Say it LOUD and say it CLEAR. Dean is unelectable in a country as closely divided as America is today. Only JOHN KERRY can bring in the centralist votes to beat Bush and can cause many of Bush's supporters vote for a Democrat.
Centrist Democrats Reserved Toward Dean
Sat Jul 26,12:30 PM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential candidate Howard Dean is surging in fund raising and winning over supporters, but leading centrist Democrats still have reservations about the viability of his candidacy.
"Dean has certainly created a lot of excitement and has hooked on to what is the hot button issue," said Al From, founder and chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "His anti-war stance has helped him an awful lot. The enthusiasm is real. But in the long run, the Democratic Party will not elect a president who has not crossed a security threshold."...
____________________________________________________________________
Saturday, July 26, 2003
Once we unite behind JOHN KERRY, we are going to have the fight of your lives on our hands.
Bush Campaign Manager Sees Tough Race
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Republicans worried that bad news in the economy and Iraq (news - web sites) might take a toll on President Bush (news - web sites)'s solid poll numbers should get to work wooing new voters to help ensure his re-election in a tough battle with the Democrats, Bush's campaign manager told party activists Saturday.
"Our numbers look good today," Ken Mehlman told Republican National Committee (news - web sites) members at the end of a four-day meeting. Still, he said, there's no room for complacency about 2004.
"These numbers will come down," Mehlman said. "We must prepare for an election every bit as close as the 2000 election," he said....
__________________________________________________________________________
Bush Campaign Manager Sees Tough Race
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Republicans worried that bad news in the economy and Iraq (news - web sites) might take a toll on President Bush (news - web sites)'s solid poll numbers should get to work wooing new voters to help ensure his re-election in a tough battle with the Democrats, Bush's campaign manager told party activists Saturday.
"Our numbers look good today," Ken Mehlman told Republican National Committee (news - web sites) members at the end of a four-day meeting. Still, he said, there's no room for complacency about 2004.
"These numbers will come down," Mehlman said. "We must prepare for an election every bit as close as the 2000 election," he said....
__________________________________________________________________________
They moved in like the MOB and took over by lying about what they were out to reform.
GOP's Power Play
Sat Jul 26, 1:00 AM ET
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writers
Nearly 10 years after winning control of the House by vowing a fairer and more open Congress, Republicans have tossed aside many of the institutional reforms they promised, increasingly employing hard-nosed tactics they decried a decade ago, according to numerous lawmakers and scholars.
Among the reforms championed by an earlier generation of House Republicans, and subsequently dropped or weakened: term limits for rank-and-file members as well as committee chairmen; stricter ethics laws; and greater power for individual members and the minority party...
_______________________________________________________________________
GOP's Power Play
Sat Jul 26, 1:00 AM ET
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writers
Nearly 10 years after winning control of the House by vowing a fairer and more open Congress, Republicans have tossed aside many of the institutional reforms they promised, increasingly employing hard-nosed tactics they decried a decade ago, according to numerous lawmakers and scholars.
Among the reforms championed by an earlier generation of House Republicans, and subsequently dropped or weakened: term limits for rank-and-file members as well as committee chairmen; stricter ethics laws; and greater power for individual members and the minority party...
_______________________________________________________________________
Bush learns that John Kerry is closing in on the Democratic nomination.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
This "battle" won't happen. Kerry is going to start rising as the nation's candidate because the older, more conservative voters are going to vote for him and they are the only ones who vote in significant numbers, especially during the primaries. Why? Because he's got their issues covered. Why am I constantly beating the drum for him? Because I know he's right on the issues and the man for the job of BEATING GEORGE BUSH AND SENDING HIM PACKING TO CRAWFORD AS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN U.S. HISTORY.
July 26, 2003
The Battle of Boston?
By ASHBEL GREEN
Let me offer a contrarian prediction. The contest for next year's Democratic presidential nomination will be the most unpredictable in half a century.
There is no front-runner now, and there is not likely to be one by next March, the time that most political experts and journalists usually figure the issue will be decided. My suspicion is that they could be very wrong.
Suppose, in the early primaries and caucuses, Dick Gephardt wins Iowa, Howard Dean or John Kerry takes New Hampshire, John Edwards is first in South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman prevails in Arizona. Where's the groundswell? Where's the Big Mo? Will Time and Newsweek put all the candidates on their covers?
Pundits have become trapped by the memories of what has happened in presidential campaigns the last several decades, forecasting the current war as if it were to be determined by the strategies and tactics of previous conflicts. Their assumptions are that American voters want to make up their minds in a hurry, and that the candidates will run out of money if the process gets extended.
Let me suggest another contrarian notion. Suppose the Democratic nomination doesn't get settled until the national convention. Suppose that several candidates remain in play in July 2004, when the delegates convene in Boston.
The television networks would have to expand their coverage, in expectation that a real competition would greatly enlarge the audience. Americans love a contest, and the sight of presidential aspirants battling head-to-head for delegate votes could well galvanize public attention. The suspense, even if the actual decision was made by party power brokers in a smoke-free room, might excite voters and stimulate interest in the November election.
There hasn't been a true challenge for a nomination since 1956, when Estes Kefauver bested John F. Kennedy for the Democratic vice-presidential designation. Kennedy may have lost that August night in Chicago, but the drama of the contest made him a household name and paved the way for his presidential nomination four years later. For the Democratic Party, now pitted against a popular president with gobs of money, another knockdown imbroglio might be just the thing.
Ashbel Green is a book editor.
________________________________________________________________________
July 26, 2003
The Battle of Boston?
By ASHBEL GREEN
Let me offer a contrarian prediction. The contest for next year's Democratic presidential nomination will be the most unpredictable in half a century.
There is no front-runner now, and there is not likely to be one by next March, the time that most political experts and journalists usually figure the issue will be decided. My suspicion is that they could be very wrong.
Suppose, in the early primaries and caucuses, Dick Gephardt wins Iowa, Howard Dean or John Kerry takes New Hampshire, John Edwards is first in South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman prevails in Arizona. Where's the groundswell? Where's the Big Mo? Will Time and Newsweek put all the candidates on their covers?
Pundits have become trapped by the memories of what has happened in presidential campaigns the last several decades, forecasting the current war as if it were to be determined by the strategies and tactics of previous conflicts. Their assumptions are that American voters want to make up their minds in a hurry, and that the candidates will run out of money if the process gets extended.
Let me suggest another contrarian notion. Suppose the Democratic nomination doesn't get settled until the national convention. Suppose that several candidates remain in play in July 2004, when the delegates convene in Boston.
The television networks would have to expand their coverage, in expectation that a real competition would greatly enlarge the audience. Americans love a contest, and the sight of presidential aspirants battling head-to-head for delegate votes could well galvanize public attention. The suspense, even if the actual decision was made by party power brokers in a smoke-free room, might excite voters and stimulate interest in the November election.
There hasn't been a true challenge for a nomination since 1956, when Estes Kefauver bested John F. Kennedy for the Democratic vice-presidential designation. Kennedy may have lost that August night in Chicago, but the drama of the contest made him a household name and paved the way for his presidential nomination four years later. For the Democratic Party, now pitted against a popular president with gobs of money, another knockdown imbroglio might be just the thing.
Ashbel Green is a book editor.
________________________________________________________________________
Thugs are running the House and the Senate while the Village Idiot (albet, a good liar) sits in the White House.
Tears From the Gruff Chairman
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Congress is heading off on vacation after a hilariously dewy-eyed adieu in which vows were exchanged to work harder toward bipartisan decorum — a goal that seems about as achievable as a balanced federal budget. In a surprise, the promises to be nicer were set off by a hand-wringing apology from Representative Bill Thomas, the widely feared California Republican who is notorious for his irascibility in wielding the gavel of the Ways and Means Committee. "I learned a very painful lesson," Mr. Thomas declared, fighting back tears as he expressed remorse for imperiously summoning the Capitol police to deal with protesting Democrats. They had bolted a committee meeting for a rump quorum in the library as Mr. Thomas had tried to ram through a pension bill that the Democrats had not had a chance to read.
The lesson Mr. Thomas really took to heart was that when he calls the police to reinforce G.O.P. hegemony, the Democrats call the news media. The resulting headlines were a rare coup for the minority as it suffers under the thumb of one-party government and rarely dominates any story. No solon was caned to the floor or struck with fire tongs or had his toupee ripped off, as happened in far more spirited Congressional fracases of the past. Shouts of "fruitcake" and "wimp" were the most counteraggression the minority could muster.
There was historical payback behind the Democrats' outcry, for the Republicans suffered the slings and arrows of minority misfortune for 40 years, before Newt Gingrich strategically targeted Democratic leaders as overbearing bullies and led his party to the majority. Mr. Thomas was probably trying to head off a campaign black eye for the G.O.P. more than trying to soften his dictator's reputation. While his contrition drew a bipartisan ovation, the driest eye in the House belonged to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who frostily studied the realpolitik of the gentleman's tears.
____________________________________________________________________________
Tears From the Gruff Chairman
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Congress is heading off on vacation after a hilariously dewy-eyed adieu in which vows were exchanged to work harder toward bipartisan decorum — a goal that seems about as achievable as a balanced federal budget. In a surprise, the promises to be nicer were set off by a hand-wringing apology from Representative Bill Thomas, the widely feared California Republican who is notorious for his irascibility in wielding the gavel of the Ways and Means Committee. "I learned a very painful lesson," Mr. Thomas declared, fighting back tears as he expressed remorse for imperiously summoning the Capitol police to deal with protesting Democrats. They had bolted a committee meeting for a rump quorum in the library as Mr. Thomas had tried to ram through a pension bill that the Democrats had not had a chance to read.
The lesson Mr. Thomas really took to heart was that when he calls the police to reinforce G.O.P. hegemony, the Democrats call the news media. The resulting headlines were a rare coup for the minority as it suffers under the thumb of one-party government and rarely dominates any story. No solon was caned to the floor or struck with fire tongs or had his toupee ripped off, as happened in far more spirited Congressional fracases of the past. Shouts of "fruitcake" and "wimp" were the most counteraggression the minority could muster.
There was historical payback behind the Democrats' outcry, for the Republicans suffered the slings and arrows of minority misfortune for 40 years, before Newt Gingrich strategically targeted Democratic leaders as overbearing bullies and led his party to the majority. Mr. Thomas was probably trying to head off a campaign black eye for the G.O.P. more than trying to soften his dictator's reputation. While his contrition drew a bipartisan ovation, the driest eye in the House belonged to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who frostily studied the realpolitik of the gentleman's tears.
____________________________________________________________________________
How many more of these deaths must our nation endure? What kind of changed men and women are returning from this war? How many families will suffer this grief and deal with the pain as this quagmire endures? How many times will the White House change its story on why we went to war in Iraq?
A Marine Is Killed in Iraq, and Grief Ripples at Home
By SARAH KERSHAW
PORTLAND, Ore., July 24 — His family wanted a "showboat funeral" for Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1. And that meant hiring stretch limousines.
It took seven to carry them all: Uncle John, Uncle James, Uncle Joel, Uncle Sam, Uncle Mike, Aunt Katie, Aunt Molly, Aunt Laurie, Aunt Sally and her husband, Uncle Frank — 18 aunts and uncles in all.
Then there were the cousins, dozens of them, including Jack, Christopher and Riley, who as boys traveled with Travis in a pack of four. There was Bobby, the baby sitter, and James, Travis's close friend from Grant High School, who set off a tall pile of fireworks last week — "a 21, two-liter-bomb salute," he called it — to say goodbye to Travis with 30 of his friends.
At the head of the procession, of course, was Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother, Lynn Bradach, 51, and his younger brother, Nick Nall, 19, the two people at the center of this wide circle of sadness, a close-knit clan of more than 100 relatives and friends in Portland rippling now with the grief of one marine's death.
Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother and brother were among those most relieved that he had made it through the war itself — all 37 marines in his unit, Second Platoon, Charlie Company, came out alive, surviving a harrowing ambush near Nasiriya in southern Iraq in late March.
And they are the two who perhaps wish most desperately that Corporal Bradach-Nall had not volunteered to stay on for an extra three months, instead of returning safely with the others on June 21...
_________________________________________________________________________
A Marine Is Killed in Iraq, and Grief Ripples at Home
By SARAH KERSHAW
PORTLAND, Ore., July 24 — His family wanted a "showboat funeral" for Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1. And that meant hiring stretch limousines.
It took seven to carry them all: Uncle John, Uncle James, Uncle Joel, Uncle Sam, Uncle Mike, Aunt Katie, Aunt Molly, Aunt Laurie, Aunt Sally and her husband, Uncle Frank — 18 aunts and uncles in all.
Then there were the cousins, dozens of them, including Jack, Christopher and Riley, who as boys traveled with Travis in a pack of four. There was Bobby, the baby sitter, and James, Travis's close friend from Grant High School, who set off a tall pile of fireworks last week — "a 21, two-liter-bomb salute," he called it — to say goodbye to Travis with 30 of his friends.
At the head of the procession, of course, was Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother, Lynn Bradach, 51, and his younger brother, Nick Nall, 19, the two people at the center of this wide circle of sadness, a close-knit clan of more than 100 relatives and friends in Portland rippling now with the grief of one marine's death.
Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother and brother were among those most relieved that he had made it through the war itself — all 37 marines in his unit, Second Platoon, Charlie Company, came out alive, surviving a harrowing ambush near Nasiriya in southern Iraq in late March.
And they are the two who perhaps wish most desperately that Corporal Bradach-Nall had not volunteered to stay on for an extra three months, instead of returning safely with the others on June 21...
_________________________________________________________________________
A cancer is growing on the White House.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END?
By Ted Rall
Bush's Cover-Up Precedes the Scandal
NEW YORK--"When it's all said and done," Bush still confidently insists, "the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein ( news -web sites ) had a weapons program." This once again begs the question of presidential dyslexia: You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!
This bizarro Administration does everything bass-ackwards. The recession is hardest on the poor and middle-class, so Bush gives tax cuts to the rich. When an overwhelming invasion force was needed to secure Afghanistan ( news -web sites ) and Iraq ( news -web sites ), Rumsfeld sent in a skeleton crew. Now that the citizens of those countries want us to go home, Gen. Tommy Franks has announced that our 148,000-man, $5 billion-a-month occupation army will get bigger and stick around until whenever...
