I don't agree with Fineman (below) on all his points about Kerry and his campaign but I do think he's right on how the political winds are gathering behind Kerry's back. I've been to see Kerry speak at several occassions now and at each one he's hit the right notes on the issues and comes across as a LEADER you can trust as knowledgeable and committed to making REAL CHANGE in our country's direction for the better over Bush's neo-con fanaticism and corporate fawning.
Here's what is going to happen to Kerry's campaign in the next few months. First off, the "regular" American Voter is dealing with the fun of summer and all that jazz while politics is strictly white noise in the background. The only political issues they will be caring about is how gasoline prices have gotten so high and what summer fun activities it has curtailed. This along with inflation rising on food and goods will be the talk around the "cracker barrel." Kerry step out soon and picks a VP and that will become BIG NEWS. Clinton's book comes out in June and he'll attack the GOP's failures (and of course, defending Clinton's successes) and that will be BIG NEWS. And with Clinton on the PR stump for the book you can expect REALLY BIG NEWS. Clinton will be cheerleading for Kerry leading into the Democratic convention and then the convention becomes BIG NEWS. In the meantime the Bush/Rove Attack Machine throws money in attack ads at Kerry (Live with it). The Iraq war grows worse and that is BIG NEWS. At that time the American Voter begins to wake up from summer's thrall as he begins to realize the election is not far away. Bush has shrunk into a much smaller leader over the summer and his base has grown more disgusted with his falling poll numbers and leadership. Kerry has Clinton leading the cheerleader section behind him with a united Democratic base. When the debates happen Kerry destroys Bush both on the issues and in who looks like a president verses who plays the puppet on TV. Kerry wins the election decisively and Bush is sent packing to Crawford. So with that in mind here's Fineman's current election assessment.
Timing Is Everything
And John Kerry's has always been perfect. In this election, a wave created by the chaos in Iraq might carry the Democrat straight to the White House
By Howard Fineman
Newsweek
Updated: 6:03 p.m. ET May 12, 2004
May 12 - John Kerry loves windsurfing, loves it so much he once made the cover of a glossy magazine devoted to the sport. As I report on his presidential campaign, it occurs to me that windsurfing symbolizes his political career—and the strategic theory that could bring him victory in November. For John Kerry doesn’t expect to be admired, let alone beloved. He doesn’t mind being labeled a “flip-flopper.” Indeed, windsurfing is just that: a constant maneuver to fill your sail. Kerry aims to catch the wind—and the drift of history. The war in Iraq is a hurricane, and Kerry hopes to ride it into office.
Kerry’s theory of this campaign is pretty straightforward: to be the guy people have no choice but to vote for on Nov. 2. Not because he has a stirring new vision (he doesn’t); not because he’s such a darned likable guy (he isn’t); but because circumstances are such that fair-minded “swing” voters have no choice but to pick him. He’s not running against the war, per se, but as the nobleman at the end of the Shakespeare play, a beacon of sanity on the battlefield.
An odd mixture of arrogance and self-abnegation, Kerry is under no illusions that voters will embrace him in a personal way. (Sam note: I think voters want a LEADER tested in battle, not a back-slapping former cheerleader and ill-tempered momma's boy whose smarts are in question) At a meeting with fund-raisers in New York the other month, he declared that his goal was to weather a wave of attacks and “preserve my acceptability.” There you have his strategy in its clinical glory: They don’t have to love me, they don’t even have to like me. If I am in the right place at the right time (and am “acceptable”) they will choose me.
For whatever reason, Kerry always has yearned to be the designated leader, and he doesn’t care if people don’t like him as long as he gets the certified role. He was an outsider in prep school, but got to give the big speech. He was regarded as too hungry at Yale, but ran the Yale Political Union anyway. In ’Nam, he commanded the Swift Boat; back home, the antiwar boat. He’s not beloved in Boston, but they kept electing him. His timing was almost always superb. He beat a popular Republican governor in 1996—in a year when Massachusetts went overwhelmingly for Bill Clinton over Bob Dole.
He has been waiting for his moment for years. He once told me with pride that every other Democrat in his “class”—meaning his Senate class of 1984—already had run. Now it was his turn. He felt he was entitled now; more important, the moment felt right. He began running the instant the Supreme Court ruled in favor of George W. Bush. The country, Kerry thought, was ready.
From the start, Kerry has known that perhaps his biggest obstacle is his image (much of it justified) as a class Massachusetts liberal. From the start, he pointed to evidence that went against the grain: his time as a prosecutor, his valor in the war, his ability to handle a shotgun on a hunting trip, his support for Clinton’s welfare reform. Along the way, he abandoned his down-the-line opposition to the death penalty and became a more ardent supporter of tax cuts.
Most famously, Kerry voted for the Iraq resolution in 2002 and then against the $87 billion for it in 2003 and then pointed out that he had voted for an alternative version of that bill before finally voting against it. Talk about tacking ...
But politics is a game of comparison in which timing and context are all. And given where the war in Iraq is right now, the Kerry flips may matter less than where he flopped. In the new Gallup survey, Kerry and Bush are running neck and neck on the question of who can better handled the situation there. If the president can't handle it—and the doubts are growing—then what choice will voters have come November? Why not a guy with personal experience on a real battlefield who sounds like he can deal with the diplomats?
That’s the theory. And it’s one that Bush operatives are worried about more than they say. Their objective, of course, is to drive Kerry’s “negatives” beyond the “acceptability” range, but portraying his flip-flops as part of a larger problem: that he is somehow weak, and befuddled and, well, strange. “Troubling” is the word that Bush-Cheney ’04 has been using in TV ads.
But what really concerns Team Bush is their own man’s falling job-approval numbers. The rule of thumb: that overall figure is an almost exact predictor of an incumbent president’s actual vote. In the most recent Gallup survey, that number for Bush is 46 percent—the lowest of his presidency and a clear sign of danger. They take some comfort in the fact that Kerry hasn’t directly benefited. Indeed, the main beneficiary for now remains Ralph Nader, whose percentages in some polls are going up while those for Bush and Kerry show little or no movement.
The critical voters at the end will be the same ones they always are: undecided women. Many will be the now-classic “waitress moms,” single working women perhaps less concerned this year about the size of their paycheck than their children’s safety on this tumultuous, hate-filled planet. Who will better protect them? If the sheriff has made a mess of things, you might have to vote him out—even if he’s the one you’d rather see coming into the café.
