The Founders Speak
THE POINT by Peter Daou
Issue 13- March 20, 2004
The Founders Speak
John Adams comments on the administration’s Enron and Halliburton ties:
Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776
Benjamin Franklin comments on John Ashcroft’s abuse of the Patriot Act:
They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759
Thomas Jefferson comments on Bush pumping his fist before addressing the nation on the eve of the Iraq war:
An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.... Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813
John Adams and Thomas Jefferson comment on the administration’s antipathy to science and the arts:
I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780
Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816
Thomas Jefferson comments on Bush’s disregard for the constitutional separation of church and state:
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802
James Madison comments on how Bush’s polarizing policies and brash personality weaken America:
America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 30, 1787
George Washington and James Madison comment on the Bush administration stifling criticism by suggesting that all critics of their foreign policy are “unpatriotic”:
All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787
Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796
Peter Daou
___________________________________________________________________________
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Friday, March 19, 2004
The 'Big Lie' About Kerry's Record
By George E. Curry | SACOBSERVER.COM WIRE SERVICES
(NNPA) - With public opinion polls showing that if the presidential election were held today, Sen. John Kerry would defeat President George Bush, Republicans have launched a Big Lie campaign to distort the presumptive Democratic nominee's record on military spending. Obviously, they believe that if you tell the same lie over and over, people will eventually believe it.
That would be bad enough. But to make matters worse, some of the country's best journalists are allowing these lies to go unchallenged.
Research by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a New York-based media monitoring organization, reports that Kerry is being depicted as one who is repeatedly voting against military funding when that's not the case.
For example, the report notes that Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition and now a Bush-Cheney campaign strategist, appeared on CNN (2/3/04) and described Kerry's record in the Senate as "voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, cutting another 18 programs, slashing intelligence spending by $2.5 billion, and voting to freeze defense spending for seven years."
Blitzer reacted by turning to Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee and saying, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's been some opposition research done."
NBC anchor Tom Brokaw swallowed the line when he said on MSNBC (3/2/04), "…the vice president just today was talking about (Kerry's) votes against the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and also weapons systems. Isn't he going to be very vulnerable come the fall when national security is such a big issue in this country?"
The usually reliable Judy Woodruff was transformed into a parrot in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington (2/25/04). She said, "The Republicans list something like 13 different weapon systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voting against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."
In his response, Dicks did what Woodruff, Brokaw and Blitzer had failed to do: He admitted that Kerry was being attacked for a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. No member of the media trio pointed out that 16 senators voted against that bill, including five Republicans, or that 10 of the 13 purported votes against military spending were part of the 1991 defense appropriations bill.
Woodruff was so caught off guard by Dicks' response that she said, "Are you saying that all these weapon systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"
That's exactly what he was saying.
Vice President Cheney told Fox News' Brit Hume: "What we're concerned about, what I am concerned about, is (Kerry's) record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicated a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."
Hume failed to note that Cheney was criticizing Kerry for a position he had taken around that same period.
In fact, Fred Kaplan of Slate, the online site, noted that Cheney served as the elder George Bush's secretary of defense. He quotes Cheney as telling Congress during that period: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements."
He was particularly critical of members of Congress who engage in pork barrel politics by pressuring the Defense Department to move forward on the development of the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters and other weapons that "we have enough of."
Although military spending represents only 20 percent of the federal budget, it eats up approximately half of all federal discretionary spending.
With so much being spent on the military, growing federal deficits fueled by tax cuts that primarily benefits the wealthy, Bush is particularly vulnerable on domestic issues. A recent USA Today/CNN poll shows Kerry leading Bush 52 percent to 44 percent, largely because the public believes Kerry will do a better job of handling such issues as the economy, health care, education and Social Security. Bush's overall rating in the USA Today poll was 49 percent, matching his lowest rating in late January.
Republicans plan to spend $133 million over the next few months to "redefine" Senator Kerry. If this is typical of the way they plan to do that, they are not trying to "redefine" Kerry, they are trying to mis-define him.
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. His most recent book is "The Best of Emerge Magazine," an anthology published by Ballantine Books. He can be reached through his Web site, georgecurry.com.
____________________________________________________________________
By George E. Curry | SACOBSERVER.COM WIRE SERVICES
(NNPA) - With public opinion polls showing that if the presidential election were held today, Sen. John Kerry would defeat President George Bush, Republicans have launched a Big Lie campaign to distort the presumptive Democratic nominee's record on military spending. Obviously, they believe that if you tell the same lie over and over, people will eventually believe it.
That would be bad enough. But to make matters worse, some of the country's best journalists are allowing these lies to go unchallenged.
Research by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a New York-based media monitoring organization, reports that Kerry is being depicted as one who is repeatedly voting against military funding when that's not the case.
For example, the report notes that Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition and now a Bush-Cheney campaign strategist, appeared on CNN (2/3/04) and described Kerry's record in the Senate as "voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, cutting another 18 programs, slashing intelligence spending by $2.5 billion, and voting to freeze defense spending for seven years."
Blitzer reacted by turning to Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee and saying, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's been some opposition research done."
NBC anchor Tom Brokaw swallowed the line when he said on MSNBC (3/2/04), "…the vice president just today was talking about (Kerry's) votes against the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and also weapons systems. Isn't he going to be very vulnerable come the fall when national security is such a big issue in this country?"
The usually reliable Judy Woodruff was transformed into a parrot in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington (2/25/04). She said, "The Republicans list something like 13 different weapon systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voting against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."
In his response, Dicks did what Woodruff, Brokaw and Blitzer had failed to do: He admitted that Kerry was being attacked for a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. No member of the media trio pointed out that 16 senators voted against that bill, including five Republicans, or that 10 of the 13 purported votes against military spending were part of the 1991 defense appropriations bill.
Woodruff was so caught off guard by Dicks' response that she said, "Are you saying that all these weapon systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"
That's exactly what he was saying.
Vice President Cheney told Fox News' Brit Hume: "What we're concerned about, what I am concerned about, is (Kerry's) record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicated a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."