________________________________________________________________________
THE BEGINNING OF THE END?
By Ted Rall
Bush's Cover-Up Precedes the Scandal
NEW YORK--"When it's all said and done," Bush still confidently insists, "the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein ( news -web sites ) had a weapons program." This once again begs the question of presidential dyslexia: You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!
This bizarro Administration does everything bass-ackwards. The recession is hardest on the poor and middle-class, so Bush gives tax cuts to the rich. When an overwhelming invasion force was needed to secure Afghanistan ( news -web sites ) and Iraq ( news -web sites ), Rumsfeld sent in a skeleton crew. Now that the citizens of those countries want us to go home, Gen. Tommy Franks has announced that our 148,000-man, $5 billion-a-month occupation army will get bigger and stick around until whenever...
________________________________________________________________________
Friday, July 25, 2003
It's a QUACKMIRE, stupid!
...The discussions reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, is not the answer. Bremer, who was saluted by Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government. But he said the effort could last for years...
washingtonpost.com
Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration
White House Aims to Address Concerns as Cost, Casualties Mount
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 25, 2003; 7:05 PM
President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his post-war administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.
A series of polls has show U.S. voters becoming increasingly impatient at the prospects of large number of troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely, as the cost rises and guerrilla attacks continue inflicting military casualties long past the fall of Saddam Hussein's government...
__________________________________________________________________
...The discussions reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, is not the answer. Bremer, who was saluted by Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government. But he said the effort could last for years...
washingtonpost.com
Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration
White House Aims to Address Concerns as Cost, Casualties Mount
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 25, 2003; 7:05 PM
President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his post-war administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.
A series of polls has show U.S. voters becoming increasingly impatient at the prospects of large number of troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely, as the cost rises and guerrilla attacks continue inflicting military casualties long past the fall of Saddam Hussein's government...
__________________________________________________________________
Just WHY did we go to war in Iraq? Shouldn't good, solid MORAL reasons always be the justification for spilling blood in the name of our country? Why does the White House keep changing its story? From that radical rag, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:
Now it's right war, wrong reason
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON รข€“ "If we are wrong [about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction]," said Prime Minister Tony Blair before Congress last week, "we will have destroyed a threat that, at its very least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering."
President Bush was not ready to concede the possibility of having invaded Iraq on a wrong premise. Standing next to Mr. Blair at the White House, he said, "We won't be proven wrong." However, he did not say that he would be proven right.
A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them...
_________________________________________________________________
Now it's right war, wrong reason
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON รข€“ "If we are wrong [about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction]," said Prime Minister Tony Blair before Congress last week, "we will have destroyed a threat that, at its very least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering."
President Bush was not ready to concede the possibility of having invaded Iraq on a wrong premise. Standing next to Mr. Blair at the White House, he said, "We won't be proven wrong." However, he did not say that he would be proven right.
A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them...
_________________________________________________________________
Bush fought like hell to keep a 9/11 probe from being public then failing that, worked to limit it in resources, money and time. Here's some of the reasons why from the "classified" Congressional investigation (committed in secret) which is separate from the current public investigation. The bottom line is that Bush is an incompetent leader. He dumped the three-year Hart-Rudman Commission's BIPARTISAN report on national security (which outlined Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and how to prepare for it) when its results were given to him saying Cheney was in charge of such but everyone knows Cheney was holding "secret" court with the energy lobbyists and owners at that time to subvert our nation's energy policies. There is no leadership nor responsibility in this White House. Time to take a broom and sweep it clean (if its possible to remove such a stain).
washingtonpost.com
White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A01
President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
These revelations are not the subject of the congressional report's narratives or findings, but are among the nuggets embedded in a story focused largely on the mid-level workings of the CIA, FBI and U.S. military.
Two intriguing -- and politically volatile -- questions surrounding the Sept. 11 plot have been how personally engaged Bush and his predecessor were in counterterrorism before the attacks, and what role some Saudi officials may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
To varying degrees, the answers remain a mystery, despite an unprecedented seven-month effort by a joint House and Senate panel to fully understand how a group of Arab terrorists could have pulled off such a scheme. The CIA refused to permit publication of information potentially implicating Saudi officials on national security grounds, arguing that disclosure could upset relations with a key U.S. ally. Lawmakers complained it was merely to avoid embarrassment.
The White House, meanwhile, resisted efforts to pin down Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda threats and to catalogue the executive's pre-Sept. 11 strategy to fight terrorists. It was justified largely on legal grounds, but Democrats said the secrecy was meant to protect Bush from criticism...
_______________________________________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com
White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A01
President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
These revelations are not the subject of the congressional report's narratives or findings, but are among the nuggets embedded in a story focused largely on the mid-level workings of the CIA, FBI and U.S. military.
Two intriguing -- and politically volatile -- questions surrounding the Sept. 11 plot have been how personally engaged Bush and his predecessor were in counterterrorism before the attacks, and what role some Saudi officials may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
To varying degrees, the answers remain a mystery, despite an unprecedented seven-month effort by a joint House and Senate panel to fully understand how a group of Arab terrorists could have pulled off such a scheme. The CIA refused to permit publication of information potentially implicating Saudi officials on national security grounds, arguing that disclosure could upset relations with a key U.S. ally. Lawmakers complained it was merely to avoid embarrassment.
The White House, meanwhile, resisted efforts to pin down Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda threats and to catalogue the executive's pre-Sept. 11 strategy to fight terrorists. It was justified largely on legal grounds, but Democrats said the secrecy was meant to protect Bush from criticism...
_______________________________________________________________________________
You can't make this stuff up! Rice has been caught in lie after lie and still she claims to know nothing. Incompetence or a liar? Either way she's another example of how this administration can not be trusted to carry out the duties of leadership concerning the protection of our country and the safety of the world at large.
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Condoleezza Rice is the nation’s top national security official. After September 11th, she claimed that the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. That assertion was proven false. In the months before the Iraq War, Rice repeatedly reassured the public that the U.S. was seeking a peaceful resolution, and that war was not a foregone conclusion. However, it now appears that at the same time she was saying this, she was telling senior State Department officials that the decision to go to war had already been made – well before diplomatic efforts to diffuse the situation even began. Most recently, it appears that she has given three separate, incongruent stories about her role in the massive intelligence breakdown that led to the White House making false statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It appears that Rice has either been misleading the public about her role in that fiasco, or alternately, has been grossly negligent in not reading the government’s most important intelligence documents.
CONDI’S AMAZING SEPTEMBER 11TH STORY – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE HAD NO PRIOR WARNING OF HIJACKINGS
On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING PEACE STORY – PUBLICLY CLAIMED TO SEEK PEACE, WHILE TELLING STATE DEPT. WAR PRE-DETERMINED
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #1 – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE DID NOT KNOW OF NUCLEAR MISGIVINGS
When questioned about why she did not raise objections to the bogus Iraq-nuclear claim in Bush’s State of the Union speech, Rice said on July 8 that "no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” [AP, 7/23/03] However, 15 days later, the White House acknowledged that “the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa” [Washington Post, 7/23/03].
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #2 – ADMITTED WHITE HOUSE KNEW MISGIVINGS, FALSELY CLAIMED CIA APPROVED
Rice told reporters on July 11th that the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety.” As AP reported, “if Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House, she said.” However, “Stephen Hadley, Rice's top aide, said on July 23 that in fact he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet last October warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #3 – ADMITS CIA OBJECTED, THEN CLAIMED THAT SHE SIMPLY DIDN’T READ MEMO
Facing questions over Rice’s changing stories, the White House then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that Rice and Bush both failed to even fully read the intelligence documents they were given - as if negligence obviates responsibility for misleading the nation. As the Washington Post reported, on the eve of war, “President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was ‘highly dubious,’ White House officials said.” That assessment, called the National Intelligence Estimate, is considered the U.S. government’s most important intelligence document and contained “a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies” [Washington Post, 7/19/03]. When asked about Rice’s new claim to not have read critical CIA memos sent directly to her that debunked the Iraq-nuclear claim, Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, admitted “I can't tell you she read it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
Stay Tuned, we're sure there will be more . . .
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Condoleezza Rice is the nation’s top national security official. After September 11th, she claimed that the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. That assertion was proven false. In the months before the Iraq War, Rice repeatedly reassured the public that the U.S. was seeking a peaceful resolution, and that war was not a foregone conclusion. However, it now appears that at the same time she was saying this, she was telling senior State Department officials that the decision to go to war had already been made – well before diplomatic efforts to diffuse the situation even began. Most recently, it appears that she has given three separate, incongruent stories about her role in the massive intelligence breakdown that led to the White House making false statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It appears that Rice has either been misleading the public about her role in that fiasco, or alternately, has been grossly negligent in not reading the government’s most important intelligence documents.
CONDI’S AMAZING SEPTEMBER 11TH STORY – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE HAD NO PRIOR WARNING OF HIJACKINGS
On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING PEACE STORY – PUBLICLY CLAIMED TO SEEK PEACE, WHILE TELLING STATE DEPT. WAR PRE-DETERMINED
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #1 – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE DID NOT KNOW OF NUCLEAR MISGIVINGS
When questioned about why she did not raise objections to the bogus Iraq-nuclear claim in Bush’s State of the Union speech, Rice said on July 8 that "no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” [AP, 7/23/03] However, 15 days later, the White House acknowledged that “the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa” [Washington Post, 7/23/03].
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #2 – ADMITTED WHITE HOUSE KNEW MISGIVINGS, FALSELY CLAIMED CIA APPROVED
Rice told reporters on July 11th that the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety.” As AP reported, “if Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House, she said.” However, “Stephen Hadley, Rice's top aide, said on July 23 that in fact he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet last October warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #3 – ADMITS CIA OBJECTED, THEN CLAIMED THAT SHE SIMPLY DIDN’T READ MEMO
Facing questions over Rice’s changing stories, the White House then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that Rice and Bush both failed to even fully read the intelligence documents they were given - as if negligence obviates responsibility for misleading the nation. As the Washington Post reported, on the eve of war, “President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was ‘highly dubious,’ White House officials said.” That assessment, called the National Intelligence Estimate, is considered the U.S. government’s most important intelligence document and contained “a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies” [Washington Post, 7/19/03]. When asked about Rice’s new claim to not have read critical CIA memos sent directly to her that debunked the Iraq-nuclear claim, Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, admitted “I can't tell you she read it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
Stay Tuned, we're sure there will be more . . .
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
__________________________________________________________________________________
It was a Mafia hit, not a reasoned military mission (to yield information from the brothers to track their father down with). The White House needed something for the news to counter all the stories cropping up on their inept cover-up of their political manipulation of our intelligence sources over the Niger false statements.
Excessive Force?
By Rod Nordland, Newsweek Web Exclusive
It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein's sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.
AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.
Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime's Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren't they just taken alive?...
__________________________________________________________________________
Excessive Force?
By Rod Nordland, Newsweek Web Exclusive
It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein's sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.
AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.
Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime's Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren't they just taken alive?...
__________________________________________________________________________
Hey, Rummy. What kind of war is this again?
U.S. Troops Fight Invisible Enemy in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:28 AM ET
By D'ARCY DORAN, Associated Press Writer
AMBUSH ALLEY, Iraq - A flash shattered the darkness and a bomb blew up in front of Sgt. First Class Mike Mizell's tank. Within seconds, a rocket-propelled grenade whistled overhead.
"Driver, stop! Gunner, reverse to the left!" the 35-year-old tank commander from Orangeburg, S.C., shouted into his radio.
For commanders like Mizell, the attack along the dangerous Highway 1, dubbed "Ambush Alley," wasn't unexpected. The goal on this patrol, like many others, was to bait the enemy into attacking armored infantry units and draw them away from more vulnerable targets.
"It's as dangerous as hell," 68th Armored's commander Lt. Col. Aubrey Garner, 39, said. "But soldiers are willing to put themselves in danger to kill the enemy."
The gunners sprayed machine gun tracer fire a line of palm and eucalyptus trees where the attacker took cover to fire the RPG. Two Apache helicopter gunships clattered in to chase down anyone running away. The other pair of tanks in Mizell's patrol fired their machine guns toward the spot, guided by the initial tracer rounds. It was impossible to tell if any Iraqi fighters were killed or wounded.
Daily guerrilla ambushes have pushed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq to near 160, and troops said they expected Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists to step up attacks after the Tuesday killing of his sons Odai and Qusai. On top of that, an Arab satellite broadcaster aired an audiotape Wednesday thought to have been the voice of Saddam calling his former soldiers to rise up against the Americans.
The brothers' death didn't stop attacks on "Ambush Alley."...
____________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Troops Fight Invisible Enemy in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:28 AM ET
By D'ARCY DORAN, Associated Press Writer
AMBUSH ALLEY, Iraq - A flash shattered the darkness and a bomb blew up in front of Sgt. First Class Mike Mizell's tank. Within seconds, a rocket-propelled grenade whistled overhead.
"Driver, stop! Gunner, reverse to the left!" the 35-year-old tank commander from Orangeburg, S.C., shouted into his radio.
For commanders like Mizell, the attack along the dangerous Highway 1, dubbed "Ambush Alley," wasn't unexpected. The goal on this patrol, like many others, was to bait the enemy into attacking armored infantry units and draw them away from more vulnerable targets.
"It's as dangerous as hell," 68th Armored's commander Lt. Col. Aubrey Garner, 39, said. "But soldiers are willing to put themselves in danger to kill the enemy."
The gunners sprayed machine gun tracer fire a line of palm and eucalyptus trees where the attacker took cover to fire the RPG. Two Apache helicopter gunships clattered in to chase down anyone running away. The other pair of tanks in Mizell's patrol fired their machine guns toward the spot, guided by the initial tracer rounds. It was impossible to tell if any Iraqi fighters were killed or wounded.
Daily guerrilla ambushes have pushed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq to near 160, and troops said they expected Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists to step up attacks after the Tuesday killing of his sons Odai and Qusai. On top of that, an Arab satellite broadcaster aired an audiotape Wednesday thought to have been the voice of Saddam calling his former soldiers to rise up against the Americans.
The brothers' death didn't stop attacks on "Ambush Alley."...
____________________________________________________________________________
Besides our own soldiers dying in Iraq, you don't hear much about the innocents still being killed and maimed along with the horrible tragedies constantly being created by this war.
