Ghraib Prison
scandal. NEWSWEEK has learned the Schlesinger panel is
leaning toward the view that failures of command and
control at the Pentagon helped create the climate in
which the abuses occurred.

The four-member commission's report is still being
drafted and its final conclusions are not yet
definite. But there is strong sentiment to assign some
responsibility up the line to senior civilian
officials at the Pentagon, including Rumsfeld, several
sources close to the discussions say. The Defense
secretary is expected to be criticized, either
explicitly or implicitly, for failing to provide
adequate numbers of properly trained troops for
detaining and interrogating captives in Afghanistan
and Iraq. His office may also be rebuked for not
setting clear interrogation rules and for neglecting
to see that guidelines were followed. The
commissioners "are taking an unvarnished look at the
issue as a whole," said a source close to the
commission. "A more extensive look than some people
had initially thought they might take."

"Some people" includes Rumsfeld himself. The
Defense secretary's original charter for the
commission asked only for the Schlesinger team's
"professional advice" and obliquely urged them to
steer clear of "issues of personal accountability,"
which Rumsfeld said "will be resolved through
established military justice and administrative
procedures." (After Schlesinger argued about the
charter language, Rumsfeld allowed that "any
information you may develop will be welcome.")
Rumsfeld also indicated that he expected members to
spend most of their 45-day inquiry reviewing the
findings of the other "procedures." These include five
ongoing inquiries into abuses, none of which is
designed to probe responsibility beyond the uniformed
ranks.

But the commission quickly struck out on its own,
recruiting 20 investigators and sending them as far
afield as Afghanistan and Iraq. They also
re-interviewed most of the principal players in the
abuse scandal - including the commanders at Abu
Ghraib, senior Pentagon civilians and Rumsfeld - and
obtained classified material that even the Senate
Armed Services Committee hasn't yet seen. Pentagon
spokesman Joseph Yoswa said he had no comment on the
forthcoming report.

As Schlesinger and his team rush to complete their
draft report by Friday - the final version is expected
Aug. 18 - participants say there's been a good amount
of contention over how high to go and how tough to be.
The central "philosophical debate," sources say, turns
on whether Al Qaeda poses such a new challenge that
the old rules of detention and interrogation are no
longer adequate, or whether America should stick to
its traditions and treaty obligations, even against an
adversary that respects neither. Despite Schlesinger's
willingness to criticize, to go "where the facts and
information take them," as one source said, he tends
to take the hawkish, this-is-a-new-war side. Arrayed
with him is said to be commission director James
Blackwell, a civilian contractor. On the
traditionalist, Geneva side of the debate are former
Defense secretary Harold Brown, a Democrat, and
retired Air Force Gen. Charles Horner. At one point,
Schlesinger argued that Geneva Conventions did not
apply to Afghanistan because the Taliban were not
"reciprocating." He backed off when Brown countered
that U.S. legal and moral standards conform to Geneva
in any case.

Rumsfeld has been widely criticized for paring
down the occupation force for Iraq. Until now,
however, that criticism has rarely extended to the
prison-abuse issue. But some commissioners believe
that the 800th Military Police Brigade, which ran the
Iraqi prison system, was badly overstretched and not
trained well for detention duty. Previously, the
brigade's 372nd MP Company - the main culprit in the
Abu Ghraib abuses - had served as traffic cops.

Some on the commission also believe that Rumsfeld
and senior officials failed early on to set up clear,
baseline rules for interrogations - an ethical "stop"
sign, in a sense. This opened the way to abuse in an
atmosphere in which President George W. Bush and
senior officials were demanding that interrogators
obtain better intel and were openly questioning the
Geneva Conventions. The lack of direction from the top
created confusion at Abu Ghraib and other prisons,
according to testimony heard by the Schlesinger
commission. Documents indicate that interrogation
officials often undercut or ignored Army Field Manual
34-52, the standard doctrine setting interrogation
guidelines in conformance with Geneva. One example is
a classified assessment of Army detention operations
in Iraq done in the late summer of 2003 - a copy of
which was obtained by NEWSWEEK. While the author, the
then Gitmo commander Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, refers
at one point to "providing a humane environment," he
does not mention Geneva protections or the field
manual when he recommends that MPs "set conditions"
for "successful exploitation of the internees."

The Schlesinger commission report is one of
several slated for completion in the doldrums of
mid-August, when few people are paying attention. But
the report won't be the final word on abuse. The
Senate Armed Services Committee will likely hold
hearings in the fall, despite administration pressure
on the chairman, Sen. John Warner, to wrap his
investigation up quickly. And those hearings - with
help from the Schlesinger team - could well determine
how history will view Rumsfeld's tenure.

-------


Posted by richard at 03:31 PM

"Can't Blair See that this Country is About to Explode? Can't Bush?"

The increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident is barnstorming around the Neo-Conferderacy, blurting out a new theme: "RESULTS MATTER! RESULTS MATTER!" Is someone on the inside trying to save the Bush family further embarassment by sabotaging the increasingly unhinged and incredibly shrinking _resident's campaign from inside? OK. "Results matter."

