Saturday, July 19, 2003
Thursday, July 17, 2003
John Kerry is the ONLY candidate that can bridge conservative, independent, moderate and liberal voters in an election because of rising doubts about Bush.
Here's a brief section from an article from today's NY TIMES on the problems the Democratic Presidential nominees are having pleasing their base and why it bodes well for Bush in the future. The GOP is dancing, gloating, PRAYING for the chance to face Dean in the election.
...Republicans could hardly be more pleased at the course of events.
"It's a huge problem for them," said Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It keeps pulling their nominee further and further left. It's a contest of which one of them can bow the furthest."
To an extent, what is going on reflects fundamental differences in the parties. The Democrats have always been a mash of constituencies who have never been shy about pressing their views in public.
It is particularly difficult this year, when the Democrats are out of power and nine candidates are competing for support from various wings of the party, all of which are enjoying their sudden clout.
As a candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush encountered similar problems when he made a much-criticized visit to Bob Jones University, which has a history of anti-Catholicism, before the South Carolina primary.
Since then, Mr. Bush and his advisers have demonstrated their skill at keeping their base enthusiastic, without engaging in public displays of stroking. And conservative groups — reflecting the political maturity that comes with success — have given Mr. Bush maneuvering room that the Democrats clearly do not have.
"The Republicans are into power — and I say that in an envious way," Mr. Carville said. "The Democratic interest groups are less concerned about winning the election and more concerned about drawing attention to themselves."
John Kerry fought in Viet Nam and then fought the establishment back home to end the war. He knows our system of government inside and out. He's got the smarts to run it and knows the people with the smarts to do it right. He has high ideals and yet he knows how to buck up and deal with the political nastiness that's coming from the Bush Political Attack Machine.
Here's the link to the article.
POLITICAL MEMO
Tug of Constituencies Strains Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, July 17 — Three Democratic presidential candidates who were chastised by the N.A.A.C.P. for skipping the group's political forum in Miami on Monday upended their schedules today to fly south and make elaborate apologies. Earlier this week, all the candidates were summoned to a forum before gay leaders, where they were pressed to endorse gay marriage.
These two events illustrated what has emerged as one of the most critical and, for some Democrats, perplexing differences between the modern-day Democratic and Republican Parties: How they accommodate constituencies that are at the base of their political foundation but endorse views that are not always popular with the broader electorate...
________________________________________________________
Here's a brief section from an article from today's NY TIMES on the problems the Democratic Presidential nominees are having pleasing their base and why it bodes well for Bush in the future. The GOP is dancing, gloating, PRAYING for the chance to face Dean in the election.
...Republicans could hardly be more pleased at the course of events.
"It's a huge problem for them," said Ed Gillespie, the incoming chairman of the Republican National Committee. "It keeps pulling their nominee further and further left. It's a contest of which one of them can bow the furthest."
To an extent, what is going on reflects fundamental differences in the parties. The Democrats have always been a mash of constituencies who have never been shy about pressing their views in public.
It is particularly difficult this year, when the Democrats are out of power and nine candidates are competing for support from various wings of the party, all of which are enjoying their sudden clout.
As a candidate in 2000, Mr. Bush encountered similar problems when he made a much-criticized visit to Bob Jones University, which has a history of anti-Catholicism, before the South Carolina primary.
Since then, Mr. Bush and his advisers have demonstrated their skill at keeping their base enthusiastic, without engaging in public displays of stroking. And conservative groups — reflecting the political maturity that comes with success — have given Mr. Bush maneuvering room that the Democrats clearly do not have.
"The Republicans are into power — and I say that in an envious way," Mr. Carville said. "The Democratic interest groups are less concerned about winning the election and more concerned about drawing attention to themselves."
John Kerry fought in Viet Nam and then fought the establishment back home to end the war. He knows our system of government inside and out. He's got the smarts to run it and knows the people with the smarts to do it right. He has high ideals and yet he knows how to buck up and deal with the political nastiness that's coming from the Bush Political Attack Machine.
Here's the link to the article.
POLITICAL MEMO
Tug of Constituencies Strains Democrats
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, July 17 — Three Democratic presidential candidates who were chastised by the N.A.A.C.P. for skipping the group's political forum in Miami on Monday upended their schedules today to fly south and make elaborate apologies. Earlier this week, all the candidates were summoned to a forum before gay leaders, where they were pressed to endorse gay marriage.
These two events illustrated what has emerged as one of the most critical and, for some Democrats, perplexing differences between the modern-day Democratic and Republican Parties: How they accommodate constituencies that are at the base of their political foundation but endorse views that are not always popular with the broader electorate...
________________________________________________________
STOP THE PRESSES:
'Lyndon B. Bush'?
by Eric Alterman / The Nation
At some point, something had to give. Yes, much of the mainstream media treated George W. Bush with Lewinsky-like devotion, but could it really go on forever? The Bush people seemed to think it could, and in their hubris lies their demise.
It was an amazing run. They won the presidency by losing an election. They bankrupted the treasury, trashed the environment, turned the nation's system of justice over to religious fanatics and, finally, deceived the nation into an unprovoked war. They probably would have gotten away with that too, except they forgot to make any sensible plans about how to run the place afterward. ("Dude, where's my 'coalition'?") In the ensuing chaos and guerrilla warfare against the vulnerable and undermanned US forces, well, somebody was bound to start asking questions.
Why did we invade Iraq again? Was it because they were "reconstituting" nuclear weapons? Nope, they made that one up. Was it because they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. Was it because they were in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Sorry, ix-nay on the evidence-nay. Did we do it to further the cause of democracy and human rights? Stop, you're hurting my tummy.
Yet every one of these bogus justifications was trumpeted in the mainstream media during the run-up to the war. The Administration exploited its sympathetic interlocutors so effectively that it actually increased people's ignorance. For instance, a January poll found that 44 percent of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17 percent of those polled were aware that none of them were. The answer shocked pollsters, as almost nobody had given the answer "Iraqi" in the aftermath of the attack. Moreover, a full 41 percent of those questioned believed that Iraq had already obtained the nuclear weapons the Administration claimed it was pursuing. As Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told Editor and Publisher's Ari Berman, "There's almost nothing the public doesn't believe about Saddam Hussein."
When the Niger nuclear scandal finally began to break, the Administration tried its usual program of stonewalling by a combination of tough talk and incoherent assertion. The phony story, which was not merely included in Bush's State of the Union speech but also, despite carefully worded denials, in Tenet's classified briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, helped convince many fence-sitters to commit to war. But the story was easily identifiable as nonsense by any professional who cared to examine the evidence. Even without Joseph Wilson's now famous mission, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, told the UN Security Council that he knew almost immediately that the documents were phony. Dick Cheney, who was reportedly briefed on Wilson's findings, tried to smear ElBaradei. Sans evidence, he announced on Meet the Press in March, "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong." Cheney continued, "I think, if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past"...
______________________________________________________________
'Lyndon B. Bush'?
by Eric Alterman / The Nation
At some point, something had to give. Yes, much of the mainstream media treated George W. Bush with Lewinsky-like devotion, but could it really go on forever? The Bush people seemed to think it could, and in their hubris lies their demise.
It was an amazing run. They won the presidency by losing an election. They bankrupted the treasury, trashed the environment, turned the nation's system of justice over to religious fanatics and, finally, deceived the nation into an unprovoked war. They probably would have gotten away with that too, except they forgot to make any sensible plans about how to run the place afterward. ("Dude, where's my 'coalition'?") In the ensuing chaos and guerrilla warfare against the vulnerable and undermanned US forces, well, somebody was bound to start asking questions.
Why did we invade Iraq again? Was it because they were "reconstituting" nuclear weapons? Nope, they made that one up. Was it because they were in possession of weapons of mass destruction? Apparently not. Was it because they were in league with the Al Qaeda terrorists who attacked us on 9/11? Sorry, ix-nay on the evidence-nay. Did we do it to further the cause of democracy and human rights? Stop, you're hurting my tummy.
Yet every one of these bogus justifications was trumpeted in the mainstream media during the run-up to the war. The Administration exploited its sympathetic interlocutors so effectively that it actually increased people's ignorance. For instance, a January poll found that 44 percent of respondents said they thought "most" or "some" of the 9/11 hijackers were Iraqi citizens. Only 17 percent of those polled were aware that none of them were. The answer shocked pollsters, as almost nobody had given the answer "Iraqi" in the aftermath of the attack. Moreover, a full 41 percent of those questioned believed that Iraq had already obtained the nuclear weapons the Administration claimed it was pursuing. As Carroll Doherty, editor of the Pew Research Center, told Editor and Publisher's Ari Berman, "There's almost nothing the public doesn't believe about Saddam Hussein."
When the Niger nuclear scandal finally began to break, the Administration tried its usual program of stonewalling by a combination of tough talk and incoherent assertion. The phony story, which was not merely included in Bush's State of the Union speech but also, despite carefully worded denials, in Tenet's classified briefing to the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, helped convince many fence-sitters to commit to war. But the story was easily identifiable as nonsense by any professional who cared to examine the evidence. Even without Joseph Wilson's now famous mission, Mohamed ElBaradei, director general of the IAEA, told the UN Security Council that he knew almost immediately that the documents were phony. Dick Cheney, who was reportedly briefed on Wilson's findings, tried to smear ElBaradei. Sans evidence, he announced on Meet the Press in March, "I think Mr. ElBaradei frankly is wrong." Cheney continued, "I think, if you look at the track record of the International Atomic Energy Agency and this kind of issue, especially where Iraq's concerned, they have consistently underestimated or missed what it was Saddam Hussein was doing. I don't have any reason to believe they're any more valid this time than they've been in the past"...
______________________________________________________________
Amazing! A cover-up of deaths in Iraq!
News Analysis: Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq
NEW YORK -- Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2. This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.
But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.
According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States....
___________________________________________________________________
News Analysis: Media Underplays U.S. Death Toll in Iraq
NEW YORK -- Any way you look at it, the news is bad enough. According to Thursday's press and television reports, 33 U.S. soldiers have now died in combat since President Bush (news - web sites) declared an end to the major fighting in the war on May 2. This, of course, is a tragedy for the men killed and their families, and a problem for the White House.
But actually the numbers are much worse -- and rarely reported by the media.
According to official military records, the number of U.S. soldiers who have died in Iraq since May 2 is actually 85. This includes a staggering number of non-combat deaths. Even if killed in a non-hostile action, these soldiers are no less dead, their families no less aggrieved. And it's safe to say that nearly all of these people would still be alive if they were still back in the States....
___________________________________________________________________
Just when you think this administration couldn't sink any further with its intelligence bungling and cover-ups, it seems to have broken some of the top national security laws on the books along with jepordizing the lives and careers of deep-cover agents associated with the agent they have "outed".
CAPITAL GAMES:
A WHITE HOUSE SMEAR
by David Corn / The Nation
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted. . . .
Soon after [Niger envoy Joseph]Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.
Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."
So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.
The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.
This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. . . .
So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate--and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible--perhaps likely--that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security. . . .
______________________________________________________________
CAPITAL GAMES:
A WHITE HOUSE SMEAR
by David Corn / The Nation
Did senior Bush officials blow the cover of a US intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security--and break the law--in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?
It sure looks that way, if conservative journalist Bob Novak can be trusted. . . .
Soon after [Niger envoy Joseph]Wilson disclosed his trip in the media and made the White House look bad. the payback came. Novak's July 14, 2003, column presented the back-story on Wilson's mission and contained the following sentences: "Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate" the allegation.
Wilson caused problems for the White House, and his wife was outed as an undercover CIA officer. Wilson says, "I will not answer questions about my wife. This is not about me and less so about my wife. It has always been about the facts underpinning the President's statement in the state of the union speech."
So he will neither confirm nor deny that his wife--who is the mother of three-year-old twins--works for the CIA. But let's assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson or to send a message to others who might challenge it.
The sources for Novak's assertion about Wilson's wife appear to be "two senior administration officials." If so, a pair of top Bush officials told a reporter the name of a CIA operative who apparently has worked under what's known as "nonofficial cover" and who has had the dicey and difficult mission of tracking parties trying to buy or sell weapons of mass destruction or WMD material. If Wilson's wife is such a person--and the CIA is unlikely to have many employees like her--her career has been destroyed by the Bush administration. (Assuming she did not tell friends and family about her real job, these Bush officials have also damaged her personal life.) Without acknowledging whether she is a deep-cover CIA employee, Wilson says, "Naming her this way would have compromised every operation, every relationship, every network with which she had been associated in her entire career. This is the stuff of Kim Philby and Aldrich Ames." If she is not a CIA employee and Novak is reporting accurately, then the White House has wrongly branded a woman known to friends as an energy analyst for a private firm as a CIA officer. That would not likely do her much good.
This is not only a possible breach of national security; it is a potential violation of law. Under the Intelligence Identities Protection Act of 1982, it is a crime for anyone who has access to classified information to disclose intentionally information identifying a covert agent. The punishment for such an offense is a fine of up to $50,000 and/or up to ten years in prison. . . .
So where's the investigation? Remember Filegate--and the Republican charge that the Clinton White House was using privileged information against its political foes? In this instance, it appears possible--perhaps likely--that Bush administration officials gathered material on Wilson and his family and then revealed classified information to lash out at him, and in doing so compromised national security. . . .
______________________________________________________________
Got this from the DNC
The [Democratic] party also has collected 50,000 signatures on petitions calling for an independent, bipartisan investigation into how the faulty claim made its way into the president's speech. In the Senate, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Jon Corzine proposed an independent commission to conduct a full-scale investigation of White House handling of Iraq intelligence.
But Republicans are working overtime to cover up the Bush administration's lies. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
Throughout the Capitol, Republicans are scrambling to close ranks around the president. Senate Republicans this week distributed White House-cleared talking points to all members, and House aides are booking members as fast as they can on television and talk shows to defend the president.
The letter goes on to ask for donations (and I'm all for that) but I'm asking YOU to start writing to the media and speak out everytime you see some GOP congressional member on TV, on the net or in print defending the lying of this administration. In the past two days I've called the offices of my senators and Majority Leader Frist to demand an independent bipartisan investigation of the continuing stories of faulty intelligence created by and covered-up in this administration.
