No Plan, No Apologies
From the Center for American Progress

In a nationally televised press conference last night, President Bush "steadfastly refused to admit mistakes and passed up opportunities to explain what it will take to achieve his goal of a free and stable Iraq." Additionally, while he "acknowledged a good deal of introspection after all the questions about his actions before the Sept. 11 attacks," he offered "not a whiff of contrition" for his Administration's role in the worst national security breakdown in American history. The event was "more theater than substance" in which the President "offered no shocking new policy initiatives" and instead used "the language and zeal of a missionary" to implore Americans to continue on his increasingly chaotic and directionless path in Iraq. But with Bush's approval ratings hitting a new low, the event did nothing to quell the growing questions Americans have about the Administration's national security credentials.

IRAQ – NO PLAN TO GET MORE INTERNATIONAL HELP: The WP notes that it quickly became clear that the President was refusing "to lay out new details of the path forward, suggest any change in direction or acknowledge any rethinking of his decisions in the face of recent setbacks." While Bush claimed that his Administration was getting "more involvement by the United Nations," U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan yesterday virtually ruled out sending a large U.N. team to Iraq "for the foreseeable future" because of worsening security, while the "Russian Emergency Ministry will start evacuation of Russian specialists from Iraq." Bush tried to reassure the international community about the June 30 transfer of power, saying confidently that U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi was working "with Iraqis to determine the exact form of the government that will receive sovereignty on June 30th." But U.N. officials and diplomats say Bush's "expectations are not only inflated, but they are also dangerous."

IRAQ – STILL PUSHING THE WMD MYTH: The President was asked about his Administration's past promises about Iraq, with one reporter noting that the Administration promised "that U.S. troops would be greeted as liberators with sweets and flowers; that Iraqi oil revenue would pay for most of the reconstruction; and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction." But instead of acknowledging his Administration's gross overhyping of intelligence, the President instead clung to a now-discredited assertion. He claimed Iraq "refused to disarm" – an implicit reiteration that Iraq had WMD. But according to Bush's own weapons inspector, David Kay, there remains "no evidence Iraq had stockpiled unconventional weapons before the U.S.-led invasion in March." Corroborating assertions by former Administration officials that Bush has always focused on invading Iraq regardless of circumstance, the President added that "even knowing what I know today about the stockpiles of weapons, I still would've called upon the world to deal with Saddam Hussein."

IRAQ – DISHONESTY ON RECONSTRUCTION: The President said that oil revenues in Iraq are "bigger than we thought they would be at this point in time" – an effort to further the myth that Americans will not have to continue financing the enormous cost of Iraq reconstruction (already, U.S. taxpayers have spent $166 billion in Iraq). But according to the New York Times, Iraq oil revenues are now only "running at a rate of about $14 billion a year" – far less than the $20 billion to $30 billion a year the Bush Administration promised would allow Iraq to "finance its own reconstruction."

9/11 – PROVING HIS OWN DISHONESTY ON TERROR WARNINGS: President Bush once again claimed that "there was nobody in our government, at least, and I don't think the prior government that could envision flying airplanes into buildings." Yet, moments after uttering this, he said one of the reasons he asked for the August 6 Presidential Daily Briefing (PDB) "had to do with the Genoa G-8 conference I was going to attend" in 2001, where he was explicitly warned that Islamic terrorists could be plotting to fly airplanes into buildings. Even his claim about "the prior government" was false: as the WSJ reported, "despite official assertions that the U.S. had little reason to suspect before Sept. 11 that airliners would be used as weapons, the federal government had on several earlier occasions taken elaborate, secret measures to protect special events from just such an attack." The measures were taken after intelligence reports warned of suicide attacks using planes, and many of them were ordered directly by President Clinton.

9/11 – DEFINITIVE PROOF THAT BUSH KNEW OF AN IMMINENT THREAT: The President once again claimed to have no idea that a terrorist attack was imminent before 9/11, saying "had I had any inkling whatsoever" of an attack, "we would have moved heaven and earth to save the country." But a front-page report by the WP today notes that according to newly-declassified information, "by the time a CIA briefer gave the President the August 6 PDB headlined 'Bin Ladin Determined To Strike in US,' the president "had seen a stream of alarming reports on al Qaeda's intentions. So had Vice President Cheney and Bush's top national security team." The President was specifically told that Bin Laden was "planning multiple operations," that he had designs on hijackings, and that the "Bin Laden threats are real."