Robert Fisk, Independent: The war is a fraud. I'm not talking about the weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida which didn't exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I'm talking about the new lies.
For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.

Repudiate the 9/11 Cover-Up and the Iraq War Lies, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/080204E.shtml

'Can't Blair See that this Country is About to Explode? Can't Bush?'
By Robert Fisk
The Independent UK

Sunday 01 August 2004

The Prime Minister has accused some journalists of almost wanting a disaster to happen in Iraq. Robert Fisk, who has spent the past five weeks reporting from the deteriorating and devastated country, says the disaster has already happened, over and over again.
The war is a fraud. I'm not talking about the weapons of mass destruction that didn't exist. Nor the links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida which didn't exist. Nor all the other lies upon which we went to war. I'm talking about the new lies.

For just as, before the war, our governments warned us of threats that did not exist, now they hide from us the threats that do exist. Much of Iraq has fallen outside the control of America's puppet government in Baghdad but we are not told. Hundreds of attacks are made against US troops every month. But unless an American dies, we are not told. This month's death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone has now reached 700 - the worst month since the invasion ended. But we are not told.

The stage management of this catastrophe in Iraq was all too evident at Saddam Hussein's "trial". Not only did the US military censor the tapes of the event. Not only did they effectively delete all sound of the 11 other defendants. But the Americans led Saddam Hussein to believe - until he reached the courtroom - that he was on his way to his execution. Indeed, when he entered the room he believed that the judge was there to condemn him to death. This, after all, was the way Saddam ran his own state security courts. No wonder he initially looked "disorientated" - CNN's helpful description - because, of course, he was meant to look that way. We had made sure of that. Which is why Saddam asked Judge Juhi: "Are you a lawyer? ... Is this a trial?" And swiftly, as he realised that this really was an initial court hearing - not a preliminary to his own hanging - he quickly adopted an attitude of belligerence.

But don't think we're going to learn much more about Saddam's future court appearances. Salem Chalabi, the brother of convicted fraudster Ahmad and the man entrusted by the Americans with the tribunal, told the Iraqi press two weeks ago that all media would be excluded from future court hearings. And I can see why. Because if Saddam does a Milosevic, he'll want to talk about the real intelligence and military connections of his regime - which were primarily with the United States.

Living in Iraq these past few weeks is a weird as well as dangerous experience. I drive down to Najaf. Highway 8 is one of the worst in Iraq. Westerners are murdered there. It is littered with burnt-out police vehicles and American trucks. Every police post for 70 miles has been abandoned. Yet a few hours later, I am sitting in my room in Baghdad watching Tony Blair, grinning in the House of Commons as if he is the hero of a school debating competition; so much for the Butler report.

Indeed, watching any Western television station in Baghdad these days is like tuning in to Planet Mars. Doesn't Blair realise that Iraq is about to implode? Doesn't Bush realise this? The American-appointed "government" controls only parts of Baghdad - and even there its ministers and civil servants are car-bombed and assassinated. Baquba, Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Hilla, Fallujah, Ramadi, all are outside government authority. Iyad Allawi, the "Prime Minister", is little more than mayor of Baghdad. "Some journalists," Blair announces, "almost want there to be a disaster in Iraq." He doesn't get it. The disaster exists now.

When suicide bombers ram their cars into hundreds of recruits outside police stations, how on earth can anyone hold an election next January? Even the National Conference to appoint those who will arrange elections has been twice postponed. And looking back through my notebooks over the past five weeks, I find that not a single Iraqi, not a single American soldier I have spoken to, not a single mercenary - be he American, British or South African - believes that there will be elections in January. All said that Iraq is deteriorating by the day. And most asked why we journalists weren't saying so.

But in Baghdad, I turn on my television and watch Bush telling his Republican supporters that Iraq is improving, that Iraqis support the "coalition", that they support their new US-manufactured government, that the "war on terror" is being won, that Americans are safer. Then I go to an internet site and watch two hooded men hacking off the head of an American in Riyadh, tearing at the vertebrae of an American in Iraq with a knife. Each day, the papers here list another construction company pulling out of the country. And I go down to visit the friendly, tragically sad staff of the Baghdad mortuary and there, each day, are dozens of those Iraqis we supposedly came to liberate, screaming and weeping and cursing as they carry their loved ones on their shoulders in cheap coffins.

I keep re-reading Tony Blair's statement. "I remain convinced it was right to go to war. It was the most difficult decision of my life." And I cannot understand it. It may be a terrible decision to go to war. Even Chamberlain thought that; but he didn't find it a difficult decision - because, after the Nazi invasion of Poland, it was the right thing to do. And driving the streets of Baghdad now, watching the terrified American patrols, hearing yet another thunderous explosion shaking my windows and doors after dawn, I realise what all this means. Going to war in Iraq, invading Iraq last year, was the most difficult decision Blair had to take because he thought - correctly - that it might be the wrong decision. I will always remember his remark to British troops in Basra, that the sacrifice of British soldiers was not Hollywood but "real flesh and blood". Yes, it was real flesh and blood that was shed - but for weapons of mass destruction that weren't real at all.