____________________________________________________________________
Saturday, May 15, 2004
Election 2004
Another False and Misleading Attack Ad From Bush
BUSH-CHENEY AD FACT CHECK
AD TITLE: “Accountability”
DATE: 5/12/04
NARRATOR: “Better Education is about accountability. For years, low standards and poor accountability plagued our schools. Then President Bush signed the most sweeping education reforms in 35 years. John Kerry praised the President’s reforms. Even voted for them.”
THE FACTS:
Bush Shortchanged Own Education Law by $9.4 Billion in 2005. Bush proposed $9.4 billion less for his No Child Left Behind Act than was authorized by the act in his 2005 budget. Bush has shortchanged NCLB by a total of $33.2 billion in his last four budgets. [Department of Ed Budgets 2001-2005, www.ed.gov]
Bush Terminated Dropout Prevention Programs. Bush cut dropout prevention programs entirely out of his 2005 budget. In explanation of the cut, OMB called the programs “unnecessary,” saying that other funding was available for this purpose. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; Major Reductions and Terminations in the 2005 Budget, OMB]
Half of All Hispanics Drop Out by High School. According to a study released in February 2004 by The Urban Institute, only 53 percent of all Hispanic students got a high school diploma in 2001. [The Urban Institute, Who Graduates, Who doesn’t,www.urban.org, 2/25/04]
NARRATOR: “But now, under pressure from education unions, Kerry has changed his mind.”
THE FACTS:
Kerry’s Plan Goes “Against the Grain of Liberal Orthodoxy” By Taking on Teacher’s Unions – “His [education] proposal Thursday on teacher pay, too, went against the grain of liberal orthodoxy, as a partisan, teacher-heavy crowd showed in its reaction. ‘I believe we need to offer teachers more pay,’ he began, interrupted by applause. He continued: ‘More training, more career choices, and more options for education. And we must ask more in return. That's the bargain.’ And there was silence. Mr. Kerry said he would demand accountability of poor teachers by setting up speedy evaluation processes, including peer review, to remove them. ‘Some people who choose to go into teaching will be great, but some will not,’ he said. ‘It's like any profession. Not everybody always has the ability to make it.’” [New York Times, 5/7/04]
Conservative Group Hails Kerry for Taking on Teacher’s Union. Kerry’s “call for linking higher pay to tougher teacher standards drew praise even from leading conservative analysts. ‘I'm impressed that he was willing to come out and state that publicly,’ said Frederick M. Hess, director of education policy at the conservative American Enterprise Institute think tank. ‘I know it can be difficult with the Democratic constituencies, so he deserves credit for taking that step.’” [Los Angeles Times, Brownstein, 5/7/04]
Kerry Has Consistently Criticized Bush’s for His Failure to Fund “No Child Left Behind” – Kerry began criticizing President Bush’s education plans in 2001 when he declared: "We will show President Bush how you leave no child behind," Kerry said. Since then, John Kerry has been a strong voice criticizing President Bush for failing to fund Ted Kennedy’s No Child Left Behind Education measure. "It is long since time we had a president who made real the words 'leave no child behind'," Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts told a child advocacy group in April. "I am running for president to hold this president accountable for making a mockery of those words.” And: “By signing the No Child Left Behind Act and then breaking his promise by not giving schools the resources to help meet new standards, George Bush has undermined public education and left millions of children behind.” [Boston Herald, 6/10/01; Associated Press, 6/27/03]
Kerry Believes Teachers Must Meet Higher Standards. “Kerry: Teachers Should Meet Higher Standards” “John Kerry said Thursday that if elected president he would make teachers meet higher standards, his latest effort to appeal to the political center as his Republican rivals try to paint him as a liberal Democrat.” [AP, 5/7/04]
Bush Proposed Cutting Millions From Education Programs That Teach Children English. Bush proposed $665 million for language acquisition in his 2004 budget, a cut of nearly $21 million from the previous year. [Department of Education, 2004 Budget, www.ed.gov]
Bush Terminated “Family Literacy” Program. Bush cut all funding for his Even Start program, which provided family literacy education to children and parents in low income areas. According to the National Even Start Association, the program integrated “early childhood education, adult literacy and adult basic education, and parenting education into a unified literacy program.” Even Start received $247 million in 2004. [Budget of the United States, www.omb.gov; Major Reductions and Terminations in the 2005 Budget, OMB]
Bush Has Consistently Attacked Literacy Program. Bush has consistently attacked the Even Start Program by proposing massive funding cuts, $75 million in 2004 and $50 million in 2003. [Children’s Defense Fund, 2/26/03; House Democratic Staff of the Committee on Education and the Workforce, 2/5/02]
NARRATOR: “Kerry’s new plan: less accountability to parents”
THE FACTS:
John Kerry Will Strongly Enforce Accountability Provisions for Dropout Rates. John Kerry will enforce NCLB’s accountability provisions for dropouts. While we need more flexibility in NCLB so we do not see absurd results, we do NOT need schools taking shortcuts when it comes to dropout rates.
John Kerry Has Called for Common Sense Accountability from America’s Schools. “I want standards and accountability. But you cannot do it without the resources, and you also can't do it in a way where you turn schools into testing factories.” [2004 Democratic Debate, Los Angeles, 2/26/04]
John Kerry Will Demand Greater Accountability for Special Education. John Kerry believes ‘No Child Left Behind’ is far from perfect, but accountability for special education students is long overdue. We must do a better job educating our school in the use of alternative assessments and IEP timetables. John Kerry will direct the Secretary of Education to provide states with guidance that has been sorely lacking under the Bush Administration. [www.JohnKerry.com/issues/awd/education.html]
Bush Proposed Killing Successful Head Start Programs, Which Serve 270,000 Hispanic Children Each Year. Bush proposed dropping the federal government’s responsibility to provide quality preschool programs through Head Start and handing it off to states, and included $45 million in his 2005 budget for an eight-state test. Head Start teachers and proponents note that most states are unprepared to offer the same quality of programs as the federal government, due to budget problems, lack of infrastructure and oversight capability, and the fact that many states have been cutting social spending. The National Head Start Association said that Bush’s proposal would “dismantle” Head Start “within 5 years.” Head Start prepares 270,000 Hispanic children to attend school every year, and nearly one third of all Head Start enrollees are Hispanic. [Washington Post, 2/1/03, 5/23/03; National Head Start Association report, www.nhsa.org, 4/16/03; HHS Head Start Bureau, www.dhs.gov; House Budget Dems, 2/6/04;]
NARRATOR: “John Kerry: Playing Politics with Education.”