9/11
Ashcroft Passes the Buck

Ashcroft appeared before the 9/11 Commission and, like most others in the Bush Administration, refused to acknowledge any personal mistakes during the last three years. Instead, he offered a deceptive, disingenuous and dishonest account of his record prior to 9/11 and a Pollyannaish view of his actions following the attack. Worse, the commissioners largely accepted Ashcroft's testimony at face value and passed on opportunities to aggressively question the attorney general on inconsistencies and inaccuracies his statements. Ashcroft called the criticisms he has received "the price we are privileged to pay for our liberty." But the ability to criticize government officials, of course, is not the price we pay for liberty but liberty itself.

ASHCROFT DISTORTS HIS PRE-9/11 PRIORITIES: A staff report released just prior to Ashcroft's testimony revealed that a May 10, 2001 budget guidance he released "made no mention of counterterrorism." Dale Watson, former head of the FBI counterterrorism department, told the commission that when he saw the omission "he almost fell out of his chair." Ashcroft countered that, testifying before Congress on May 9, 2001, he said "my number one priority was to protect the people of the United States against terrorism." But that isn't what Ashcroft said at the hearing. Ashcroft, appearing before a Senate committee holding a hearing on terrorism, said "It goes without saying that the paramount objective of U.S. counterterrorism policy is the prevention of terrorist acts." In other words, Ashcroft gave Congress a definition of counterterrorism and is now misrepresenting it as standing for the premise that he prioritized counterterrorism over all other activities.

ASHCROFT DISTORTS HIS PRE-9/11 BUDGET: Internal Justice Department documents and an American Progress analysis of the Administration's budget request show that, in he summer of 2001, Ashcroft was cutting counterterrorism funding. Thomas Pickard, testified yesterday that, in the summer of 2001 "the additional funds that we were looking for on counterterrorism were denied" by Ashcroft. Pickard appealed Ashcroft's decision but was denied again the day before 9/11. Yet, Ashcroft claims that "the 2002 budget proposed by President Bush had the largest counterterrorism increase in five years." Ashcroft reached this artificial budget conclusion by counting items in his counterterrorism budget that were not directed specifically at counterterrorism activities. Ashcroft explains: "the label of counterterrorism should not be controlling when assessing whether or not items were important to the development of a defense for national security interests vis-a-vis counterterrorism." Ashcroft went onto explain that, if the department purchases a computer, that should be counted as a counterterrorism expense because that computer could theoretically be used for counterterrorism activities. While computers are certainly important to law enforcement as a whole, they do not substitute for funding more counterterrorism agents – the very priority Ashcroft was shortchanging.

ASHCROFT DISTORTS THE 'WALL': According to Ashcroft the primary reason the Justice Department wasn't able to be more effective prior to 9/11 was "the wall that segregated or separated criminal investigators and intelligence agents." Ashcroft said that an interpretation of the supposed separation in 1995 created "a system that was destined to fail." But, in his May 9, 2001 testimony before Congress, Ashcroft had an entirely different perspective. Ashcroft described a string of successes in the late-1990s where the FBI prevented terrorist attacks, emphasizing that "had the law enforcement efforts that led to the prevention of these acts not been successful, the cumulative death toll would be substantial." Moreover, Ashcroft did nothing to change the Justice Department's interpretation of the separation prior to 9/11. On August 6, 2001 Ashcroft's deputy distributed a memo reminding agents that "the 1995 procedures remain in effect today." Moreover, as the commission notes, the wall only "prohibited the prosecutors from 'directing or controlling' [an] intelligence investigation." Thus, there was nothing preventing the FBI from sharing critical information like the Phoenix Memo or the activities of Zacarias Moussaui prior to 9/11 with anyone else in the intelligence community.