"Deadly force is authorised," it says on checkpoints all over Baghdad. Authorised by whom? There is no accountability. Repeatedly, on the great highways out of the city US soldiers shriek at motorists and open fire at the least suspicion. "We had some Navy Seals down at our checkpoint the other day," a 1st Cavalry sergeant says to me. "They asked if we were having any trouble. I said, yes, they've been shooting at us from a house over there. One of them asked: 'That house?' We said yes. So they have these three SUVs and a lot of weapons made of titanium and they drive off towards the house. And later they come back and say 'We've taken care of that'. And we didn't get shot at any more."

What does this mean? The Americans are now bragging about their siege of Najaf. Lieutenant Colonel Garry Bishop of the 37th Armoured Division's 1st Battalion believes it was an "ideal" battle (even though he failed to kill or capture Muqtada Sadr whose "Mehdi army" were fighting the US forces). It was "ideal", Bishop explained, because the Americans avoided damaging the holy shrines of the Imams Ali and Hussein. What are Iraqis to make of this? What if a Muslim army occupied Kent and bombarded Canterbury and then bragged that they hadn't damaged Canterbury Cathedral? Would we be grateful?

What, indeed, are we to make of a war which is turned into a fantasy by those who started it? As foreign workers pour out of Iraq for fear of their lives, US Secretary of State Colin Powell tells a press conference that hostage-taking is having an "effect" on reconstruction. Effect! Oil pipeline explosions are now as regular as power cuts. In parts of Baghdad now, they have only four hours of electricity a day; the streets swarm with foreign mercenaries, guns poking from windows, shouting abusively at Iraqis who don't clear the way for them. This is the "safer" Iraq which Mr Blair was boasting of the other day. What world does the British Government exist in?

Take the Saddam trial. The entire Arab press - including the Baghdad papers - prints the judge's name. Indeed, the same judge has given interviews about his charges of murder against Muqtada Sadr. He has posed for newspaper pictures. But when I mention his name in The Independent, I was solemnly censured by the British Government's spokesman. Salem Chalabi threatened to prosecute me. So let me get this right. We illegally invade Iraq. We kill up to 11,000 Iraqis. And Mr Chalabi, appointed by the Americans, says I'm guilty of "incitement to murder". That just about says it all.

-------

Posted by richard at 03:27 PM

August 01, 2004

The Nation: How They Could Steal the Election This Time

The Zogby polling data released 7/30 (reflecting conditions prior to the Democratic Convention) indicates that Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mekong Delta) has taken back about 75% of the vote that went for the shell-of-a-man-formerly known-as-Ralph-Nader in 2000. That's enouraging because every vote counts, but every vote might not get counted, so it is important not to throw any votes away. But, of course, having the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph Nader on the ballot at all provides them with a plausible place to park electronic votes for Kerry that they want to lose...Look for a "surge" in the polls from the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader, they will claim it is because JFK is "for the war," which is a LIE propagated sadly and embarrasingly by the "left" as much as by the "right." And, if you have read the LNS for some time, you know the LNS denounced JFK for his vote on Iraq, but we also know neither Gore nor JFK would have gone into Iraq...and that is the bottom line...if the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader really understand or cared (either it is one or the other, either he does not understand or he does not care) he would be throwing himself and his adherents into the struggle over black box voting and other election fraud and disenfranchisement issues not jeaporadizing the only chance we have of preventing the Bush cabal from naming the next two or three Supreme Court Justices, probably including the Chief Justice...a vote for the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader is a vote for Chief Justice Scalia, even a signature on a petition to put the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader on the ballot is a vote for Chief Justice Scalia...the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader got 100K votes in Fraudida, and 14K votes in New Hampshire, even if only half of those voters had voted for Gore, the 900+ US soldiers would not have died in Iraq and the US would not have a multi-trillion Federal deficit. The shell-of-a-man-formerly known-as-Ralph-Nader said there was no difference between a vot efor Gore and a vote for Bush, now he is running on Republican money and getting on the ballot through Republican field organizations..."In a two-way trial heat between the Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, among registered voters, Sen. John Kerry/Sen. John Edwards lead President George Bush/Vice President Dick Cheney 52-44 percent, according to the latest Newsweek Poll, conducted Thursday and Friday. In a three-way race with the Ralph Nader/Peter Camejo ticket added, Kerry/Edwards receives 49 percent of the vote; Bush/Cheney, 42 percent and Nader/Camejo, 3 percent, the poll shows." Do you understand? There is not even any room this year for voting for the shell-of-a-man-formerly-known-as-Ralph-Nader in "safe states." There are none now...If we lived under a parlimentary system, the LNS would be Green, be we don't...If we did not labor under the Electoral College, the LNS might be Green, but we do..."Let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late."