THE FACTS:
John Kerry is Holding Bush Accountable for His Playing Politics at the Expense of Hispanic Students. Hispanic students face a number of challenges when it comes to education and that they have been let down by President Bush. Nearly 50 percent of Hispanic young people do not graduate high school, and Hispanic 13-year olds score significantly lower than other students in reading and math proficiency tests. These disparities in education present a serious, lifelong challenge, as Hispanic students are one-third as likely to graduate college and reap the rewards, like higher salaries, that come with a college degree. Instead of helping to bridge this gap, Kerry has said that George Bush failed to fully fund No Child Left Behind (NCLB), proposed three freezes and one cut to bilingual education programs and failed to pass the DREAM Act, a bill John Kerry supports, which would allow high school graduates who are immigrants to attend college and get on the path to citizenship.
Bush Froze Funding for Pell Grants and Cut $100 Million From Perkins Loans. Bush’s budget froze the maximum Pell Grants at $4,050, and cut funding for Perkins Loans by $100 million. Both programs help students with demonstrated financial need attend college. Hispanic college students are more than twice as likely to qualify for the need-based Pell Grant. [National Education Data Resource Center, nces.ed.gov]
Public College Costs are Skyrocketing and Hispanic Students are Struggling to Pay. With state budgets $100 billion in the red last year, colleges and universities have faced widespread cutbacks. State schools announced double-digit tuition increases this year, some as high as 40 percent. Hispanic college students are being disproportionately hurt by these increases. The 1.8 million Hispanic college students are unable to meet the costs of attending school at higher than average rates and on average have 16 percent more unmet college costs than white college students. A 2002 national study reported that 400,000 qualified high school graduates of all races a year are kept out of college because of an inability to pay the rising costs. [National Education Data Resource Center, Postsecondary education tables, http://nces.ed.gov/surveys/npsas; US Census Bureau, School Enrollment: 2000, www.census.gov; United Press International, 7/29/03; Washington Post, 7/22/03; Boston Globe, 6/27/02]
___________________________________________________________________
Kerry Radio Address: Armed Forces Day
John Kerry delivered the Democratic national radio address to the Nation today. Here are his remarks as prepared:
Good morning, this is John Kerry. This third Saturday of May is celebrated around America as Armed Forces Day.
But in these times, the men and women of our military, including the Reserves and National Guard, are much on our minds every day. We honor them for their service and sacrifice. We admire their skill and courage. We pray for their safety. And we are reminded again today that military service involves a sacred covenant between our country and those who wear the uniform of the United States.
When I joined the Navy almost four decades ago, I knew that I was accepting a series of obligations. To train hard, accept discipline, prepare for deadly dangers, and be part of a team. These obligations matter, because when you foul up in the military, you can get your buddies killed, make the job of our enemies easier, and make it harder for America to succeed.
But our fighting men and women are not the only ones who have obligations.
Our nation has duties as well.
We have a duty to ensure that our troops are sent into battle only as a last resort. This nation should never go to war because it wants to, but only because it has to.
And we have a duty to ensure that if our troops are sent into harm’s way, they will have the right leadership, the right training, a clear sense of mission, a clear idea of what they are – and are not – expected to do.
We have a duty to ensure that there are enough troops to achieve the mission with maximum speed and minimum risk.
We have a duty to look ahead so that once victory on the battlefield is won, we have a plan to win the peace.
We have a duty to build and lead alliances so that our troops and our country will not have to bear almost alone the burdens of defending freedom and defeating the great dangers that now threaten our national safety and global security.
And we have a duty to guarantee that, when mistakes are made, those responsible are held accountable whether they are at the bottom of the chain of command or at the top.
Two weeks from today, on the National Mall in Washington, we will dedicate the World War II memorial to the members of the greatest generation – whose service in one of America’s finest hours will, in Churchill’s phrase, be remembered for a thousand years and more. The tribute we pay them with this memorial is long overdue.
My father was in the Army Air Corps then, but the whole country was enlisted in that cause.
We must renew that sense of unity and common purpose.
So on this Armed Forces Day, I hope we will send a message and a promise to all who wear the uniform at home or overseas. The message is simple and profound: we salute them for doing their best to defend our nation and our ideals. They are the best of America.
And our promise to them is that we will do our best to meet our obligations to them and to their families.
Armed Forces Day is a reminder that military service is not just a job. It requires an inner strength to leave the embrace of loved ones and all that is familiar to go far away to the front lines into the choking dust of a desert and into unknown dangers to keep the rest of us secure.
As we honor our military today, both nationally and in more personal ways through phone calls, letters and hospital visits, let us also remember that American power has been and always will be a function of our nation’s character.
As citizens, everyone of us must live the values that make America both great and good.
That is the kind of America our armed forces have fought for across the generations; it is the stronger America we must now build together: it is the country we owe to our heroes when they return home. This is John Kerry. Thank you for listening. May God Bless our men and women in uniform and keep them safe.
FACT SHEET
JOHN KERRY: ARMED FORCES DAY
“We are reminded again today that military service involves a sacred covenant between our country and those who wear the uniform of the United States.”
A PROUD TRADITION OF MILITARY SERVICE
John Kerry’s Father, Richard Kerry, Served in the Army Air Corps During World War II
John Kerry Served in the U.S. Navy and is a Veteran of the Vietnam War – John Kerry joined the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978. Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam--one tour as commander of a Navy Swift Boat in the Mekong Delta. Kerry’s action during the Vietnam War resulted in his being awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat “V”, three Purple Hearts, the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, three Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medals and the Combat Action Ribbon. [Selective Service System National Headquarters]
A STRONG SUPPORTER OF AMERICA’S MILITARY AND OUR TROOPS
Working to Ensure America’s Military Remains the Best in the World. John Kerry will make sure our troops always have the armor and equipment they need. He will increase the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops to better meet our commitments around the world without continuing to strain our military personnel and their families.