Our soldiers are dying in Iraq. It's the least we can do as Americans by putting our opinions out there for what we see is very wrong with this White House and that we demand a PUBLIC accounting.
_________________________________________________________________
The [Democratic] party also has collected 50,000 signatures on petitions calling for an independent, bipartisan investigation into how the faulty claim made its way into the president's speech. In the Senate, New Jersey Democrat Sen. Jon Corzine proposed an independent commission to conduct a full-scale investigation of White House handling of Iraq intelligence.
But Republicans are working overtime to cover up the Bush administration's lies. As the Wall Street Journal reports:
Throughout the Capitol, Republicans are scrambling to close ranks around the president. Senate Republicans this week distributed White House-cleared talking points to all members, and House aides are booking members as fast as they can on television and talk shows to defend the president.
The letter goes on to ask for donations (and I'm all for that) but I'm asking YOU to start writing to the media and speak out everytime you see some GOP congressional member on TV, on the net or in print defending the lying of this administration. In the past two days I've called the offices of my senators and Majority Leader Frist to demand an independent bipartisan investigation of the continuing stories of faulty intelligence created by and covered-up in this administration.
Our soldiers are dying in Iraq. It's the least we can do as Americans by putting our opinions out there for what we see is very wrong with this White House and that we demand a PUBLIC accounting.
_________________________________________________________________
Somebody insisted that Niger charge be inserted in the speech and yet our intelligence sources warned not to. Hmmm, I wonder who could have been idiot enough to think they could get away with this? Let's see. No, don't tell me. Does the name start with a "B"? Is he the man who voices the State of the Union Address? Did he claim all during the last election to take responsibility for one's actions? Golly gee, this is a hard one!
Durbin Says W.House Pushed for Iraq Nuclear Charge
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic senator charged on Thursday that CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress that a White House official had insisted on including a disputed allegation about Saddam Hussein's push for a nuclear weapon in a presidential speech...
___________________________________________________________
Durbin Says W.House Pushed for Iraq Nuclear Charge
By Steve Holland
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A Democratic senator charged on Thursday that CIA Director George Tenet told members of Congress that a White House official had insisted on including a disputed allegation about Saddam Hussein's push for a nuclear weapon in a presidential speech...
___________________________________________________________
It sure is beginning to smell like Viet Nam all over again. This should do wonders for the all volunteer military. I wonder how re-ups will be doing in the next five years?
Report: U.S. May Call National Guard for Iraq Duty
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon could start a call-up of as many as 10,000 U.S. National Guard soldiers by this winter to bolster forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and offset a lack of troops from allies, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the U.S. military thin, the report said, and soldiers there still face danger every day.
One senior U.S. defense official, asked by the Journal if he had ever seen the Army stretched so thin, said: "Not in my 31 years" of military service...
______________________________________________________________
Report: U.S. May Call National Guard for Iraq Duty
NEW YORK (Reuters) - The Pentagon could start a call-up of as many as 10,000 U.S. National Guard soldiers by this winter to bolster forces in Iraq (news - web sites) and offset a lack of troops from allies, The Wall Street Journal reported on Thursday.
Missions in Iraq and Afghanistan have stretched the U.S. military thin, the report said, and soldiers there still face danger every day.
One senior U.S. defense official, asked by the Journal if he had ever seen the Army stretched so thin, said: "Not in my 31 years" of military service...
______________________________________________________________
Ah, the good ol' American values of this Midland, Texas President and high-minded administration (made up of the same people who worked for his CIA father, Reagan, Ford and Nixon and who gave you Cambodia secret bombings, Chile CIA support, American support for despots like Hussein, Watergate, Iran/Contra scandals, the pardoning of Nixon and the Iran/Contra gang, the CA energy crisis, the Niger story, etc., etc.) who are working their unique magic once again.
A War On Wilson?
Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection
By MATTHEW COOPER, MASSIMO CALABRESI AND JOHN DICKERSON / TIME.COM
Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 charging that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives. Some government officials, noting that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intimate that she was involved in his being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, for the purposes of building nuclear devices.
Wilson is fighting back. In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job"...
______________________________________________________________________
A War On Wilson?
Inside the Bush Administration's feud with the diplomat who poured cold water on the Iraq-uranium connection
By MATTHEW COOPER, MASSIMO CALABRESI AND JOHN DICKERSON / TIME.COM
Has the Bush Administration declared war on a former ambassador who conducted a fact-finding mission to probe possible Iraqi interest in African uranium? Former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson raised the Administration's ire with an op-ed piece in The New York Times on July 6 charging that the Administration had "twisted" intelligence to "exaggerate" the Iraqi threat. Since then Administration officials have taken public and private whacks at Wilson, charging that his 2002 report, made at the behest of U.S. intelligence, was faulty and that his mission was a scheme cooked up by mid-level operatives. Some government officials, noting that Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, is a CIA official who monitors the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, intimate that she was involved in his being dispatched Niger to investigate reports that Saddam Hussein's government had sought to purchase large quantities of uranium ore, sometimes referred to as yellow cake, for the purposes of building nuclear devices.
Wilson is fighting back. In an interview with TIME, Wilson, who served as an ambassador to Gabon and as a senior American diplomat in Baghdad under the current president's father, angrily said that his wife had nothing to do with his trip to Africa. "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case," Wilson told TIME. "I met with between six and eight analysts and operators from CIA and elsewhere [before the Feb 2002 trip]. None of the people in that meeting did I know, and they took the decision to send me. This is a smear job"...
______________________________________________________________________
How many more deaths of men like this will continue to eat at the morale of the troops serving in this guerrilla war? What of their lonely famiiies back home as they anxiously wait on pins and needles each day and night for news of their loved ones stuck in this ongoing conflict? What is the ultimate price paid by our nation for this war fostered upon the American people by lying leaders that planned it a decade before and exploited the 9/11 attacks to make it happen?
A young, gung-ho soldier is slain in Iraq: How he lived, how he died
Andrea Stone and Deborah Sharp USA TODAY
BAGHDAD -- Army Spc. Jeffrey Wershow never let his guard down. His buddies nicknamed him ''The General'' because he strode about with a sense of purpose and confidence.
Wershow, 22, was a stickler for rules and regulations. He always stood at attention when addressing officers, when most other soldiers sweltering in the heat here would take a more casual attitude.
So it was a shock on July 6 when the aspiring politician from Gainesville, Fla., was gunned down on the campus of Baghdad University after buying a 7Up. If this gung-ho soldier who wanted another stint in Iraq (news - web sites) could be killed in such a brazen way in a crowded place, his buddies figured it could happen to them, too.
For the men of ''Charlie'' Company, 2nd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment of the Florida National Guard, Wershow's death occurred when most thought they would already be home. They have seen major combat turn into guerrilla war. ''You can never let your guard down. You can never truly relax. And that wears on you,'' says Spc. Thomas Stanley Sr., 27, of Melbourne, Fla., who is in Wershow's unit.
It didn't help that these Guardsmen left their families and jobs -- or, in Wershow's case, his college campus -- a day after Christmas. Or that they never received praise for their exploits in Iraq's western desert, a corner of the war still shrouded in secrecy. Or that they felt overshadowed by regular Army units. And now, like the other 146,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, Charlie Company finds itself in a continuing battle with no end in sight...
______________________________________________________________
A young, gung-ho soldier is slain in Iraq: How he lived, how he died
Andrea Stone and Deborah Sharp USA TODAY
BAGHDAD -- Army Spc. Jeffrey Wershow never let his guard down. His buddies nicknamed him ''The General'' because he strode about with a sense of purpose and confidence.
Wershow, 22, was a stickler for rules and regulations. He always stood at attention when addressing officers, when most other soldiers sweltering in the heat here would take a more casual attitude.
So it was a shock on July 6 when the aspiring politician from Gainesville, Fla., was gunned down on the campus of Baghdad University after buying a 7Up. If this gung-ho soldier who wanted another stint in Iraq (news - web sites) could be killed in such a brazen way in a crowded place, his buddies figured it could happen to them, too.
For the men of ''Charlie'' Company, 2nd Battalion, 124th Infantry Regiment of the Florida National Guard, Wershow's death occurred when most thought they would already be home. They have seen major combat turn into guerrilla war. ''You can never let your guard down. You can never truly relax. And that wears on you,'' says Spc. Thomas Stanley Sr., 27, of Melbourne, Fla., who is in Wershow's unit.
It didn't help that these Guardsmen left their families and jobs -- or, in Wershow's case, his college campus -- a day after Christmas. Or that they never received praise for their exploits in Iraq's western desert, a corner of the war still shrouded in secrecy. Or that they felt overshadowed by regular Army units. And now, like the other 146,000 U.S. troops still in Iraq, Charlie Company finds itself in a continuing battle with no end in sight...
______________________________________________________________
Will it be allowed to reach the number of Americans killed in Viet Nam?
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Equals 1991 War
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
The drumbeat follows its own grim rhythm: three U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq last week, two more shot this week. It echoes across this country, affecting military families who avoid the TV news and those arguing over the war and what comes next.
The combat death toll hit a disheartening milestone Thursday as the Pentagon acknowledged its casualties from hostile fire reached 147, the same number of troops who died at enemy hands in the first Gulf War.
For troops' families, critics of the war and supporters, too, the rising casualty numbers underscored concerns about how U.S. leaders are managing the conflict. Are the tours of duty too long? Should the United States keep nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq? Was the entire war a mistake?...
__________________________________________________________________
U.S. Death Toll in Iraq Equals 1991 War
By ROBERT TANNER, AP National Writer
The drumbeat follows its own grim rhythm: three U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq last week, two more shot this week. It echoes across this country, affecting military families who avoid the TV news and those arguing over the war and what comes next.
The combat death toll hit a disheartening milestone Thursday as the Pentagon acknowledged its casualties from hostile fire reached 147, the same number of troops who died at enemy hands in the first Gulf War.
For troops' families, critics of the war and supporters, too, the rising casualty numbers underscored concerns about how U.S. leaders are managing the conflict. Are the tours of duty too long? Should the United States keep nearly 150,000 troops in Iraq? Was the entire war a mistake?...
__________________________________________________________________
So when are the big radio networks (owned by top Bush financial supporters) that held the rallies to ban the Dixie Chicks off the air going to call for keeping these dirty traitors from returning to America after criticizing Bush and his top men in the war department?
A Big Letdown
Soldiers Learn They’ll Be in Baghdad Longer Than Expected
By Jeffrey Kofman ABCNEWS.COM
F A L L U J A H, Iraq, July 15 — The sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters pulled me aside in the corridor. "I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," he told me.
He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring Saddam Hussein, his sons and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime.
"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," he said.
He was referring to the four men who are running U.S. policy here in Iraq — the four men who are ultimately responsible for the fate of U.S. troops here...
______________________________________________________________
A Big Letdown
Soldiers Learn They’ll Be in Baghdad Longer Than Expected
By Jeffrey Kofman ABCNEWS.COM
F A L L U J A H, Iraq, July 15 — The sergeant at the 2nd Battle Combat Team Headquarters pulled me aside in the corridor. "I've got my own 'Most Wanted' list," he told me.
He was referring to the deck of cards the U.S. government published, featuring Saddam Hussein, his sons and other wanted members of the former Iraqi regime.
"The aces in my deck are Paul Bremer, Donald Rumsfeld, George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz," he said.
He was referring to the four men who are running U.S. policy here in Iraq — the four men who are ultimately responsible for the fate of U.S. troops here...
______________________________________________________________
Quote of the day.
(from Max B. Sawicky at MaxSpeak)
"I wonder as I wander: if Gray Davis is responsible for California's budget gap, why isn't Bush responsible for the Federal hole? They each have the benefit of their parties controlling the legislature. They both suffered the adverse consequences of the stock market bubble bust and the recession (California more than the U.S. as a whole). Too bad we can't recall Bush. Impeachment is the only humane alternative."
_______________________________________________________________
(from Max B. Sawicky at MaxSpeak)
"I wonder as I wander: if Gray Davis is responsible for California's budget gap, why isn't Bush responsible for the Federal hole? They each have the benefit of their parties controlling the legislature. They both suffered the adverse consequences of the stock market bubble bust and the recession (California more than the U.S. as a whole). Too bad we can't recall Bush. Impeachment is the only humane alternative."
_______________________________________________________________
I've noticed my conservative pals back in the Midwest have shut up on writing to me about Iraq and the economy anymore. The only thing I hear is a feeble defense of the tax cuts, which I like to point out to them, seems to be all they care about when it comes to this country.
U.S. HIGH HORSE NOW RIDERLESS
By Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Some people are born humble. Others have humility thrust upon them.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, was asked in a recent interview whether he still had faith in prewar intelligence claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"I think that the, the, information we had over a period of time that I cited that the intelligence community gave to me and I read as opposed to ad-libbing was correct. It, it, it was carefully stated . . ."
Talk about carefully stated.
It's telling to see the bantam rooster of the Bush administration turn so halting and defensive, insisting that, hey, he had only been reading what somebody else handed him. Then again, there's a lot of that going around these days.
In fact, if Vietnam was the place where America lost her innocence, Iraq may be the place where we lose our arrogance.
The once-triumphant Richard Perle has gone underground. The sublimely smug William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and stalwart champion of empire, no longer looks as though he just swallowed a canary. Crow is more like it. And we've heard more from Saddam Hussein in recent weeks than from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Maybe because Saddam, unlike Wolfowitz, has a plan that's actually working. . . .
________________________________________________________________________
U.S. HIGH HORSE NOW RIDERLESS
By Jay Bookman of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution
Some people are born humble. Others have humility thrust upon them.
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, for example, was asked in a recent interview whether he still had faith in prewar intelligence claiming a link between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.
"I think that the, the, information we had over a period of time that I cited that the intelligence community gave to me and I read as opposed to ad-libbing was correct. It, it, it was carefully stated . . ."
Talk about carefully stated.
It's telling to see the bantam rooster of the Bush administration turn so halting and defensive, insisting that, hey, he had only been reading what somebody else handed him. Then again, there's a lot of that going around these days.
In fact, if Vietnam was the place where America lost her innocence, Iraq may be the place where we lose our arrogance.