Hume failed to note that Cheney was criticizing Kerry for a position he had taken around that same period.
In fact, Fred Kaplan of Slate, the online site, noted that Cheney served as the elder George Bush's secretary of defense. He quotes Cheney as telling Congress during that period: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements."
He was particularly critical of members of Congress who engage in pork barrel politics by pressuring the Defense Department to move forward on the development of the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters and other weapons that "we have enough of."
Although military spending represents only 20 percent of the federal budget, it eats up approximately half of all federal discretionary spending.
With so much being spent on the military, growing federal deficits fueled by tax cuts that primarily benefits the wealthy, Bush is particularly vulnerable on domestic issues. A recent USA Today/CNN poll shows Kerry leading Bush 52 percent to 44 percent, largely because the public believes Kerry will do a better job of handling such issues as the economy, health care, education and Social Security. Bush's overall rating in the USA Today poll was 49 percent, matching his lowest rating in late January.
Republicans plan to spend $133 million over the next few months to "redefine" Senator Kerry. If this is typical of the way they plan to do that, they are not trying to "redefine" Kerry, they are trying to mis-define him.
George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. His most recent book is "The Best of Emerge Magazine," an anthology published by Ballantine Books. He can be reached through his Web site, georgecurry.com.
____________________________________________________________________
One Year After
The New York Times | Editorial
Friday 19 March 2004
One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate.
This is a good moment to take stock of what has been accomplished and what has not, especially since the day is rapidly approaching when the United States hopes to turn over the governing of Iraq to the leaders of the nation's three major ethnic or religious groups — who have shown no serious signs of being able to cooperate.
Grim Scenes From Iraq
In the short run, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its leader have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism. In Iraq, as in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and other countries, terrorist attacks have continued since the capture of Mr. Hussein. On Wednesday, and again yesterday, Americans saw on television news the flames and casualties from bombings in Baghdad and Basra by forces opposed to the American-led occupation, which have become more deadly and more sophisticated in response to every change in tactics by American soldiers. Indeed, the war in Iraq has diverted scarce resources from the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and other places.
For many Iraqis, freedom has come at a high price. In Baghdad, civilians line up at offices where the American military doles out money to compensate them for relatives killed, limbs lost and eyes blinded in the war. The innocent Iraqi casualties of Mr. Bush's war are literally countless because the Pentagon refuses to estimate their number.
Still, there have been important gains that are the basis of our hopes for the future.
A bloodthirsty dictator who tortured and murdered his people, and sacrificed their well-being to his gilded palaces, is locked up. An interim constitution has been adopted, a step toward laying the groundwork for a democratic government in Iraq, should the country's fractious groups ever resolve their differences. American-led efforts to rebuild Iraq have progressed to the point that some services are better than they were under Mr. Hussein, and Iraqis are starting to express satisfaction with how things are going. Iraq's power grid, for example, generates more electricity than ever.
Still, there are enormous gaps. According to the United States Agency for International Development, Iraq has a third less drinking water than it did before the war. And the pace of the rebuilding is alienating some Iraqis who clearly overestimated the powers and efficiency of the occupying forces. While some of that disappointment was inevitable, there was a bewildering lack of planning put into the occupation by an administration that seemed to believe its own talk about American soldiers' being greeted with flowers as an army of liberation.
The so-called surgical bombing did indeed limit damage to Iraq's civilian areas, but American troops did not come into Baghdad in enough force last April to deter the shocking sabotage and looting that occurred. In addition, the American government, under presidents from both parties, had spent 13 years in denial about the civilian toll of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. The Bush administration was unprepared for the total collapse of Iraq and for the disastrous state of crucial services.
Strains on the American Military
The American military's ability to deal with all of this — and supervise the construction of a new democracy — is declining by the week. Even with the current rotation, reducing American troop strength to 110,000 from 130,000, the Army, Marine, National Guard and Army Reserve forces cannot sustain the occupation.
Roughly one in three of the Army's 480,000 active-duty soldiers are on duty overseas, and an even higher proportion of its combat brigades are either in the field or have just returned. Rotations are spaced too closely together — some of the troops that took part in the invasion of Iraq are to return there later this year — and that cuts into training and readiness. The strain on the Reserves and the National Guard is already enormous. While sending more American troops to Iraq is not the answer, the United States does need a larger active Army.
For Iraq, the only answer is greater peacekeeping and police help through the United Nations, from nations as varied as France, India, Bangladesh, Russia and the Arab countries. These nations can provide more than the token forces the United States is getting from most of its current allies, but are unlikely to help until their citizens see real United Nations authority, transforming a military occupation into a legitimate exercise in international nation-building.
Some members of Mr. Bush's coalition are shaken by the electoral defeat of the Spanish government that joined the invasion despite the opposition of some 90 percent of its citizens. In Poland, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said yesterday that he might withdraw troops from Iraq next year earlier than planned, adding that Poland had been "misled" about Iraq's weapons programs.
Repairing the Diplomatic Damage
Winning the cooperation of countries like France and Russia will require the Bush administration to be far more serious about turning over real responsibility in Iraq to the United Nations and NATO. The United Nations is, commendably, no longer so hesitant about taking the lead in Iraq.
The Bush administration has barely begun the job of repairing the damage from its virtually unilateral rush to war last year. What the public and foreign leaders have learned about the way it managed the run-up to the invasion is only worsening the situation.
Asking a political leader to take his country to war in the teeth of overwhelming popular opposition is tough enough. Add to that a public that feels misinformed about the reasons for the war, and you've got political combustion. Polls show that a plurality of Americans say it was worth a war simply to remove a vicious dictator — an argument that Mr. Bush offered after it became obvious that his original justifications for the war were vaporous. But in Europe, there remains overwhelming popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong on Wednesday when he accused Spain of abandoning the war against terrorism by talking about withdrawing its forces from Iraq unless the U.N. becomes more involved. It's nonsensical to suggest that the Spanish people are appeasers, and doing so only isolates Washington further.