Family Tragedy Shows Life Tough in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:23 AM ET
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
BAYJI, Iraq - In just a few seconds, an attack by U.S. forces killed Faheema Jassim Khalaf's mother and two sisters, tore apart her right leg below the knee and shattered her ankle.
Khalaf is too weak to talk for long, but what she was able to whisper as she lay on the floor of her home's living room on a recent day painted a disturbing picture of how easily lives are lost in an Iraq (news - web sites) embroiled in conflict more than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
The death of civilians is common in any conflict, and Iraq has not been an exception. But the Bayji killings underline the daily perils faced by ordinary Iraqis, even since the end of major combat on May 1, as they try to rebuild their lives.
The U.S. military says the Khalaf family was caught in the crossfire as troops fired at a suspect in a poor district of Bayji, a city about 145 miles north of Baghdad. Khalaf, 15, and her relatives told The Associated Press in extensive interviews that they were the only target in the May 30 attack....
_____________________________________________________________________
Family Tragedy Shows Life Tough in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:23 AM ET
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
BAYJI, Iraq - In just a few seconds, an attack by U.S. forces killed Faheema Jassim Khalaf's mother and two sisters, tore apart her right leg below the knee and shattered her ankle.
Khalaf is too weak to talk for long, but what she was able to whisper as she lay on the floor of her home's living room on a recent day painted a disturbing picture of how easily lives are lost in an Iraq (news - web sites) embroiled in conflict more than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
The death of civilians is common in any conflict, and Iraq has not been an exception. But the Bayji killings underline the daily perils faced by ordinary Iraqis, even since the end of major combat on May 1, as they try to rebuild their lives.
The U.S. military says the Khalaf family was caught in the crossfire as troops fired at a suspect in a poor district of Bayji, a city about 145 miles north of Baghdad. Khalaf, 15, and her relatives told The Associated Press in extensive interviews that they were the only target in the May 30 attack....
_____________________________________________________________________
Remember, Bush is responsible for making the proper changes in our intelligence communities for making our nation safe post the 9/11 attacks. Yet, he can't even get the record straight on who put false information in his State of the Union address. Hell, he won't even take responsibility for his part in it. Is Bush the straight-talking guy he claims or a lying-arse, devious, and also dull-headed politician whose lack of leadership is endangering the country AND the world? You know my answer but can you delude yourself and risk the chance for your children and family's sake? It's time to send this two-faced cowboy back to the sticks of Crawford for good on election day.
Before and After Sept. 11
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might have been disrupted if America's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies had done a better job sharing information they already possessed about the activities of Al Qaeda members. That is the most chilling finding of an unflinching Congressional inquiry into the performance of the country's spy agencies in the years leading up to the attacks. It would be nice to believe that all the problems had been fixed. Unfortunately, much work remains to be done, and it is not at all clear in some important areas, like reform of the F.B.I., that change is coming fast enough to prevent another terror strike...
__________________________________________________________________
Before and After Sept. 11
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might have been disrupted if America's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies had done a better job sharing information they already possessed about the activities of Al Qaeda members. That is the most chilling finding of an unflinching Congressional inquiry into the performance of the country's spy agencies in the years leading up to the attacks. It would be nice to believe that all the problems had been fixed. Unfortunately, much work remains to be done, and it is not at all clear in some important areas, like reform of the F.B.I., that change is coming fast enough to prevent another terror strike...
__________________________________________________________________
Rummy goes runny on the question of a guerrilla war in Iraq. How come the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq says it IS a guerrilla war? Just shows how the Bush White House can't get its stories straight and all they care about is running for re-election (so don't call it a guerrilla war!).
Rumsfeld Denies Guerrilla War in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military debate continues: Are U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) fighting a guerrilla war or not?
On June 30, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said no. Sixteen days later, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said yes. Asked again on Thursday, Rumsfeld said he's sticking to his guns.
"I am not uncomfortable with the response I gave," he told reporters.
"As I said that day," he added, given the complexity of the situation and shadowy nature of the opposition forces, "there's not a single bumper sticker phrase that is perfectly appropriate to what's taking place." He said that he checked the dictionary and settled on the term "unconventional" war, since the resistance is not in the form of conventional armies or navies.
He was more adamantly opposed to the term "guerrilla war" when the topic first came up June 30.
"The reason I don't use the phrase `guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," he said then...
____________________________________________________________________
Rumsfeld Denies Guerrilla War in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military debate continues: Are U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) fighting a guerrilla war or not?
On June 30, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said no. Sixteen days later, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said yes. Asked again on Thursday, Rumsfeld said he's sticking to his guns.
"I am not uncomfortable with the response I gave," he told reporters.
"As I said that day," he added, given the complexity of the situation and shadowy nature of the opposition forces, "there's not a single bumper sticker phrase that is perfectly appropriate to what's taking place." He said that he checked the dictionary and settled on the term "unconventional" war, since the resistance is not in the form of conventional armies or navies.
He was more adamantly opposed to the term "guerrilla war" when the topic first came up June 30.
"The reason I don't use the phrase `guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," he said then...
____________________________________________________________________
Poll: Kerry Holds Slight Lead Over Dean
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential hopeful John Kerry held a slight lead over Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) has lost ground in a poll of likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
The survey, released Friday, also found a significant jump in the number of undecided voters, from 19 percent in April to 30 percent in July, reflecting the wide-open race and absence of a clear front-runner.
Kerry had 25 percent support to Dean's 19 percent while the third New Englander in the race, Lieberman, was at 6 percent, a drop from 11 percent in June for the Connecticut senator. Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri was third at 10 percent, according to the poll by American Research Group of Manchester, N.H.
Last month, Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, held a 10-point lead over Dean, the former Vermont governor.
At 2 percent were Sen. John Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina, Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) of Florida and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who has not announced his candidacy.
Carol Moseley Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) and Al Sharpton were at 1 percent, with Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who has not decided yet on a presidential bid.
Kerry was viewed favorably by 66 percent of those polled; Dean at 57 percent. Of the 30 percent who are undecided, 45 percent have a favorable view of Kerry and 42 percent have a favorable view of Dean.
The telephone poll of 600 registered Democrats and undeclared voters conducted July 21-24 has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
________________________________________________________________________
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential hopeful John Kerry held a slight lead over Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) has lost ground in a poll of likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
The survey, released Friday, also found a significant jump in the number of undecided voters, from 19 percent in April to 30 percent in July, reflecting the wide-open race and absence of a clear front-runner.
Kerry had 25 percent support to Dean's 19 percent while the third New Englander in the race, Lieberman, was at 6 percent, a drop from 11 percent in June for the Connecticut senator. Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri was third at 10 percent, according to the poll by American Research Group of Manchester, N.H.
Last month, Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, held a 10-point lead over Dean, the former Vermont governor.
At 2 percent were Sen. John Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina, Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) of Florida and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who has not announced his candidacy.
Carol Moseley Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) and Al Sharpton were at 1 percent, with Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who has not decided yet on a presidential bid.
Kerry was viewed favorably by 66 percent of those polled; Dean at 57 percent. Of the 30 percent who are undecided, 45 percent have a favorable view of Kerry and 42 percent have a favorable view of Dean.
The telephone poll of 600 registered Democrats and undeclared voters conducted July 21-24 has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, July 24, 2003
July 16, 2003
John Kerry Raps George Bush’s ‘Preparedness Gap’
Kerry Challenges Bush To ‘Tell the Truth’ About America’s Security Needs
Bronx, New York John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, today criticized the Bush Administration’s failures to meet the real needs of homeland security and America’s national security. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has served eighteen years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and wrote the 1997 book ‘The New War’ which addressed the challenges of global terrorism, took aim at the Administration’s broken promises on security and urged the President to ‘tell the truth’ about America’s homeland security challenges.
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carriรณn said, "I'm very pleased to welcome Senator Kerry to the Bronx for this critical policy discussion. As we in New York City know only too well, the state of preparedness of our emergency response teams is a matter of paramount importance."
“We cannot afford to leave our first responders without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq,” challenged John Kerry. “Just as President Bush did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today he still does not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack. Americans have a right to ask: Are we safer today than we were on September 11th? Are our nation’s firefighters and police officers better prepared to wage the war on terror?”....
CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE
__________________________________________________________
John Kerry Raps George Bush’s ‘Preparedness Gap’
Kerry Challenges Bush To ‘Tell the Truth’ About America’s Security Needs
Bronx, New York John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, today criticized the Bush Administration’s failures to meet the real needs of homeland security and America’s national security. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has served eighteen years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and wrote the 1997 book ‘The New War’ which addressed the challenges of global terrorism, took aim at the Administration’s broken promises on security and urged the President to ‘tell the truth’ about America’s homeland security challenges.
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carriรณn said, "I'm very pleased to welcome Senator Kerry to the Bronx for this critical policy discussion. As we in New York City know only too well, the state of preparedness of our emergency response teams is a matter of paramount importance."
“We cannot afford to leave our first responders without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq,” challenged John Kerry. “Just as President Bush did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today he still does not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack. Americans have a right to ask: Are we safer today than we were on September 11th? Are our nation’s firefighters and police officers better prepared to wage the war on terror?”....
CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE
__________________________________________________________
Kerry Wins Health Care Primary
Wednesday July 23, 2003
Bipartisan Panel of Experts Say Kerry Plan to Make Health Care Accessible, Affordable for all Americans Rates Above All Other '04 Candidates
John Kerry has the best health care plan for America - please email this to five of your friends who want better health care, and we can show George W. Bush that Americans won't tolerate his health care agenda by and for the big insurance companies!!
Proving that he has the big ideas necessary to put America back on track and win the White House in 2004, Senator John Kerry beat out Democratic opponents and President Bush in a National Journal ranking of all the candidates' health care proposals.
A panel of 10 health policy professionals, representing a range of organizations from the conservative Heritage Foundation to the liberal Urban Institute, all agreed that John Kerry's plan to make health care more affordable and accessible is the best choice for doctors, health care workers, businesses, and all Americans looking for a solution to the health care crisis that has plagued our country for too long.
Kerry's plan would cover 27 million uninsured Americans and reduce premiums for everyone by 10%. With a plan that zeroes in so intensely on both the rising costs of health care and the crisis of the uninsured, it's no wonder the top experts in the health care field think Kerry's proposal is the best of the bunch!
Read the summary of the National Journal report
__________________________________________________________________
Wednesday July 23, 2003
Bipartisan Panel of Experts Say Kerry Plan to Make Health Care Accessible, Affordable for all Americans Rates Above All Other '04 Candidates
John Kerry has the best health care plan for America - please email this to five of your friends who want better health care, and we can show George W. Bush that Americans won't tolerate his health care agenda by and for the big insurance companies!!
Proving that he has the big ideas necessary to put America back on track and win the White House in 2004, Senator John Kerry beat out Democratic opponents and President Bush in a National Journal ranking of all the candidates' health care proposals.
A panel of 10 health policy professionals, representing a range of organizations from the conservative Heritage Foundation to the liberal Urban Institute, all agreed that John Kerry's plan to make health care more affordable and accessible is the best choice for doctors, health care workers, businesses, and all Americans looking for a solution to the health care crisis that has plagued our country for too long.
Kerry's plan would cover 27 million uninsured Americans and reduce premiums for everyone by 10%. With a plan that zeroes in so intensely on both the rising costs of health care and the crisis of the uninsured, it's no wonder the top experts in the health care field think Kerry's proposal is the best of the bunch!
Read the summary of the National Journal report
__________________________________________________________________
I'll be making information available on John Kerry from time to time on this blog. Here's the first (from his campaign website).
Campaigns are won at the grassroots level, and online organizing is an important part of our efforts. JohnKerry.com offers a set of organizing and community-building tools you can use to start your own online grassroots campaign in support of John Kerry. As the campaign progresses, we'll be adding more tools and innovative ways to get involved, so please bookmark this page and check back often. Get started today by taking one of the following actions.
How you can organize support for John Kerry online:
# Tell Your friends about JohnKerry.com, and why you support John Kerry
It's as easy as 1-2-3: just click the envelope icon at the top of any page on JohnKerry.com to send the address of that page to your friends, along with a personal message about why you support John Kerry. Ask them to sign up at JohnKerry.com, and when they do to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the volunteer form.
# Organize an online issue community in support of John Kerry
Check out our issues section, choose an issue that you are interested in and would like to organize support for John Kerry around. Click the "Tell a Friend" icon at the top of the page to send the address for that issue page to those you want to join your group. Send them a personal message about why you agree with John Kerry on that particular issue. Ask them to sign up at JohnKerry.com, and when they do to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the volunteer form. As more news and information about that issue becomes available on JohnKerry.com, we'll keep you informed so you can pass that information along to your group.
# Deliver John Kerry's message to chat rooms, message boards, and newsgroups
If you participate in political discussions online, in forums such as chats, message boards, or newsgroups, be sure to refer to JohnKerry.com as a source of news and information. Use the information here to demonstrate to others the reasons why you support John Kerry. Send an email to discussion@johnkerry.com and let us know about the forums you participate in, and we'll let other online Kerry supporters know so they can join in!
# Make a contribution at JohnKerry.com, then ask 10 friends to do the same!
Click here to make a secure online contribution to the Kerry campaign. Bookmark the page, so that after you make your contribution you can go back and click the envelope icon at the top of the page and ask your friends to make online contributions at JohnKerry.com. Ask them to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the contribution form.
# Download and distribute issue pages from JohnKerry.com, and share them with your friends and family. Our site features printable, "Adobe pdf" versions of most pages. Download and distribute these pages far and wide to help deliver John Kerry's message.
# Start your own JohnKerry.com virtual precinct. Sign up your friends and family to receive email from JohnKerry.com, online and offline. They'll receive periodic updates with news about John Kerry and his campaign, and you will be noted as the leader of your own "virtual precinct". To organize a precinct online, click the "Tell a Friend" icon at the top of this page and send it to those you want to join your "virtual precinct".
________________________________________________________________
Campaigns are won at the grassroots level, and online organizing is an important part of our efforts. JohnKerry.com offers a set of organizing and community-building tools you can use to start your own online grassroots campaign in support of John Kerry. As the campaign progresses, we'll be adding more tools and innovative ways to get involved, so please bookmark this page and check back often. Get started today by taking one of the following actions.