The once-triumphant Richard Perle has gone underground. The sublimely smug William Kristol, editor of the Weekly Standard and stalwart champion of empire, no longer looks as though he just swallowed a canary. Crow is more like it. And we've heard more from Saddam Hussein in recent weeks than from Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz.
Maybe because Saddam, unlike Wolfowitz, has a plan that's actually working. . . .
________________________________________________________________________
One of the things I love about my multi-ethnic Van Nuys neighborhood is the rich variety of authentic foods from around the world prepared by its people. Sure, I can get a Jack in the Box or Carl's burger when I want it (I haven't eaten at McDonald's in decades) but Lordie, the incredible Chinese, Thai, Cuban, Mexican, South American, Armenian, Korean and you-name-it food we have here! It's all just incredible (and fairly cheap, too)! And Dr. Hogly Wogly's Tyler, Texas BBQ is just a quick bike ride down Sepulveda! If you live in L.A. and haven't tried it then you are missing out on the best BBQ in town (outside of my pal, El Paso Larry James' cooking). Who needs the big corporate food joints for every meal when there are lots of better places to go?
Which is my lead into this story...
From The Independent (UK):
Dire States
Americans are used to resentment of their global dominance. Since the war on Iraq, however, this hostility has begun to hit them where it hurts: in corporate balance sheets. David Usborne reports on the backlash being felt in the boardrooms everywhere from McDonald's and Nike to Microsoft and Coca-Cola
It has not taken long for Americans to realise that the triumphal appearance by President George Bush aboard an aircraft-carrier after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was somewhat premature. Barely a day goes by now without news of another soldier falling to the bullets of hidden snipers. Little attention has been paid, however, to another consequence of the campaign in Iraq. Call it corporate collateral damage. And the victim is Brand America...
_____________________________________________________________
Which is my lead into this story...
From The Independent (UK):
Dire States
Americans are used to resentment of their global dominance. Since the war on Iraq, however, this hostility has begun to hit them where it hurts: in corporate balance sheets. David Usborne reports on the backlash being felt in the boardrooms everywhere from McDonald's and Nike to Microsoft and Coca-Cola
It has not taken long for Americans to realise that the triumphal appearance by President George Bush aboard an aircraft-carrier after the toppling of Saddam Hussein was somewhat premature. Barely a day goes by now without news of another soldier falling to the bullets of hidden snipers. Little attention has been paid, however, to another consequence of the campaign in Iraq. Call it corporate collateral damage. And the victim is Brand America...
_____________________________________________________________
Agent Largent, that Pinko of the inko (an artist), sends a terrific piece from SLATE that states the obvious, "It's okay to lie in Washington if you are a pro."
Why This Bush Lie? Part 2
Washington despises an incompetent liar.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 4:34 PM PT
During the past week, the press has swarmed over the Bush White House demanding to be told the circumstances that led the president to say, in this year's State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein had "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This information was based almost entirely on documents that the CIA and the White House knew were false. That makes Bush's statement a lie. But, as Chatterbox observed yesterday, we can count at least six other lies told by or on behalf of President Bush in this calendar year alone. That doesn't include two addled lies Bush uttered while trying to extricate himself from Yellowcakegate—that the CIA didn't doubt the uranium story until after he gave the speech, and that the United States went to war because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq. Why was the yellowcake lie treated like a major news event, when the earlier lies were not?
Some might be tempted to answer, "Because this was a bigger moral outrage. It led us to war." But that overlooks a much bigger lie that led us to war—Bush's March 17 statement, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Bush wasn't the only one who believed this; most political commentators, Chatterbox included, believed it, too, based on snippets of information made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell. These snippets remain difficult to square with the allied forces' continuing inability to find biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. That's one reason the press hasn't jumped down Bush's throat over this particular lie. The other reason is profound anxiety that we let ourselves get conned into believing the only legitimate rationale Bush offered to wage war against Iraq. Raging over Bush's yellowcake lie is one way to exact revenge.
"You won't con us again" sentiment explains the intensity of the media frenzy over Yellowcakegate. But it doesn't explain why the yellowcake lie became the focus of that frenzy. As Chatterbox noted yesterday, Bush and his minions lied about the cost of the Iraq war—a cost that Larry Lindsey, then-chairman of the National Economic Council, reportedly lost his job for getting about right. Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, where Lindsey quoted the figure of $100 billion to $200 billion, notes this irony in his column today. But don't expect a big to-do over the cost issue, any more than there was a big to-do over Bush's outrageous claim this past May that "We've found the weapons of mass destruction."
The yellowcake lie landed on Page One solely because it occasioned a brief and fatal departure from the Bush White House's press strategy of stonewalling. "Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says" read a New York Times headline on July 8. Glancing through the story, Chatterbox initially puzzled over its Page One placement. Didn't we know already that Bush's yellowcake line was a lie? Then Chatterbox realized that the novelty component wasn't the lie, but the Bush administration's admission that it had told a lie. In the Bush White House, this simply isn't done. Observe, for instance, how the new Bush press secretary, Scott McClellan, handled a question yesterday about Bush's weird statement that we went to war because Saddam refused to admit weapons inspectors into Iraq:
A: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.
Q: But that isn't what he said.
Ignoring this, McClellan moved on to another reporter's question, about North Korea.
But on Yellowcakegate, short-timer Ari Fleischer—after an obviously wearying exchange with reporters in which he conceded that the State of the Union line was based on the erroneous premise that we knew Saddam had sought yellowcake from Niger—let down his guard further and conceded that yes, it had been a mistake to put the story about the yellowcake safari into the State of the Union speech. "Knowing all that we know now," read a prepared statement he put out, "the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." (Weirdly, Fleischer was identified only as a "senior Bush administration official," even though this was the White House's official pronouncement on the matter.) Joshua Micah Marshall has noted in his Talking Points Memo blog that Fleischer's mea culpa would have been more honest had it begun, "Knowing what we knew then." Still, it was honest enough to electrify the press.
Fleischer subsequently tried to put out the fire by stating, at his very last press briefing, that it "very well may be true" that Iraq had tried recently to purchase yellowcake in Africa. The administration line later hardened into (in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's words), "[I]t's technically correct what the president said," because Bush had attributed the information to British intelligence. But by then the damage had been done.
The ugly reality about stonewalling and lying is that, if pursued with the proper discipline, it can be an effective public-relations tool. Mainstream reporters may contrast what a White House press spokesman says with what somebody else says, but they usually hesitate to state bluntly that Person A is lying and Person B is telling the truth. (An admirable exception is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who has devoted considerable energy to documenting Bush's falsehoods.) If a press secretary states consistently that up is down, most reporters will present this as a matter of opinion. But if he states repeatedly that up is down, then says that up is up, and then resumes saying that up is down, reporters will seize on the inconsistency and cry foul. Unlike disagreement between one person and another (or even disagreement between one person and the rest of humanity), a single person's saying one thing and then saying another is usually taken (sometimes unfairly) as prime facie evidence that a lie has been told.
Is it wrong to lie? Reporters tend to shy away even from that moral judgment. But at least in Washington, reporters take a very dim view of incompetent lying. The rules of engagement dictate that you may not have an opinion about a president and his policies—too divisive!—but that you may opine all you like on that president's effectiveness at getting things done. That's what happened in Yellowcakegate. Even Jim Hoagland, who writes an opinion column for the Washington Post's op-ed page, hews to this standard today in lambasting the Bush White House for "the sudden tone-deafness of a Bush team that had been pretty good at not giving its enemies ammunition to use against it." That "tone-deafness" was demonstrated when the White House conceded that Bush had no reliable factual basis for his yellowcake claim. The more professional thing to do, Hoagland suggests, would have been to wait it out and hope that evidence would eventually prove Bush's unfounded assertion to be correct. Hoagland's headline says it all: "A Classic Case of Incompetence." Never mind that, in pretending to know that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger, Bush told a lie. His real sin was not being a pro.
___________________________________________________________
Why This Bush Lie? Part 2
Washington despises an incompetent liar.
By Timothy Noah
Posted Wednesday, July 16, 2003, at 4:34 PM PT
During the past week, the press has swarmed over the Bush White House demanding to be told the circumstances that led the president to say, in this year's State of the Union address, that Saddam Hussein had "recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." This information was based almost entirely on documents that the CIA and the White House knew were false. That makes Bush's statement a lie. But, as Chatterbox observed yesterday, we can count at least six other lies told by or on behalf of President Bush in this calendar year alone. That doesn't include two addled lies Bush uttered while trying to extricate himself from Yellowcakegate—that the CIA didn't doubt the uranium story until after he gave the speech, and that the United States went to war because Saddam wouldn't let inspectors into Iraq. Why was the yellowcake lie treated like a major news event, when the earlier lies were not?
Some might be tempted to answer, "Because this was a bigger moral outrage. It led us to war." But that overlooks a much bigger lie that led us to war—Bush's March 17 statement, "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised." Bush wasn't the only one who believed this; most political commentators, Chatterbox included, believed it, too, based on snippets of information made public by Secretary of State Colin Powell. These snippets remain difficult to square with the allied forces' continuing inability to find biological and chemical weapons in Iraq. That's one reason the press hasn't jumped down Bush's throat over this particular lie. The other reason is profound anxiety that we let ourselves get conned into believing the only legitimate rationale Bush offered to wage war against Iraq. Raging over Bush's yellowcake lie is one way to exact revenge.
"You won't con us again" sentiment explains the intensity of the media frenzy over Yellowcakegate. But it doesn't explain why the yellowcake lie became the focus of that frenzy. As Chatterbox noted yesterday, Bush and his minions lied about the cost of the Iraq war—a cost that Larry Lindsey, then-chairman of the National Economic Council, reportedly lost his job for getting about right. Gerald Seib, Washington bureau chief of the Wall Street Journal, where Lindsey quoted the figure of $100 billion to $200 billion, notes this irony in his column today. But don't expect a big to-do over the cost issue, any more than there was a big to-do over Bush's outrageous claim this past May that "We've found the weapons of mass destruction."
The yellowcake lie landed on Page One solely because it occasioned a brief and fatal departure from the Bush White House's press strategy of stonewalling. "Bush Claim on Iraq Had Flawed Origin, White House Says" read a New York Times headline on July 8. Glancing through the story, Chatterbox initially puzzled over its Page One placement. Didn't we know already that Bush's yellowcake line was a lie? Then Chatterbox realized that the novelty component wasn't the lie, but the Bush administration's admission that it had told a lie. In the Bush White House, this simply isn't done. Observe, for instance, how the new Bush press secretary, Scott McClellan, handled a question yesterday about Bush's weird statement that we went to war because Saddam refused to admit weapons inspectors into Iraq:
A: What he was referring to was the fact that Saddam Hussein was not complying with 1441, that he continued his past pattern and refused to comply with Resolution 1441 of the United Nations Security Council, which was his final opportunity to comply. And the fact that he was trying to thwart the inspectors every step of the way, and keep them from doing their job. So that's what he's referring to in that statement.
Q: But that isn't what he said.
Ignoring this, McClellan moved on to another reporter's question, about North Korea.
But on Yellowcakegate, short-timer Ari Fleischer—after an obviously wearying exchange with reporters in which he conceded that the State of the Union line was based on the erroneous premise that we knew Saddam had sought yellowcake from Niger—let down his guard further and conceded that yes, it had been a mistake to put the story about the yellowcake safari into the State of the Union speech. "Knowing all that we know now," read a prepared statement he put out, "the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." (Weirdly, Fleischer was identified only as a "senior Bush administration official," even though this was the White House's official pronouncement on the matter.) Joshua Micah Marshall has noted in his Talking Points Memo blog that Fleischer's mea culpa would have been more honest had it begun, "Knowing what we knew then." Still, it was honest enough to electrify the press.
Fleischer subsequently tried to put out the fire by stating, at his very last press briefing, that it "very well may be true" that Iraq had tried recently to purchase yellowcake in Africa. The administration line later hardened into (in Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's words), "[I]t's technically correct what the president said," because Bush had attributed the information to British intelligence. But by then the damage had been done.
The ugly reality about stonewalling and lying is that, if pursued with the proper discipline, it can be an effective public-relations tool. Mainstream reporters may contrast what a White House press spokesman says with what somebody else says, but they usually hesitate to state bluntly that Person A is lying and Person B is telling the truth. (An admirable exception is Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, who has devoted considerable energy to documenting Bush's falsehoods.) If a press secretary states consistently that up is down, most reporters will present this as a matter of opinion. But if he states repeatedly that up is down, then says that up is up, and then resumes saying that up is down, reporters will seize on the inconsistency and cry foul. Unlike disagreement between one person and another (or even disagreement between one person and the rest of humanity), a single person's saying one thing and then saying another is usually taken (sometimes unfairly) as prime facie evidence that a lie has been told.
Is it wrong to lie? Reporters tend to shy away even from that moral judgment. But at least in Washington, reporters take a very dim view of incompetent lying. The rules of engagement dictate that you may not have an opinion about a president and his policies—too divisive!—but that you may opine all you like on that president's effectiveness at getting things done. That's what happened in Yellowcakegate. Even Jim Hoagland, who writes an opinion column for the Washington Post's op-ed page, hews to this standard today in lambasting the Bush White House for "the sudden tone-deafness of a Bush team that had been pretty good at not giving its enemies ammunition to use against it." That "tone-deafness" was demonstrated when the White House conceded that Bush had no reliable factual basis for his yellowcake claim. The more professional thing to do, Hoagland suggests, would have been to wait it out and hope that evidence would eventually prove Bush's unfounded assertion to be correct. Hoagland's headline says it all: "A Classic Case of Incompetence." Never mind that, in pretending to know that Saddam tried to buy yellowcake from Niger, Bush told a lie. His real sin was not being a pro.
___________________________________________________________
Josh Marshall highlights a couple of quotes from the kid in the white house...
A fresh start ...
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.
George W. Bush
October 3rd, 2000
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
Associated Press
July 11th, 2003
____________________________________________________________
A fresh start ...
I think the thing that discouraged me about the vice president was uttering those famous words, 'no controlling legal authority.' I felt like that there needed to be a better sense of responsibility of what was going on in the White House. I believe that--I believe they've moved that sign, 'The buck stops here,' from the Oval Office desk to 'The buck stops here' on the Lincoln Bedroom, and that's not good for the country.