This page strongly opposed invading Iraq without international backing. The events since Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with only Britain as a major ally have further underscored the recklessness of this sort of adventurism.
It is not, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have argued in campaign speeches and commercials, a question of getting permission from the United Nations to do the right thing. It is a matter of listening to the reasonable objections of proven friends, like Germany, which was privately warning Washington about the quagmire that Iraq represented.
Stability for a Divided Iraq
The United States is now about 100 days away from June 30, when it hopes to turn Iraq's government over to Iraqis. As welcome as the adoption of the interim constitution was, it underscored how much more remains to be done before the Iraqis can begin to hope for a stable, workable leadership to govern their wounded country. So far, the United States has not found the formula for accomplishing what has in the past always seemed impossible: getting Iraq's majority Shiites, minority Sunnis and separatist Kurds to make real concessions and cooperate in governing Iraq. Days after compromising on the constitution, Shiite leaders were talking of amending it, and it took an ultimatum from Washington this week to make them back down.
Without any culture of trust and accommodation, any form of real elective democracy empowers the Shiites, reduces the influence of the Sunnis and once again leaves the Kurds, who have long wanted to break away from Iraq, at the mercy of people they do not trust. A Shiite-dominated Iraq may run into trouble with Iraq's Arab neighbors, who generally identify with the Sunni Iraqis, who dominate the country's military and ruling classes.
One temporary solution could be a prolonged period of Iraqi federalism imposed from the outside or an international trusteeship. Either, however, is likely to generate intense Iraqi opposition. Whatever model emerges, it must be guided by international bodies and not Washington alone.
In some ways, the prime-minister-in-waiting of Spain, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, did Mr. Bush a favor when he said he would withdraw Spain's symbolic military force from Iraq if the United Nations' role did not significantly increase after June 30. He has, in effect, given the president time to plan and to get cooperation from those countries that can contribute real forces. We hope the president uses this time to plan his next steps better than he planned the occupation.
___________________________________________________________________________
The New York Times | Editorial
Friday 19 March 2004
One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.
It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.
Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate.
This is a good moment to take stock of what has been accomplished and what has not, especially since the day is rapidly approaching when the United States hopes to turn over the governing of Iraq to the leaders of the nation's three major ethnic or religious groups — who have shown no serious signs of being able to cooperate.
Grim Scenes From Iraq
In the short run, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its leader have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism. In Iraq, as in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and other countries, terrorist attacks have continued since the capture of Mr. Hussein. On Wednesday, and again yesterday, Americans saw on television news the flames and casualties from bombings in Baghdad and Basra by forces opposed to the American-led occupation, which have become more deadly and more sophisticated in response to every change in tactics by American soldiers. Indeed, the war in Iraq has diverted scarce resources from the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and other places.
For many Iraqis, freedom has come at a high price. In Baghdad, civilians line up at offices where the American military doles out money to compensate them for relatives killed, limbs lost and eyes blinded in the war. The innocent Iraqi casualties of Mr. Bush's war are literally countless because the Pentagon refuses to estimate their number.
Still, there have been important gains that are the basis of our hopes for the future.
A bloodthirsty dictator who tortured and murdered his people, and sacrificed their well-being to his gilded palaces, is locked up. An interim constitution has been adopted, a step toward laying the groundwork for a democratic government in Iraq, should the country's fractious groups ever resolve their differences. American-led efforts to rebuild Iraq have progressed to the point that some services are better than they were under Mr. Hussein, and Iraqis are starting to express satisfaction with how things are going. Iraq's power grid, for example, generates more electricity than ever.
Still, there are enormous gaps. According to the United States Agency for International Development, Iraq has a third less drinking water than it did before the war. And the pace of the rebuilding is alienating some Iraqis who clearly overestimated the powers and efficiency of the occupying forces. While some of that disappointment was inevitable, there was a bewildering lack of planning put into the occupation by an administration that seemed to believe its own talk about American soldiers' being greeted with flowers as an army of liberation.
The so-called surgical bombing did indeed limit damage to Iraq's civilian areas, but American troops did not come into Baghdad in enough force last April to deter the shocking sabotage and looting that occurred. In addition, the American government, under presidents from both parties, had spent 13 years in denial about the civilian toll of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. The Bush administration was unprepared for the total collapse of Iraq and for the disastrous state of crucial services.
Strains on the American Military
The American military's ability to deal with all of this — and supervise the construction of a new democracy — is declining by the week. Even with the current rotation, reducing American troop strength to 110,000 from 130,000, the Army, Marine, National Guard and Army Reserve forces cannot sustain the occupation.
Roughly one in three of the Army's 480,000 active-duty soldiers are on duty overseas, and an even higher proportion of its combat brigades are either in the field or have just returned. Rotations are spaced too closely together — some of the troops that took part in the invasion of Iraq are to return there later this year — and that cuts into training and readiness. The strain on the Reserves and the National Guard is already enormous. While sending more American troops to Iraq is not the answer, the United States does need a larger active Army.
For Iraq, the only answer is greater peacekeeping and police help through the United Nations, from nations as varied as France, India, Bangladesh, Russia and the Arab countries. These nations can provide more than the token forces the United States is getting from most of its current allies, but are unlikely to help until their citizens see real United Nations authority, transforming a military occupation into a legitimate exercise in international nation-building.
Some members of Mr. Bush's coalition are shaken by the electoral defeat of the Spanish government that joined the invasion despite the opposition of some 90 percent of its citizens. In Poland, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said yesterday that he might withdraw troops from Iraq next year earlier than planned, adding that Poland had been "misled" about Iraq's weapons programs.
Repairing the Diplomatic Damage
Winning the cooperation of countries like France and Russia will require the Bush administration to be far more serious about turning over real responsibility in Iraq to the United Nations and NATO. The United Nations is, commendably, no longer so hesitant about taking the lead in Iraq.
The Bush administration has barely begun the job of repairing the damage from its virtually unilateral rush to war last year. What the public and foreign leaders have learned about the way it managed the run-up to the invasion is only worsening the situation.