How you can organize support for John Kerry online:
# Tell Your friends about JohnKerry.com, and why you support John Kerry
It's as easy as 1-2-3: just click the envelope icon at the top of any page on JohnKerry.com to send the address of that page to your friends, along with a personal message about why you support John Kerry. Ask them to sign up at JohnKerry.com, and when they do to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the volunteer form.
# Organize an online issue community in support of John Kerry
Check out our issues section, choose an issue that you are interested in and would like to organize support for John Kerry around. Click the "Tell a Friend" icon at the top of the page to send the address for that issue page to those you want to join your group. Send them a personal message about why you agree with John Kerry on that particular issue. Ask them to sign up at JohnKerry.com, and when they do to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the volunteer form. As more news and information about that issue becomes available on JohnKerry.com, we'll keep you informed so you can pass that information along to your group.
# Deliver John Kerry's message to chat rooms, message boards, and newsgroups
If you participate in political discussions online, in forums such as chats, message boards, or newsgroups, be sure to refer to JohnKerry.com as a source of news and information. Use the information here to demonstrate to others the reasons why you support John Kerry. Send an email to discussion@johnkerry.com and let us know about the forums you participate in, and we'll let other online Kerry supporters know so they can join in!
# Make a contribution at JohnKerry.com, then ask 10 friends to do the same!
Click here to make a secure online contribution to the Kerry campaign. Bookmark the page, so that after you make your contribution you can go back and click the envelope icon at the top of the page and ask your friends to make online contributions at JohnKerry.com. Ask them to please indicate that you referred them to this site by filling in your name in the "Who referred you to this page?" space on the contribution form.
# Download and distribute issue pages from JohnKerry.com, and share them with your friends and family. Our site features printable, "Adobe pdf" versions of most pages. Download and distribute these pages far and wide to help deliver John Kerry's message.
# Start your own JohnKerry.com virtual precinct. Sign up your friends and family to receive email from JohnKerry.com, online and offline. They'll receive periodic updates with news about John Kerry and his campaign, and you will be noted as the leader of your own "virtual precinct". To organize a precinct online, click the "Tell a Friend" icon at the top of this page and send it to those you want to join your "virtual precinct".
________________________________________________________________
Three women soldiers were part of that ill-fated unit, Army Pfc. Lori Ann Piestewa, Pfc. Jessica Lynch and Johnson. Reportedly, Piestewa died from injuries she sustained when the vehicle she was driving crashed during the ambush. Piestewa was the first Native American woman ever killed in combat. Last month, Native Americans successfully lobbied to have a mountain in Arizona named Piestewa Peak, although many Arizonians insist on retaining the old, racially offensive name, "Squaw Mountain," and the federal registry has yet to recognize the change.
Johnson was shot twice and endured weeks of harsh captivity. She was one of those paraded before Iraqi cameras, with films shown around the world. Her face, wan with fear, was burned into the memories of people everywhere.
Question. Why does Lynch getting medals on NATIONAL TV with pics plastered all over the media for surviving a car crash that she can't even remember, and kept in a hospitial bed during her whole "capture", and then brought home to a hero's welcome while Johnson was actually shot and taken prisoner is given the bum treatment by the White House and the Pentagon? Why? Because she's...
W-H-I-T-E.
There's no propaganda value in pushing a story about a black American woman P.O.W. when you have a pretty white blonde one to splash across the screen for Middle America. What? You don't believe it was propaganda? Then how do you explain the early stories the Pentagon put out on Lynch and how she fired weapons and fought off her attackers and she herself was shot and even STABBED in battle? All of which has proven to be untrue.
... She (Johnson) virtually disappeared after her return to the United States.
In contrast, Lynch has been hailed as a hero. The 20-year-old supply clerk apparently was held separate from the others. Then, on April 1, after 10 days in captivity, Lynch was rescued by a covert Special Forces Unit. And an early press account, apparently relying on Pentagon sources, claimed Lynch had been wounded after an incredible feat of heroism, emptying her M-16 into Iraqi soldiers even after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds.
"She was fighting to the death," one unnamed official told the Washington Post. "She did not want to be taken alive." "Lynch continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her," claimed the Post on April 3, in a report that now has been largely discredited.
The Pentagon now acknowledges that, unlike Johnson, Lynch was never shot and probably never fired her weapon.
Still, it is Lynch, described as "waif-like" and "blonde" from a small town in Palestine, W. Va., who has become a national hero. The New York Times reports that media outlets from CBS to MTV are bidding for her story, and that her family is wading through several million-dollar deals for books, documentaries and made-for-TV movies. The Lynch family, reported the Times, is expected to sign with an agent in the near future.
All of this in spite of the reports that Lynch more closely resembled a "patient of war" rescued from a hospital full of hospital personnel, most of whom were treating Lynch for injuries sustained when her vehicle crashed into another vehicle while fleeing Iraqi forces. Lynch was not suffering from bullet or stab wounds. She never fired her gun.
Three weeks after Lynch's rescue, Johnson emerged with her fellow soldiers, hobbling to the rescue helicopter, suffering from bullet wounds in her ankles. Rumors of her bravery never surfaced. Declarations of how she fought off her attackers were never reported. Tales of her bravery were never told. There were no documentaries with smiling former schoolteachers and friends with stories of her ambitious youth. Just as during her weeks of captivity, Johnson seemed to have disappeared...
"I don't think anything should be taken from Jessica Lynch," Milney said. "I just wish they'd show more attention to Shoshana."
Shoshana Johnson Shies From Heroine Honors
NAACP honors wounded GI Shoshana Johnson
Associated Press
Posted July 17 2003, 1:49 PM EDT
MIAMI BEACH -- Spc. Shoshana Johnson, a former Army prisoner of war in Iraq, was honored at the NAACP's annual armed services and veteran's affairs awards dinner.
Johnson, who wore her full-dress uniform and a blue walking cast on her right leg, said she plans to make a full recovery from her injuries received after she was shot in both ankles during a March 23 ambush on her unit near Nasiriyah.
``That doesn't stop me,'' said Johnson, referring to her injury. ``I'm still a soldier. I've been back to work and everything like that, and I expect to make a full recovery.''...
___________________________________________________
Johnson was shot twice and endured weeks of harsh captivity. She was one of those paraded before Iraqi cameras, with films shown around the world. Her face, wan with fear, was burned into the memories of people everywhere.
Question. Why does Lynch getting medals on NATIONAL TV with pics plastered all over the media for surviving a car crash that she can't even remember, and kept in a hospitial bed during her whole "capture", and then brought home to a hero's welcome while Johnson was actually shot and taken prisoner is given the bum treatment by the White House and the Pentagon? Why? Because she's...
W-H-I-T-E.
There's no propaganda value in pushing a story about a black American woman P.O.W. when you have a pretty white blonde one to splash across the screen for Middle America. What? You don't believe it was propaganda? Then how do you explain the early stories the Pentagon put out on Lynch and how she fired weapons and fought off her attackers and she herself was shot and even STABBED in battle? All of which has proven to be untrue.
... She (Johnson) virtually disappeared after her return to the United States.
In contrast, Lynch has been hailed as a hero. The 20-year-old supply clerk apparently was held separate from the others. Then, on April 1, after 10 days in captivity, Lynch was rescued by a covert Special Forces Unit. And an early press account, apparently relying on Pentagon sources, claimed Lynch had been wounded after an incredible feat of heroism, emptying her M-16 into Iraqi soldiers even after sustaining multiple gunshot wounds.
"She was fighting to the death," one unnamed official told the Washington Post. "She did not want to be taken alive." "Lynch continued firing at the Iraqis even after she sustained multiple gunshot wounds and watched several other soldiers in her unit die around her," claimed the Post on April 3, in a report that now has been largely discredited.
The Pentagon now acknowledges that, unlike Johnson, Lynch was never shot and probably never fired her weapon.
Still, it is Lynch, described as "waif-like" and "blonde" from a small town in Palestine, W. Va., who has become a national hero. The New York Times reports that media outlets from CBS to MTV are bidding for her story, and that her family is wading through several million-dollar deals for books, documentaries and made-for-TV movies. The Lynch family, reported the Times, is expected to sign with an agent in the near future.
All of this in spite of the reports that Lynch more closely resembled a "patient of war" rescued from a hospital full of hospital personnel, most of whom were treating Lynch for injuries sustained when her vehicle crashed into another vehicle while fleeing Iraqi forces. Lynch was not suffering from bullet or stab wounds. She never fired her gun.
Three weeks after Lynch's rescue, Johnson emerged with her fellow soldiers, hobbling to the rescue helicopter, suffering from bullet wounds in her ankles. Rumors of her bravery never surfaced. Declarations of how she fought off her attackers were never reported. Tales of her bravery were never told. There were no documentaries with smiling former schoolteachers and friends with stories of her ambitious youth. Just as during her weeks of captivity, Johnson seemed to have disappeared...
"I don't think anything should be taken from Jessica Lynch," Milney said. "I just wish they'd show more attention to Shoshana."
Shoshana Johnson Shies From Heroine Honors
NAACP honors wounded GI Shoshana Johnson
Associated Press
Posted July 17 2003, 1:49 PM EDT
MIAMI BEACH -- Spc. Shoshana Johnson, a former Army prisoner of war in Iraq, was honored at the NAACP's annual armed services and veteran's affairs awards dinner.
Johnson, who wore her full-dress uniform and a blue walking cast on her right leg, said she plans to make a full recovery from her injuries received after she was shot in both ankles during a March 23 ambush on her unit near Nasiriyah.
``That doesn't stop me,'' said Johnson, referring to her injury. ``I'm still a soldier. I've been back to work and everything like that, and I expect to make a full recovery.''...
___________________________________________________
The colossal gall of this administration and its inept planning for the aftermath of the war is @#%*ing CRIMINAL! And look whose daughter got a plum role in setting up this house of cards!
From the WASHINGTON POST:
Wolfowitz Concedes Iraq Errors
Career civil servants who had helped plan U.S. peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo said it was imperative to maintain a military force large enough to stamp out challenges to its authority right away. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then-Army chief of staff, thought several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz rebutted him sharply and publicly.
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army," Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27. "Hard to imagine."...
...But as the Defense Department put together its occupation plans, the State Department felt doors closing.
'So Much Tension'
The circle of civilian Pentagon officials given the task of planning the occupation was small. From its early work, it all but excluded officials at State and even some from the Pentagon, including officers of the Joint Staff.
"The problems came about when the office of the secretary of defense wouldn't let anybody else play -- or play only if you beat your way into the game," a State Department official said. "There was so much tension, so much ego involved."
The Pentagon planners showed little interest in State's Future of Iraq project, a $5 million effort begun in April 2002 to use Iraqi expatriates and outside experts to draft plans on everything from legal reform to oil policy. Wolfowitz created his own group of Iraqi advisers to cover some of the same ground.
Defense rejected at least nine State nominees for prominent roles in the occupation; only after Powell and others fought back did Rumsfeld relent. Tom Warrick, leader of the Future of Iraq project, was still refused a place, at the reported insistence of Cheney's office.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, who was appointed to be the first civilian coordinator in the occupation, said in an interview that he asked Wolfowitz for an expert on Iraqi politics and governance.
NOW GET THIS NEXT PART. GUESS WHOSE DAUGHTER HEADS UP THE GROUP CHARGED WITH DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF IRAQI GOVERMENT AFTER THE WAR? IS THE SUSPENSE KILLING YOU?
Wolfowitz turned not to the roster of career specialists in the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau, but to a political appointee in the bureau:
Elizabeth Cheney,
coordinator of a Middle East democracy project and daughter of the vice president; she recruited a State Department colleague who had worked for the International Republican Institute.
While responsibility for developing an occupation plan resided with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith -- along with the National Security Council -- a small defense policy shop called the Office of Special Plans was given a key role in developing policy guidance for on-the-ground operations.
Its staff was hand-picked by William Luti, a former aide to Cheney and Newt Gingrich who headed the Pentagon's Middle East and South Asia policy office; they worked in a warren of offices on the Pentagon's first floor. The office held its work so closely that even members of Garner's office did not realize its role until February, a month after Garner was appointed.
That month, 30 people showed up at a meeting called to share the Special Plans work with Garner's office and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There, the Special Plans staff handed out spreadsheets on four dozen issues, all policy recommendations for key decisions: war crimes prosecution, the elimination of the Baath Party, oil sector maintenance, ministry organization, media strategy and "rewards, incentives and immunity" for former Baath supporters.
Once a policy was approved by the defense secretary's office and the interagency principals, it would become the operating guidance for the U.S. Central Command, whose troops would occupy Iraq.
To the outsiders at the meeting, it looked like a fait accompli. "We had had no input into the Special Plans office," said one reconstruction official who was there.
A senior defense official, however, played down the office's role in occupation planning. He said Special Plans "had influence into the process. We were not the nerve center."...
Read the whole damn article at:
Wolfowitz Concedes Iraq Errors
By Peter Slevin and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers
The deputy secretary of defense said yesterday that some key assumptions underlying the U.S. occupation of Iraq were wrong, tacitly acknowledging the judgment of current and former U.S. officials critical of the occupation planning.
Paul D. Wolfowitz, briefing reporters after a 41/2-day trip to Iraq, said that in postwar planning, defense officials made three assumptions that "turned out to underestimate the problem," beginning with the belief that removing Saddam Hussein from power would also remove the threat posed by his Baath Party. In addition, they erred in assuming that significant numbers of Iraqi army units, and large numbers of Iraqi police, would quickly join the U.S. military and its civilian partners in rebuilding Iraq, he said.
_____________________________
From the WASHINGTON POST:
Wolfowitz Concedes Iraq Errors
Career civil servants who had helped plan U.S. peacekeeping operations in Haiti, Bosnia and Kosovo said it was imperative to maintain a military force large enough to stamp out challenges to its authority right away. Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, then-Army chief of staff, thought several hundred thousand soldiers would be needed.
Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz rebutted him sharply and publicly.
"It's hard to conceive that it would take more forces to provide stability in post-Saddam Iraq than it would take to conduct the war itself and to secure the surrender of Saddam's security forces and his army," Wolfowitz told the House Budget Committee on Feb. 27. "Hard to imagine."...
...But as the Defense Department put together its occupation plans, the State Department felt doors closing.
'So Much Tension'
The circle of civilian Pentagon officials given the task of planning the occupation was small. From its early work, it all but excluded officials at State and even some from the Pentagon, including officers of the Joint Staff.