Ensuring All Military Reservists Have Health Care. Members of the National Guard and Reserve are fighting and dying alongside members of the active duty component. John Kerry believes that these brave Americans deserve access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield. As part of his Military Family Bill of Rights, John Kerry supports legislation to provide access to TRICARE, the military’s health care system, for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.
Voted for Largest Increase in Defense Spending Since the Early 1980s. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget, including a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel.
A Strong Supporter of Men & Women in Uniform. John Kerry has worked to support the men and women who defend the United States. Kerry knows what it is like to serve the country in uniform that is why he has strongly supported military pay raises and increased housing, education and retirement benefits for the men and women of the Armed Services. Kerry voted for the “Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act” which authorized $46 billion over ten years to create a 4.8% pay raise for members of the military. The Act also authorized additional pay, retirement, education, savings, and health benefits.
STANDING WITH AMERICA’S MILITARY FAMILIES
· Fighting for a Military Family Bill of Rights. John Kerry has proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights that will provide our military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training, and the best possible weaponry, armor, and state-of-the-art equipment.
· Voted for an Additional Allowance to Families. Kerry voted for the McCain amendment to provide a further $28 million to service members for an additional allowance to military families who are eligible for food stamps—a problem John Kerry wants to end.
· Supporting Military Family Housing. In 2002, Kerry voted to provide “$10.4 billion for military construction and family housing” and to authorize “a new special compensation program which provides significantly enhanced compensation for military retirees with 20 or more years of service who incurred a qualifying combat-related disability.”
RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE TO VETERANS
· Ensuring Access to Health Care for All Veterans. John Kerry will push for mandatory funding for veterans health care so that America never pits veterans in one state against veterans in another and to streamline the veterans’ health care system so that veterans get the care they need in a timely fashion. He will end the disabled veterans’ tax so that military retirees are not punished for receiving both military retirement pensions and VA disability compensation, and he will fight to ensure that all military reservists have access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield.
· Making Health Care More Affordable to Veterans and all Americans. Kerry’s health care plan will make health care more affordable for veterans and all Americans. He will cut costs by: providing families and businesses with premium relief; cutting prescription drug costs; eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system; improving efficiency and quality of care; and making malpractice insurance more affordable.
· A National Leader in Helping Veterans Suffering from Exposure to Agent Orange – John Kerry has a long history of working to help Vietnam Veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange. Beginning more than 15 years ago, Kerry introduced legislation to assist vets in receiving medical compensation from being exposed to the toxic chemicals and has testified before Congress to force the government to care for Vietnam Vets. Kerry’s bill, “The Comprehensive Agent Orange Scientific Evidence Review Act” required the VA to look into the “health effects of exposure” to Agent Orange.
· Working to Ensure Veterans Receive Proper Care for Gulf War Syndrome – John Kerry has worked in the Senate to ensure vets and retirees receive the proper care for the Gulf War Illness/Syndrome. Kerry has written to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on behalf of the nation’s vets asking that he “honor their sacrifice” by including Gulf War Syndrome and other “illnesses among those that will allow retirees to receive their retirement and disability benefits.”
________________________________________________________________________
John Kerry delivered the Democratic national radio address to the Nation today. Here are his remarks as prepared:
Good morning, this is John Kerry. This third Saturday of May is celebrated around America as Armed Forces Day.
But in these times, the men and women of our military, including the Reserves and National Guard, are much on our minds every day. We honor them for their service and sacrifice. We admire their skill and courage. We pray for their safety. And we are reminded again today that military service involves a sacred covenant between our country and those who wear the uniform of the United States.
When I joined the Navy almost four decades ago, I knew that I was accepting a series of obligations. To train hard, accept discipline, prepare for deadly dangers, and be part of a team. These obligations matter, because when you foul up in the military, you can get your buddies killed, make the job of our enemies easier, and make it harder for America to succeed.
But our fighting men and women are not the only ones who have obligations.
Our nation has duties as well.
We have a duty to ensure that our troops are sent into battle only as a last resort. This nation should never go to war because it wants to, but only because it has to.
And we have a duty to ensure that if our troops are sent into harm’s way, they will have the right leadership, the right training, a clear sense of mission, a clear idea of what they are – and are not – expected to do.
We have a duty to ensure that there are enough troops to achieve the mission with maximum speed and minimum risk.
We have a duty to look ahead so that once victory on the battlefield is won, we have a plan to win the peace.
We have a duty to build and lead alliances so that our troops and our country will not have to bear almost alone the burdens of defending freedom and defeating the great dangers that now threaten our national safety and global security.
And we have a duty to guarantee that, when mistakes are made, those responsible are held accountable whether they are at the bottom of the chain of command or at the top.
Two weeks from today, on the National Mall in Washington, we will dedicate the World War II memorial to the members of the greatest generation – whose service in one of America’s finest hours will, in Churchill’s phrase, be remembered for a thousand years and more. The tribute we pay them with this memorial is long overdue.
My father was in the Army Air Corps then, but the whole country was enlisted in that cause.
We must renew that sense of unity and common purpose.
So on this Armed Forces Day, I hope we will send a message and a promise to all who wear the uniform at home or overseas. The message is simple and profound: we salute them for doing their best to defend our nation and our ideals. They are the best of America.
And our promise to them is that we will do our best to meet our obligations to them and to their families.
Armed Forces Day is a reminder that military service is not just a job. It requires an inner strength to leave the embrace of loved ones and all that is familiar to go far away to the front lines into the choking dust of a desert and into unknown dangers to keep the rest of us secure.
As we honor our military today, both nationally and in more personal ways through phone calls, letters and hospital visits, let us also remember that American power has been and always will be a function of our nation’s character.
As citizens, everyone of us must live the values that make America both great and good.
That is the kind of America our armed forces have fought for across the generations; it is the stronger America we must now build together: it is the country we owe to our heroes when they return home. This is John Kerry. Thank you for listening. May God Bless our men and women in uniform and keep them safe.
FACT SHEET
JOHN KERRY: ARMED FORCES DAY
“We are reminded again today that military service involves a sacred covenant between our country and those who wear the uniform of the United States.”