Asking a political leader to take his country to war in the teeth of overwhelming popular opposition is tough enough. Add to that a public that feels misinformed about the reasons for the war, and you've got political combustion. Polls show that a plurality of Americans say it was worth a war simply to remove a vicious dictator — an argument that Mr. Bush offered after it became obvious that his original justifications for the war were vaporous. But in Europe, there remains overwhelming popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong on Wednesday when he accused Spain of abandoning the war against terrorism by talking about withdrawing its forces from Iraq unless the U.N. becomes more involved. It's nonsensical to suggest that the Spanish people are appeasers, and doing so only isolates Washington further.
This page strongly opposed invading Iraq without international backing. The events since Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with only Britain as a major ally have further underscored the recklessness of this sort of adventurism.
It is not, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have argued in campaign speeches and commercials, a question of getting permission from the United Nations to do the right thing. It is a matter of listening to the reasonable objections of proven friends, like Germany, which was privately warning Washington about the quagmire that Iraq represented.
Stability for a Divided Iraq
The United States is now about 100 days away from June 30, when it hopes to turn Iraq's government over to Iraqis. As welcome as the adoption of the interim constitution was, it underscored how much more remains to be done before the Iraqis can begin to hope for a stable, workable leadership to govern their wounded country. So far, the United States has not found the formula for accomplishing what has in the past always seemed impossible: getting Iraq's majority Shiites, minority Sunnis and separatist Kurds to make real concessions and cooperate in governing Iraq. Days after compromising on the constitution, Shiite leaders were talking of amending it, and it took an ultimatum from Washington this week to make them back down.
Without any culture of trust and accommodation, any form of real elective democracy empowers the Shiites, reduces the influence of the Sunnis and once again leaves the Kurds, who have long wanted to break away from Iraq, at the mercy of people they do not trust. A Shiite-dominated Iraq may run into trouble with Iraq's Arab neighbors, who generally identify with the Sunni Iraqis, who dominate the country's military and ruling classes.
One temporary solution could be a prolonged period of Iraqi federalism imposed from the outside or an international trusteeship. Either, however, is likely to generate intense Iraqi opposition. Whatever model emerges, it must be guided by international bodies and not Washington alone.
In some ways, the prime-minister-in-waiting of Spain, José Luis RodrÃguez Zapatero, did Mr. Bush a favor when he said he would withdraw Spain's symbolic military force from Iraq if the United Nations' role did not significantly increase after June 30. He has, in effect, given the president time to plan and to get cooperation from those countries that can contribute real forces. We hope the president uses this time to plan his next steps better than he planned the occupation.
___________________________________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com
Foster: White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data
HHS Actuary Feels Bush Aide Put Hold on Medicare Data
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A02
Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.
Foster has said publicly in recent days that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative requests for information about prescription drug bills pending in Congress. In an interview last night, Foster went further, saying that he understood Scully to be acting at times on White House instructions, probably coming from Bush's senior health policy adviser.
Foster said that he did not have concrete proof of a White House role, but that his inference was based on the nature of several conversations he had with Scully over data that Congress had asked for and that Foster wanted to release. "I just remember Tom being upset, saying he was caught in the middle. It was like he was getting dumped on," Foster said.
Foster added that he believed, but did not know for certain, that Scully had been referring to Doug Badger, the senior health policy analyst. He said that he concluded that Badger probably was involved because he was the White House official most steeped in the administration's negotiations with Congress over Medicare legislation enacted late last year and because Badger was intimately familiar with the analyses his office produced.
The account by Foster, a longtime civil servant who has been the Medicare program's chief actuary for nine years, diverges sharply from the explanations of why cost estimates were withheld that were given this week by White House spokesmen and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. They suggested that Scully, who left for jobs with law and investment firms four months ago, had acted unilaterally and that he was chastised by his superiors when they learned of the blocked information and the threat.
Two days ago, Thompson told reporters: "Tom Scully was running this. Tom Scully was making those decisions." Thompson said the administration did not have final cost estimates until late December predicting that the law would cost $534 billion over 10 years, $139 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's prediction. Foster has said his own analyses as early as last spring showed that the legislation's cost would exceed $500 billion.
Last night, White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said, "It is my understanding that Mr. Badger did not in any way ask anyone to withhold information from Congress or pressure anyone to do the same." Duffy said he asked Badger this week whether he had done so and that Badger replied he had not. Duffy said that Badger was traveling last night and was unreachable to comment. Calls to his home were not returned.
Foster suggested the White House had been involved as new details emerged of the manner in which he had been threatened. The actuary released an e-mail, dated last June 20, from Scully's top assistant at the time regarding one GOP request and two Democratic requests for information about the impact of provisions of the Medicare bill on which the House would vote a week later.
In a bold-faced section of the three-paragraph note -- reported in yesterday's Wall Street Journal -- Scully's assistant, Jeffrey Flick, instructed Foster to answer the Republican's question but warned him not to disclose answers to the Democratic queries "with anyone else until Tom Scully explicitly talks with you -- authorizing release of information. The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe."
The warning came in response to an e-mail Foster had sent to Scully that same Friday afternoon, 22 minutes earlier, in which he said the three questions "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information that would be useful in assessing drug and competition provisions in the House reform package." Foster offered in that e-mail to show Scully his proposed replies in advance.
Flick, who now oversees the Medicare agency's regional office in San Francisco, did not return several phone calls.
Scully was out of town and did not respond to efforts to reach him via e-mail last night. He said in an interview this week that he and Foster had disagreed over how helpful an executive branch employee needed to be to Congress. He called it "a separation of powers issue."
In 1997 budget legislation, Congress sought unsuccessfully to require the Medicare actuary to respond to all of its requests. Such language was included in a conference report on the bill but does not carry the force of law.