"The problems came about when the office of the secretary of defense wouldn't let anybody else play -- or play only if you beat your way into the game," a State Department official said. "There was so much tension, so much ego involved."
The Pentagon planners showed little interest in State's Future of Iraq project, a $5 million effort begun in April 2002 to use Iraqi expatriates and outside experts to draft plans on everything from legal reform to oil policy. Wolfowitz created his own group of Iraqi advisers to cover some of the same ground.
Defense rejected at least nine State nominees for prominent roles in the occupation; only after Powell and others fought back did Rumsfeld relent. Tom Warrick, leader of the Future of Iraq project, was still refused a place, at the reported insistence of Cheney's office.
Retired Army Lt. Gen. Jay M. Garner, who was appointed to be the first civilian coordinator in the occupation, said in an interview that he asked Wolfowitz for an expert on Iraqi politics and governance.
NOW GET THIS NEXT PART. GUESS WHOSE DAUGHTER HEADS UP THE GROUP CHARGED WITH DEALING WITH THE ISSUES OF IRAQI GOVERMENT AFTER THE WAR? IS THE SUSPENSE KILLING YOU?
Wolfowitz turned not to the roster of career specialists in the State Department's Near Eastern Affairs bureau, but to a political appointee in the bureau:
Elizabeth Cheney,
coordinator of a Middle East democracy project and daughter of the vice president; she recruited a State Department colleague who had worked for the International Republican Institute.
While responsibility for developing an occupation plan resided with Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and Feith -- along with the National Security Council -- a small defense policy shop called the Office of Special Plans was given a key role in developing policy guidance for on-the-ground operations.
Its staff was hand-picked by William Luti, a former aide to Cheney and Newt Gingrich who headed the Pentagon's Middle East and South Asia policy office; they worked in a warren of offices on the Pentagon's first floor. The office held its work so closely that even members of Garner's office did not realize its role until February, a month after Garner was appointed.
That month, 30 people showed up at a meeting called to share the Special Plans work with Garner's office and the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
There, the Special Plans staff handed out spreadsheets on four dozen issues, all policy recommendations for key decisions: war crimes prosecution, the elimination of the Baath Party, oil sector maintenance, ministry organization, media strategy and "rewards, incentives and immunity" for former Baath supporters.
Once a policy was approved by the defense secretary's office and the interagency principals, it would become the operating guidance for the U.S. Central Command, whose troops would occupy Iraq.
To the outsiders at the meeting, it looked like a fait accompli. "We had had no input into the Special Plans office," said one reconstruction official who was there.
A senior defense official, however, played down the office's role in occupation planning. He said Special Plans "had influence into the process. We were not the nerve center."...
Read the whole damn article at:
Wolfowitz Concedes Iraq Errors
By Peter Slevin and Dana Priest, Washington Post Staff Writers
The deputy secretary of defense said yesterday that some key assumptions underlying the U.S. occupation of Iraq were wrong, tacitly acknowledging the judgment of current and former U.S. officials critical of the occupation planning.
Paul D. Wolfowitz, briefing reporters after a 41/2-day trip to Iraq, said that in postwar planning, defense officials made three assumptions that "turned out to underestimate the problem," beginning with the belief that removing Saddam Hussein from power would also remove the threat posed by his Baath Party. In addition, they erred in assuming that significant numbers of Iraqi army units, and large numbers of Iraqi police, would quickly join the U.S. military and its civilian partners in rebuilding Iraq, he said.
_____________________________
Newsday has the story. What kind of immoral bastards would break the law to out a CIA agent (while endangering every covert contact that agent has known during their entire career) purely for political vindictiveness? This is TREASON!
Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
By Anne Q. Hoy
Newsday /July 23, 2003
Washington - Democrats yesterday denounced the alleged disclosure by administration officials of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, and members of both parties indicated a congressional investigation is likely.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), an Intelligence Committee member, said it plans to investigate who revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, who is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. In a move that sparked the current controversy over allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger, Wilson revealed two weeks ago that he had warned the Bush administration the reports were unfounded.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the intelligence panel, called the disclosure of Plame's identity "vile" and "a highly dishonorable thing to do; highly, highly dishonorable." He, too, said a probe is probably necessary and accused the White House of strong-arm tactics aimed at those who question their policies. "To go after him [Wilson] is one thing, but to go after his wife is another thing," Rockefeller said.
Former intelligence officials joined in denouncing the release of Plame's name by "two senior administration officials" to conservative columnist Robert Novak . . . .
Durbin said the White House is being heavy-handed with anyone who questioned how the administration made its case for war with Iraq.
"This White House is going to turn to you and attack you," Durbin said. "They are going to question your patriotism"...
_______________________________
Courtesy of Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo (see link to right):
Interesting insider info on the CIA-NSC war from today's Nelson Report. Note how Bush's lack of strong leadership (and intellectual acumen) has left this snake twisting all over the road like a Copperhead run over by diesel truck.
CIA TORPEDOES THE NSC
9. Until or unless the President steps in to provide leadership, the long-awaited showdown between the "neoconservatives" and the "pragmatists" will soon reach crisis proportions…this, due to CIA director George Tenet's extraordinary decision to name the President's staffers responsible for misleading, or false, pre-Iraq war intel, Administration sources confirm today.
-- and the war has just begun, intelligence community sources warn. The Iraq/Niger debacle is but one of "a whole series of stories which are ready to break", a source told us today, adding, "I've never seen such hostility and disdain as now being expressed between the White House and the CIA. Never…"
10. As we reported on July 17, Tenet's lengthy, closed Capitol Hill testimony "outed" not just NSC non-proliferation staffer Bob Joseph, but also Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and, by implication, Condi Rice, and Vice President Cheney, if not Bush himself.
-- yesterday, Hadley performed a virtual repeat of Tenet's highly qualified "taking responsibility" pose by making it clear that if he has to take a fall, then Ms. Rice needs to explain why she didn't read the memos he gave her.
11. As one Administration source put it, privately, today: "Between Tenet and Hadley, Condi now has the choice of saying she's a fool, or a liar…if not both. Bottom line is she failed to protect the President…look at all this lame stuff about him not being a 'fact checker'. It's just incredible."
-- even before last week, a source close to the White House told us, "the President now sees that he's exposed on the intel problems. And he now sees who's been manipulating him, and he's not happy about it. No president likes to be embarrassed, but this stuff goes to the heart of all the reservations, pre-9/11, about his intelligence, his attention span, and his interest in foreign affairs."
12. Three weeks ago, this source speculated that it would be "difficult" for Bush to fire the senior officials responsible, for obvious reasons, since they would include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, at a minimum, and that Tenet seemingly had so ingratiated himself at the personal level, he could escape punishment.
-- today, while no one wanted to speculate about Rummy and Cheney, in the absence of new disclosures, disparate Administration sources confirm that it is "generally accepted" that Tenet will be fired from the CIA, if only because of what he started last week.
13. Where this gets really interesting is the apparent response of neoconservatives: just prior to Hadley's self-destruction yesterday, a source reported talk of trying to replace Tenet with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; replacing Wolfowitz with Hadley; and moving Bob Blackwill immediately up to Deputy NSC advisor…even though Blackwill is not a neo-con.
-- parenthetically, sources explain that for neo-cons, Blackwill enjoys the considerable virtue of loathing, and being loathed by, the "leaders" of the pragmatists, Secretary of State Powell, and Deputy Secretary Armitage. State sources say Blackwill was "fired" as Ambassador to India, due to his management of the Embassy, and how he worked with Armitage in various India/Pakistan crises.
More soon ...
_____________________________________
9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/23/2003 7:48 PM
WASHINGTON, July 23 (UPI) -- The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned.
"The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida," said a government official who has seen the report...
_____________________________________________________________
Probes Expected in ID of CIA Officer
By Anne Q. Hoy
Newsday /July 23, 2003
Washington - Democrats yesterday denounced the alleged disclosure by administration officials of the identity of an undercover CIA officer, and members of both parties indicated a congressional investigation is likely.
Sen. Richard Durbin (D-Ill.), an Intelligence Committee member, said it plans to investigate who revealed the identity of undercover CIA agent Valerie Plame, who is married to former Ambassador Joseph Wilson. In a move that sparked the current controversy over allegations that Iraq was trying to buy uranium in Niger, Wilson revealed two weeks ago that he had warned the Bush administration the reports were unfounded.
Sen. Jay Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), vice chairman of the intelligence panel, called the disclosure of Plame's identity "vile" and "a highly dishonorable thing to do; highly, highly dishonorable." He, too, said a probe is probably necessary and accused the White House of strong-arm tactics aimed at those who question their policies. "To go after him [Wilson] is one thing, but to go after his wife is another thing," Rockefeller said.
Former intelligence officials joined in denouncing the release of Plame's name by "two senior administration officials" to conservative columnist Robert Novak . . . .
Durbin said the White House is being heavy-handed with anyone who questioned how the administration made its case for war with Iraq.
"This White House is going to turn to you and attack you," Durbin said. "They are going to question your patriotism"...
_______________________________
Courtesy of Josh Marshall at Talking Points Memo (see link to right):
Interesting insider info on the CIA-NSC war from today's Nelson Report. Note how Bush's lack of strong leadership (and intellectual acumen) has left this snake twisting all over the road like a Copperhead run over by diesel truck.
CIA TORPEDOES THE NSC
9. Until or unless the President steps in to provide leadership, the long-awaited showdown between the "neoconservatives" and the "pragmatists" will soon reach crisis proportions…this, due to CIA director George Tenet's extraordinary decision to name the President's staffers responsible for misleading, or false, pre-Iraq war intel, Administration sources confirm today.
-- and the war has just begun, intelligence community sources warn. The Iraq/Niger debacle is but one of "a whole series of stories which are ready to break", a source told us today, adding, "I've never seen such hostility and disdain as now being expressed between the White House and the CIA. Never…"
10. As we reported on July 17, Tenet's lengthy, closed Capitol Hill testimony "outed" not just NSC non-proliferation staffer Bob Joseph, but also Deputy National Security Advisor Steve Hadley, and, by implication, Condi Rice, and Vice President Cheney, if not Bush himself.
-- yesterday, Hadley performed a virtual repeat of Tenet's highly qualified "taking responsibility" pose by making it clear that if he has to take a fall, then Ms. Rice needs to explain why she didn't read the memos he gave her.
11. As one Administration source put it, privately, today: "Between Tenet and Hadley, Condi now has the choice of saying she's a fool, or a liar…if not both. Bottom line is she failed to protect the President…look at all this lame stuff about him not being a 'fact checker'. It's just incredible."
-- even before last week, a source close to the White House told us, "the President now sees that he's exposed on the intel problems. And he now sees who's been manipulating him, and he's not happy about it. No president likes to be embarrassed, but this stuff goes to the heart of all the reservations, pre-9/11, about his intelligence, his attention span, and his interest in foreign affairs."
12. Three weeks ago, this source speculated that it would be "difficult" for Bush to fire the senior officials responsible, for obvious reasons, since they would include Rumsfeld, Cheney, and Rice, at a minimum, and that Tenet seemingly had so ingratiated himself at the personal level, he could escape punishment.
-- today, while no one wanted to speculate about Rummy and Cheney, in the absence of new disclosures, disparate Administration sources confirm that it is "generally accepted" that Tenet will be fired from the CIA, if only because of what he started last week.
13. Where this gets really interesting is the apparent response of neoconservatives: just prior to Hadley's self-destruction yesterday, a source reported talk of trying to replace Tenet with Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz; replacing Wolfowitz with Hadley; and moving Bob Blackwill immediately up to Deputy NSC advisor…even though Blackwill is not a neo-con.
-- parenthetically, sources explain that for neo-cons, Blackwill enjoys the considerable virtue of loathing, and being loathed by, the "leaders" of the pragmatists, Secretary of State Powell, and Deputy Secretary Armitage. State sources say Blackwill was "fired" as Ambassador to India, due to his management of the Embassy, and how he worked with Armitage in various India/Pakistan crises.
More soon ...
_____________________________________
9/11 report: No Iraq link to al-Qaida
By Shaun Waterman
UPI Homeland and National Security Editor
Published 7/23/2003 7:48 PM
WASHINGTON, July 23 (UPI) -- The report of the joint congressional inquiry into the suicide hijackings on Sept. 11, 2001, to be published Thursday, reveals U.S. intelligence had no evidence that the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks, or that it had supported al-Qaida, United Press International has learned.
"The report shows there is no link between Iraq and al-Qaida," said a government official who has seen the report...
_____________________________________________________________
Intelligence information was politicized by a White House obsessed with using ANY excuse, even false claims, to enter into a war over the honest facts contradicting such as presented by our nation's intelligence community. Caught in their immoral lies, the President and his political machine have sought at every turn to sidestep any responsibility for their actions while American soldiers and innocents continue to spill blood in Iraq.
Questions dog the White House
Judy Keen USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- It's not over yet.
The White House can't seem to put an end to questions about disputed intelligence on Iraq ( news -web sites )'s nuclear weapons program. The issue dominated the daily White House news briefing again Wednesday.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats continued to criticize President Bush ( news -web sites )'s assertion in his State of the Union speech Jan. 28 that Iraq tried to buy uranium from an African nation. ''This is not just a dispute about a certain number of words,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ''It's a dispute about politicizing intelligence and falsifying facts...
__________________________________________________________
Questions dog the White House
Judy Keen USA TODAY
WASHINGTON -- It's not over yet.
The White House can't seem to put an end to questions about disputed intelligence on Iraq ( news -web sites )'s nuclear weapons program. The issue dominated the daily White House news briefing again Wednesday.
On Capitol Hill, Democrats continued to criticize President Bush ( news -web sites )'s assertion in his State of the Union speech Jan. 28 that Iraq tried to buy uranium from an African nation. ''This is not just a dispute about a certain number of words,'' said Sen. Edward Kennedy, D-Mass. ''It's a dispute about politicizing intelligence and falsifying facts...
__________________________________________________________
The evidence is obvious and each day new facts materialize to confirm it. The President is a lying sack of $#@* along with having a lazy and undeveloped mind, indifferent to the moral and legal responsibilities of the office. It's beyond pathetic to watch how this administration works at damage control purely for political means while Americans are dying over a war created for personal profits and election year propaganda.