George W. Bush
October 3rd, 2000
President Bush on Friday put responsibility squarely on the CIA for his erroneous claim that Iraq tried to acquire nuclear material from Africa, prompting the director of intelligence to publicly accept full blame for the miscue.
Associated Press
July 11th, 2003
____________________________________________________________
Wednesday, July 16, 2003
The troops are pissed off and speaking up!
U.S. Soldiers Complain of Low Morale in Iraq
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fed up with being in Iraq (news - web sites) and demoralized by their role as peacekeepers in a risky place, a group of U.S. soldiers aired their plight on U.S. television on Wednesday and said they had lost faith in the Army.
Told several times they would be going home only to have their hopes dashed this week, a small group of soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq, spoke of poor morale and disillusionment with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I'd ask him for his resignation," one disgruntled soldier told ABC's "Good Morning America" show.
Asked by a reporter what his message would be for Rumsfeld, one said: "I would ask him why we are still here. I don't have any clue as to why we are still in Iraq..."
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. Soldiers Complain of Low Morale in Iraq
By Sue Pleming
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Fed up with being in Iraq (news - web sites) and demoralized by their role as peacekeepers in a risky place, a group of U.S. soldiers aired their plight on U.S. television on Wednesday and said they had lost faith in the Army.
Told several times they would be going home only to have their hopes dashed this week, a small group of soldiers from the 3rd Infantry Division in Iraq, spoke of poor morale and disillusionment with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.
"If Donald Rumsfeld were here, I'd ask him for his resignation," one disgruntled soldier told ABC's "Good Morning America" show.
Asked by a reporter what his message would be for Rumsfeld, one said: "I would ask him why we are still here. I don't have any clue as to why we are still in Iraq..."
______________________________________________________________________
It's official now. We are in a Viet Nam-style guerrila war. The number of American troops who have died in Iraq matched the Persian Gulf War today. And the military plans to have troops stay for a year's tour of duty.
Got any boys close to draft age in the next few years?
Top U.S. General in Iraq Sees 'Classical Guerrilla-Type' War
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON, July 16 A top United States general said today that American troops in Iraq were now facing a "classical guerrilla-type campaign”, the sort of phrase Bush administration officials have so far avoided, and he added that American troops should be prepared for duty tours of perhaps a year.
The blunt assessment by Gen. John Abizaid of the Army, who has responsibility for all military operations in Iraq, came shortly after the NATO secretary general made it clear that the military alliance had no interest in expanding its own limited role in Iraq.
General Abizaid, who recently succeeded Gen. Tommy R. Franks atop the United States Central Command, said that military planners were working to bring home some units quickly, including the Army's Third Infantry Division. But with parts of Iraq still highly unstable, yearlong deployments are possible, General Abizaid told reporters at the Pentagon.
His reference to guerrilla-style tactics, with its resonance of the messy, protracted and unpopular American involvement in Vietnam, was the sort of language the Bush administration has not used thus far...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Got any boys close to draft age in the next few years?
Top U.S. General in Iraq Sees 'Classical Guerrilla-Type' War
By BRIAN KNOWLTON,
International Herald Tribune
WASHINGTON, July 16 A top United States general said today that American troops in Iraq were now facing a "classical guerrilla-type campaign”, the sort of phrase Bush administration officials have so far avoided, and he added that American troops should be prepared for duty tours of perhaps a year.
The blunt assessment by Gen. John Abizaid of the Army, who has responsibility for all military operations in Iraq, came shortly after the NATO secretary general made it clear that the military alliance had no interest in expanding its own limited role in Iraq.
General Abizaid, who recently succeeded Gen. Tommy R. Franks atop the United States Central Command, said that military planners were working to bring home some units quickly, including the Army's Third Infantry Division. But with parts of Iraq still highly unstable, yearlong deployments are possible, General Abizaid told reporters at the Pentagon.
His reference to guerrilla-style tactics, with its resonance of the messy, protracted and unpopular American involvement in Vietnam, was the sort of language the Bush administration has not used thus far...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Get this. Over at Flush Limpballs's site he is attacking John Kerry for looking "French" and gets testy because Kerry is a Viet Nam vet! (Blubber Boy avoided the draft and must be jealous) And all because there is a photo of Kerry with John Lennon. Poor Rush. He avoided the draft with a cist on his butt and he wasn't cool enough to meet a Beatle. I've read some crazy stuff by Limpballs before but this is Flush at his most looney. The good news in all this is how much of a threat that Flush and the GOP see Kerry as for beating Bush to put out attack material like this. Kerry was a decorated Viet Nam vet who returned from that war to fight the powers in office prolonging its quagmire just as he's fighting Bush over mishandling the Iraq war today.
Imagine All the Stupid Voters
July 14, 2003
Have you seen this picture of John F. Kerry (D-MA), the French-looking candidate and richest man in the Senate, with John Lennon? Kerry never tires of telling us that he's a Vietnam War Veteran. Here he's pictured at an anti-war rally with the Beatle's legend, in a photo intended to win him support among those Baby Boomers who think the 60s never ended...
__________________________________________________________
Imagine All the Stupid Voters
July 14, 2003
Have you seen this picture of John F. Kerry (D-MA), the French-looking candidate and richest man in the Senate, with John Lennon? Kerry never tires of telling us that he's a Vietnam War Veteran. Here he's pictured at an anti-war rally with the Beatle's legend, in a photo intended to win him support among those Baby Boomers who think the 60s never ended...
__________________________________________________________
And this administration is supposed to be run by businessmen? How can any business run like this?!!! The only money I see them bringing in is for a campaign war chest. I guess all those rich people have to throw their huge tax cuts somewhere and Bush is the best used car salesman around.
July 16, 2003 NY TIMES
The Deficit Floats Up and Away
aving done its utmost to choke back the revenue flow into the Treasury, the Bush administration offered a running tab on this year's exploding budget deficit yesterday. To hear the casual patter of White House aides about the deficit, one would think it was pocket change. In fact, the shortfall has ballooned 50 percent in just five months, to $455 billion and counting. This historic high shows no sign of cresting, certainly not while the president's detaxation mania rolls forward. The White House firmly insists that the growing wad of government costs and debt being rolled across the years toward tomorrow's taxpayers is eminently "manageable." Actually, what was manageable was the $127 billion surplus the fledgling administration enjoyed just two years ago.
That surplus has disappeared into the Potomac mists, along with the Republicans' creaky posture as deficit hawks. A decade of deficit spending now awaits the nation, rooted in an anemic economy, pervasive joblessness, the rising costs of the American occupation of Iraq and Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the upper brackets. Independent estimates suggest that the deficit will grow to the half-trillion-dollar level next year and barrel on through the next decade at a cost in excess of $4 trillion once Congress's hypocritical commitment to "sunset" various tax cuts is quietly reversed.
The White House never fails to seize on optimistic predictions that the economy will tick back up zestfully next year in Mr. Bush's "jobs and growth" program, an agenda that has so far delivered far more tax cuts than recovery. A sobering estimate of the detax-and-spend policies of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress is offered by the Concord Coalition, the budget watchdog group, which warns of devastating long-range effects from "a schizophrenic pursuit of small-government tax policies and big-government spending initiatives." Politicians have broken vows not to tap Social Security funds, leaving costly entitlement promises to baby boomers looming at the shore of red ink that now pools forth into the nation. The White House hardly scans that shore, offering no details in its newly minted promise to cut the deficit in half "over the next few years."
___________________________________________________________________________
July 16, 2003 NY TIMES
The Deficit Floats Up and Away
aving done its utmost to choke back the revenue flow into the Treasury, the Bush administration offered a running tab on this year's exploding budget deficit yesterday. To hear the casual patter of White House aides about the deficit, one would think it was pocket change. In fact, the shortfall has ballooned 50 percent in just five months, to $455 billion and counting. This historic high shows no sign of cresting, certainly not while the president's detaxation mania rolls forward. The White House firmly insists that the growing wad of government costs and debt being rolled across the years toward tomorrow's taxpayers is eminently "manageable." Actually, what was manageable was the $127 billion surplus the fledgling administration enjoyed just two years ago.
That surplus has disappeared into the Potomac mists, along with the Republicans' creaky posture as deficit hawks. A decade of deficit spending now awaits the nation, rooted in an anemic economy, pervasive joblessness, the rising costs of the American occupation of Iraq and Mr. Bush's tax cuts for the upper brackets. Independent estimates suggest that the deficit will grow to the half-trillion-dollar level next year and barrel on through the next decade at a cost in excess of $4 trillion once Congress's hypocritical commitment to "sunset" various tax cuts is quietly reversed.
The White House never fails to seize on optimistic predictions that the economy will tick back up zestfully next year in Mr. Bush's "jobs and growth" program, an agenda that has so far delivered far more tax cuts than recovery. A sobering estimate of the detax-and-spend policies of the president and the Republican-controlled Congress is offered by the Concord Coalition, the budget watchdog group, which warns of devastating long-range effects from "a schizophrenic pursuit of small-government tax policies and big-government spending initiatives." Politicians have broken vows not to tap Social Security funds, leaving costly entitlement promises to baby boomers looming at the shore of red ink that now pools forth into the nation. The White House hardly scans that shore, offering no details in its newly minted promise to cut the deficit in half "over the next few years."
___________________________________________________________________________
Another story of the post-war planning for the Iraqi people. Well, like Rummy says, "A few eggs are going to get broken..."
Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad
By NEELA BANERJEE
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 15 — In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She cries, "Let me go!"
_________________________________________________________________
Rape (and Silence About It) Haunts Baghdad
By NEELA BANERJEE
BAGHDAD, Iraq, July 15 — In her loose black dress, gold hairband and purple flip-flops, Sanariya hops from seat to seat in her living room like any lively 9-year-old. She likes to read. She wants to be a teacher when she grows up, and she says Michael, her white teddy bear, will be her assistant.
But at night, the memory of being raped by a stranger seven weeks ago pulls her into its undertow. She grows feverish and has nightmares, her 28-year-old sister, Fatin, said. She cries, "Let me go!"
_________________________________________________________________
Sure sounds like an echo from Viet Nam only the name of the Secretary of Defense has changed.
"Tell Donald Rumsfeld the 2nd Brigade is still stuck in Fallouja," said Sgt. Siphon Phan, "and we're very angry."
U.S. Delays Pullout in Iraq
For U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, Long Haul Grows Longer
The latest deployment extension stirs new complaints that troops are already overtaxed. In Baghdad, another GI is killed.
July 15, 2003
By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer
FALLOUJA, Iraq — They're hot, they're cranky, and they're not leaving any time soon. Spc. Steven Outen has phoned his parents in Dalton, Ga., twice since his original six-month tour in the Persian Gulf was due to end in March to say his stay had been extended. This week, he didn't bother to call after he was again told to remain, this time through September. They expected it, he said.
"I didn't like it at all," he said...
____________________________________________________________________
"Tell Donald Rumsfeld the 2nd Brigade is still stuck in Fallouja," said Sgt. Siphon Phan, "and we're very angry."
U.S. Delays Pullout in Iraq
For U.S. Soldiers in Iraq, Long Haul Grows Longer
The latest deployment extension stirs new complaints that troops are already overtaxed. In Baghdad, another GI is killed.
July 15, 2003
By John Hendren, Times Staff Writer
FALLOUJA, Iraq — They're hot, they're cranky, and they're not leaving any time soon. Spc. Steven Outen has phoned his parents in Dalton, Ga., twice since his original six-month tour in the Persian Gulf was due to end in March to say his stay had been extended. This week, he didn't bother to call after he was again told to remain, this time through September. They expected it, he said.
"I didn't like it at all," he said...
____________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
The U.S. government is facing historic debt. The nation is in a war costing billions a month. Tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans are gutting programs for the poor. The Middle Class will eventually have to take up the taxpaying slack (as always). And yet the President is able to raise records sums of money from some of the wealthiest corporate donors in the country. Whose side do you think the President is on? Don't strain yourself too much thinking about it.
The Pioneers:
George W. Bush's $100,000 Club
Have some fun with this next part. Just take any of the names and do a Google search on it and see what turns up.
Bush-Cheney 2004 Pioneers and Rangers
(As of June 30, 2003)
One of these Pioneers, Sam Wily (I didn't make this up) organized the attack ads against John McCain when he threatened Bush in the early days of the nomination primaries. In less than two weeks time, Wily (I can't use his name, "Sam") created a small group of Bush buddies, collected a quick six million dollars and ran the attack ads (under the guise of an "independent group") in the North East to paint McCain as a threat to "green" power. What a crock of $#!*! Wily is a, surprise, big corporate energy trader who makes a mockery of trading "green" power. Later the Bush gang (notice Bush has people outside of his "official" political machine to carry out these attacks) slandered McCain's campaign director all through the South (over him being...Catholic!). Bush's vicious Political Machine and their "stealth" bunch of "Pioneers" is why I'm so pro Kerry. He's the ONLY candidate tough enough and cool enough under fire to weather the coming $#!*storm from Bush's political thugs. Folks, with this kind of money the attacks will be all over the media, especially if the Bushies are behind the Democractic candidate. We need a candidate with the integrity and grit to take them on. That man is John Kerry.
______________________________________________________________________
The Pioneers:
George W. Bush's $100,000 Club
Have some fun with this next part. Just take any of the names and do a Google search on it and see what turns up.
Bush-Cheney 2004 Pioneers and Rangers
(As of June 30, 2003)
One of these Pioneers, Sam Wily (I didn't make this up) organized the attack ads against John McCain when he threatened Bush in the early days of the nomination primaries. In less than two weeks time, Wily (I can't use his name, "Sam") created a small group of Bush buddies, collected a quick six million dollars and ran the attack ads (under the guise of an "independent group") in the North East to paint McCain as a threat to "green" power. What a crock of $#!*! Wily is a, surprise, big corporate energy trader who makes a mockery of trading "green" power. Later the Bush gang (notice Bush has people outside of his "official" political machine to carry out these attacks) slandered McCain's campaign director all through the South (over him being...Catholic!). Bush's vicious Political Machine and their "stealth" bunch of "Pioneers" is why I'm so pro Kerry. He's the ONLY candidate tough enough and cool enough under fire to weather the coming $#!*storm from Bush's political thugs. Folks, with this kind of money the attacks will be all over the media, especially if the Bushies are behind the Democractic candidate. We need a candidate with the integrity and grit to take them on. That man is John Kerry.