Ronnie Dugger, The Nation: The United States therefore
faces the likelihood that about three out of ten of
the votes in the national election this November will
be unverifiable, unauditable and unrecountable. The
private election companies and local and state
election officials, when required to carry out
recounts of elections conducted inside the DREs, will
order the computers to spit out second printouts of
the vote totals and the computers' wholly electronic,
fakable "audit trail." The companies and most of the
election officials will then tell the voters that the
second printouts are "recounts" that prove the
vote-counting was "100 percent accurate," even though
a second printout is not a recount.

Thwart the Theft of a Second Presidential Election,
Show Up for Democray in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


This article can be found on the web at
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040816&s=dugger


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

How They Could Steal the Election This Time
by RONNIE DUGGER

[from the August 16, 2004 issue]

On November 2 millions of Americans will cast their
votes for President in computerized voting systems
that can be rigged by corporate or local-election
insiders. Some 98 million citizens, five out of every
six of the roughly 115 million who will go to the
polls, will consign their votes into computers that
unidentified computer programmers, working in the main
for four private corporations and the officials of
10,500 election jurisdictions, could program to
invisibly falsify the outcomes.

The result could be the failure of an American
presidential election and its collapse into
suspicions, accusations and a civic fury that will
make Florida 2000 seem like a family spat in the
kitchen. Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's Labor Secretary,
has written, "Automated voting machines will be easily
rigged, with no paper trails to document abuses."
Senator John Kerry told Florida Democrats last March,
"I don't think we ought to have any vote cast in
America that cannot be traced and properly recounted."
Pointing out in a recent speech at the NAACP
convention that "a million African-Americans were
disenfranchised in the last election," Kerry says his
campaign is readying 2,000 lawyers to "challenge any
place in America where you cannot trace the vote and
count the votes" [see Greg Palast, "Vanishing Votes,"
May 17].

The potential for fraud and error is daunting. About
61 million of the votes in November, more than half
the total, will be counted in the computers of one
company, the privately held Election Systems and
Software (ES&S) of Omaha, Nebraska. Altogether, nearly
100 million votes will be counted in computers
provided and programmed by ES&S and three other
private corporations: British-owned Sequoia Voting
Systems of Oakland, California, whose touch-screen
voting equipment was rejected as insecure against
fraud by New York City in the 1990s; the
Republican-identified company Diebold Election Systems
of McKinney, Texas, whose machines malfunctioned this
year in a California election; and Hart InterCivic of
Austin, one of whose principal investors is Tom Hicks,
who helped make George W. Bush a millionaire.

About a third of the votes, 36 million, will be
tabulated completely inside the new paperless,
direct-recording-electronic (DRE) voting systems, on
which you vote directly on a touch-screen. Unlike
receipted transactions at the neighborhood ATM,
however, you get no paper record of your vote. Since,
as a government expert says, "the ballot is embedded
in the voting equipment," there is no voter-marked
paper ballot to be counted or recounted. Voting on the
DRE, you never know, despite what the touch-screen
says, whether the computer is counting your vote as
you think you are casting it or, either by error or
fraud, it is giving it to another candidate. No one
can tell what a computer does inside itself by looking
at it; an election official "can't watch the bits
inside," says Dr. Peter Neumann, the principal
scientist at the Computer Science Laboratory of SRI
International and a world authority on computer-based
risks.

The four major election corporations count votes with
voting-system source codes. These are kept strictly
secret by contract with the local jurisdictions and
states using the machines. That secrecy makes it next
to impossible for a candidate to examine the source
code used to tabulate his or her own contest. In
computer jargon a "trapdoor" is an opening in the code
through which the program can be corrupted. David
Stutsman, an Indiana lawyer whose suits in the 1980s
exposed a trapdoor that was being used by the nation's
largest election company at that time, puts it well:
"The secrecy of the ballot has been turned into the
secrecy of the vote count."

According to Dr. David Dill, professor of computer
science at Stanford, all elections conducted on DREs
"are open to question." Challenging those who belittle
the danger of fraud, Dill says that with trillions of
dollars at stake in the battle for control of Congress
and the presidency, potential attackers who might seek
to fix elections include "hackers, candidates,
zealots, foreign governments and criminal
organizations," and "local officials can't stop it."

Last fall during a public talk on "The Voting Machine
War" for advanced computer-science students at
Stanford, Dill asked, "Why am I always being asked to
prove these systems aren't secure? The burden of proof
ought to be on the vendor. You ask about the hardware.
'Secret.' The software? 'Secret.' What's the
cryptography? 'Can't tell you because that'll
compromise the secrecy of the machines.'... Federal
testing procedures? 'Secret'! Results of the tests?
'Secret'! Basically we are required to have blind
faith."

The integrity of the vote-counting inside DREs depends
on audit logs and reports they print out, but as
Neumann says, these are "not real audit trails"
because they are themselves riggable. The DREs
randomly store three to seven complete sets of alleged
duplicates of each voter's ballot, and sets of these
images can be printed out after the election and
manually counted. The companies claim that satisfies
the requirement in the 2002 Help America Vote Act
(HAVA) that "a manual audit capacity" must be
available. But as informed computer scientists
unanimously agree, if the first set of ballot images
is corrupted, they all are. I asked Robert Boram, the
chief engineer who invented a DRE sold by the RF Shoup
voting-systems company, if he could rig his DRE's
three sets of ballot images. "Give me a month," he
replied.