Why Commander in Chief Is Losing the War of the 16 Words
Thu Jul 24, 1:00 AM ET
By Dan Balz and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers
If President Bush ( news -web sites )'s White House is known for anything, it is competence at delivering a disciplined message and deftness in dealing with bad news. That reputation has been badly damaged by the administration's clumsy efforts to explain how a statement based on disputed intelligence ended up in the president's State of the Union address.
How did the White House stumble so badly? There are a host of explanations, from White House officials, their allies outside the government and their opponents in the broader debate about whether the administration sought to manipulate evidence while building its case to go to war against Iraq ( news -web sites ).
But the dominant forces appear to have been the determination by White House officials to protect the president for using 16 questionable words about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa and a fierce effort by the Central Intelligence Agency ( news -web sites ) to protect its reputation through bureaucratic infighting that has forced the president's advisers to repeatedly alter their initial version of events.
At several turns, when Bush might have taken responsibility for the language in his Jan. 28 address to the country...
_____________________________________________________________
Why Commander in Chief Is Losing the War of the 16 Words
Thu Jul 24, 1:00 AM ET
By Dan Balz and Walter Pincus, Washington Post Staff Writers
If President Bush ( news -web sites )'s White House is known for anything, it is competence at delivering a disciplined message and deftness in dealing with bad news. That reputation has been badly damaged by the administration's clumsy efforts to explain how a statement based on disputed intelligence ended up in the president's State of the Union address.
How did the White House stumble so badly? There are a host of explanations, from White House officials, their allies outside the government and their opponents in the broader debate about whether the administration sought to manipulate evidence while building its case to go to war against Iraq ( news -web sites ).
But the dominant forces appear to have been the determination by White House officials to protect the president for using 16 questionable words about Iraq's attempts to buy uranium in Africa and a fierce effort by the Central Intelligence Agency ( news -web sites ) to protect its reputation through bureaucratic infighting that has forced the president's advisers to repeatedly alter their initial version of events.
At several turns, when Bush might have taken responsibility for the language in his Jan. 28 address to the country...
_____________________________________________________________
Did you sign up?
Congress is Flooded with Demands for the Truth
Help Us Reach Half a Million
In the last two days, over 45,000 TrueMajority members have responded to our latest alert calling on Congress to conduct real hearings into the justifications used to attack Iraq. Our sister groups in the Win Without War coalition have generated 400,000 communications to Congress. Washington is hearing us and the media is finally reporting aggressively.
If you haven't already taken action, please do so now. If you have, please forward this alert to all of your friends asking them to send a free fax too. This will help us reach our goal of 500,000 -- a half million demands on Congress to uncover the truth.
If you'd like to send a message to your Representative, CLICK HERE.
Yours in truth seeking,
Ben Cohen
President, TrueMajority.org
Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream+
Here's the letter we'll send to your Representative:
Dear Representative:
As a constituent of yours, I am very concerned about the almost daily revelations about the validity of the justification used to launch America's attack on Iraq. I understand that two pieces of legislation are now introduced in the House, either of which will launch meaningful investigations. Please add your name to a growing list of legislators, including many who voted for the initial war resolution last October, who are interested in learning what the administration knew and when. Please co-sponsor HR-307 and HR-2625.
The responsibility of Congressional oversight sits squarely on your shoulders. I would like to know that my member of Congress is asking these important questions. Thank you for your continued effort on this issue.
Sincerely,
(We'll put your name and address here.)
+ I am writing this email on my own and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's, which is not associated with the TrueMajority campaign.
* note: A few of our strongest allies in Congress have asked us to send emails to them instead of faxes. This makes it easier for them to contact you about their position on the issue. We agree that we should help our friends in this way, and therefore we send emails instead of faxes to these special members of Congress.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Congress is Flooded with Demands for the Truth
Help Us Reach Half a Million
In the last two days, over 45,000 TrueMajority members have responded to our latest alert calling on Congress to conduct real hearings into the justifications used to attack Iraq. Our sister groups in the Win Without War coalition have generated 400,000 communications to Congress. Washington is hearing us and the media is finally reporting aggressively.
If you haven't already taken action, please do so now. If you have, please forward this alert to all of your friends asking them to send a free fax too. This will help us reach our goal of 500,000 -- a half million demands on Congress to uncover the truth.
If you'd like to send a message to your Representative, CLICK HERE.
Yours in truth seeking,
Ben Cohen
President, TrueMajority.org
Co-Founder, Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream+
Here's the letter we'll send to your Representative:
Dear Representative:
As a constituent of yours, I am very concerned about the almost daily revelations about the validity of the justification used to launch America's attack on Iraq. I understand that two pieces of legislation are now introduced in the House, either of which will launch meaningful investigations. Please add your name to a growing list of legislators, including many who voted for the initial war resolution last October, who are interested in learning what the administration knew and when. Please co-sponsor HR-307 and HR-2625.
The responsibility of Congressional oversight sits squarely on your shoulders. I would like to know that my member of Congress is asking these important questions. Thank you for your continued effort on this issue.
Sincerely,
(We'll put your name and address here.)
+ I am writing this email on my own and not on behalf of Ben & Jerry's, which is not associated with the TrueMajority campaign.
* note: A few of our strongest allies in Congress have asked us to send emails to them instead of faxes. This makes it easier for them to contact you about their position on the issue. We agree that we should help our friends in this way, and therefore we send emails instead of faxes to these special members of Congress.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Tuesday, July 22, 2003
Everybody that goes through the horrors of combat is a hero. Lynch was out there and got caught in it. But the way the Bush administration hyped and distorted her story is an ugly mark upon it (and a clear example of how it works to exploit and manipulate every issue). This administration will do ANYTHING to enhance its position or hold on to power. We've never had such a lying bunch in control EVER in our American history (and there have been some lying sombitches before).
From a Reuters release about Lynch's homecoming:
Lynch was in a 507th Maintenance Company convoy when her unit was ambushed. A 90-minute firefight ensued.
But she became a national hero after media reports quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying she fought fiercely before being captured, firing on Iraqi forces despite sustaining multiple gunshot and stab wounds.
In the end, Army investigators concluded that Lynch was injured when her Humvee crashed into another vehicle in the convoy after it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
The U.S. military also released video taken during what was portrayed as a daring rescue by American special forces who raided the Iraqi hospital where she was being treated. Iraqi doctors at the hospital said later the U.S. rescuers had faced no resistance and the operation had been over-dramatized.
Lynch herself has been quoted as saying she can remember nothing of the ambush or the rescue, and her remarks on Tuesday shed no new light on the episode.
"The failure here was that the news media got to thinking the government could be trusted to reflect reality," said Carolyn Marvin, professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.
"It no longer matters in America whether something is true or false. The population has been conditioned to accept anything: sentimental stories, lies, atomic bomb threats," said John MacArthur, the publisher of Harper's magazine.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Florida had no comment when asked about assertions that the heroism tale was seen by some critics as government propaganda.
The Washington Post, the first to report the heroic version of Lynch's capture, came under sharp criticism from its own ombudsman for its handling of a story that contained information which was "wrong in its most compelling aspects."
The Lynch story also exposed CBS News to criticism after the network offered Lynch a movie deal while trying to persuade her to give an interview about her experiences.
On Sunday, CBS Chairman and Chief Executive Leslie Moonves acknowledged CBS News probably erred in offering the deal.
___________________________________________________________________
From a Reuters release about Lynch's homecoming:
Lynch was in a 507th Maintenance Company convoy when her unit was ambushed. A 90-minute firefight ensued.
But she became a national hero after media reports quoted unnamed U.S. officials as saying she fought fiercely before being captured, firing on Iraqi forces despite sustaining multiple gunshot and stab wounds.
In the end, Army investigators concluded that Lynch was injured when her Humvee crashed into another vehicle in the convoy after it was hit by a rocket-propelled grenade.
The U.S. military also released video taken during what was portrayed as a daring rescue by American special forces who raided the Iraqi hospital where she was being treated. Iraqi doctors at the hospital said later the U.S. rescuers had faced no resistance and the operation had been over-dramatized.
Lynch herself has been quoted as saying she can remember nothing of the ambush or the rescue, and her remarks on Tuesday shed no new light on the episode.
"The failure here was that the news media got to thinking the government could be trusted to reflect reality," said Carolyn Marvin, professor at the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg School for Communication.
"It no longer matters in America whether something is true or false. The population has been conditioned to accept anything: sentimental stories, lies, atomic bomb threats," said John MacArthur, the publisher of Harper's magazine.
A spokesman for U.S. Central Command in Florida had no comment when asked about assertions that the heroism tale was seen by some critics as government propaganda.
The Washington Post, the first to report the heroic version of Lynch's capture, came under sharp criticism from its own ombudsman for its handling of a story that contained information which was "wrong in its most compelling aspects."
The Lynch story also exposed CBS News to criticism after the network offered Lynch a movie deal while trying to persuade her to give an interview about her experiences.
On Sunday, CBS Chairman and Chief Executive Leslie Moonves acknowledged CBS News probably erred in offering the deal.
___________________________________________________________________
Even Molly is waking up to Kerry's growing popularity (electability) and acknowledges he's got the early lead on the nomination.
Who Can Beat President Doofus?
Molly Ivins
What ho, sports fans? Has this been a dandy spell for mind-boggling government, or what? Still no weapons of mass destruction, and every neocon in America is creating elaborate rationales for why it makes no difference whatever if we were lied to about this war.
Meanwhile, in a truly creative demonstration of their problem-solving abilities, White House staffers fixed the entire global warming problem by editing it out of a report on the environment. Way to go, team! Why pay attention to scientists when you can insert a study paid for by the American Petroleum Institute instead? That Karl Rove, just brilliant. As President Bush said on June 4, "I'm the master of low expectations." And he continues to prove it.
Now to provide some good cheer. We've got some talent here, people, and most of them compare well to President Doofus.
John Kerry is in the unfortunate position of being the frontrunner, which you would not wish on your worst enemy. My early take on Kerry was that he has gravitas--sumbitch about bent over double with gravitas--but that he has no Elvis. Minus-zero on the Elvis Scale was my first read. No point in nominating some good and worthy candidate, like Fritz Mondale or Michael Dukakis, if they got no Elvis. The object is to get these people elected. Can't get elected without a soupรงon of Elvis. Happily, Kerry seems to have started to do what he most needs to do, which is lighten up a bit. According to a report in Slate , Kerry in Iowa is capable of humor, self-effacement, sarcasm, and other helpful attitudes. Plus, at the end of the deal, he got on a motorcycle and raised an eyebrow before gunning the hog on down the road. A bike?! Now we're talking Elvis.
John Edwards in the early appearances struck me as almost a little too pretty, a little lite. But he's got a populist streak I like--his daddy spent thirty-seven years working in a North Carolina mill, and Edwards ain't forgot it. Seemed to me he might develop. In a recent speech at Georgetown University, the sumbitch hit a home run. (Look it up.)
Naturally, I've been leaning toward Howard Dean: He's at 2 percent in the polls and has the full weight of Vermont behind him. On a recent visit to Austin, Dean sounded alarmingly moderate, appealing to the centrist vote. Sheesh, what good is Dean if he doesn't pull the whole field to the left?
I like Dick Gephardt, I can't help it. I've always liked labor-liberals: I think they're plugged in to real people in a way these DLC Democrats can never fathom. We could get him new eyebrows. New eyebrows are easy compared to a charisma transplant. He made a serious health care proposal (not a terribly good one, but serious) and proposes to pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts. He may have no eyebrows but has balls.
Carol Moseley Braun: vanity run, no help there, don't be silly. Still, thank God there's at least one woman in the pack. Personally, I think the whole race will turn on the women's vote. The entire Bush Administration suffers from testosterone poisoning.
Al Sharpton: Elvis! Wit! Doesn't have a chance so he can tell the truth. Naturally gets globs of rightwing media attention because they'd love for people to believe that Sharpton is the Democratic Party. Trouble with Sharpton (I'm a great believer in looking at the record) is that you can't trust him. Bad record. Very bad.
Representative Dennis Kucinich I naturally like, but consider a no-hoper. Can't elect a guy that short and skinny, not to mention vegetarian. Accuse me of cynicism in my old age, but I am interested in winning this one. Decent, kind, excellent: no Elvis, no hope.
Joe Lieberman does nothing for me. Republican lite.
Take a look at Bob Graham out of Florida. Foreign policy credentials, gravitas. Southern politician, so knows how to campaign. Executive experience, two-term governor. May not hold up on the vision thing, but give him a gander.
Wesley Clark, bubble for Democratic Ike, attractive candidate in many ways, but in my experience, there's no experience like experience and this guy's never run for dogcatcher.
So cheer up. There are many to root for.
__________________________________________________________________
Who Can Beat President Doofus?
Molly Ivins
What ho, sports fans? Has this been a dandy spell for mind-boggling government, or what? Still no weapons of mass destruction, and every neocon in America is creating elaborate rationales for why it makes no difference whatever if we were lied to about this war.
Meanwhile, in a truly creative demonstration of their problem-solving abilities, White House staffers fixed the entire global warming problem by editing it out of a report on the environment. Way to go, team! Why pay attention to scientists when you can insert a study paid for by the American Petroleum Institute instead? That Karl Rove, just brilliant. As President Bush said on June 4, "I'm the master of low expectations." And he continues to prove it.
Now to provide some good cheer. We've got some talent here, people, and most of them compare well to President Doofus.
John Kerry is in the unfortunate position of being the frontrunner, which you would not wish on your worst enemy. My early take on Kerry was that he has gravitas--sumbitch about bent over double with gravitas--but that he has no Elvis. Minus-zero on the Elvis Scale was my first read. No point in nominating some good and worthy candidate, like Fritz Mondale or Michael Dukakis, if they got no Elvis. The object is to get these people elected. Can't get elected without a soupรงon of Elvis. Happily, Kerry seems to have started to do what he most needs to do, which is lighten up a bit. According to a report in Slate , Kerry in Iowa is capable of humor, self-effacement, sarcasm, and other helpful attitudes. Plus, at the end of the deal, he got on a motorcycle and raised an eyebrow before gunning the hog on down the road. A bike?! Now we're talking Elvis.
John Edwards in the early appearances struck me as almost a little too pretty, a little lite. But he's got a populist streak I like--his daddy spent thirty-seven years working in a North Carolina mill, and Edwards ain't forgot it. Seemed to me he might develop. In a recent speech at Georgetown University, the sumbitch hit a home run. (Look it up.)