______________________________________________________________________
Got any kids going to be draft age in the next few years? Not that we'll need the draft and your kids. I'm sure all the conservatives' kids will join up (like Bush, DeLay, Limpballs and other chickenhawk conservatives did NOT do during Viet Nam) to fight in the Middle East and probably North Korea.
U.S. Won't Make Promises on Troop Return from Iraq
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department said on Tuesday it can offer no firm timeline for the return of thousands of U.S. troops from Iraq, as officials expressed hope, but made no promises, that an entire long-serving Army division would come home by September...
______________________________________________________________________
U.S. Won't Make Promises on Troop Return from Iraq
By Will Dunham
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The Defense Department said on Tuesday it can offer no firm timeline for the return of thousands of U.S. troops from Iraq, as officials expressed hope, but made no promises, that an entire long-serving Army division would come home by September...
______________________________________________________________________
Look at that Iraq war figure multiplying at the top of this page and add this news to it.
White House Acknowledges Ballooning Deficit
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday the federal budget deficit would balloon to a record $455 billion this fiscal year, after absorbing immediate costs from the war in Iraq, and then climb $20 billion higher in 2004, a presidential election year.
While White House budget director Joshua Bolten acknowledged that widening deficits were "a legitimate subject for concern..."
______________________________________________________________________
White House Acknowledges Ballooning Deficit
By Adam Entous
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The White House said on Tuesday the federal budget deficit would balloon to a record $455 billion this fiscal year, after absorbing immediate costs from the war in Iraq, and then climb $20 billion higher in 2004, a presidential election year.
While White House budget director Joshua Bolten acknowledged that widening deficits were "a legitimate subject for concern..."
______________________________________________________________________
Need more proof our President is an idiot?
Joe Conason's Journal
President Bush's astonishing new reason for the war with Iraq:
Saddam wouldn't let weapons inspectors in.
July 15, 2003 | A "darn good" quote that almost nobody quoted
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
George W. Bush uttered that amazing sentence yesterday to justify the war in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
What? Yes, I promise that's what the man said. (And by "him," the president clearly meant Saddam Hussein -- not Kim Jong Il, who actually has refused to let international inspectors into North Korea.)
Now a presidential statement so frontally at variance with the universally acknowledged facts obviously presents a problem for the White House press corps. He wasn't joking, and he didn't sound disoriented or unwell. Although Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote the story as delicately as they possibly could, they couldn't make it seem less weird:
"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."
Appeared to contradict the events leading up to war? Indeed, that's an exceedingly mild description of what Bush said. There's no plausible explanation, unless the president suddenly flashed back to his Yale sophomore philosophy seminar, grappling with the argument that everything we perceive is mere illusion.
For the moment, however, let's just assume reality does exist. What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue? And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement? Do the British have a secret dossier proving that Saddam never actually admitted Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC teams? Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is "technically accurate," even though he shouldn't have said it? . . . .
______________________________________________________________
Joe Conason's Journal
President Bush's astonishing new reason for the war with Iraq:
Saddam wouldn't let weapons inspectors in.
July 15, 2003 | A "darn good" quote that almost nobody quoted
"We gave him a chance to allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn't let them in."
George W. Bush uttered that amazing sentence yesterday to justify the war in Iraq, according to the Washington Post.
What? Yes, I promise that's what the man said. (And by "him," the president clearly meant Saddam Hussein -- not Kim Jong Il, who actually has refused to let international inspectors into North Korea.)
Now a presidential statement so frontally at variance with the universally acknowledged facts obviously presents a problem for the White House press corps. He wasn't joking, and he didn't sound disoriented or unwell. Although Dana Priest and Dana Milbank wrote the story as delicately as they possibly could, they couldn't make it seem less weird:
"The president's assertion that the war began because Iraq did not admit inspectors appeared to contradict the events leading up to war this spring: Hussein had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work because he did not believe them effective."
Appeared to contradict the events leading up to war? Indeed, that's an exceedingly mild description of what Bush said. There's no plausible explanation, unless the president suddenly flashed back to his Yale sophomore philosophy seminar, grappling with the argument that everything we perceive is mere illusion.
For the moment, however, let's just assume reality does exist. What possessed the president to make an assertion that everyone on the planet knows to be untrue? And who is going to take the responsibility for this one? Did George Tenet vet Bush's statement? Do the British have a secret dossier proving that Saddam never actually admitted Hans Blix and the UNMOVIC teams? Will Condi Rice or Donald Rumsfeld show up on Fox News next weekend to explain why Bush's statement is "technically accurate," even though he shouldn't have said it? . . . .
______________________________________________________________
I'm reading "SPARTACUS" by Howard Fast right now at the suggestion of my friend, Clay McBride. What prompted him sending the following passage from the book to me was after I had passed along some right-wing hysterical talk (real posts from a message board) along the lines of "hanging 10 Iraqis on street lamps" as punishment for every American soldier killed.
"Tokens of punishment" is what the Romans called the crucifixions that lined their roads when they killed 6000 of Spartacus's men, the slaves that rose up in revolt for their freedom. If you are looking for a terrific story that relates directly to our times today, read Fast's book!
"And Spartacus taught me that all the bad things men do, they do because
they are afraid. He showed me how men could change and become fine and
beautiful, if only they lived in brotherhood and shared all they had among
them. I saw this. I lived through it. But in some way, the man I had for
my own was always like that. That's why Spartacus could lead them all.
That's why they listened to him. They weren't just murderers and butchers.
They were something like the world never saw before. They were the way
people can be. That's why you can't hurt me. That's why I can't love you."
--Varinia, the wife of Spartacus, speaking to her new master, Crassus,
after the death of Spartacus.
______________________________________________________________________
"Tokens of punishment" is what the Romans called the crucifixions that lined their roads when they killed 6000 of Spartacus's men, the slaves that rose up in revolt for their freedom. If you are looking for a terrific story that relates directly to our times today, read Fast's book!
"And Spartacus taught me that all the bad things men do, they do because
they are afraid. He showed me how men could change and become fine and
beautiful, if only they lived in brotherhood and shared all they had among
them. I saw this. I lived through it. But in some way, the man I had for
my own was always like that. That's why Spartacus could lead them all.
That's why they listened to him. They weren't just murderers and butchers.
They were something like the world never saw before. They were the way
people can be. That's why you can't hurt me. That's why I can't love you."
--Varinia, the wife of Spartacus, speaking to her new master, Crassus,
after the death of Spartacus.
______________________________________________________________________
Looking pretty bad for the 3rd Infantry. Please keep them in your hearts and thoughts as this tragic "peace" turns into more hell.
U.S. Delays Pullout in Iraq
The Pentagon again postpones a withdrawal of 3rd Infantry soldiers. The move comes as India backs out of its promise to send a contingent.
By Esther Schrader and Paul Richter, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON -- Postponing troops' return to their families for the second time in two months, the Pentagon announced Monday that more than 10,000 soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division would not, as they had been told, be coming home by the end of September.
The announcement came as India said it would not send a promised division that would have added 17,000 troops to the forces on the ground, although the Pentagon said there was no connection between the extended deployment and New Delhi's decision.
Two-thirds of the division will remain in Iraq "indefinitely," said Richard Olson, a spokesman for the division at Ft. Stewart, Ga., its headquarters...
_________________________________________________________________
U.S. Delays Pullout in Iraq
The Pentagon again postpones a withdrawal of 3rd Infantry soldiers. The move comes as India backs out of its promise to send a contingent.
By Esther Schrader and Paul Richter, Times Staff Writers
WASHINGTON -- Postponing troops' return to their families for the second time in two months, the Pentagon announced Monday that more than 10,000 soldiers of the 3rd Infantry Division would not, as they had been told, be coming home by the end of September.
The announcement came as India said it would not send a promised division that would have added 17,000 troops to the forces on the ground, although the Pentagon said there was no connection between the extended deployment and New Delhi's decision.
Two-thirds of the division will remain in Iraq "indefinitely," said Richard Olson, a spokesman for the division at Ft. Stewart, Ga., its headquarters...
_________________________________________________________________
One of my favorite country singers and songwriters asks, what the hell is going on?
Not at peace with events
Merle Haggard's new song about the ongoing war in Iraq is one even liberals might applaud.
By Robert Hilburn, Times Staff Writer
TULARE -- As arguably the most gifted country music songwriter since Hank Williams, Merle Haggard has given his fans dozens of songs over the last 30 years that they'll never forget; tales of yearning and heartache that chronicle the life of the common man with uncommon character and grace.
But Haggard has also written at least one song that some people will never forgive: "The Fightin' Side of Me," a love-America-or-leave-it anthem that was all over country radio during the height of the Vietnam War.
Though the recording struck such a nerve with Haggard's core country audience that the words "Fighting Side" still appear on the red, white and blue T-shirts on sale at his shows, the song raised considerable ire among liberal Americans. So it felt like a redefining pop-culture moment last week when the white-haired performer sang a new song about the war in Iraq that even liberals might applaud.
Haggard's "That's the News" is a thoughtful, provocative commentary in which he asks why the U.S. government and media give the impression that the war is over although Americans are still dying in the Middle East.
Just moments after 1,000 or so fans attending the Electric Barnyard tour cheered a spirited rendition of "Fightin' Side," a hush fell as Haggard began the new song in this agricultural center, where an electronic sign on the edge of town states the time, the temperature and "God Bless America":
Suddenly it's over
The war is finally done
Soldiers in the desert sand
Still clinging to a gun.
No one is the winner
And everyone must lose
Suddenly the war is over
That's the news...
____________________________________________________________
Not at peace with events
Merle Haggard's new song about the ongoing war in Iraq is one even liberals might applaud.
By Robert Hilburn, Times Staff Writer
TULARE -- As arguably the most gifted country music songwriter since Hank Williams, Merle Haggard has given his fans dozens of songs over the last 30 years that they'll never forget; tales of yearning and heartache that chronicle the life of the common man with uncommon character and grace.
But Haggard has also written at least one song that some people will never forgive: "The Fightin' Side of Me," a love-America-or-leave-it anthem that was all over country radio during the height of the Vietnam War.
Though the recording struck such a nerve with Haggard's core country audience that the words "Fighting Side" still appear on the red, white and blue T-shirts on sale at his shows, the song raised considerable ire among liberal Americans. So it felt like a redefining pop-culture moment last week when the white-haired performer sang a new song about the war in Iraq that even liberals might applaud.
Haggard's "That's the News" is a thoughtful, provocative commentary in which he asks why the U.S. government and media give the impression that the war is over although Americans are still dying in the Middle East.
Just moments after 1,000 or so fans attending the Electric Barnyard tour cheered a spirited rendition of "Fightin' Side," a hush fell as Haggard began the new song in this agricultural center, where an electronic sign on the edge of town states the time, the temperature and "God Bless America":
Suddenly it's over
The war is finally done
Soldiers in the desert sand
Still clinging to a gun.
No one is the winner
And everyone must lose
Suddenly the war is over
That's the news...
____________________________________________________________
I've added the excellent WORKING FOR CHANGE information, opinion and activist site to the links (at your right). Here's the site's featured quote from Good Golly, Miss Molly Ivins.
Quote of the day
I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I'd rather not see my prediction come true and I don't think we have much time left to avert it.
-- Molly Ivins
Quote of the day
I opposed the war in Iraq because I thought it would lead to the peace from hell, but I'd rather not see my prediction come true and I don't think we have much time left to avert it.
-- Molly Ivins
I'm listing the costs of the Iraq war according to the Congressional Budget Office with a counter that updates it by the second.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
Check out what that money for war could have been used for: THE COST OF THE IRAQ WAR.
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower
April 16, 1953
Check out what that money for war could have been used for: THE COST OF THE IRAQ WAR.
Monday, July 14, 2003
Thanks to Agent Largent for rushing this right over from our top secret headquarters. NY TIMES journalist Paul Krugman lays out why the nation is in such peril under this fascist right-wing "cabal" (their "joke"-name for themselves) called the Bush administration. Get on your knees and pray for deliverance from this self-righteous group that believe absolutely in that they know better than anyone else how to run, not just our country, but the world. It's not just one Nixon in the White House anymore. Like Agent Smith in THE MATRIX RELOADED, it's a cloned army of of thousands of Nixons running around making sure no one wakes from their slumber.
Pattern of Corruption
By PAUL KRUGMAN
More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?
How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.
Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link the attack to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.
So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.
The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.
As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.
And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses — just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.
What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.
It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing — and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.
So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff — but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."
Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Sen. Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."
In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further.
____________________________________________________________________
Pattern of Corruption
By PAUL KRUGMAN
More than half of the U.S. Army's combat strength is now bogged down in Iraq, which didn't have significant weapons of mass destruction and wasn't supporting Al Qaeda. We have lost all credibility with allies who might have provided meaningful support; Tony Blair is still with us, but has lost the trust of his public. All this puts us in a very weak position for dealing with real threats. Did I mention that North Korea has been extracting fissionable material from its fuel rods?
How did we get into this mess? The case of the bogus uranium purchases wasn't an isolated instance. It was part of a broad pattern of politicized, corrupted intelligence.
Literally before the dust had settled, Bush administration officials began trying to use 9/11 to justify an attack on Iraq. Gen. Wesley Clark says that he received calls on Sept. 11 from "people around the White House" urging him to link the attack to Saddam Hussein. His account seems to back up a CBS.com report last September, headlined "Plans for Iraq attack Began on 9/11," which quoted notes taken by aides to Donald Rumsfeld on the day of the attack: "Go massive. Sweep it all up. Things related and not."
But an honest intelligence assessment would have raised questions about why we were going after a country that hadn't attacked us. It would also have suggested the strong possibility that an invasion of Iraq would hurt, not help, U.S. security.
So the Iraq hawks set out to corrupt the process of intelligence assessment. On one side, nobody was held accountable for the failure to predict or prevent 9/11; on the other side, top intelligence officials were expected to support the case for an Iraq war.