Foster said that the e-mail was the only instance in which he had been explicitly threatened in writing, but that "there were other instances in which Tom in an e-mail or just over the phone would clearly be unhappy and would say less formally something to the effect, 'If you want to work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange that.' "
The actuary said that in June 2001, shortly after Scully arrived, he directed Foster to send weekly reports of any requests for information he had received from Capitol Hill or elsewhere in the administration.
Congressional Democrats yesterday called for the General Accounting Office to investigate the episode. Thompson announced Tuesday he had ordered HHS's inspector general to conduct an inquiry.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________________________________________
Foster: White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data
HHS Actuary Feels Bush Aide Put Hold on Medicare Data
By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A02
Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.
Foster has said publicly in recent days that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative requests for information about prescription drug bills pending in Congress. In an interview last night, Foster went further, saying that he understood Scully to be acting at times on White House instructions, probably coming from Bush's senior health policy adviser.
Foster said that he did not have concrete proof of a White House role, but that his inference was based on the nature of several conversations he had with Scully over data that Congress had asked for and that Foster wanted to release. "I just remember Tom being upset, saying he was caught in the middle. It was like he was getting dumped on," Foster said.
Foster added that he believed, but did not know for certain, that Scully had been referring to Doug Badger, the senior health policy analyst. He said that he concluded that Badger probably was involved because he was the White House official most steeped in the administration's negotiations with Congress over Medicare legislation enacted late last year and because Badger was intimately familiar with the analyses his office produced.
The account by Foster, a longtime civil servant who has been the Medicare program's chief actuary for nine years, diverges sharply from the explanations of why cost estimates were withheld that were given this week by White House spokesmen and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. They suggested that Scully, who left for jobs with law and investment firms four months ago, had acted unilaterally and that he was chastised by his superiors when they learned of the blocked information and the threat.
Two days ago, Thompson told reporters: "Tom Scully was running this. Tom Scully was making those decisions." Thompson said the administration did not have final cost estimates until late December predicting that the law would cost $534 billion over 10 years, $139 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's prediction. Foster has said his own analyses as early as last spring showed that the legislation's cost would exceed $500 billion.
Last night, White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said, "It is my understanding that Mr. Badger did not in any way ask anyone to withhold information from Congress or pressure anyone to do the same." Duffy said he asked Badger this week whether he had done so and that Badger replied he had not. Duffy said that Badger was traveling last night and was unreachable to comment. Calls to his home were not returned.
Foster suggested the White House had been involved as new details emerged of the manner in which he had been threatened. The actuary released an e-mail, dated last June 20, from Scully's top assistant at the time regarding one GOP request and two Democratic requests for information about the impact of provisions of the Medicare bill on which the House would vote a week later.
In a bold-faced section of the three-paragraph note -- reported in yesterday's Wall Street Journal -- Scully's assistant, Jeffrey Flick, instructed Foster to answer the Republican's question but warned him not to disclose answers to the Democratic queries "with anyone else until Tom Scully explicitly talks with you -- authorizing release of information. The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe."
The warning came in response to an e-mail Foster had sent to Scully that same Friday afternoon, 22 minutes earlier, in which he said the three questions "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information that would be useful in assessing drug and competition provisions in the House reform package." Foster offered in that e-mail to show Scully his proposed replies in advance.
Flick, who now oversees the Medicare agency's regional office in San Francisco, did not return several phone calls.
Scully was out of town and did not respond to efforts to reach him via e-mail last night. He said in an interview this week that he and Foster had disagreed over how helpful an executive branch employee needed to be to Congress. He called it "a separation of powers issue."
In 1997 budget legislation, Congress sought unsuccessfully to require the Medicare actuary to respond to all of its requests. Such language was included in a conference report on the bill but does not carry the force of law.
Foster said that the e-mail was the only instance in which he had been explicitly threatened in writing, but that "there were other instances in which Tom in an e-mail or just over the phone would clearly be unhappy and would say less formally something to the effect, 'If you want to work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange that.' "
The actuary said that in June 2001, shortly after Scully arrived, he directed Foster to send weekly reports of any requests for information he had received from Capitol Hill or elsewhere in the administration.
Congressional Democrats yesterday called for the General Accounting Office to investigate the episode. Thompson announced Tuesday he had ordered HHS's inspector general to conduct an inquiry.
© 2004 The Washington Post Company
_____________________________________________________________________________
FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET
Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.
The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
Clark, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."
Developing...
______________________________________________________________________
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET
Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.
Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.
The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.
Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.
Clark, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."
Developing...
______________________________________________________________________
March 19, 2004
Bush-Approved Lie About Kerry's Support for the Troops
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen
The Bush campaign's most recent TV ad attacking John Kerry's vote against supporting our troops is a bald-faced lie.
That ad specifically refers to Senate Bill 1689 passed on 10/17/ 2003
Broadly speaking, it was for the appropriation of $87 BILLION to fund the occupation of Iraq.
The Bush camp has captioned what amounts to a short "clip" of that legislation for the purpose of selling their lie. Senators Kerry, Byrd, and others were actually for the full funding of the troops, but were, in that one Roll Call vote, attempting to place some oversight and accountability for those expenditures by forcing a vote which would have required it.
Because the GOP rubberstamp machine basically wanted to issue Bush's War Department a blank check, their attempt failed. And as a result of that failure, all that cash is now being pissed away on who-knows-what.
For an accurate grasp on how it all went down, check this:
"I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check."- excerpt Robert S. Byrd, October 17, 2003.
Read it and weep for the truth.
Byrd, Kerry, and a handful of other Senators were boldly trying to force Congressional oversight of those expenditures. Wouldn't it have been nice to place some fiscal responsibility over how that $87 BILLION was to be spent, given the rising stories of unchecked spending by the Administration's "rebuilding" contractors?
Before CEO Bush grabbed the reigns of the GOP, fiscal responsibility was one of the mainstays of the Conservative agenda. But thanks to our present Administration and its rubberstamping Congress, we're now facing deficits as far as the eye can see. Each and every baby born in America today is facing a $30,000.00+ debt because their unquestioning support of the Bush Administration agenda of wild deficit spending.