The United States therefore faces the likelihood that
about three out of ten of the votes in the national
election this November will be unverifiable,
unauditable and unrecountable. The private election
companies and local and state election officials, when
required to carry out recounts of elections conducted
inside the DREs, will order the computers to spit out
second printouts of the vote totals and the computers'
wholly electronic, fakable "audit trail." The
companies and most of the election officials will then
tell the voters that the second printouts are
"recounts" that prove the vote-counting was "100
percent accurate," even though a second printout is
not a recount.

HAVA was supposed to solve election problems revealed
in 2000; instead, it has made the situation worse.
Under the act the Election Assistance Commission
(EAC), appointed by President Bush, is supposed to set
standards for the vote-counting process, but four
months before the election the new agency had only
seven full-time staff members. On June 17 the EAC sent
$861 million to twenty-five states, mainly to buy
computerized machines for which no new technical
standards have been set. Its just-appointed
fifteen-member technical standards committee does not
include more than one leading critic of computerized
vote-counting.

Rather than completely testing the vote-counting
codes, there is some secretive testing of systems by
three private companies that are chosen by the
pro-voting-business National Association of State
Election Directors. The companies consult obsolete
pro-company and completely voluntary standards
promulgated by the Federal Election Commission and get
paid by the very companies whose equipment is being
tested. The three private companies, speciously called
Independent Testing Authorities, together constitute a
Potemkin village to falsely assure the states and the
voters of the security of the systems. Often their
work is misrepresented as "federal testing." The
states then test and "certify" the systems, and the
local jurisdictions put on dog-and-pony-show "logic
and accuracy tests," which are not capable of
discovering hidden codes that would change vote
totals.

"The system is much more out of control than anyone
here may be willing to admit," Dr. Michael Shamos, a
computer scientist at Carnegie-Mellon University and
for many years an examiner of voting machines for
Texas and Pennsylvania, told a House panel on June 24.
"There's virtually no control over how software enters
a voting machine." Shamos told another House panel on
July 20, "There are no adequate standards for voting
machines, nor any effective testing protocols."

Hackable computer codes control vote-counting in all
three kinds of computerized systems that will be used
again in the 2004 elections: the ballotless DREs, on
which some 36 million will vote; optical-scan systems
that electronically tally paper ballots marked by the
voters, on which 40 million people will vote; and
punch-card ballots, also tabulated by computerized
card-readers, which gained notoriety in 2000 and are
still used by 22 million voters. (Another 16 million
still vote on the old lever machines, about a million
on hand-counted paper ballots.)

Florida 2000 was universally misunderstood and
mischaracterized in the press as a crisis of hanging
chads on the punch-card ballots. The serious issue,
then as now, was embodied in the explicit though all
but unreported position that James Baker, George W.
Bush's field commander in Florida, staked out to stop
the recounting of votes. The computerized
vote-counting systems, Baker declared, are "precision
machinery" that both count and recount votes more
accurately than people do. Now, with Senator Kerry
demanding recountability, an ominously intensifying
partisan split has developed in Washington over
whether to have a voter-verified paper trail and, when
necessary, to conduct recounts with it.



Posted by richard at 01:06 PM

Retired general: Bush foreign policy a 'national disaster'

Are you safer than you were four years ago? Yes, "results matter."

CNN: A former Air Force chief of staff and one-time "Veteran for Bush" said Saturday that America's foreign relations for the first three years of President Bush's term have been "a national disaster" but that the president's Democratic rival was "up to the task" of rebuilding.
Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War, delivered the Democratic radio address supporting implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations for national security.
"As president, John Kerry will not waste a minute in bringing action on the reforms urged by the 9/11 commission," McPeak said of the Massachusetts senator nominated by the Democrats this week. "And he will not rest until America's defenses are strong."
The president, on the other hand, "fought against the very formation of the commission and continues to the present moment to give it only grudging cooperation, no matter what he says," the general said. "Why should we believe he will do anything to institute the needed change?"

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democracy in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/07/31/dems.radio/index.html

Retired general: Bush foreign policy a 'national disaster'
Saturday, July 31, 2004 Posted: 11:15 AM EDT (1515 GMT)


(CNN) -- A former Air Force chief of staff and one-time "Veteran for Bush" said Saturday that America's foreign relations for the first three years of President Bush's term have been "a national disaster" but that the president's Democratic rival was "up to the task" of rebuilding.

Retired Gen. Tony McPeak, the Air Force chief of staff during the first Gulf War, delivered the Democratic radio address supporting implementation of the 9/11 commission's recommendations for national security.

"As president, John Kerry will not waste a minute in bringing action on the reforms urged by the 9/11 commission," McPeak said of the Massachusetts senator nominated by the Democrats this week. "And he will not rest until America's defenses are strong."