The story of how the threat from Iraq's alleged W.M.D.'s was hyped is now, finally, coming out. But let's not forget the persistent claim that Saddam was allied with Al Qaeda, which allowed the hawks to pretend that the Iraq war had something to do with fighting terrorism.
As Greg Thielmann, a former State Department intelligence official, said last week, U.S. intelligence analysts have consistently agreed that Saddam did not have a "meaningful connection" to Al Qaeda. Yet administration officials continually asserted such a connection, even as they suppressed evidence showing real links between Al Qaeda and Saudi Arabia.
And during the run-up to war, George Tenet, the C.I.A. director, was willing to provide cover for his bosses — just as he did last weekend. In an October 2002 letter to the Senate Intelligence Committee, he made what looked like an assertion that there really were meaningful connections between Saddam and Osama. Read closely, the letter is evasive, but it served the administration's purpose.
What about the risk that an invasion of Iraq would weaken America's security? Warnings from military experts that an extended postwar occupation might severely strain U.S. forces have proved precisely on the mark. But the hawks prevented any consideration of this possibility. Before the war, one official told Newsweek that the occupation might last no more than 30 to 60 days.
It gets worse. Knight Ridder newspapers report that a "small circle of senior civilians in the Defense Department" were sure that their favorite, Ahmad Chalabi, could easily be installed in power. They were able to prevent skeptics from getting a hearing — and they had no backup plan when efforts to anoint Mr. Chalabi, a millionaire businessman, degenerated into farce.
So who will be held accountable? Mr. Tenet betrayed his office by tailoring statements to reflect the interests of his political masters, rather than the assessments of his staff — but that's not why he may soon be fired. Yesterday USA Today reported that "some in the Bush administration are arguing privately for a C.I.A. director who will be unquestioningly loyal to the White House as committees demand documents and call witnesses."
Not that the committees are likely to press very hard: Sen. Pat Roberts, the chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, seems more concerned about protecting his party's leader than protecting the country. "What concerns me most," he says, is "what appears to be a campaign of press leaks by the C.I.A. in an effort to discredit the president."
In short, those who politicized intelligence in order to lead us into war, at the expense of national security, hope to cover their tracks by corrupting the system even further.
____________________________________________________________________
Bush fails again at foreign policy and continues to jepordize our troops for his imperial, short-sighted political goals.
In Rebuff to U.S., India Says It Won't Send Troops to Iraq
By JOHN KIFNER NY TIMES
NEW DELHI, July 14 -- In a sharp blow to America's postwar plans, India refused today to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq.
The Bush administration had hoped that India would send a full army division of 17,000 or more soldiers to serve in the Kurdish region around Mosul, and it had exerted considerable pressure on the government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to do so...
...The reasoning, Indian political observers said, was relatively simple: the war in Iraq is extremely unpopular here...
____________________________________________________________
In Rebuff to U.S., India Says It Won't Send Troops to Iraq
By JOHN KIFNER NY TIMES
NEW DELHI, July 14 -- In a sharp blow to America's postwar plans, India refused today to send peacekeeping troops to Iraq.
The Bush administration had hoped that India would send a full army division of 17,000 or more soldiers to serve in the Kurdish region around Mosul, and it had exerted considerable pressure on the government of Prime Minister Atal Behari Vajpayee to do so...
...The reasoning, Indian political observers said, was relatively simple: the war in Iraq is extremely unpopular here...
____________________________________________________________
Go to Kerry's site. Join up and let's take back America's government from the ultra right-wing Bushies!
www.JohnKerry.com
7.14.2003
National Update
JOIN MEETUP.COM FOR FREE, AND MEET OTHER JOHN KERRY SUPPORTERS IN YOUR AREA! (Click on the link to the right)
Meetup is a service that helps people get together with a group of neighbors that share a common interest.
THE NEXT KERRY IN 2004 MEETUP IS SCHEDULED FOR:
THURSDAY, JULY 24TH.
KERRY IN 2004 GROUPS MEET ON THE 4TH THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH. REGISTER NOW AND YOU CAN VOTE ON A LOCATION FOR THE NEXT MEETUP IN YOUR AREA.
http://kerry2004.meetup.com/
*********************************************
Kerry criticizes Bush record at La Raza
The Associated Press reported that "On President Bush's home turf, Democratic hopeful John Kerry on Sunday lambasted the president's record on the issues of health care, education and immigration, while making a powerful pitch for the sought-after Hispanic vote. 'Last election, he promised so much to win your votes,' Kerry said. 'But President Bush won't be running on his rhetoric this time, he'll be running on his record.'"
Read the full text of the AP article.
*********************************************
Kerry Fights for Firefighters On the Frontlines of Homeland Security
"John Kerry said Wednesday he'd replace President Bush's 'broken promises' to firefighters with a pledge of his own to put 100,000 more of them on the streets. The proposal, modeled after the Clinton administration COPS program for police officers, earned the senator from Massachusetts a standing ovation at the annual meeting of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire. 'What we need is an administration that understands how you make America stronger,' he said."
Read the full text of the AP article
*********************************************
Kerry Tells Health Care Workers His Plan Would Save Families Thousands
Also on Wednesday, John Kerry spoke with public health employees in Nashua, New Hampshire, where he touted his plan to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans:
" 'Here's the beauty of my plan,' he said. 'There is no government bureaucracy. It leaves people a choice.' Kerry estimated this would lower the average health insurance premium for a family by $1,000. 'That's a tax cut,' he said. 'That's real savings to people.'" [Nashua Telegraph, 7/10]
Read the entire Telegraph Article
Kerry's plan would cover 96% of all adults and 99% of all children, while reducing premiums across the board by 10%. It would allow Americans to join the same health care plan provided to their Members of Congress.
Read the press release about John Kerry's Health Care Plan
*********************************************
Kerry Tells Teachers He'll Match Words With Action On Education
On Thursday, John Kerry spoke to the American Federation of Teachers, where he promised to hold President Bush accountable for making a mockery of the words "leave no child behind," and rejected the Administration's plan to end the federal government's commitment to Head Start:
"This is the biggest 'say one thing, do another' administration that I've seen. Every single person who knows anything about Head Start or education understands what they're really trying to do is put it in a block grant and shove it off on the states which already have a lot of problems."
As President, Kerry would fully fund the "No Child Left Behind" act, rebuild and modernize crumbling school buildings, make early childhood education a top priority, and recruit and train two million new teachers over the next ten years.
Read the entire AP article
______________________________________________________
www.JohnKerry.com
7.14.2003
National Update
JOIN MEETUP.COM FOR FREE, AND MEET OTHER JOHN KERRY SUPPORTERS IN YOUR AREA! (Click on the link to the right)
Meetup is a service that helps people get together with a group of neighbors that share a common interest.
THE NEXT KERRY IN 2004 MEETUP IS SCHEDULED FOR:
THURSDAY, JULY 24TH.
KERRY IN 2004 GROUPS MEET ON THE 4TH THURSDAY OF EVERY MONTH. REGISTER NOW AND YOU CAN VOTE ON A LOCATION FOR THE NEXT MEETUP IN YOUR AREA.
http://kerry2004.meetup.com/
*********************************************
Kerry criticizes Bush record at La Raza
The Associated Press reported that "On President Bush's home turf, Democratic hopeful John Kerry on Sunday lambasted the president's record on the issues of health care, education and immigration, while making a powerful pitch for the sought-after Hispanic vote. 'Last election, he promised so much to win your votes,' Kerry said. 'But President Bush won't be running on his rhetoric this time, he'll be running on his record.'"
Read the full text of the AP article.
*********************************************
Kerry Fights for Firefighters On the Frontlines of Homeland Security
"John Kerry said Wednesday he'd replace President Bush's 'broken promises' to firefighters with a pledge of his own to put 100,000 more of them on the streets. The proposal, modeled after the Clinton administration COPS program for police officers, earned the senator from Massachusetts a standing ovation at the annual meeting of the Professional Firefighters of New Hampshire. 'What we need is an administration that understands how you make America stronger,' he said."
Read the full text of the AP article
*********************************************
Kerry Tells Health Care Workers His Plan Would Save Families Thousands
Also on Wednesday, John Kerry spoke with public health employees in Nashua, New Hampshire, where he touted his plan to make health care accessible and affordable to all Americans:
" 'Here's the beauty of my plan,' he said. 'There is no government bureaucracy. It leaves people a choice.' Kerry estimated this would lower the average health insurance premium for a family by $1,000. 'That's a tax cut,' he said. 'That's real savings to people.'" [Nashua Telegraph, 7/10]
Read the entire Telegraph Article
Kerry's plan would cover 96% of all adults and 99% of all children, while reducing premiums across the board by 10%. It would allow Americans to join the same health care plan provided to their Members of Congress.
Read the press release about John Kerry's Health Care Plan
*********************************************
Kerry Tells Teachers He'll Match Words With Action On Education
On Thursday, John Kerry spoke to the American Federation of Teachers, where he promised to hold President Bush accountable for making a mockery of the words "leave no child behind," and rejected the Administration's plan to end the federal government's commitment to Head Start:
"This is the biggest 'say one thing, do another' administration that I've seen. Every single person who knows anything about Head Start or education understands what they're really trying to do is put it in a block grant and shove it off on the states which already have a lot of problems."
As President, Kerry would fully fund the "No Child Left Behind" act, rebuild and modernize crumbling school buildings, make early childhood education a top priority, and recruit and train two million new teachers over the next ten years.
Read the entire AP article
______________________________________________________
A woman's right to choose. Civil rights. Worker protection. Individual rights. The safeguarding of the environment. Please go to the site listed and sign the petition. Here's a letter I received from Kerry's organization.
Thank You!
The Petition You Signed Now Has Over 75,000 Signers!
7.14.2003
********************************************
Dear Sam,
I am honored to report that you are one of over 75 thousand people who have endorsed our petition in support of selecting Supreme Court nominees who will protect and not turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose, civil rights, individual liberties and the laws protecting workers and the environment.
I am committed to only supporting nominees who share these views and am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, to achieve this.
We want to gather at least 100 thousand endorsements for when we officially present the petition to the leaders of both parties and the Judiciary Committee.
We need your help to achieve this goal. You agree with me that there should be no equivocation, no double-speak, no avoidance of the issue, and now I need you to help raise the intensity of our support. Forward this e-mail to your family and friends encouraging them to join with us in making this clear statement.
The petition can be found and signed at: http://petition.johnkerry.com
Thank you for your personal effort and support.
_____________________________________________________________
Thank You!
The Petition You Signed Now Has Over 75,000 Signers!
7.14.2003
********************************************
Dear Sam,
I am honored to report that you are one of over 75 thousand people who have endorsed our petition in support of selecting Supreme Court nominees who will protect and not turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose, civil rights, individual liberties and the laws protecting workers and the environment.
I am committed to only supporting nominees who share these views and am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, to achieve this.
We want to gather at least 100 thousand endorsements for when we officially present the petition to the leaders of both parties and the Judiciary Committee.
We need your help to achieve this goal. You agree with me that there should be no equivocation, no double-speak, no avoidance of the issue, and now I need you to help raise the intensity of our support. Forward this e-mail to your family and friends encouraging them to join with us in making this clear statement.
The petition can be found and signed at: http://petition.johnkerry.com
Thank you for your personal effort and support.
_____________________________________________________________
Here's Thomas Oliphant's thoughtful piece on Kerry's comments about the Iraq war. Stick with this. It has a surprise for you as it was for Oliphant.
Pride, truth and war according to Kerry
By Thomas Oliphant, 7/13/2003
WASHINGTON -- JOHN KERRY helped bring a war home last week, not unlike the way he helped bring another war home more than three decades ago.
His political mission was different this time - to make the messy, murderous aftermath of war in Iraq redeem the sacrifice it entailed. Last time it was to end a disastrous adventure in Vietnam before any more people had to die for a hideous mistake.
But at the end of a revealing political day, he linked the two as we talked, using the word ''pride'' that had punctuated an important public statement and a comprehensive interview at The Washington Post.
Pride, he had said earlier, is the logical explanation for the Bush administration's continued unwillingness to lead NATO and the United Nations into Iraq as our partners - not simply to save a few bucks or share the danger, but to make sure the mission succeeds over time and that the world's security is enhanced.
And pride, he reminded me, is the logical explanation for half the names on the black tablets of the Vietnam memorial, young people who died while politicians lied.
Last week, events here and in Iraq have underlined just how long and deep and costly US involvement in Iraq is going to be. They also exposed how myopic and self-defeating the administration's unilateralism has become in the face of this daunting task, and how few of the hard truths about the task and its costs are being shared with the public.
As someone who helped form the broad American coalition supporting the use of force last year, Kerry did not do so by inventing weapons programs Iraq had abandoned or never attempted, or creating connections with Al Qaeda that never existed, or manufacturing an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.
He made ''truth'' an important word last week as well. The war is continuing, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq is proceeding at a snail's pace when it proceeds at all, and for the job ahead international support is imperative. Kerry said the things George Bush should be saying.
I continue to be struck by something else in Kerry's rhetoric that is worth quoting:
''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.
''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''
Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.
Last week, Kerry also brought the perspective of his military service into play - not as boast but as useful experience. It helps, he said, to see the need for truth ''from the perspective of those in the field who are taking fire even as they do not know friend from foe, who have no idea when they will come home.''
More pointedly, Kerry made his case for truth not solely for the country's sake and its standing in the world, but ''most of all for the young people in uniform who cannot be protected from enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well-staged, that hostilities are over.''
If Kerry discusses domestic affairs with this force and clarity, he will win his party's presidential nomination next year. This is a remarkably wide-open, multi-candidate race in which content and message will win.
That is why Kerry's ability to cut through the fog and use his gifts and background to speak clearly and forcefully about Iraq is of more than passing interest.
The challenge, as he put it succinctly to me, is to ''punch through'' on domestic issues in the same way. He has the policy material to do it; now the message must follow.
One big Kerry advantage in a crowded field is the under-noticed fact that no segment of the Democratic electorate is vigorously opposed to him or any of his ideas. That's a start, but the bigger challenge is to provide ordinary people with a reason to be for him.