ASHCROFT DISTORTS HIS INTEREST IN OSAMA: Ashcroft bragged in his opening statement that, shortly after becoming Attorney General, "I recommended that the covert action authorities be clarified and be expanded to allow for decisive, lethal action" against Osama Bin Laden. One problem: that was the government's policy long before the Bush Administration took office. Commissioner Fred Fielding stated that if Ashcroft were to see Memorandum of Notice dating from the Clinton administration, until recently withheld from the commission by the White House, it would "alter [Ashcroft's] evaluation of existing authorities in February of 2001." Ashcroft said that he was "not in a position to remember" if he had seen the MON, received any written material from his staff or attended briefings with any other members of the administration.

HEALTH CARE
Reimportation

The Food and Drug Administration and the Health and Human Services task force, which is looking into the reimportation of drugs from Canada, will hold a meeting today to give the public a chance to air concerns and ask questions. The Administration, under pressure from the deep-pocketed pharmaceutical lobby, has blocked the reimportation of drugs from Canada, even though the price of medication can be cheaper by up to 50%. At the same time, conservatives banned Medicare from using bulk purchasing power to negotiate lower prices from the powerful drug companies in order to give Americans cheaper drugs here in the United States.

UNANSWERED QUESTIONS FOR THE TASK FORCE: Today may be the only time the public has to directly question the FDA and HHS on the reimportation of drugs from Canada. Rep. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) has put together the top five questions "the President, the FDA and the HHS Task Force should be forced to answer in order to assure American consumers of the legitimacy of the Task Force." The questions pointedly ask officials to explain questions of safety, cost, integrity, accessibility, and hypocrisy in dealing with the American public when it comes to getting affordable medicine to Americans.

PROPAGANDA IN VIRGINIA: The FDA and HHS are spending government money to spread a disinformation campaign across the state of Virginia. The campaign, "which was unveiled in February in Illinois and has since expanded to Texas, California and Maryland," is called, "Looks Can Be Deceiving." This time, the Administration has had to resort to vague threats. "The FDA stands firm on our long-held position that importing prescription drugs from Canada…is unsafe," said Thomas J. McGinnis of the FDA. "Consumers need to know that importation is unsafe before a serious injury or death occurs due to illegally imported drugs. It's not worth the risks." The Administration, however, "can't name a single American who has been injured or killed by drugs bought from licensed Canadian pharmacies." In fact, when pressed, the FDA's director of pharmacy affairs Tom McGinnis admitted: "I can't think of one thing off the top of my head where somebody died or somebody got put in the hospital because of these medications. I just don't know if there's anything like that."

LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE DECEIVING SENIORS: The propaganda machine is also specifically targeting the elderly. The FDA/HHS press release says, "For elderly consumers who are looking to save money by purchasing unregulated medicines from abroad, pharmacists want to remind them that the new Medicare prescription drug benefit will help them save money." Not necessarily. The prescription drug cards in fact do not guarantee a discount for seniors. Each company issuing a card can choose which drugs to discount, or not discount. Benefits can vary according to the whims of individual companies. "That's because private companies issuing the cards--insurance firms, HMOs and others--will be able to raise or lower discounts on a weekly basis. Although the companies can make changes, seniors won't have that privilege: Once they sign up, they'll be required to stick with a single Medicare card for a full year."

GRASSLEY'S BILL: Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) last week introduced legislation to legalize the purchase of prescription drugs from Canada. The bill "would immediately open the door for American consumers to buy the cheaper prescription drugs, while requiring the FDA to establish a new system for drug importation." Said the senator, "The FDA has been unresponsive for years, and U.S. consumers have been going around the FDA. Congress needs to take action to make sure that prescription drug imports are both safe and available to U.S. consumers." Other conservatives facing pressure from their constituents are also reversing their opposition to reimportation.