Naturally, I've been leaning toward Howard Dean: He's at 2 percent in the polls and has the full weight of Vermont behind him. On a recent visit to Austin, Dean sounded alarmingly moderate, appealing to the centrist vote. Sheesh, what good is Dean if he doesn't pull the whole field to the left?
I like Dick Gephardt, I can't help it. I've always liked labor-liberals: I think they're plugged in to real people in a way these DLC Democrats can never fathom. We could get him new eyebrows. New eyebrows are easy compared to a charisma transplant. He made a serious health care proposal (not a terribly good one, but serious) and proposes to pay for it by repealing the Bush tax cuts. He may have no eyebrows but has balls.
Carol Moseley Braun: vanity run, no help there, don't be silly. Still, thank God there's at least one woman in the pack. Personally, I think the whole race will turn on the women's vote. The entire Bush Administration suffers from testosterone poisoning.
Al Sharpton: Elvis! Wit! Doesn't have a chance so he can tell the truth. Naturally gets globs of rightwing media attention because they'd love for people to believe that Sharpton is the Democratic Party. Trouble with Sharpton (I'm a great believer in looking at the record) is that you can't trust him. Bad record. Very bad.
Representative Dennis Kucinich I naturally like, but consider a no-hoper. Can't elect a guy that short and skinny, not to mention vegetarian. Accuse me of cynicism in my old age, but I am interested in winning this one. Decent, kind, excellent: no Elvis, no hope.
Joe Lieberman does nothing for me. Republican lite.
Take a look at Bob Graham out of Florida. Foreign policy credentials, gravitas. Southern politician, so knows how to campaign. Executive experience, two-term governor. May not hold up on the vision thing, but give him a gander.
Wesley Clark, bubble for Democratic Ike, attractive candidate in many ways, but in my experience, there's no experience like experience and this guy's never run for dogcatcher.
So cheer up. There are many to root for.
__________________________________________________________________
Dittoheads, just keep telling themselves it was never for the oil...
Group: Cheney Task Force Eyed on Iraq Oil
Fri Jul 18,10:10 PM ET
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq (news - web sites)'s oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group.
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department (news - web sites) papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts...
____________________________________________________________________
Group: Cheney Task Force Eyed on Iraq Oil
Fri Jul 18,10:10 PM ET
By H. JOSEF HEBERT, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Vice President Dick Cheney (news - web sites)'s energy task force appeared to have some interest in early 2001 in Iraq (news - web sites)'s oil industry, including which foreign companies were pursuing business there, according to documents released Friday by a private watchdog group.
Judicial Watch, a conservative legal group, obtained a batch of task force-related Commerce Department (news - web sites) papers that included a detailed map of Iraq's oil fields, terminals and pipelines as well as a list entitled "Foreign Suitors of Iraqi Oilfield Contracts...
____________________________________________________________________
The GOP doesn't care about the citizens they are charged with representing, just the corporations they can squeeze for campaign money in return for favors.
Politics - washingtonpost.com
GOP Attorneys General Asked For Corporate Contributions
Thu Jul 17,12:57 PM ET
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writers
Republican state attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents obtained by The Washington Post.
One of the documents mentions potential state actions against health maintenance organizations and suggests the attorneys general should "start targeting the HMO's" for fundraising. It also cites a news article about consolidation and regulation of insurance firms and states that "this would be a natural area for us to focus on raising money."
The attorneys general were all members of the Washington-based Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). The companies they solicited included some of the nation's largest tobacco, pharmaceutical, computer, energy, banking, liquor, insurance and media concerns, many of which have been targeted in product liability lawsuits or regulations by state governments...
____________________________________________________________________________
Politics - washingtonpost.com
GOP Attorneys General Asked For Corporate Contributions
Thu Jul 17,12:57 PM ET
By R. Jeffrey Smith and Tania Branigan, Washington Post Staff Writers
Republican state attorneys general in at least six states telephoned corporations or trade groups subject to lawsuits or regulations by their state governments to solicit hundreds of thousands of dollars in political contributions, according to internal fundraising documents obtained by The Washington Post.
One of the documents mentions potential state actions against health maintenance organizations and suggests the attorneys general should "start targeting the HMO's" for fundraising. It also cites a news article about consolidation and regulation of insurance firms and states that "this would be a natural area for us to focus on raising money."
The attorneys general were all members of the Washington-based Republican Attorneys General Association (RAGA). The companies they solicited included some of the nation's largest tobacco, pharmaceutical, computer, energy, banking, liquor, insurance and media concerns, many of which have been targeted in product liability lawsuits or regulations by state governments...
____________________________________________________________________________
Is it just me or does giving Lynch the Bronze Star seem ridiculous? My dad fought in Holland during WWII and everyone in his unit was killed except him. He lost tight friends in some awful ways. He and a soldier from another outfit pulled steel doors over a bomb crater and lived under it for three days while the nazis rained mortars outside and a machine gun rattled it. A sniper was trying to kill them by shooting under the doors from a distance. Shrapnel bounced and pinged off the metal roof. They little sleep, had a short supply of water and lived with the smell of their own urine and feces in a cramped hole. When the battle finally went quiet they had to find the nerve to crawl out, wondering if they were going to get their heads blown off as soon as they exposed themselves. All their troops were gone. They were captured by the Germans and Dad was taken (with some rough treatment along the way) to a live in a POW camp for seven months in the fall and winter. He lost fifty pounds. People died at the camp (mostly from dysentery problems). Not Dad. He'd wash his utensils in heated water and use sand to grind the grease off. He had shrapnel in his leg (which he lived with the rest of his life and you could see under the skin). To clean out his own body he chewed charcoal for "fiber" in lieu of the real thing (he once ate dog meat, "and I was glad to have it, maggots and all.") He got such a bad cold in the camp that for the rest of his life he suffered from sinus problems every winter.
My point is that he and thousands of other American soldiers that have been through much worse than Lynch came back and got a Purple Heart and that was it. Lynch was NOT shot or stabbed (as was initially reported). She doesn't even remember what happened. She was taken to a hospital by the Iraqis and was taken care of (much better than Iraqi victims of the war there). The doctors tried to turn her over to the U.S. but were shot at when driving her to make the drop. She had nothing to do with her rescue but to lay on a stretcher and be carried out. And for this she's getting a Bronze Star? I wonder if that BLACK WOMAN from her outfit who was captured, wounded and seen on TV (looking like hell and scared) is getting a Bronze Star? Seems she ought to get the Medal of Honor if they are handing Bronze Stars out for not firing a shot in combat and laying in a vehicle while suffering from a crash. But of course, she's not white and pretty and a part of a PR "hero scam" (as reported by the BBC) created for TV during a war that was looking bad to the public at the time. Regardless of what you think of that "rescue" (I'm not doubting the troops could have been fired upon during it but apparently never were, at least not in the video they show), this honor for somebody who didn't do anything in combat to help others but was HELPED by others seems an insult to soldiers that have SAVED lives in battle or whose bravery under fire inspired others to do the same. This is, in reality, a sideshow of the war for the people back home so they can "feel good".
That's my two cents.
Lynch Gets Medals Ahead of Homecoming
Tue Jul 22,12:43 AM ET
By GAVIN McCORMICK, Associated Press Writer
ELIZABETH, W.Va. - Former POW Jessica Lynch was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart in Washington Monday as she prepares for her homecoming.
Lynch, who returns to the hills of West Virigina Tuesday, also received Prisoner of War medals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. The Bronze Star is given for meritorious combat service, a Purple Heart is most often awarded to those wounded in combat, and the POW for being held captive during wartime...
________________________________________________________________________________
My point is that he and thousands of other American soldiers that have been through much worse than Lynch came back and got a Purple Heart and that was it. Lynch was NOT shot or stabbed (as was initially reported). She doesn't even remember what happened. She was taken to a hospital by the Iraqis and was taken care of (much better than Iraqi victims of the war there). The doctors tried to turn her over to the U.S. but were shot at when driving her to make the drop. She had nothing to do with her rescue but to lay on a stretcher and be carried out. And for this she's getting a Bronze Star? I wonder if that BLACK WOMAN from her outfit who was captured, wounded and seen on TV (looking like hell and scared) is getting a Bronze Star? Seems she ought to get the Medal of Honor if they are handing Bronze Stars out for not firing a shot in combat and laying in a vehicle while suffering from a crash. But of course, she's not white and pretty and a part of a PR "hero scam" (as reported by the BBC) created for TV during a war that was looking bad to the public at the time. Regardless of what you think of that "rescue" (I'm not doubting the troops could have been fired upon during it but apparently never were, at least not in the video they show), this honor for somebody who didn't do anything in combat to help others but was HELPED by others seems an insult to soldiers that have SAVED lives in battle or whose bravery under fire inspired others to do the same. This is, in reality, a sideshow of the war for the people back home so they can "feel good".
That's my two cents.
Lynch Gets Medals Ahead of Homecoming
Tue Jul 22,12:43 AM ET
By GAVIN McCORMICK, Associated Press Writer
ELIZABETH, W.Va. - Former POW Jessica Lynch was awarded the Bronze Star and Purple Heart in Washington Monday as she prepares for her homecoming.
Lynch, who returns to the hills of West Virigina Tuesday, also received Prisoner of War medals at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington. The Bronze Star is given for meritorious combat service, a Purple Heart is most often awarded to those wounded in combat, and the POW for being held captive during wartime...
________________________________________________________________________________
Bush's simpleton way of thinking and lack of leadership is making the world into a more dangerous place everyday. We need a clean sweep of this corrupt and vile administration and a strong new courageous leader to engage the world in the complex manner that it needs. That leader is John Kerry.
Chaos, Killing Rock Capital of Liberia
An estimated 90 civilians die in shelling, hundreds more are injured. Angry residents stack bodies outside the American Embassy in Monrovia.
Climate Worsens for Troops
July 22, 2003
By Ann M. Simmons, Times Staff Writer
MONROVIA, Liberia — Mortar shells rained down on this coastal capital Monday, killing and maiming scores of civilians as a small force of U.S. Marines arrived to bolster security at the besieged U.S. Embassy.
Several thousand more Marines were ordered to the Mediterranean for possible deployment in the war-ravaged West African nation.
The exact death toll Monday was unknown, but aid workers estimated that at least 90 Liberians were killed and said the number probably would rise. More than 300 people were injured.
Heavy explosions from shells and grenades rocked the city from midday into the evening as rebels battled government forces, sending terrified civilians scrambling for cover in doorways and damaged buildings. After one shell hit an American housing complex now occupied by refugees, angry residents stacked at least 18 mutilated bodies outside the main gate of the nearby U.S. Embassy.
"G. Bush Killer Liberia," read a sign scrawled on a piece of cardboard and hoisted by a young man outside the embassy. Other screaming citizens hurled rocks and stones at the walls of the fortified concrete compound.
"What do we do now?" wailed Porpor Conneh as she banged her fists on one of the embassy gates. "O God, O God. We're just suffering. We can't die for nothing...
_____________________________________________________________________
Chaos, Killing Rock Capital of Liberia
An estimated 90 civilians die in shelling, hundreds more are injured. Angry residents stack bodies outside the American Embassy in Monrovia.
Climate Worsens for Troops
July 22, 2003
By Ann M. Simmons, Times Staff Writer
MONROVIA, Liberia — Mortar shells rained down on this coastal capital Monday, killing and maiming scores of civilians as a small force of U.S. Marines arrived to bolster security at the besieged U.S. Embassy.
Several thousand more Marines were ordered to the Mediterranean for possible deployment in the war-ravaged West African nation.
The exact death toll Monday was unknown, but aid workers estimated that at least 90 Liberians were killed and said the number probably would rise. More than 300 people were injured.
Heavy explosions from shells and grenades rocked the city from midday into the evening as rebels battled government forces, sending terrified civilians scrambling for cover in doorways and damaged buildings. After one shell hit an American housing complex now occupied by refugees, angry residents stacked at least 18 mutilated bodies outside the main gate of the nearby U.S. Embassy.
"G. Bush Killer Liberia," read a sign scrawled on a piece of cardboard and hoisted by a young man outside the embassy. Other screaming citizens hurled rocks and stones at the walls of the fortified concrete compound.
"What do we do now?" wailed Porpor Conneh as she banged her fists on one of the embassy gates. "O God, O God. We're just suffering. We can't die for nothing...
_____________________________________________________________________
Bush indecisiveness and poor planning once again leads to a crisis situation resulting in more war and death. The man can't read the reports given him, has to be led by the hand by the real power, Cheney, and he isn't allowed to speak off the cuff without prepared remarks. We don't even get press conferences anymore. You think his handlers would let him take questions from a room of reporters NOW? Bush is a fraud put over the voters by a massive Wall Street/Madison Avenue PR machine and GOP corporate interests that control the media.
Sadly, Americans and innocents around the world are dying for a man who only signs off on what he is told to do by a "cabal" of right-wing loonies.
Climate Worsens for Troops
The U.S. squandered its opportunity to send peacekeepers to Liberia during a cease-fire, analysts say. Now it faces 'a combat situation.'
Chaos, Killing Rock Capital of Liberia
July 22, 2003
Coverage of the civil war and refugee crisis in the embattled African nation.
By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON รข€” The renewed fighting and mounting chaos in Liberia make the proposed deployment of peacekeeping troops from West Africa and the United States far more difficult รข€” and dangerous.
Intervention now could require a larger force prepared to deploy in a combat situation, according to military and regional experts. It may even be too late to oversee a peaceful transition from President Charles Taylor's rule to a new, democratic government, they said.
"It's never too late, but if we go in now it will be entering a combat situation, which is the worst possible point of entry," said Pauline Baker, an Africa expert and president of the Fund for Peace in Washington.
A number of factors accelerated the crisis รข€” and have complicated the policy decisions as the United States, the United Nations and the regional Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, all scramble to figure out what to do next.
Among the factors were the drawn-out deliberations within the Bush administration and among the parties trying to work out a peacekeeping operation, U.S. officials and experts said.
The administration has "squandered the monthlong opportunity it had during which the cease-fire had held," said Susan Rice, a former Clinton administration national security staffer now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-area think tank. "The U.S. refusal to say what it was going to do led predictably to the situation deteriorating. Neither the rebels nor the government could be expected to pause indefinitely...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Sadly, Americans and innocents around the world are dying for a man who only signs off on what he is told to do by a "cabal" of right-wing loonies.