The president, on the other hand, "fought against the very formation of the commission and continues to the present moment to give it only grudging cooperation, no matter what he says," the general said. "Why should we believe he will do anything to institute the needed change?"

Administration officials have said that Bush could approve some of the commission's suggested changes by early next week.

McPeak, a former fighter pilot who campaigned for Bob Dole in 1996 as well as Bush in 2000, said Bush's inability to craft a true allied coalition was a serious deficiency.

"The report of the 9/11 commission makes this clear: Fighting terrorists alone just doesn't work," he said. "If our enemy hatches a terror plot in Rome, we will need help from the Italians. If German intelligence knows the whereabouts of a senior al Qaeda member, America must have that information."

Instead, he said, Bush has "alienated our friends, damaged our credibility around the world, reduced our influence to an all-time low in my lifetime, given hope to our enemies."

McPeak said he backed Bush in 2000 because he "had hoped this president could provide" the leadership needed to face modern threats. But disillusionment, he said, has led him to change his voter registration from Republican to independent and shift his support to Kerry.

"The real deal for me is not whether a strategy or a plan or an idea is Republican or Democrat, but whether it makes us safer," he said. "And it means an awful lot to me that John Kerry fought for his country as a young man."

"We who have some experience -- who have seen war close up and sent troops to battle -- know that victory is not won by single combat," he continued. "War is not like that. War is a team sport.

"We built the team that won World War II. We put together the great team that won the Cold War. That's why what has happened over the last three years is such a tragedy, such a national disaster. Rebuilding the team won't be easy."


Posted by richard at 12:59 PM

Le Monde & Guardian: Iraq and Afghanistan in chaos

Yes, "results matter." Are you safer today than you were four years ago? The botchted, bungled "war on terror" is not the strength of the Bush abomination, it is the SHAME of the Bush abomination...
Unfortunately, you have to read about it in Le Monde and The Guardian, because the "US mainstream news media" is still carrying the filthy water of the Bush cabal...

Matthew Tempest, Guardian: The government's handling of the "war on terror" received a damning appraisal this morning, as senior MPs warned that, more than a year after the invasion, Iraq was in danger of turning into a "failed state" and that Afghanistan "could implode".
The foreign affairs committee also reported that there was "little, if any" sign of the much heralded war on drugs being won under the new regime in Afghanistan. In a major new report analysing the government's foreign policy in relation to the "war on terror" - covering Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Israel and Palestine, the UN, Libya and Iran - the committee warns that the "coalition's failure to bring law and order to parts of Iraq created a vacuum into which criminal elements and militias have stepped".

Le Monde: It took Doctors without Borders' announcement of its departure from Afghanistan in response to the assassination of five of its members by the Taliban for the spotlights to turn back towards this unhappy country. The humanitarian organization, which has been on the ground there for twenty-four years, deemed that its teams' security could no longer be assured.
The "French Doctors" do not content themselves merely with criticizing President Karzai's government's parody of an inquiry; they call into question the whole western strategy and America itself. The promised economic aid has not materialized; foreign troop strength is dramatically insufficient to prevent security from deteriorating and to protect preparation for the upcoming elections: the presidential in October and the legislative in April 2005.

Support Our Troops, Show Up for Democray in 2004: Defeat Bush (again!)


http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1271730,00.html

Iraq may fail as a state, warn MPs

Full text: read the committee's report (pdf)

Matthew Tempest and agencies
Thursday July 29, 2004

The government's handling of the "war on terror" received a damning appraisal this morning, as senior MPs warned that, more than a year after the invasion, Iraq was in danger of turning into a "failed state" and that Afghanistan "could implode".
The foreign affairs committee also reported that there was "little, if any" sign of the much heralded war on drugs being won under the new regime in Afghanistan. In a major new report analysing the government's foreign policy in relation to the "war on terror" - covering Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Russia, Israel and Palestine, the UN, Libya and Iran - the committee warns that the "coalition's failure to bring law and order to parts of Iraq created a vacuum into which criminal elements and militias have stepped".

Speaking at a news conference to launch the report, Conservative committee member Sir John Stanley warned that, with elections just months away, Afghanistan was now "absolutely on the knife edge" - especially in the light of the decision yesterday of Médicin sans Frontières to pull out, after 25 years' service in the war-torn state.

The "clock is ticking" he warned, while the committee's chairman, Donald Anderson, warned "Iraq could go either way".

Mr Anderson said it would be "three or four more years" before it could be said whether the Iraq invasion had been a success or not.

The report says it is "disappointing" that other countries have not committed troops to Iraq, but Iraq is now in danger of becoming a "failed state", adding to "regional instability".

The cross-party committee of MPs warns that "the failure to meet Iraqi expectations [...] risks damaging the credibility of the United Kingdom in Iraq and Iraqi goodwill towards it."

As a first step it recommends setting new targets for water and electricity provision in Iraq.

Considering the number of private militia and mercenaries operating in Iraq, it also recommends the UK government should introduce legislation to regulate the behaviour of "private military companies".