A PROUD TRADITION OF MILITARY SERVICE
John Kerry’s Father, Richard Kerry, Served in the Army Air Corps During World War II
John Kerry Served in the U.S. Navy and is a Veteran of the Vietnam War – John Kerry joined the United States Navy after college and served from 1966 through 1970 rising to the rank of Lieutenant, Junior Grade. Kerry continued his military service in the United States Naval Reserves from 1972 through 1978. Kerry served two tours of duty in Vietnam--one tour as commander of a Navy Swift Boat in the Mekong Delta. Kerry’s action during the Vietnam War resulted in his being awarded the Silver Star, the Bronze Star with Combat “V”, three Purple Hearts, the Presidential Unit Citation for Extraordinary Heroism, the National Defense Service Medal, the Vietnam Service Medal, three Republic of Vietnam Campaign Medals and the Combat Action Ribbon. [Selective Service System National Headquarters]
A STRONG SUPPORTER OF AMERICA’S MILITARY AND OUR TROOPS
Working to Ensure America’s Military Remains the Best in the World. John Kerry will make sure our troops always have the armor and equipment they need. He will increase the size of the active-duty Army by 40,000 troops to better meet our commitments around the world without continuing to strain our military personnel and their families.
Ensuring All Military Reservists Have Health Care. Members of the National Guard and Reserve are fighting and dying alongside members of the active duty component. John Kerry believes that these brave Americans deserve access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield. As part of his Military Family Bill of Rights, John Kerry supports legislation to provide access to TRICARE, the military’s health care system, for all members of the National Guard and Reserves.
Voted for Largest Increase in Defense Spending Since the Early 1980s. John Kerry is a strong supporter of the U.S. Armed Services and has consistently worked to ensure the military has the best equipment and training possible. In 2002, John Kerry voted for a large increase in the defense budget, including a 4.1% pay increase for military personnel.
A Strong Supporter of Men & Women in Uniform. John Kerry has worked to support the men and women who defend the United States. Kerry knows what it is like to serve the country in uniform that is why he has strongly supported military pay raises and increased housing, education and retirement benefits for the men and women of the Armed Services. Kerry voted for the “Soldiers', Sailors', Airmen's and Marines' Bill of Rights Act” which authorized $46 billion over ten years to create a 4.8% pay raise for members of the military. The Act also authorized additional pay, retirement, education, savings, and health benefits.
STANDING WITH AMERICA’S MILITARY FAMILIES
· Fighting for a Military Family Bill of Rights. John Kerry has proposed a Military Family Bill of Rights that will provide our military families with competitive pay, good housing, decent health care, quality education for their children, first rate training, and the best possible weaponry, armor, and state-of-the-art equipment.
· Voted for an Additional Allowance to Families. Kerry voted for the McCain amendment to provide a further $28 million to service members for an additional allowance to military families who are eligible for food stamps—a problem John Kerry wants to end.
· Supporting Military Family Housing. In 2002, Kerry voted to provide “$10.4 billion for military construction and family housing” and to authorize “a new special compensation program which provides significantly enhanced compensation for military retirees with 20 or more years of service who incurred a qualifying combat-related disability.”
RENEWING AMERICA’S PROMISE TO VETERANS
· Ensuring Access to Health Care for All Veterans. John Kerry will push for mandatory funding for veterans health care so that America never pits veterans in one state against veterans in another and to streamline the veterans’ health care system so that veterans get the care they need in a timely fashion. He will end the disabled veterans’ tax so that military retirees are not punished for receiving both military retirement pensions and VA disability compensation, and he will fight to ensure that all military reservists have access to the same level of healthcare as other soldiers on the battlefield.
· Making Health Care More Affordable to Veterans and all Americans. Kerry’s health care plan will make health care more affordable for veterans and all Americans. He will cut costs by: providing families and businesses with premium relief; cutting prescription drug costs; eliminating waste, fraud and abuse in the health care system; improving efficiency and quality of care; and making malpractice insurance more affordable.
· A National Leader in Helping Veterans Suffering from Exposure to Agent Orange – John Kerry has a long history of working to help Vietnam Veterans suffering from exposure to Agent Orange. Beginning more than 15 years ago, Kerry introduced legislation to assist vets in receiving medical compensation from being exposed to the toxic chemicals and has testified before Congress to force the government to care for Vietnam Vets. Kerry’s bill, “The Comprehensive Agent Orange Scientific Evidence Review Act” required the VA to look into the “health effects of exposure” to Agent Orange.
· Working to Ensure Veterans Receive Proper Care for Gulf War Syndrome – John Kerry has worked in the Senate to ensure vets and retirees receive the proper care for the Gulf War Illness/Syndrome. Kerry has written to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld on behalf of the nation’s vets asking that he “honor their sacrifice” by including Gulf War Syndrome and other “illnesses among those that will allow retirees to receive their retirement and disability benefits.”
________________________________________________________________________
Friday, May 14, 2004
Former intelligence advisor and expert Larry Johnson on Law Enforcement verses knee-jerk militarism. It dovetails perfectly into the announcement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers' endorsement of Kerry below.
FALSE PROGRESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR?
By
Larry C. Johnson
301 767-0825
Despite Bush Administration claims that we are achieving success in the much ballyhooed war on terrorism, the data for 2003 reveals some ominous, disturbing trends. The U.S. State Department’s annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, offers a pretty rosy assessment: the total number of terrorist attacks last year fell to levels not seen since 1969 and deaths from terrorism were cut almost in half. Moreover, the number of people wounded by terrorists also shrank, albeit slightly. But a careful examination of the statistics shows that the U.S. Government does not know how to add. Moreover, a look at the details of the specific attacks reveals that the threat of Islamic terrorism is growing rather than shrinking.
For starters the U.S. Government got the numbers wrong. The State Department press release issued on 30 April claimed that terrorists last year were responsible for 190 attacks, 307 deaths, and 1593 injuries. But these numbers do not match the number of dead and wounded actually listed in Appendix A, “Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents, 2003”. If you do your own tabulation you will discover that at least 390 people died and 1910 were wounded. Not only was the data miscounted, but significant events were inadvertently excluded. For example, none of the attacks that occurred during the last half of November and all of December 2003 were taken into account, such as the terrorist bombings in Turkey last November that killed at least 61.