__________________________________________________________
Pride, truth and war according to Kerry
By Thomas Oliphant, 7/13/2003
WASHINGTON -- JOHN KERRY helped bring a war home last week, not unlike the way he helped bring another war home more than three decades ago.
His political mission was different this time - to make the messy, murderous aftermath of war in Iraq redeem the sacrifice it entailed. Last time it was to end a disastrous adventure in Vietnam before any more people had to die for a hideous mistake.
But at the end of a revealing political day, he linked the two as we talked, using the word ''pride'' that had punctuated an important public statement and a comprehensive interview at The Washington Post.
Pride, he had said earlier, is the logical explanation for the Bush administration's continued unwillingness to lead NATO and the United Nations into Iraq as our partners - not simply to save a few bucks or share the danger, but to make sure the mission succeeds over time and that the world's security is enhanced.
And pride, he reminded me, is the logical explanation for half the names on the black tablets of the Vietnam memorial, young people who died while politicians lied.
Last week, events here and in Iraq have underlined just how long and deep and costly US involvement in Iraq is going to be. They also exposed how myopic and self-defeating the administration's unilateralism has become in the face of this daunting task, and how few of the hard truths about the task and its costs are being shared with the public.
As someone who helped form the broad American coalition supporting the use of force last year, Kerry did not do so by inventing weapons programs Iraq had abandoned or never attempted, or creating connections with Al Qaeda that never existed, or manufacturing an imminent threat to the United States. Kerry did so in the belief that at some point rogue nations in the post-Cold War with aggressive records and intentions could not be tolerated.
He made ''truth'' an important word last week as well. The war is continuing, the repair and reconstruction of Iraq is proceeding at a snail's pace when it proceeds at all, and for the job ahead international support is imperative. Kerry said the things George Bush should be saying.
I continue to be struck by something else in Kerry's rhetoric that is worth quoting:
''The Bush administration has a plan for waging war but no plan for winning the peace. It has invested mightily in the tools of destruction but meagerly in the tools of peaceful construction. It offers the people in the greater Middle East retribution but little hope for liberty and prosperity.
''What America needs today is a smarter, more comprehensive and far-sighted strategy for modernizing the greater Middle East. It should draw on all of our nation's strengths: military might, the world's largest economy, the immense moral prestige of freedom and democracy - and our powerful alliances.''
Increasingly common words today, but Kerry spoke them more than six months ago, two months before the war began. Like others, I gave him guff then for seeming to fudge his support for the use of force; but also like others I failed to see the power of his thinking about the link between conflict and aftermath. On this, Kerry was more than prescient; he was speaking with the clarity expected of presidents.
Last week, Kerry also brought the perspective of his military service into play - not as boast but as useful experience. It helps, he said, to see the need for truth ''from the perspective of those in the field who are taking fire even as they do not know friend from foe, who have no idea when they will come home.''
More pointedly, Kerry made his case for truth not solely for the country's sake and its standing in the world, but ''most of all for the young people in uniform who cannot be protected from enemy attack by an announcement, no matter how well-staged, that hostilities are over.''
If Kerry discusses domestic affairs with this force and clarity, he will win his party's presidential nomination next year. This is a remarkably wide-open, multi-candidate race in which content and message will win.
That is why Kerry's ability to cut through the fog and use his gifts and background to speak clearly and forcefully about Iraq is of more than passing interest.
The challenge, as he put it succinctly to me, is to ''punch through'' on domestic issues in the same way. He has the policy material to do it; now the message must follow.
One big Kerry advantage in a crowded field is the under-noticed fact that no segment of the Democratic electorate is vigorously opposed to him or any of his ideas. That's a start, but the bigger challenge is to provide ordinary people with a reason to be for him.
__________________________________________________________
So somehow CIA director Tenet and the rest of the White House speechwriters and the entire White House staff along with Bush himself managed to give America faulty information in the most important speech to the nation (to go to war no less) and now after said information has been proven a lie, we are to believe that no one other than Tenet knew that information was wrong? Let me turn you on to an excellent website, funded by you, the taxpayer, which maintains a detailed photographic record of the composition of that speech. So, if you're still wondering exactly who deserves the blame for the bad guesswork, deliberate exaggerations, and outright lies that are still killing American soldiers as I type, just click here.
Thanks to Agent Sham for sending me this (I even stole the last part of his text).
If you want to see an enlightened breakdown on the photos of this speech and its development drop over to PHOTOS SHOW BUSH REWRITING, REVISING SPEECH .
_____________________________________________________
Thanks to Agent Sham for sending me this (I even stole the last part of his text).
If you want to see an enlightened breakdown on the photos of this speech and its development drop over to PHOTOS SHOW BUSH REWRITING, REVISING SPEECH .
_____________________________________________________
As I've mentioned before, the Bush Political Machine has turned into the Walmart of Fundraising. Like Walmart they chase the little money out there in the little towns while destroying their local mainstreet economies (and by that I mean how the corporate elite will get the power to control the government while the little guy in America gets the shaft). Here's the proof of how our government has been turned into a corporation with special privledges given to those that bring in campaign money for the party (instead of working to create better government by joining it).
Bush 'Bundlers' Take Fundraising to New Level
By Thomas B. Edsall and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2003
As chairman, president and chief executive of Safeway Inc., the world's 11th-largest grocery chain, Steven Burd is the nexus of a wide network of subordinates and suppliers, as well as friends in corporate suites. And that is why he will play a critical role in President Bush's effort to raise the largest amount of money ever spent on a presidential campaign -- not by giving a lot of money himself, but by finding a lot of people to give relatively little.
In the jargon of political fundraising, Burd is a bundler...
Bush 'Bundlers' Take Fundraising to New Level
By Thomas B. Edsall and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, July 14, 2003
As chairman, president and chief executive of Safeway Inc., the world's 11th-largest grocery chain, Steven Burd is the nexus of a wide network of subordinates and suppliers, as well as friends in corporate suites. And that is why he will play a critical role in President Bush's effort to raise the largest amount of money ever spent on a presidential campaign -- not by giving a lot of money himself, but by finding a lot of people to give relatively little.
In the jargon of political fundraising, Burd is a bundler...
Please note I've added links (I've gone mad with this new-found power!) to Josh Marshall's TALKING POINTS MEMO and JIM HIGHTOWER's site along with ALL HAT NO CATTLE which are must reading on the web for enlightened citizens. Check out Jim's recent audio commentary on "George, The Truth Deflector" at his site.
________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________
Thanks to Sham Da' Man for the link to this blog, an astounding slice of life from the front lines of Iraq by an anonymous sargeant in the U.S. Army.
...the hardest lessons are the ones you repeat... ...like a second deployment to the middle east... (due to a recent flurry of negative feedback i have taken the liberty of changing or omitting any names or information that i see fit to protect national security and to cover my own ass...thank the haters...) ...my views do not reflect that of the military or the u.s. government...
...turningtables...
Gee, I learned something new in html code today! I learned how to actually create a link for the links section (as opposed to just copying and pasting html code specifically given at a site) and now you can find the turningtables link listed everytime you come to HOWARD BEALE'S GHOST.
______________________________________________________
...the hardest lessons are the ones you repeat... ...like a second deployment to the middle east... (due to a recent flurry of negative feedback i have taken the liberty of changing or omitting any names or information that i see fit to protect national security and to cover my own ass...thank the haters...) ...my views do not reflect that of the military or the u.s. government...
...turningtables...
Gee, I learned something new in html code today! I learned how to actually create a link for the links section (as opposed to just copying and pasting html code specifically given at a site) and now you can find the turningtables link listed everytime you come to HOWARD BEALE'S GHOST.
______________________________________________________
I wonder if they are going to serve "Freedom Fries" with that foreign aid Bush wants so desperately now? What happened to, "You're either with us or against us?" Suddenly Bush NEEDS the UN and the rest of the world to help clean up his mess and hopefully take the pressure off our troops in the occupation. I could see how most countries would balk at helping the U.S. as Bush spit in their faces to go to war. Something tells me they are going to take their own sweet time about joining in any venture with the U.S. in this hellhole quagmire that Bush has created.
U.S. Seeks Help With Iraq Costs, but Donors Want a Larger Say
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, July 12 -- Faced with the huge cost of rebuilding Iraq, the United States has called for an international conference in October to be attended by dozens of nations -- many of which opposed the war to oust Saddam Hussein -- to raise billions of dollars to restore Iraq's economy.
But the Bush administration has run into a now familiar diplomatic problem. Potential donor nations say they are uneasy about financing a military occupation, and some American officials concede there will have to be more participation by other countries in deciding how money for Iraq is raised and spent...
_____________________________________________________________
U.S. Seeks Help With Iraq Costs, but Donors Want a Larger Say
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
WASHINGTON, July 12 -- Faced with the huge cost of rebuilding Iraq, the United States has called for an international conference in October to be attended by dozens of nations -- many of which opposed the war to oust Saddam Hussein -- to raise billions of dollars to restore Iraq's economy.
But the Bush administration has run into a now familiar diplomatic problem. Potential donor nations say they are uneasy about financing a military occupation, and some American officials concede there will have to be more participation by other countries in deciding how money for Iraq is raised and spent...
_____________________________________________________________
Feel that quagmire slowly oozing up around your legs? More soldiers sent to Iraq Nam means more dead soldiers.
Rumsfeld Says Iraq May Need a Larger Force
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, July 13 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States might need to send additional troops to Iraq to quell an increasingly well-organized guerrilla resistance, and warned that more American soldiers would die in attacks this summer.
Mr. Rumsfeld also said for the first time that the attacks against American troops by remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces, fedayeen fighters and Iraqi prisoners released before the war, were being coordinated at least regionally and possibly nationally.
Mr. Rumsfeld and his top aides had expressed optimism in recent weeks that American troop levels in Iraq could begin to decline as additional allied ground forces arrived later this summer and more newly trained Iraqi police officers took up positions around the country.
But the increasing frequency and sophistication of the attacks against American forces and Iraqis helping them have stirred alarm among American officials and caused commanders and Mr. Rumsfeld to rethink force levels.
"It seems to me that the numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to go up," he said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Now, could they? You bet. If they're needed, they will be there..."
_____________________________________________________________
Rumsfeld Says Iraq May Need a Larger Force
By ERIC SCHMITT
WASHINGTON, July 13 -- Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said today that the United States might need to send additional troops to Iraq to quell an increasingly well-organized guerrilla resistance, and warned that more American soldiers would die in attacks this summer.
Mr. Rumsfeld also said for the first time that the attacks against American troops by remnants of Saddam Hussein's security forces, fedayeen fighters and Iraqi prisoners released before the war, were being coordinated at least regionally and possibly nationally.
Mr. Rumsfeld and his top aides had expressed optimism in recent weeks that American troop levels in Iraq could begin to decline as additional allied ground forces arrived later this summer and more newly trained Iraqi police officers took up positions around the country.
But the increasing frequency and sophistication of the attacks against American forces and Iraqis helping them have stirred alarm among American officials and caused commanders and Mr. Rumsfeld to rethink force levels.
"It seems to me that the numbers of U.S. forces are unlikely to go up," he said on the NBC News program "Meet the Press." "Now, could they? You bet. If they're needed, they will be there..."
_____________________________________________________________
Finally!
Democrats Attack Credibility of Bush
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, July 13 - Democratic presidential candidates offered a near-unified assault today on President Bush's credibility in his handling of the Iraq war, signaling a shift in the political winds by aggressively invoking arguments most had shunned since the fall of Baghdad...
_____________________________________________________________
Democrats Attack Credibility of Bush
By ADAM NAGOURNEY
WASHINGTON, July 13 - Democratic presidential candidates offered a near-unified assault today on President Bush's credibility in his handling of the Iraq war, signaling a shift in the political winds by aggressively invoking arguments most had shunned since the fall of Baghdad...
_____________________________________________________________
Sunday, July 13, 2003
This story breaks my heart. Here was a romantic man so much in love with his wife that he thoughtfully left her messages hidden around their home before he left for Iraq. He pointed out a star for her to share with him in the heavens so that they could look at it and think of each other thousands of miles away. Now he's dead and for what? What is this war doing to our men and women over there and their families and friends here at home?
A Soldier's Life
Chris Coffin wasn't supposed to be in harm's way in Iraq. He was killed there this month. How the war is straining U.S. soldiers—and haunting those they left at home
First Sergeant Christopher Coffin knew how to stay close to his wife Betsy even when he was far away. Before he left in February, bound for the Persian Gulf, he took her outside on a cold, clear Maine night, pointed to an especially bright star and told her he would be able to see it from Iraq. They could both look at it, and find each other. "Every night when I walked the dog," Betsy says, "I would stop and talk to the star. The dog was so confused; she could tell I was talking to Chris, but she couldn't see him."
After he had left, Betsy began finding notes hidden all around their Kennebunk condo. He had tucked them in the pocket of her jacket, between the cans of dog food, on the bathroom mirror, under her pillow. She has no idea whether she has found them all, in the months since he has been gone.
"I miss doing the laundry with you and helping you hang it up," one said.
"When you take (the dog) to the beach, remember us taking her and how much fun we had," said another.
"Dearest Bets—Right this minute, I'm thinking of you, and smiling." They were signed "Trobs," short for Trouble, her nickname for him since they started dating in college 25 years ago, when she would spot him and say, "Here comes Trouble."
He tried to call from Iraq nearly every day, even just for two seconds...
______________________________________________________________
A Soldier's Life
Chris Coffin wasn't supposed to be in harm's way in Iraq. He was killed there this month. How the war is straining U.S. soldiers—and haunting those they left at home
First Sergeant Christopher Coffin knew how to stay close to his wife Betsy even when he was far away. Before he left in February, bound for the Persian Gulf, he took her outside on a cold, clear Maine night, pointed to an especially bright star and told her he would be able to see it from Iraq. They could both look at it, and find each other. "Every night when I walked the dog," Betsy says, "I would stop and talk to the star. The dog was so confused; she could tell I was talking to Chris, but she couldn't see him."
After he had left, Betsy began finding notes hidden all around their Kennebunk condo. He had tucked them in the pocket of her jacket, between the cans of dog food, on the bathroom mirror, under her pillow. She has no idea whether she has found them all, in the months since he has been gone.