On Afghanistan, the other frontline state in the "war on terror", the report criticises "fine communiqués and ringing declarations" while warning that its current status is "a fragile state in one of the most sensitive and volatile regions of the world [which could] implode, with terrible consequences."

The 11-strong group of senior MPs also range over the Middle East conflict and the UN. They call on the government to come up with a response to the prime minister's question, in a speech earlier this year, as to whether international law should be changed to allow pre-emptive attacks on states even when there is no "humanitarian disaster".

And it back the government on calling for the Israeli government to halt construction of its security wall on occupied land.

In a pessimistic conclusion, they say that the road map is "stalled, possibly fatally" and that "time is fast running out for a viable two-state solution to be found".

They also call on the "extreme poverty" of the Palestinians to be addressed, in an attempt to "de-radicalise" them.

Iraq


The MPs conclude that the insufficient number of foreign troops deployed to Iraq has contributed to the deterioration in security - although they refuse to specify which countries should have sent more troops.

The comments came just a day after a suicide car bomb north-east of Baghdad killed 68 Iraqis and wounded 56 others in the deadliest terror strike since Iraq's interim government was installed.

The report says the failure of countries other than the US and UK to send significant numbers of armed personnel to Iraq has produced "serious and regrettable consequences".

The MPs said the UK government should make a renewed effort to persuade other countries, including Islamic nations, to send troops.

Saudi Arabia has recently signalled that it might be prepared to take a lead in forming a Muslim security force for Iraq.

The committee further warned that Iraq's own army and police remain "a long way from being able to maintain security", and voiced serious concerns about the impact that continuing violence might have on the crucial elections planned for the start of next year.

The MPs said it was "disappointing" that so many countries had decided against committing forces to Iraq.

They said: "We conclude that it is highly desirable that elections proceed on schedule in order to foster Iraqi engagement and confidence in the political transition.

"However, we are concerned about the impact that the security situation could have on the validity of the election process.

The report also focuses on the controversy over the Red Cross report on the mistreatment of Iraqi detainees by coalition forces.

It noted that on February 26 this year, Foreign Office officials in Iraq attended a meeting with the International Committee of the Red Cross, at which they were formally presented with the interim findings of their inquiry into detainee mistreatment.

But ministers received copies only on May 10, after the emergence of media reports about its contents.

The committee said: "We are very concerned that key information on intelligence and on alleged human rights violations by British personnel was withheld from senior Foreign Office officials and from ministers.

It also reveals that Britons have been named as involved in the corruption of the Iraqi Oil for Food programme - but is "assured" that none of the individuals are connected with the UK government.

Afghanistan

The committee finds that "there is little, if any, sign of the war on drugs being won, and every indication that the situation is likely to deteriorate, at least in the short term.

"We recommend that the government, which is in the lead on the counter-narcotics strategy in Afghanistan, explain in its response to this report exactly how it proposes to meet the targets of reducing opium poppy cultivation by 75% by 2008, and eradicating it completely by 2013."

However, Sir John revealed that when the committee travelled to Afghanistan in May and met president Kharzai, "there didn't seem to be any policy to solve it [poppy production] in the mid term".

The committee called on the international community to provide greater resources ahead of the elections planned for later this year.

Iran

The committee warned that Iran's nuclear programme - which the west fears could be used to build nuclear weapons - "continues to pose an intense challenge for the international community".

"The continued exertion of diplomatic pressure by the European troika, the US and the Russian Federation is essential to its resolution," the committee concluded.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_04/073004H.shtml

The Afghan Trap
Le Monde Editorial

Thursday 29 July 2004

It took Doctors without Borders' announcement of its departure from Afghanistan in response to the assassination of five of its members by the Taliban for the spotlights to turn back towards this unhappy country. The humanitarian organization, which has been on the ground there for twenty-four years, deemed that its teams' security could no longer be assured.

The "French Doctors" do not content themselves merely with criticizing President Karzai's government's parody of an inquiry; they call into question the whole western strategy and America itself. The promised economic aid has not materialized; foreign troop strength is dramatically insufficient to prevent security from deteriorating and to protect preparation for the upcoming elections: the presidential in October and the legislative in April 2005.

Even more serious, DwB attacks an American strategy that mixes military operations and humanitarian aid: "To erase all distinctions between military efforts against insurgents and humanitarian work, puts all aid workers in danger," asserted this NGO's Secretary General. It's all the more dramatic as the Afghan population, hostage for decades to war and destruction, and which lives in some of the worst hygienic conditions in the world, has an urgent need of this aid.

After having been the symbol of the international- and not only American - response to al-Qaeda's terrorism right after the bloody September 11 2001 attacks, Afghanistan now risks becoming the symbol of the failure of the community of nations to rebuild this ravaged country. Obsessed by Iraq, American President Bush has never deployed adequate resources to capture Osama bin Laden and to consolidate the power of his ally, Karzai. For a long time he preferred to capitalize on the services of the war lords, who today are turning against the central power.