Comparing the date on the legislation to which the ad obliquely refers with the date Bush unleashed his blitzkrieg on Baghdad, I'd say that Bush has actually approved of an ad which proves that he basically sent the troops in ill-equipped.
Based on that simple fact, can any Bush supporter actually say that it was COMMENDABLE that Bush sent those troops into battle ill-equipped for seven months before Congress finally approved of the funds for adequate equipment?
And as a self-professed Christian, didn't Bush break God's Holy Word to never bear false witness against another? Or does all his Christianity fly the window when it comes to campaigning-Texas-style?
Here's an idea. To avoid such embarrassing "mistakes" in the future, Bush GOPeratives should advertise only positive messages of the good legislation that they're proposing in the future. What's could go wrong with sticking to the truth?
Like Gee Dubya's idea of sending Halliburton to Mars [Petroleum News], relaxing the Mexican border security [WJLA.com], his bold plan for curtailing the export of American jobs [Seattle Post-Intelligencer], and making permanent those tax cuts for the rich [New York Times], his future promises for requiring corporate responsibility [BuzzFlash.com], and legislating more secure marriages for heterosexuals.
That's the ticket.
- One Citizen
______________________________________________________________________________
Bush-Approved Lie About Kerry's Support for the Troops
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen
The Bush campaign's most recent TV ad attacking John Kerry's vote against supporting our troops is a bald-faced lie.
That ad specifically refers to Senate Bill 1689 passed on 10/17/ 2003
Broadly speaking, it was for the appropriation of $87 BILLION to fund the occupation of Iraq.
The Bush camp has captioned what amounts to a short "clip" of that legislation for the purpose of selling their lie. Senators Kerry, Byrd, and others were actually for the full funding of the troops, but were, in that one Roll Call vote, attempting to place some oversight and accountability for those expenditures by forcing a vote which would have required it.
Because the GOP rubberstamp machine basically wanted to issue Bush's War Department a blank check, their attempt failed. And as a result of that failure, all that cash is now being pissed away on who-knows-what.
For an accurate grasp on how it all went down, check this:
"I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check."- excerpt Robert S. Byrd, October 17, 2003.
Read it and weep for the truth.
Byrd, Kerry, and a handful of other Senators were boldly trying to force Congressional oversight of those expenditures. Wouldn't it have been nice to place some fiscal responsibility over how that $87 BILLION was to be spent, given the rising stories of unchecked spending by the Administration's "rebuilding" contractors?
Before CEO Bush grabbed the reigns of the GOP, fiscal responsibility was one of the mainstays of the Conservative agenda. But thanks to our present Administration and its rubberstamping Congress, we're now facing deficits as far as the eye can see. Each and every baby born in America today is facing a $30,000.00+ debt because their unquestioning support of the Bush Administration agenda of wild deficit spending.
Comparing the date on the legislation to which the ad obliquely refers with the date Bush unleashed his blitzkrieg on Baghdad, I'd say that Bush has actually approved of an ad which proves that he basically sent the troops in ill-equipped.
Based on that simple fact, can any Bush supporter actually say that it was COMMENDABLE that Bush sent those troops into battle ill-equipped for seven months before Congress finally approved of the funds for adequate equipment?
And as a self-professed Christian, didn't Bush break God's Holy Word to never bear false witness against another? Or does all his Christianity fly the window when it comes to campaigning-Texas-style?
Here's an idea. To avoid such embarrassing "mistakes" in the future, Bush GOPeratives should advertise only positive messages of the good legislation that they're proposing in the future. What's could go wrong with sticking to the truth?
Like Gee Dubya's idea of sending Halliburton to Mars [Petroleum News], relaxing the Mexican border security [WJLA.com], his bold plan for curtailing the export of American jobs [Seattle Post-Intelligencer], and making permanent those tax cuts for the rich [New York Times], his future promises for requiring corporate responsibility [BuzzFlash.com], and legislating more secure marriages for heterosexuals.
That's the ticket.
- One Citizen
______________________________________________________________________________
March 19, 2004
Give us the names, dammit!
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Turk Meister
George (AWOL) Bush and Dick (Deferment) Cheney have both been saying that if in fact John Kerry spoke to foreign leaders, he should say who they are so we will know that he is not "making it up." Obviously, these guys think everyone behaves as they do. In spite of the fact that it has now been proven that Kerry didn’t say "foreign" leaders, but said "more" leaders according to Patrick Healy’s mea culpa, Bush and Cheney still inaccurately quote Kerry to diminish his credibility and admonish him to name names. One really has to laugh at this one! Well, anyway, I have some names I would like named as well.
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the names of the Saudis who were allowed to leave this country within hours of the 911 attacks while all other non-military flights were grounded? Do you or your family have any business ties with those you permitted to depart without being adequately interviewed by the FBI? If so, what are the names of these business entities?
Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the names of the members of your Energy Task Force or will you continue to pin your hopes of non-disclosure on the activist (crooked) judges on the Supreme Court?
Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who committed an act of treason against our country during a time of war (of choice) by giving CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to that no good traitor Robert Novak?
Mr. Hastert: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who first tried to bribe and then tried to extort votes on the Medicare Bill?
Mr. Bush: During the 2000 campaign you derided Bill Clinton for "renting out" the Lincoln Bedroom. Can you give us the names of the people you’ve had stay over and can you somehow distinguish your practice of "sleepovers" from those of your predecessor which you denounced?
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons whose funerals you’ve attended after they were killed in your vanity war?
Can anyone give us the names of the brave soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and later succumbed to their injuries so that we can add their number to the obscene but fraudulent death count?
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of anyone who saw you performing your duties for the ANG in Alabama other than the guy who says he saw you there at times when you were supposedly still in Texas?
Turk Meister
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Give us the names, dammit!