In addition, it appears that data listed in the narrative of the report was ignored in the final statistics. The report describes in detail 13 attacks in Russia apparently carried out by Chechen terrorists, which left 244 dead and 654 injured. Chechen terrorists have close ties with Al Qaeda. Yet, these figures were not included in the final states. If we factor in the Russian attacks it appears that in 2003 there were actually 203 attacks, 695 murdered, and 2390 wounded.
This was not an auspicious start for the recently established Terrorism Threat Integration Center (TTIC), who had the task of assembling and counting the incidents for the U.S. Department of State. Tracking terrorists is supposed to be a priority. Unfortunately TTIC is having trouble with simple addition. (No wonder we are having trouble finding Bin Laden.)
Beyond the inaccurate numbers is a more disturbing fact—Islamic extremists tied to Bin Laden are alive and killing. The number of significant attacks jumped from 139 to 170, which is an increase of 22% percent over the number recorded in 2002 (the number of significant attacks is probably larger but State is still trying to get an accurate figure from TTIC). According to the State Department a “significant attack” is one that “results in loss of life or serious injury to persons, abduction . . . of persons, major property damage, and/or is an act or attempted act that could reasonable be expected to create the conditions noted.”
Probe further into the specifics of who is carrying out the attacks and who is doing the killing and the picture of the terrorist threat becomes clear. Nine countries—Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, the Philippines, Russia and Saudi Arabia—experienced for 52% percent of all attacks, 96% percent of the fatalities, and 88% of the injuries from international terrorism in 2003. All nine were attacked by groups or individuals considered Islamic extremists. The attacks in eight of the nine are tied directly to individuals with ties to Osama Bin Laden and his network. (Israel was the only country not facing an Al Qaeda onslaught.)
Although Al Qaeda has been hit and hit hard by the United States, it remains a viable, dangerous movement. Adherents are driven in part by the ephemeral goal of the caliphate—a worldwide Islamic government. They devoutly believe that a restoration of Islamic ideas and practices through jihad will usher in a new reign of peace.
Osama’s jihadist movement appears to have gained some traction last year. For example, Bin Laden’s adherents carried out more attacks in 2003 than in the previous ten years combined and have continued the assault into 2004. They have spread attacks throughout the Muslim world, reaching from Morocco to Indonesia. This year’s attack in Spain was a further reminder that Al Qaeda has not disappeared.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be a key factor helping fuel the terrorist wave by inspiring young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims to the cause of jihad, the war in Iraq has enabled Islamic extremists to attract new followers eager to kill Americans. Last year marked the first time that terrorist attacks inside Iraq figured prominently in the U.S. Government stats. Besides the attacks against U.S. military and coalition forces, there were eleven incidents that left 61 people dead and more than 200 injured. So far, not a single guilty party has been arrested or tried for these attacks. And the violence continues with the latest outrage by Al Zarqawi, an associate of Bin Laden, who beheaded a U.S. citizen in Iraq.
The terrorism surge also is being assisted by the fact that we ignore some terrorist activity and fail to address it as part of the so-called Global War on Terrorism. India, for example, remains the forgotten step child in the war on terrorism. For the second straight year they experienced more terrorist attacks and fatalities than any other country in the world. Two of the groups behind these attacks, the Harakat ul Ansar and the Lashkar Tayyiba, have longstanding ties to Osama Bin Laden and received training in Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. cruise missile strike in August 1998, which was intended to kill Osama Bin Laden, killed members of these groups and the Pakistan intelligence officials who were training them. (Pakistan, our vaunted ally in the war on terrorism, continues to permit members of its intelligence service to assist Islamic terrorists that are targeting India, but that is another story for another time.)
All is not lost nor do we face a hopeless situation. The terrorist attacks in countries like Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain have precipitated aggressive investigations that have helped identify and root out terrorist cells in these countries and in others, such as Italy and France. The critical goal is to sustain and expand international cooperation on these investigations.
Although the Bush Administration brags that it has shifted counterterrorism policy from a law enforcement strategy to a military one, the reality is that the bulk of the work to be done consists mostly of police and intelligence officials tracking down leads and analyzing clues. Unfortunately, the U.S. reluctance to share intelligence information with German and British officials has allowed individuals implicated in the 9-11 attacks to go free. Recent reports out of Spain indicate we are repeating this mistake.
It is time for the Bush Administration to focus its efforts on facilitating the cooperation on the intelligence and law enforcement fronts here at home and abroad. If we fail to act smartly against the Islamists who believe God is on their side in their jihad against the west, we are likely to face more attacks in the future and a rising body count. On the other hand, we can contain and reduce this threat. If we can find the terrorists and kill them, that will be a welcomed outcome. Unfortunately, our foes rarely mass in a place were military assets can be used. Instead, we must recognize that the bulk of our effort in the coming years will depend on securing the cooperation of other countries in rooting out terrorist cells, a willingness on our part to share intelligence with countries we don’t really like, and a public diplomacy effort to counter the damage caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.
_____________________________________________________________________
FALSE PROGRESS IN THE WAR ON TERROR?
By
Larry C. Johnson
301 767-0825
Despite Bush Administration claims that we are achieving success in the much ballyhooed war on terrorism, the data for 2003 reveals some ominous, disturbing trends. The U.S. State Department’s annual report, Patterns of Global Terrorism 2003, offers a pretty rosy assessment: the total number of terrorist attacks last year fell to levels not seen since 1969 and deaths from terrorism were cut almost in half. Moreover, the number of people wounded by terrorists also shrank, albeit slightly. But a careful examination of the statistics shows that the U.S. Government does not know how to add. Moreover, a look at the details of the specific attacks reveals that the threat of Islamic terrorism is growing rather than shrinking.
For starters the U.S. Government got the numbers wrong. The State Department press release issued on 30 April claimed that terrorists last year were responsible for 190 attacks, 307 deaths, and 1593 injuries. But these numbers do not match the number of dead and wounded actually listed in Appendix A, “Chronology of Significant Terrorist Incidents, 2003”. If you do your own tabulation you will discover that at least 390 people died and 1910 were wounded. Not only was the data miscounted, but significant events were inadvertently excluded. For example, none of the attacks that occurred during the last half of November and all of December 2003 were taken into account, such as the terrorist bombings in Turkey last November that killed at least 61.