But the Europeans are no better, in spite of the reinforcement of their military presence on the ground. Security is less and less assured outside of Kabul. And, as NATO General Secretary Jaap de Hoop Scheffer declared during the recent Istanbul summit, it's in Afghanistan, where the organization musters 6,400 soldiers, that "NATO's credibility is at stake."

So is the European Union's. The Union's troops, with a French general at their head, are to assume command of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in September, when its troop strength is supposed to go from 6,500 to 10,000 men.

Afghanistan's security cannot be assured without an adequate military presence and above all without a coherent strategy. Without security, there is no political or economic reconstruction. Without security, the field is left open to the Taliban and every extremist movement, and a whole side of the strategy for the war against terrorism collapses. The credibility and the security of our world also are at stake in the Afghan mountains.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Translation: t r u t h o u t French language correspondent Leslie Thatcher.


Posted by richard at 12:56 PM

John Nichols: Obama coverage shows need for reform

It's the Media, Stupid.

John Nichols, Capital Times: When Barack Obama was delivering the finest keynote address heard at a Democratic National Convention since Mario Cuomo's 1984 speech in San Francisco, the nation's broadcast television networks were airing their usual mix of police dramas, a program about a Disney cruise, and a show that asked the question: "Who says pageant girls don't eat?"
ABC, NBC and CBS chose not to air any of Tuesday night's convention proceedings. For the first time since the development of broadcast television, Americans could not tune into one of their local commercial television stations and watch the nation's oldest political party reinventing itself for the newest campaign.

Break the Corporatist Stranglehold on the "US Mainstream News Media," Show Up for Democracy (again!)


John Nichols: Obama coverage shows need for reform

By John Nichols
July 29, 2004

About John
John Nichols is a native Wisconsinite, who has written for The Capital Times for the past decade.

BOSTON - When Barack Obama was delivering the finest keynote address heard at a Democratic National Convention since Mario Cuomo's 1984 speech in San Francisco, the nation's broadcast television networks were airing their usual mix of police dramas, a program about a Disney cruise, and a show that asked the question: "Who says pageant girls don't eat?"

ABC, NBC and CBS chose not to air any of Tuesday night's convention proceedings. For the first time since the development of broadcast television, Americans could not tune into one of their local commercial television stations and watch the nation's oldest political party reinventing itself for the newest campaign.

To be sure, the cable networks offered a reasonable mix of live convention coverage - ranging from the incessant play-by-play chatter of CNN to the potshots from Fox and the uninterrupted feed of C-Span - but the broadcast networks chose not to carry the convention. As such, they sent a powerful signal regarding the extent to which they take seriously their responsibility to provide citizens with the information that is the lifeblood of democracy.

It is true that much of what is said from the convention podium these days adds up to little more than a partisan infomercial. But there are still meaningful moments, and Obama's address was one of them. In fact, the Illinois state senator's speech was an exceptionally significant expression of the ever-evolving story of American citizenship and political engagement. Obama's often poetic message - with its "E pluribus unum: out of many one" theme - was the talk of the convention.

It was not, however, the talk of the nation because, of course, the networks chose not to give it the same time and attention they devoted to that program about the eating habits of "pageant girls."

The failure to broadcast the speech by a man many believe may someday be the country's first African-American president struck even some media veterans as troubling. On ABC's "The View," co-host Meredith Vieira spoke of how, "After (Obama) got done speaking, I had chills" and complained about the decision of the networks to neglect the keynote address. "He is a man that America needed to see," she said.

By any measure, Vieira is right.But don't expect broadcast television to get the message. The networks have replaced the civil and democratic values that once played a role in decisions about what to cover with commercial and entertainment values that dictate a denial of seriousness or perspective when it comes to political stories. That's one of the reasons why so many Americans objected last year to Federal Communications Commission proposals that would have lifted the cap on the number of local TV stations a corporation could own - and the amount of the viewing audience network-owned stations could reach.

Despite the intensity of the FCC rule fight, the campaign for media reform in America is only beginning to have a serious impact on the political process. But it is growing. And, while the neglect by the networks of the Obama speech is a troubling sign, there is an encouraging sign coming out of this convention.

On Tuesday night, delegates approved a platform that recognizes the burgeoning media reform movement in the United States. The language that was added to the platform, under pressure from unions such as the Communication Workers of America that have become increasing active in the fight for media reform, was not radical. But it was on message. "Because our democracy thrives on public access to diverse sources of information from multiple sources, we support measures to ensure diversity, competition and localism in media ownership," argues the new platform language.

There's a lot more that Democrats should stand for with regard to media reform. And, it is hoped, anger over the decision of the networks to skip coverage of Tuesday night's proceedings will cause party activists to recognize that complaining about the conservative bias of Fox is not enough. When the major networks choose pageant girls over political history, they themselves are making the case that democratic renewal cannot be achieved without radically altering the style and structure of our media system.

John Nichols is associate editor of The Capital Times. E-mail: jnichols@madison.com

Published: 9:25 AM 7/29/04

Posted by richard at 12:52 PM