Climate Worsens for Troops
The U.S. squandered its opportunity to send peacekeepers to Liberia during a cease-fire, analysts say. Now it faces 'a combat situation.'
Chaos, Killing Rock Capital of Liberia
July 22, 2003
Coverage of the civil war and refugee crisis in the embattled African nation.
By Robin Wright, Times Staff Writer
WASHINGTON รข€” The renewed fighting and mounting chaos in Liberia make the proposed deployment of peacekeeping troops from West Africa and the United States far more difficult รข€” and dangerous.
Intervention now could require a larger force prepared to deploy in a combat situation, according to military and regional experts. It may even be too late to oversee a peaceful transition from President Charles Taylor's rule to a new, democratic government, they said.
"It's never too late, but if we go in now it will be entering a combat situation, which is the worst possible point of entry," said Pauline Baker, an Africa expert and president of the Fund for Peace in Washington.
A number of factors accelerated the crisis รข€” and have complicated the policy decisions as the United States, the United Nations and the regional Economic Community of West African States, or ECOWAS, all scramble to figure out what to do next.
Among the factors were the drawn-out deliberations within the Bush administration and among the parties trying to work out a peacekeeping operation, U.S. officials and experts said.
The administration has "squandered the monthlong opportunity it had during which the cease-fire had held," said Susan Rice, a former Clinton administration national security staffer now at the Brookings Institution, a Washington-area think tank. "The U.S. refusal to say what it was going to do led predictably to the situation deteriorating. Neither the rebels nor the government could be expected to pause indefinitely...
_______________________________________________________________________________
Monday, July 21, 2003
Sieg Heil to der Busherland! Bush's supporters salute as Sargent Shultz rolls his eyes shut and stammers, "I see nothink. NOTHINK!
Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN/ The New York Times
Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.
The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.
Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.
And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."
To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American — and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.
How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."
But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes.
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.
And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
____________________________________________________________________________
Who's Unpatriotic Now?
By PAUL KRUGMAN/ The New York Times
Some nonrevisionist history: On Oct. 8, 2002, Knight Ridder newspapers reported on intelligence officials who "charge that the administration squelches dissenting views, and that intelligence analysts are under intense pressure to produce reports supporting the White House's argument that Saddam poses such an immediate threat to the United States that pre-emptive military action is necessary." One official accused the administration of pressuring analysts to "cook the intelligence books"; none of the dozen other officials the reporters spoke to disagreed.
The skepticism of these officials has been vindicated. So have the concerns expressed before the war by military professionals like Gen. Eric Shinseki, the Army chief of staff, about the resources required for postwar occupation. But as the bad news comes in, those who promoted this war have responded with a concerted effort to smear the messengers.
Issues of principle aside, the invasion of a country that hadn't attacked us and didn't pose an imminent threat has seriously weakened our military position. Of the Army's 33 combat brigades, 16 are in Iraq; this leaves us ill prepared to cope with genuine threats. Moreover, military experts say that with almost two-thirds of its brigades deployed overseas, mainly in Iraq, the Army's readiness is eroding: normal doctrine calls for only one brigade in three to be deployed abroad, while the other two retrain and refit.
And the war will have devastating effects on future recruiting by the reserves. A widely circulated photo from Iraq shows a sign in the windshield of a military truck that reads, "One weekend a month, my ass."
To top it all off, our insistence on launching a war without U.N. approval has deprived us of useful allies. George Bush claims to have a "huge coalition," but only 7 percent of the coalition soldiers in Iraq are non-American — and administration pleas for more help are sounding increasingly plaintive.
How serious is the strain on our military? The Brookings Institution military analyst Michael O'Hanlon, who describes our volunteer military as "one of the best military institutions in human history," warns that "the Bush administration will risk destroying that accomplishment if they keep on the current path."
But instead of explaining what happened to the Al Qaeda link and the nuclear program, in the last few days a series of hawkish pundits have accused those who ask such questions of aiding the enemy. Here's Frank Gaffney Jr. in The National Post: "Somewhere, probably in Iraq, Saddam Hussein is gloating. He can only be gratified by the feeding frenzy of recriminations, second-guessing and political power plays. . . . Signs of declining popular appreciation of the legitimacy and necessity of the efforts of America's armed forces will erode their morale. Similarly, the enemy will be encouraged."
Well, if we're going to talk about aiding the enemy: By cooking intelligence to promote a war that wasn't urgent, the administration has squandered our military strength. This provides a lot of aid and comfort to Osama bin Laden — who really did attack America — and Kim Jong Il — who really is building nukes.
And while we're on the subject of patriotism, let's talk about the affair of Joseph Wilson's wife. Mr. Wilson is the former ambassador who was sent to Niger by the C.I.A. to investigate reports of attempted Iraqi uranium purchases and who recently went public with his findings. Since then administration allies have sought to discredit him — it's unpleasant stuff. But here's the kicker: both the columnist Robert Novak and Time magazine say that administration officials told them that they believed that Mr. Wilson had been chosen through the influence of his wife, whom they identified as a C.I.A. operative.
Think about that: if their characterization of Mr. Wilson's wife is true (he refuses to confirm or deny it), Bush administration officials have exposed the identity of a covert operative. That happens to be a criminal act; it's also definitely unpatriotic.
So why would they do such a thing? Partly, perhaps, to punish Mr. Wilson, but also to send a message.
And that should alarm us. We've just seen how politicized, cooked intelligence can damage our national interest. Yet the Wilson affair suggests that the administration intends to continue pressuring analysts to tell it what it wants to hear.
____________________________________________________________________________
I've added a CNN special report link to the right on the U.S. and the coalition forces casualties that is updated daily for the Dittoheads that think it's all a video game on TV played by Bush and given a rousing commentary by fellow Viet Nam avoider, Flush Limpballs.
_______________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________
Kerry is the ONLY candidate that can challenge Bush and WIN!
July 19, 2003 - Head of MEA gives personal endorsement to Kerry
Saturday July 19, 2003
By Kathy Barks Hoffman - Associated Press
LANSING -- The head of the state's largest teachers union has personally endorsed U.S. Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic presidential race.
"For me, it comes down to electability. I think clearly he's the most electable candidate," Michigan Education Association President Lu Battaglieri said Friday...
____________________________________________________________________________________
July 19, 2003 - Head of MEA gives personal endorsement to Kerry
Saturday July 19, 2003
By Kathy Barks Hoffman - Associated Press
LANSING -- The head of the state's largest teachers union has personally endorsed U.S. Sen. John Kerry in the Democratic presidential race.
"For me, it comes down to electability. I think clearly he's the most electable candidate," Michigan Education Association President Lu Battaglieri said Friday...
____________________________________________________________________________________
Kerry is beginning to court those independents (while letting people who voted for Bush before know they have a REAL alternative to the pretender in the White House), a major key to beating Bush.
July 21, 2003 - Kerry rips Bush on national security issues
Monday July 21, 2003
BY Mike Glover - Associated Press
Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry on Saturday accused President Bush of using tough rhetoric to mask a foreign policy that has put America at risk.
Using some of his sharpest criticism to date, the Massachusetts senator said Democrats won't win the White House until they convince Americans they understand national security. He confronted Bush directly on an issue where polls show the president is strong.
"He's hoodwinked the American people," Kerry said. "He's not making the world safer, I do not believe this administration is doing the job of protecting Americans."
Kerry made his pitch to activists at a union hall, but his appeal was to independent voters worried about safety and war on terrorism...
_______________________________________________________________________
July 21, 2003 - Kerry rips Bush on national security issues
Monday July 21, 2003
BY Mike Glover - Associated Press
Democratic presidential hopeful John Kerry on Saturday accused President Bush of using tough rhetoric to mask a foreign policy that has put America at risk.
Using some of his sharpest criticism to date, the Massachusetts senator said Democrats won't win the White House until they convince Americans they understand national security. He confronted Bush directly on an issue where polls show the president is strong.
"He's hoodwinked the American people," Kerry said. "He's not making the world safer, I do not believe this administration is doing the job of protecting Americans."
Kerry made his pitch to activists at a union hall, but his appeal was to independent voters worried about safety and war on terrorism...
_______________________________________________________________________
July 20, 2003 - Harley-hopping senator campaigns at motorocyle museum
Sunday July 20, 2003
By Mike Hlas - The Cedar Rapids Gazette
ANAMOSA -- Motorcyclists are the most common of sights here, with riders from coast to coast pulling up to the National Motorcycle Museum and Hall of Fame.
Saturday, however, a presidential candidate took a 2003 100th Anniversary Edition Harley-Davidson V-Rod for a spin through town.
Sen. John Kerry hopped on the Harley after his campaign event in the museum Saturday afternoon. The 59-year-old Massachusetts Democrat gunned the engine and then rumbled down Main Street, pulling out of sight for a few minutes.
But rather than roar into the Iowa countryside by himself, Kerry returned the $18,000 motorcycle to the museum.
"I felt a responsibility, so I came back," quipped Kerry, who owns a Harley.
Earlier, Kerry was no easy rider when it came to discussing President Bush's policies on education, the economy and health care...
_______________________________________________________________________
Sunday July 20, 2003
By Mike Hlas - The Cedar Rapids Gazette
ANAMOSA -- Motorcyclists are the most common of sights here, with riders from coast to coast pulling up to the National Motorcycle Museum and Hall of Fame.
Saturday, however, a presidential candidate took a 2003 100th Anniversary Edition Harley-Davidson V-Rod for a spin through town.
Sen. John Kerry hopped on the Harley after his campaign event in the museum Saturday afternoon. The 59-year-old Massachusetts Democrat gunned the engine and then rumbled down Main Street, pulling out of sight for a few minutes.
But rather than roar into the Iowa countryside by himself, Kerry returned the $18,000 motorcycle to the museum.
"I felt a responsibility, so I came back," quipped Kerry, who owns a Harley.
Earlier, Kerry was no easy rider when it came to discussing President Bush's policies on education, the economy and health care...
_______________________________________________________________________
July 17 2003 - Kerry Says Bush Lacks Viable Security Plan
Thursday July 17, 2003
By Alan Feuer - New York Times
Flanked by firefighters and police officers in the Bronx, Senator John Kerry yesterday delivered a scathing assessment of President Bush's national security efforts, saying the White House had no plan for protecting the nation against another terrorist attack at home.
"Let me state it plainly," said Mr. Kerry, a Democratic presidential contender. "Just as we did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today we still do not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack."
It was among the sterner rebukes of Mr. Bush so far by a Democratic candidate on the topic of national security, and it came in a week in which nearly all the Democratic prospects have been attacking the president on the issue. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut called today for the resignation of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, who made a similar demand on Sunday.
Mr. Kerry leveled fresh accusations that the administration had not been forthcoming in its policies about Iraq, particularly in its efforts to promote the war. "It is clear that a dangerous gap in credibility has developed between President Bush's tough rhetoric and timid policies which don't do nearly enough to protect Americans from danger," he said.
Mr. Kerry said the president had purposefully stalled the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and suggested, ungently, that he "get out of the way."
"It's time we were told the truth about America's safety," he said. "It's time we had a president who will truly make this nation more secure."
Mr. Kerry was speaking in the Veterans Memorial Hall of the Bronx County office building, and his decision to assail Mr. Bush in New York City on matters of national security was a clear attempt to invoke the city's experience with terrorism.
At the same time, it was somewhat unclear why he had chosen the Bronx to deliver his remarks. His only answer was to note that the county office overlooked Yankee Stadium, which Mr. Kerry, from Massachusetts, referred to as a "monument to Red Sox hopes."
Mr. Kerry began his 30-minute address by remembering the firefighters and police officers who died in the attacks and quickly moved on to criticize what he said was Mr. Bush's undeserved good reputation on national security.
He cited a report made public by a bipartisan panel led by former Senator Warren B. Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, which concluded that the country needed to close what Mr. Kerry called the "preparedness gap." The report, Mr. Kerry said, indicated that the federal government needed to spend more money on frontline responders like the police and, especially, firefighters, whom he said lacked adequate radios and emergency equipment.
__________________________________________________________________________
Thursday July 17, 2003
By Alan Feuer - New York Times
Flanked by firefighters and police officers in the Bronx, Senator John Kerry yesterday delivered a scathing assessment of President Bush's national security efforts, saying the White House had no plan for protecting the nation against another terrorist attack at home.
"Let me state it plainly," said Mr. Kerry, a Democratic presidential contender. "Just as we did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today we still do not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack."
It was among the sterner rebukes of Mr. Bush so far by a Democratic candidate on the topic of national security, and it came in a week in which nearly all the Democratic prospects have been attacking the president on the issue. Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut called today for the resignation of George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence, following in the footsteps of Howard Dean, the former governor of Vermont, who made a similar demand on Sunday.
Mr. Kerry leveled fresh accusations that the administration had not been forthcoming in its policies about Iraq, particularly in its efforts to promote the war. "It is clear that a dangerous gap in credibility has developed between President Bush's tough rhetoric and timid policies which don't do nearly enough to protect Americans from danger," he said.
Mr. Kerry said the president had purposefully stalled the investigation into the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks and suggested, ungently, that he "get out of the way."
"It's time we were told the truth about America's safety," he said. "It's time we had a president who will truly make this nation more secure."
Mr. Kerry was speaking in the Veterans Memorial Hall of the Bronx County office building, and his decision to assail Mr. Bush in New York City on matters of national security was a clear attempt to invoke the city's experience with terrorism.
At the same time, it was somewhat unclear why he had chosen the Bronx to deliver his remarks. His only answer was to note that the county office overlooked Yankee Stadium, which Mr. Kerry, from Massachusetts, referred to as a "monument to Red Sox hopes."
Mr. Kerry began his 30-minute address by remembering the firefighters and police officers who died in the attacks and quickly moved on to criticize what he said was Mr. Bush's undeserved good reputation on national security.
He cited a report made public by a bipartisan panel led by former Senator Warren B. Rudman, a Republican from New Hampshire, which concluded that the country needed to close what Mr. Kerry called the "preparedness gap." The report, Mr. Kerry said, indicated that the federal government needed to spend more money on frontline responders like the police and, especially, firefighters, whom he said lacked adequate radios and emergency equipment.
__________________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)