In addition, it appears that data listed in the narrative of the report was ignored in the final statistics. The report describes in detail 13 attacks in Russia apparently carried out by Chechen terrorists, which left 244 dead and 654 injured. Chechen terrorists have close ties with Al Qaeda. Yet, these figures were not included in the final states. If we factor in the Russian attacks it appears that in 2003 there were actually 203 attacks, 695 murdered, and 2390 wounded.
This was not an auspicious start for the recently established Terrorism Threat Integration Center (TTIC), who had the task of assembling and counting the incidents for the U.S. Department of State. Tracking terrorists is supposed to be a priority. Unfortunately TTIC is having trouble with simple addition. (No wonder we are having trouble finding Bin Laden.)
Beyond the inaccurate numbers is a more disturbing fact—Islamic extremists tied to Bin Laden are alive and killing. The number of significant attacks jumped from 139 to 170, which is an increase of 22% percent over the number recorded in 2002 (the number of significant attacks is probably larger but State is still trying to get an accurate figure from TTIC). According to the State Department a “significant attack” is one that “results in loss of life or serious injury to persons, abduction . . . of persons, major property damage, and/or is an act or attempted act that could reasonable be expected to create the conditions noted.”
Probe further into the specifics of who is carrying out the attacks and who is doing the killing and the picture of the terrorist threat becomes clear. Nine countries—Afghanistan, India, Indonesia, Iraq, Israel, Morocco, the Philippines, Russia and Saudi Arabia—experienced for 52% percent of all attacks, 96% percent of the fatalities, and 88% of the injuries from international terrorism in 2003. All nine were attacked by groups or individuals considered Islamic extremists. The attacks in eight of the nine are tied directly to individuals with ties to Osama Bin Laden and his network. (Israel was the only country not facing an Al Qaeda onslaught.)
Although Al Qaeda has been hit and hit hard by the United States, it remains a viable, dangerous movement. Adherents are driven in part by the ephemeral goal of the caliphate—a worldwide Islamic government. They devoutly believe that a restoration of Islamic ideas and practices through jihad will usher in a new reign of peace.
Osama’s jihadist movement appears to have gained some traction last year. For example, Bin Laden’s adherents carried out more attacks in 2003 than in the previous ten years combined and have continued the assault into 2004. They have spread attacks throughout the Muslim world, reaching from Morocco to Indonesia. This year’s attack in Spain was a further reminder that Al Qaeda has not disappeared.
The U.S. invasion of Iraq appears to be a key factor helping fuel the terrorist wave by inspiring young Muslims to pursue jihad against the West in general and the United States in particular. Just as the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan rallied many Muslims to the cause of jihad, the war in Iraq has enabled Islamic extremists to attract new followers eager to kill Americans. Last year marked the first time that terrorist attacks inside Iraq figured prominently in the U.S. Government stats. Besides the attacks against U.S. military and coalition forces, there were eleven incidents that left 61 people dead and more than 200 injured. So far, not a single guilty party has been arrested or tried for these attacks. And the violence continues with the latest outrage by Al Zarqawi, an associate of Bin Laden, who beheaded a U.S. citizen in Iraq.
The terrorism surge also is being assisted by the fact that we ignore some terrorist activity and fail to address it as part of the so-called Global War on Terrorism. India, for example, remains the forgotten step child in the war on terrorism. For the second straight year they experienced more terrorist attacks and fatalities than any other country in the world. Two of the groups behind these attacks, the Harakat ul Ansar and the Lashkar Tayyiba, have longstanding ties to Osama Bin Laden and received training in Afghanistan. In fact, the U.S. cruise missile strike in August 1998, which was intended to kill Osama Bin Laden, killed members of these groups and the Pakistan intelligence officials who were training them. (Pakistan, our vaunted ally in the war on terrorism, continues to permit members of its intelligence service to assist Islamic terrorists that are targeting India, but that is another story for another time.)
All is not lost nor do we face a hopeless situation. The terrorist attacks in countries like Morocco, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Spain have precipitated aggressive investigations that have helped identify and root out terrorist cells in these countries and in others, such as Italy and France. The critical goal is to sustain and expand international cooperation on these investigations.
Although the Bush Administration brags that it has shifted counterterrorism policy from a law enforcement strategy to a military one, the reality is that the bulk of the work to be done consists mostly of police and intelligence officials tracking down leads and analyzing clues. Unfortunately, the U.S. reluctance to share intelligence information with German and British officials has allowed individuals implicated in the 9-11 attacks to go free. Recent reports out of Spain indicate we are repeating this mistake.
It is time for the Bush Administration to focus its efforts on facilitating the cooperation on the intelligence and law enforcement fronts here at home and abroad. If we fail to act smartly against the Islamists who believe God is on their side in their jihad against the west, we are likely to face more attacks in the future and a rising body count. On the other hand, we can contain and reduce this threat. If we can find the terrorists and kill them, that will be a welcomed outcome. Unfortunately, our foes rarely mass in a place were military assets can be used. Instead, we must recognize that the bulk of our effort in the coming years will depend on securing the cooperation of other countries in rooting out terrorist cells, a willingness on our part to share intelligence with countries we don’t really like, and a public diplomacy effort to counter the damage caused by the U.S. invasion of Iraq and the abuses in Abu Ghraib prison.
_____________________________________________________________________
The police are turning their back on the poor leadership of George Bush and the lack of public safety that resulted from it. They are turning to John Kerry for a proven record of real support for their ranks along with his firsthand knowledge of how to make America's streets and cities safer.
Kerry Endorsed by International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Only Major National Police Organization to Endorse Last Three Presidential Winners Backs Kerry in 2004
May 14, 2004
For Immediate Release
Washington, DC
Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry today received the endorsement of thel International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO), the only major national police organization to back the winner of the last three Presidential elections. Having supported George Bush in 2000, IBPO said today it has been let down by the President and that America’s police officers have a strong, lifelong ally in John Kerry.
“As President, I will build a stronger America by standing by police officers and giving them the resources they need to protect our communities,” Kerry said. “I’m honored to receive IBPO’s endorsement today, and I know that together, we’ll work every day to make America safer and more secure. I believe that America should always honor and reward the courage and service of police officers. And when I’m President, that’s exactly what we’re going to do.”
Said IBPO President David Holway, “John Kerry has been a friend of law enforcement officers for nearly thirty years, first as a prosecutor and now as a United States Senator, and the IBPO looks forward to working with him as President. After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a President with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement.”