"I miss doing the laundry with you and helping you hang it up," one said.
"When you take (the dog) to the beach, remember us taking her and how much fun we had," said another.
"Dearest Bets—Right this minute, I'm thinking of you, and smiling." They were signed "Trobs," short for Trouble, her nickname for him since they started dating in college 25 years ago, when she would spot him and say, "Here comes Trouble."
He tried to call from Iraq nearly every day, even just for two seconds...
______________________________________________________________
The only question about Bush's credibility is how little he has.
A Question of Trust
The CIA's Tenet takes the fall for a flawed claim in the State of the Union, but has Bush's credibility taken an even greater hit?
By Michael Duffy and James Carney
The State of the Union message is one of America's greatest inventions, conceived by the Founders to force a powerful Chief Executive to report to a public suspicious of kings. Delivered to a joint session of Congress in democracy's biggest cathedral, it is the most important speech a President gives each year, written and rewritten and then polished again. Yet the address George W. Bush gave on Jan. 28 was more consequential than most because he was making a revolutionary case: why a nation that traditionally didn't start fights should wage a pre-emptive war. As Bush noted that night, "Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."
Just how aware was Bush of the accuracy of what he was about to say...?
_____________________________________________________________
A Question of Trust
The CIA's Tenet takes the fall for a flawed claim in the State of the Union, but has Bush's credibility taken an even greater hit?
By Michael Duffy and James Carney
The State of the Union message is one of America's greatest inventions, conceived by the Founders to force a powerful Chief Executive to report to a public suspicious of kings. Delivered to a joint session of Congress in democracy's biggest cathedral, it is the most important speech a President gives each year, written and rewritten and then polished again. Yet the address George W. Bush gave on Jan. 28 was more consequential than most because he was making a revolutionary case: why a nation that traditionally didn't start fights should wage a pre-emptive war. As Bush noted that night, "Every year, by law and by custom, we meet here to consider the state of the union. This year we gather in this chamber deeply aware of decisive days that lie ahead."
Just how aware was Bush of the accuracy of what he was about to say...?
_____________________________________________________________
Who will win the contest for the Democratic nomination for President? Here's a nice piece on both candidates and their rivalry but it's Kerry that will pull through when the dust settles. He's been through hard fought campaigns before and has the solid background experience (substancial government expertise and understandings of the issues at all levels) that will be needed to convince Independents (and many Republicans) to vote for him and beat Bush on election day. We can't win with just Democratic votes.
Are Voters in the Mood for an Angry Democrat?
That’s the main question at the center of the Dean-Kerry showdown
Are Voters in the Mood for an Angry Democrat?
That’s the main question at the center of the Dean-Kerry showdown
A thoughtful article in TIME on the bungling of our national energy policies through the last 100 years and why it happens. This is a great primer on understanding why energy prices go up (Pssst! Conservation is the key to lowering them.).
Why America is Running Out of Gas
Inflated oil prices and natural gas shortages are wiping out jobs and savings, thanks to three decades of bungled energy policy. Get ready for more bungling
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE
____________________________________________________________
Why America is Running Out of Gas
Inflated oil prices and natural gas shortages are wiping out jobs and savings, thanks to three decades of bungled energy policy. Get ready for more bungling
By DONALD L. BARLETT AND JAMES B. STEELE
____________________________________________________________
What damage to our U.S. Intelligence network is happening with such a partisan an administration using it for political manipulation and ulterior goals for private interests?
Democrats: Iraq story falls short
Kerry says larger issue is future confidence in U.S. intelligence.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The administration's explanation of how questionable intelligence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons programs made it into President Bush's State of the Union address leaves numerous questions unanswered, two Democratic presidential candidates said Sunday.
CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility Friday for allowing the following statement to remain in Bush's January 28 address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
In March, International Atomic Energy Agency said the intelligence that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium oxide, or yellowcake, from Niger was based on forged documents.
The White House later admitted the reference should not have been included in the speech, although Britain continues to stand behind the allegation.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told CNN's "Late Edition" that Tenet's statement of responsibility leaves "a host of questions" unanswered.
"Making him the fall guy does not resolve the question or make go away the questions about the overall intelligence, and why the administration clearly had this political tug of war over the kind of information they were presenting America," Kerry said "That is only going to be answered by the White House."
_____________________________________________________________________
Democrats: Iraq story falls short
Kerry says larger issue is future confidence in U.S. intelligence.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The administration's explanation of how questionable intelligence about Iraq's alleged nuclear weapons programs made it into President Bush's State of the Union address leaves numerous questions unanswered, two Democratic presidential candidates said Sunday.
CIA Director George Tenet took responsibility Friday for allowing the following statement to remain in Bush's January 28 address: "The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."
In March, International Atomic Energy Agency said the intelligence that Iraq had tried to buy 500 tons of uranium oxide, or yellowcake, from Niger was based on forged documents.
The White House later admitted the reference should not have been included in the speech, although Britain continues to stand behind the allegation.
Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told CNN's "Late Edition" that Tenet's statement of responsibility leaves "a host of questions" unanswered.
"Making him the fall guy does not resolve the question or make go away the questions about the overall intelligence, and why the administration clearly had this political tug of war over the kind of information they were presenting America," Kerry said "That is only going to be answered by the White House."
_____________________________________________________________________
Bush I is so tight with the Saudis (it's the oil, stupid!), not even his underwear is closer.
Lawmakers: Report to show al Qaeda-Saudi ties
Levin: Administration stalling calls to declassify it
________________________________________________________________
Lawmakers: Report to show al Qaeda-Saudi ties
Levin: Administration stalling calls to declassify it
________________________________________________________________
From Agent Largent. It's such a good piece, I had to post the whole thing.
Sammy,
A KILLER piece from that commie rag, the AUSTIN-AMERICAN STATESMAN...
Gary Chapman
Bush's 'Bring 'em on speech rings hollow as he cuts benefits for soldiers, veterans
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Many veterans, like me, are still shaking their heads in disbelief over President Bush's recent bluster about the Iraqi opposition killing our troops one by one almost every day. "Bring 'em on," said Bush, sounding like a character out of a bad Hollywood movie or an ad for TV wrestling.
It's impossible to imagine Dwight Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy uttering something so shallow. But Bush knows his audience: millions of baby boomer men who missed military service but who still harbor adolescent fantasies of guns, glory and conquest. These are the same men whose pulses raced over Bush's "Top Gun" performance on an aircraft carrier, a piece of bravado that left many veterans appalled.
The Bush administration, playing Roman empire overseas, is starting to treat its own citizens like a Roman mob, manipulating us with spectacles, theatrics and cheap taunts at an enemy while our soldiers are in harm's way.
When I was in the Army, we had a term for officers in love with themselves when they were armed and in uniform. We called them "showboats."
This was a term used as a warning to other soldiers. Showboats would get you killed because of their vanity, their poor judgment and their machismo.
Showboats were to be avoided at all costs. We preferred officers who were cynics and fatalists like us, and quietly secure enough to rely on the usually more experienced sergeants they commanded. Such officers understood that war is always a tragedy, sometimes an unavoidable one, and not an adventure.
Officers like that were outnumbered by showboats. Infantry grunts knew that. We now have a government full of showboats, many of whom never served.
Every report coming back from Iraq says that our troops' morale is bouncing off rock bottom. They're in urban combat; it's miserably hot; they're increasingly hated by the Iraqis. There's nowhere to escape the heat, the hostility and the threat of death.
There is no exit strategy; people like U.S, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have concluded we'll be in Iraq for years.
Not you and me, of course. Some unlucky 20-year-old with a flak jacket, helmet and 30 pounds of gear in 110-degree heat, a nervous human target facing angry Iraqis, among whom could be an assassin or a suicide bomber.
The situation is not much different in Afghanistan, our other even more forgotten war, where our control extends to a small perimeter surrounding Afghan President Hamid Kharzai. The rest of the country is back in the hands of warlords or religious fanatics.
Bush has inexplicably acquired a reputation as a friend of the military, but it's based on symbolism rhetoric.
Not only are our military fronts in a grave state, but Bush has cut the budgets that help soldiers overseas. Even the Army Times complained about Bush's cuts in a lead editorial on June 30. The White House opposed a doubling, to $6,000, of the benefits paid to families when a soldier dies in combat. In October, the White House announced a planned rollback in monthly "imminent danger" pay and in family separation allowances, even though the military is turning to reserve forces.
The White House also cut budgets for upgrading military housing, and it proposed caps in pay rates for the lowest ranks of enlisted personnel.
It also whacked veterans' benefits, cutting $14.6 billion over 10 years.
Bush is waging war on the working families of soldiers, too, by changing the rules on who is eligible for overtime pay, attacking trade unions, cutting social service benefits, and rewarding his wealthy friends with tax cuts.
Congress is blameworthy too, led by flag-waving military service evaders such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Out of 535 members, only Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a son serving in Iraq.
The hypocrisy of this administration and its allies in Congress is breathtaking. Then again showboats are a type who are usually objects of comic scorn.
When are Americans going to come to their senses about their government?
Chapman is director of The 21st Century Project at the LBJ School. Contact him at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu.
______________________________________________________________
Sammy,
A KILLER piece from that commie rag, the AUSTIN-AMERICAN STATESMAN...
Gary Chapman
Bush's 'Bring 'em on speech rings hollow as he cuts benefits for soldiers, veterans
SPECIAL TO THE AMERICAN-STATESMAN
Thursday, July 10, 2003
Many veterans, like me, are still shaking their heads in disbelief over President Bush's recent bluster about the Iraqi opposition killing our troops one by one almost every day. "Bring 'em on," said Bush, sounding like a character out of a bad Hollywood movie or an ad for TV wrestling.
It's impossible to imagine Dwight Eisenhower or John F. Kennedy uttering something so shallow. But Bush knows his audience: millions of baby boomer men who missed military service but who still harbor adolescent fantasies of guns, glory and conquest. These are the same men whose pulses raced over Bush's "Top Gun" performance on an aircraft carrier, a piece of bravado that left many veterans appalled.
The Bush administration, playing Roman empire overseas, is starting to treat its own citizens like a Roman mob, manipulating us with spectacles, theatrics and cheap taunts at an enemy while our soldiers are in harm's way.
When I was in the Army, we had a term for officers in love with themselves when they were armed and in uniform. We called them "showboats."
This was a term used as a warning to other soldiers. Showboats would get you killed because of their vanity, their poor judgment and their machismo.
Showboats were to be avoided at all costs. We preferred officers who were cynics and fatalists like us, and quietly secure enough to rely on the usually more experienced sergeants they commanded. Such officers understood that war is always a tragedy, sometimes an unavoidable one, and not an adventure.
Officers like that were outnumbered by showboats. Infantry grunts knew that. We now have a government full of showboats, many of whom never served.
Every report coming back from Iraq says that our troops' morale is bouncing off rock bottom. They're in urban combat; it's miserably hot; they're increasingly hated by the Iraqis. There's nowhere to escape the heat, the hostility and the threat of death.
There is no exit strategy; people like U.S, Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, have concluded we'll be in Iraq for years.
Not you and me, of course. Some unlucky 20-year-old with a flak jacket, helmet and 30 pounds of gear in 110-degree heat, a nervous human target facing angry Iraqis, among whom could be an assassin or a suicide bomber.
The situation is not much different in Afghanistan, our other even more forgotten war, where our control extends to a small perimeter surrounding Afghan President Hamid Kharzai. The rest of the country is back in the hands of warlords or religious fanatics.
Bush has inexplicably acquired a reputation as a friend of the military, but it's based on symbolism rhetoric.
Not only are our military fronts in a grave state, but Bush has cut the budgets that help soldiers overseas. Even the Army Times complained about Bush's cuts in a lead editorial on June 30. The White House opposed a doubling, to $6,000, of the benefits paid to families when a soldier dies in combat. In October, the White House announced a planned rollback in monthly "imminent danger" pay and in family separation allowances, even though the military is turning to reserve forces.
The White House also cut budgets for upgrading military housing, and it proposed caps in pay rates for the lowest ranks of enlisted personnel.
It also whacked veterans' benefits, cutting $14.6 billion over 10 years.
Bush is waging war on the working families of soldiers, too, by changing the rules on who is eligible for overtime pay, attacking trade unions, cutting social service benefits, and rewarding his wealthy friends with tax cuts.
Congress is blameworthy too, led by flag-waving military service evaders such as House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, and Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tenn. Out of 535 members, only Sen. Tim Johnson, D-S.D., has a son serving in Iraq.
The hypocrisy of this administration and its allies in Congress is breathtaking. Then again showboats are a type who are usually objects of comic scorn.
When are Americans going to come to their senses about their government?
Chapman is director of The 21st Century Project at the LBJ School. Contact him at gary.chapman@mail.utexas.edu.
______________________________________________________________
More spin on the Bush dumpy economy. To be honest, it's Greenspan's job to pep-talk it up in the media for every president he's worked for and he is obviously a brilliant man and I have no problem with him trying to keep spirits up (the market works a great deal upon perceptions). But let's face it folks. Bush's policies are doing nothing to help this economy while his wildly irrational partisan tax cuts (ad naseum) for the GOP elite are only adding to its trouble for decades to come.
Lackluster Rebound as Greenspan Testifies
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The scenario that Alan Greenspan hoped for has not yet panned out: three months after the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. economy is muddling along but has not snapped back sharply from its war-related doldrums.
When the Federal Reserve chairman travels to Capitol Hill for closely watched testimony this week, it would be impossible for him to gloss over some dismal news lately. The factory sector is listless, the number of Americans receiving unemployment checks is at a 20-year high and the jobless rate has surged to a 9-year peak of 6.4 percent...
__________________________________________________________________
Lackluster Rebound as Greenspan Testifies
By Caren Bohan
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The scenario that Alan Greenspan hoped for has not yet panned out: three months after the fall of Baghdad, the U.S. economy is muddling along but has not snapped back sharply from its war-related doldrums.
When the Federal Reserve chairman travels to Capitol Hill for closely watched testimony this week, it would be impossible for him to gloss over some dismal news lately. The factory sector is listless, the number of Americans receiving unemployment checks is at a 20-year high and the jobless rate has surged to a 9-year peak of 6.4 percent...
__________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)