A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Turk Meister
George (AWOL) Bush and Dick (Deferment) Cheney have both been saying that if in fact John Kerry spoke to foreign leaders, he should say who they are so we will know that he is not "making it up." Obviously, these guys think everyone behaves as they do. In spite of the fact that it has now been proven that Kerry didn’t say "foreign" leaders, but said "more" leaders according to Patrick Healy’s mea culpa, Bush and Cheney still inaccurately quote Kerry to diminish his credibility and admonish him to name names. One really has to laugh at this one! Well, anyway, I have some names I would like named as well.
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the names of the Saudis who were allowed to leave this country within hours of the 911 attacks while all other non-military flights were grounded? Do you or your family have any business ties with those you permitted to depart without being adequately interviewed by the FBI? If so, what are the names of these business entities?
Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the names of the members of your Energy Task Force or will you continue to pin your hopes of non-disclosure on the activist (crooked) judges on the Supreme Court?
Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who committed an act of treason against our country during a time of war (of choice) by giving CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to that no good traitor Robert Novak?
Mr. Hastert: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who first tried to bribe and then tried to extort votes on the Medicare Bill?
Mr. Bush: During the 2000 campaign you derided Bill Clinton for "renting out" the Lincoln Bedroom. Can you give us the names of the people you’ve had stay over and can you somehow distinguish your practice of "sleepovers" from those of your predecessor which you denounced?
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons whose funerals you’ve attended after they were killed in your vanity war?
Can anyone give us the names of the brave soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and later succumbed to their injuries so that we can add their number to the obscene but fraudulent death count?
Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of anyone who saw you performing your duties for the ANG in Alabama other than the guy who says he saw you there at times when you were supposedly still in Texas?
Turk Meister
_______________________________________________________________________________________
Elizabeth Cheney, Deferment Baby
How Dick Cheney dodged the Vietnam draft.
By Timothy Noah
SLATE Posted Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 2:09 PM PT
"[T]he Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Vice President Dick Cheney said during a March 17 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. He was talking, of course, about John Kerry, the putative Democratic presidential nominee. During the past three years, we've all become better acquainted with Vice President Cheney's judgment and attitude toward national security, which are a good deal more hawkish than Kerry's. A widely observed irony is that the dovish Kerry saw combat in Vietnam while the hawkish Cheney accepted a series of student and family-related draft deferments. Cheney's unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
What Chatterbox never realized until recently, however, is that Cheney's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, likely owes her very existence to her father's avoidance of the Vietnam draft.
The Washington Post's Phil McCombs made the intimate calculations in a profile published in April 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary. The timeline:
Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.
May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."
July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.
Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.
Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.
July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.
Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.
Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney's birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!
Who says government policy can't affect human behavior?
______________________________________________________________
How Dick Cheney dodged the Vietnam draft.
By Timothy Noah
SLATE Posted Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 2:09 PM PT
"[T]he Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Vice President Dick Cheney said during a March 17 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. He was talking, of course, about John Kerry, the putative Democratic presidential nominee. During the past three years, we've all become better acquainted with Vice President Cheney's judgment and attitude toward national security, which are a good deal more hawkish than Kerry's. A widely observed irony is that the dovish Kerry saw combat in Vietnam while the hawkish Cheney accepted a series of student and family-related draft deferments. Cheney's unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."
What Chatterbox never realized until recently, however, is that Cheney's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, likely owes her very existence to her father's avoidance of the Vietnam draft.
The Washington Post's Phil McCombs made the intimate calculations in a profile published in April 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary. The timeline:
Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.
May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."
July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.
Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.
Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.
July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.
Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.
Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney's birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!
Who says government policy can't affect human behavior?
______________________________________________________________
Bush campaign gear made in Burma
His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.
BY LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITER
March 18, 2004, 9:49 PM EST
The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.
The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.
The Bush merchandise is handled by Spalding Group, a 20-year-old supplier of campaign products and services in Louisville, Ky., that says it worked for the last five Republican presidential nominees.
Ted Jackson, Spalding's president, said, "We have found only one other in our inventory that was made in Burma. The others were made in the U.S.A." He said the company had about 60 of thefleece pullovers in its warehouse, and that a supplier included the Burma product by mistake.
Bush campaign officials did not return calls seeking comment. The imports are potentially an issue because outsourcing has become a hot political topic in the election.
Bush last July signed into law the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, saying "The United States will not waver from its commitment to the cause of democracy and human rights in Burma."
Violators of the import ban are subject to fines and jail, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Burmese textile workers earn as little as 7 cents per hour, according to the National Labor Committee, a human rights group.
"If it is true, it is very contradictory because the sanctions were imposed by the Bush administration," said Bo Hla-Tint, a spokesman for the Burmese government-in-exile in Washington, D.C.
Spalding, which works exclusively with Republican candidates at both local and national levels, tries to order American-made products, Jackson said. "Our first effort is always to source things from the U.S., but not a lot of garments are made in the U.S. Friday," he said. He said all embroidery is done in the United States...
Sam here. Yeah, but the Kerry campaign uses ONLY American made campaign materials. It's not easy but if you REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICAN WORKERS you do it.
_________________________________________________________________
His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.
BY LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITER
March 18, 2004, 9:49 PM EST
The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.
The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.
The Bush merchandise is handled by Spalding Group, a 20-year-old supplier of campaign products and services in Louisville, Ky., that says it worked for the last five Republican presidential nominees.
Ted Jackson, Spalding's president, said, "We have found only one other in our inventory that was made in Burma. The others were made in the U.S.A." He said the company had about 60 of thefleece pullovers in its warehouse, and that a supplier included the Burma product by mistake.
Bush campaign officials did not return calls seeking comment. The imports are potentially an issue because outsourcing has become a hot political topic in the election.
Bush last July signed into law the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, saying "The United States will not waver from its commitment to the cause of democracy and human rights in Burma."
Violators of the import ban are subject to fines and jail, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.
Burmese textile workers earn as little as 7 cents per hour, according to the National Labor Committee, a human rights group.
"If it is true, it is very contradictory because the sanctions were imposed by the Bush administration," said Bo Hla-Tint, a spokesman for the Burmese government-in-exile in Washington, D.C.