SENIORS TAKING IT TO THE STREETS: Seniors are organizing a boycott of all over-the-counter medications produced by the pharmaceutical giant Pfizer "to protest the No. 1 drug maker's efforts to stem the flow of prescription drugs from Canada." The Minnesota Senior Federation is calling for the boycott of the corporation's nonprescription products -- including Rolaids and Sudafed -- to "protest Pfizer's move to cut off sales of prescription drugs to some Canadian wholesalers." At the same time, Minnesota's Gov. Tim Pawlenty (MN-R) "recently sought and won a resolution from the state's Board of Investment, which holds $470 million in Pfizer stock, to protest Pfizer's action." The states of Illinois and Wisconsin are "also considering using their shareholder might to protest drugmaker actions on Canadian drugs." Eli Lilly is also fighting to keep prices of its medicines artificially inflated by cracking down on reimportation.

UNDER THE RADAR
IRAQ – SENIOR STRATEGIST CRITICIZES BUSH CONDUCT ON IRAQ: A senior Army strategist, Army Lt. Col. Antulio J. Echevarria of the U.S. Army War College, "has accused the Bush administration of seeking to win 'quickly and on the cheap' while ignoring the more critical strategic aim of creating a stable, democratic nation." Instead of transforming the easy victory in toppling Saddam Hussein last year into victory in the larger political goal, says Echevarria, the administration "either misunderstood or, worse, wished away" the resulting difficulties, thus squandering that victory. One major problem: The Pentagon's civilian leadership, centered in the office of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, focused "on achieving rapid military victories" with a force "equipped only to win battles, not wars."

TAXES – BUSH AND CHENEY PROFIT FROM TAX CUTS, BUT AVERAGE AMERICANS DON'T: A new AP poll finds that almost half of all Americans "said their overall tax burden — including federal, state and local taxes — had gone up over the past three years" - almost four times the 13% who said their overall taxes had gone down. That's most likely because while a small handful of wealthy Americans received huge tax breaks, the average middle class family received very little, while their state and local taxes/fees increased. Of course, two people who did receive a massive tax cut were President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney. According to AP, in 2002 Vice President Cheney paid 29% of his income – which still includes deferred compensation from defense contractor Halliburton – in taxes. Last year Cheney paid just 20% and his total tax bill was almost $100,000 less than in 2002 on about the same total income. Bush himself saved "nearly $31,000 on his 2003 bill over what he would have paid if there had been no cuts."

9/11 – CLARKE TESTIMONY CONSISTENT WITH PRIOR STATEMENTS: Roll Call reports, "Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS), chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, says former Bush counterterrorism chief Richard Clarke's testimony before a joint congressional panel on the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks did not contradict his later testimony before a presidentially appointed commission." According to Roberts, "Clarke's 2002 testimony was on small-bore process issues related to the intelligence community while the later testimony took a big-picture view of policymakers' handling of evidence of a pending attack." Sen. Bill Frist (R-TN) has backed off his previous remark "declining to repeat the charge that Clarke contradicted himself."

ECONOMY – DUDE, HOW DO YOU SAY "DUDE" IN SWAHILI? It's official. The computer giant Dell (based in Texas) disclosed this week it "employs more people abroad than it does in the U.S." Dell recently "established customer and technical support centers in India, China, Morocco, Panama, and Slovakia and has set up design centers in Taiwan and China." In the recent SEC filing, "Dell revealed that 23,800 of its 46,000 employees are currently working outside of U.S. shores. That leaves just 22,200 workers at home." And the company's spokesman says the corporation wants to go even further to outsource jobs to cheaper foreign labor. (You get what you pay for, though - last year, Dell had to stop routing corporate customers to a technical support call center in Bangalore, India "after a flood of complaints.")

HEALTH CARE – QUINTUPLED PRICES:? Today's example of what happens when you don't keep watch over the powerful drug companies: Abbott Laboratories, which quintupled the price of its crucial AIDS drug Norvir. Giving the reimportation debate particular urgency, it was discovered recently that the company jacked the price of the average annual dosage of Norvir from $1,500 to about $7,800 in January. "With total sales of more than $1 billion since its introduction in 1996, Norvir long ago became profitable for Abbott. But with the recent price increase, the thousands of Americans who use Norvir now pay 10 times what the price is in Europe, where drug prices are regulated under national health care plans. An annual Norvir dosage in Belgium, for example, costs less than $720 a year."



____________________________________________________________________