Spalding, which works exclusively with Republican candidates at both local and national levels, tries to order American-made products, Jackson said. "Our first effort is always to source things from the U.S., but not a lot of garments are made in the U.S. Friday," he said. He said all embroidery is done in the United States...
Sam here. Yeah, but the Kerry campaign uses ONLY American made campaign materials. It's not easy but if you REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICAN WORKERS you do it.
_________________________________________________________________
Thursday, March 18, 2004
Let's look at the evidence. Two leaders who avoided serving in war are attempting to smear a leader who has fought and bled for this country. Two leaders who have made money off of war through business (Bush's daddy has made millions off of his defense industry investments and Cheney ran Halliburton and is STILL receiving money from them while in office!) are smearing a leader who has questioned throwing money at the defense industry over providing it for soldiers. So now another leader who has fought and bled for this country and was a P.O.W. for several years in Viet Nam speaks out for Kerry. A GOP leader.
McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense
Thu Mar 18,11:28 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."
Republicans, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have sharply criticized Kerry on a range of defense and security issues, including not supporting the war in Iraq, voting against a measure to provide the war effort $87 billion, and voting against weapons systems critical to waging war.
"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Cheney said in a speech Wednesday.
Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."
When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."
McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS.
McCain and Kerry, both decorated Navy veterans of the Vietnam War, have worked together on veterans issues in the Senate. Although McCain said last week he would consider an offer from Kerry to be his running mate, McCain's office later issued a statement saying he would not run with Kerry.
"I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday.
_______________________________________________________________________
McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense
Thu Mar 18,11:28 AM ET
WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.
"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."
Republicans, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have sharply criticized Kerry on a range of defense and security issues, including not supporting the war in Iraq, voting against a measure to provide the war effort $87 billion, and voting against weapons systems critical to waging war.
"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Cheney said in a speech Wednesday.
Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."
When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."
McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS.
McCain and Kerry, both decorated Navy veterans of the Vietnam War, have worked together on veterans issues in the Senate. Although McCain said last week he would consider an offer from Kerry to be his running mate, McCain's office later issued a statement saying he would not run with Kerry.
"I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday.
_______________________________________________________________________
Wednesday, March 17, 2004
When you want a quick example of bald-faced LYING by a leading government figure responsible for the war in Iraq, just cleck HERE.
No bull$#@*, just a major Bush player getting caught straight up in a lie while back-pedaling during an election year. It would be funny if American soldiers weren't dying and the Middle Class wasn't being saddled with billions of dollars of debt to pay for Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the special interests that he serves.
No bull$#@*, just a major Bush player getting caught straight up in a lie while back-pedaling during an election year. It would be funny if American soldiers weren't dying and the Middle Class wasn't being saddled with billions of dollars of debt to pay for Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the special interests that he serves.
Tuesday, March 16, 2004
BUSH DISHONESTY TAKES CENTER STAGE
President Bush attacked his opponents today, saying, "If you're going to
make an accusation, you ought to back it up with facts." (1) But on
everything from the economy to national security, this high standard stands
in sharp contrast to the president's own behavior.
On Iraq, President Bush said before the war that Iraq "recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (2) despite the CIA
previously warning the White House not to make this factually inaccurate
statement (3). He also said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues
to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised" (4) despite receiving
repeated warnings that there was little hard evidence Iraq possessed weapons
of mass destruction after 1991 (5). He even said that "we found the weapons
of mass destruction" when none had been found (6).
On economic policy, President Bush said that, with his tax plan, "by far the
vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the
economic ladder." (7) In fact, according to Congress' bipartisan Joint
Committee on Taxation, households making less than $40,000 - roughly the
bottom half of the economic ladder - would receive only 10 percent of Bush's
income tax cut.
On the budget, President Bush said, "This nation has got a deficit because
we have been through a war." (8) He said this two months after his own
budget acknowledged that his economic policies and tax cuts for the
wealthy - not the war - were what created the largest deficits in American
history. (9)
Source:
1. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Balkenende of the
Netherlands in a Photo Opportunity, 03/16/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22469.
2. State of the Union, 01/28/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22470.
3. "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA", Washington Post, 07/23/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22471.
4. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours,
03/17/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22472.
5. "Doubts, dissent stripped from public Iraq assessment", Mercury News,
02/09/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22473.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 05/29/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22474.
7. "Serial Exaggerators", Fair.Org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22475.
8. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, 04/24/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22476.
Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22477 >
__________________________________________________________
President Bush attacked his opponents today, saying, "If you're going to
make an accusation, you ought to back it up with facts." (1) But on
everything from the economy to national security, this high standard stands
in sharp contrast to the president's own behavior.
On Iraq, President Bush said before the war that Iraq "recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (2) despite the CIA
previously warning the White House not to make this factually inaccurate
statement (3). He also said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues
to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised" (4) despite receiving
repeated warnings that there was little hard evidence Iraq possessed weapons
of mass destruction after 1991 (5). He even said that "we found the weapons
of mass destruction" when none had been found (6).
On economic policy, President Bush said that, with his tax plan, "by far the
vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the
economic ladder." (7) In fact, according to Congress' bipartisan Joint
Committee on Taxation, households making less than $40,000 - roughly the
bottom half of the economic ladder - would receive only 10 percent of Bush's
income tax cut.
On the budget, President Bush said, "This nation has got a deficit because
we have been through a war." (8) He said this two months after his own
budget acknowledged that his economic policies and tax cuts for the
wealthy - not the war - were what created the largest deficits in American
history. (9)
Source:
1. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Balkenende of the
Netherlands in a Photo Opportunity, 03/16/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22469.
2. State of the Union, 01/28/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22470.
3. "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA", Washington Post, 07/23/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22471.
4. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours,
03/17/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22472.
5. "Doubts, dissent stripped from public Iraq assessment", Mercury News,
02/09/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22473.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 05/29/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22474.
7. "Serial Exaggerators", Fair.Org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22475.
8. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, 04/24/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22476.
Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22477 >
__________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)