Kerry has a strong record of standing up for law enforcement and the men and women who protect our communities. He led the fight in the Senate to fund efforts to add 100,000 police officers to our streets and supported the current ban on assault weapons, as well as measures to crack down on armor-piercing, “cop killer,” bullets. As a prosecutor, Kerry put away murderers and mob bosses while building a strong record of being tough on crime.
While IBPO backed George Bush in the 2000 election, he has let them down as President, cutting funding for programs that put cops on the street and threatening the overtime pay of thousands of police officers.
“For some reason, these folks in the White House keep taking cops off the streets,” Kerry said. “For some reason, when they needed money to spend, they thought it was a good idea to take over half a billion dollars from the COPS budget but not one dime from the tax cuts they gave to the wealthiest folks. We know that America is stronger when our neighborhoods are safer and our communities are protected. And with the help of the men and women of law enforcement around the country, that’s what we’ll do.”
As President, John Kerry will stand by America’s police officers. He will provide $25 billion in immediate fiscal relief to states and communities - money that states and localities will be able to use for crime fighting and homeland security efforts. He will promote shared intelligence between state and local authorities and federal agencies in order to strengthen homeland security efforts and reduce crime by creating a neighborhood prosecutor program that will bring prosecutors into high-crime communities. Kerry stands with law enforcement officers and supports reauthorization of the assault weapons ban.
Kerry is also supported by the International Union of Police Associations.
More Cops Endorse Kerry:
Reflects John Kerry’s Strong Anti-Crime Record,
George Bush’s Failures to Support Law Enforcement
The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) is the only major national police organization to have endorsed the winner of the last three presidential elections. Today, IBPO endorses John Kerry because of his strong anti-crime record and because of President Bush’s consistent failure to support law enforcement in the battle against crime and the war against terror. Joining the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA) in support of John Kerry, IBPO sends another message that John Kerry stands for a strong and safe America.
IBPO Endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992:
IBPO Called George W. Bush “The Law and Order Candidate” When Endorsing Him in 2000. In the 2000 campaign for President, Governor George W. Bush received the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. IBPO stated: “In this election, Gov. Bush is absolutely the law and order candidate…Governor Bush is a friend of police officers.” [IBPO, Police Chronicle, October, 2000]
IBPO Endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992. During the 1992 and 1996 campaigns for President, Bill Clinton received the endorsement of the IBPO. IBPO stated: “We cannot take another four years of a Bush administration…They have stripped police departments and cities of the monies the federal government was pouring in to help us with our war on crime.” Clinton “trumpeted” the endorsement during the campaign. [The Commercial Appeal, 10/10/92; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/10/92; Washington Post, 11/4/96]
John Kerry Has Stood By Police Officers:
John Kerry Led the Fight for Additional 100,000 Police Officers on America’s Streets. John Kerry led the fight to add 100,000 police to our streets through his work on the 1994 crime bill and its Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Kerry personally pushed the Clinton White House, the Justice Department, and members of Congress to obtain funding for the 100,000 cops program. Kerry “persuaded the Senate and the Clinton White House to finance a campaign pledge to put 100,000 more police officers on the street.” [Boston Globe, 6/21/03; S.Amdt. 1202 to S 1607, 11/16/03; Reason Magazine. 3/94]
Kerry Worked With Law Enforcement Officials to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons. John Kerry has strongly supported the current ban on machine guns and assault weapons—including AK-47’s and similar weapons used by terrorists in Afghanistan. Police organizations including IBPO strongly support extension of the current ban. [RC 375, S Amdt. 1152 to S Amdt. 1151 to S 1607, 11/17/93; Orange County Register, 3/2/04]
Kerry is a National Leader in Working to Ban “Cop Killer Bullets.” John Kerry is a national leader in promoting sensible oversight of ammunition sales which have no sporting value yet risk the lives of police officers. Kerry has strongly supported measures to crack down on armor-piecing, “cop killer” bullets. [S. 553, 4/10/97; S. 433, 2/16/95; RC 240, S Amdt. 3351 to S. 2312, 7/28/98; RC 116, S Amdt. 343 to S 254, 5/13/99]
As a County Prosecutor, Kerry Fought Crime and Put Away Murderers and Mob Bosses. John Kerry was the first assistant prosecutor of Middlesex County (one of the largest counties in the country) and won convictions in high profile murder, rape and mafia cases. Kerry led the prosecutor’s office in a major modernization. “He launched initiatives that were innovative at the time: special units to prosecute white-collar and organized crime, programs to counsel rape victims and aid other crime victims and witnesses, and a system for fast-tracking priority cases to trial” and “is credited with reducing the backlog of cases.” [Boston Globe, 6/18/03; Washington Post, 2/21/85]
George Bush Has Turned His Back On Cops:
George Bush Guts Funding for Police Officers. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program has helped fund more than 100,000 police officers and contributed to one of the largest declines in crime in our nation’s history. Yet President Bush has sought to cut the COPS program in every one of his budgets. His current budget slashes the COPS program for 2005, providing only $97 million, a $646 million (87 percent) cut below the 2004 enacted level. Over the long term, his budget assumes the elimination of COPS hiring programs and technology and safe schools initiatives. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/19/04]
George Bush Says He Supports Extension of Assault Weapons Ban, But Fails to Move It. The White House says that on assault weapons, President Bush “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.” Yet the White House has done nothing to move an extension. President Bush actually opposed efforts to include an extension of the assault weapons ban as part of a bill he strongly supported to protect gun manufacturers from liability. The Bush Administration said: “The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable.” [Knight-Ridder, 4/12/03; Statement of Administrative Policy, 2/24/04; The Hill, 5/12/04]
Without Help From George Bush, War and State Budgets Have Forced Layoffs in Police Departments. While police departments have faced new burdens because of the war on terror, states and cities have had less money to address those burdens because of more than $200 billion in state deficits over the last three years. Without real help from President Bush, cities across America laid off cops. The situation has been made worse by the war on Iraq, which has “required the call-up of huge numbers of reserves, many of whom are cops.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/04; USA Today, 12/2/03; Washington Monthly, 9/03]
The Bush Administration Has Failed to Adequately Share Domestic Intelligence Information with Local Police Departments. The FBI and other intelligence agencies have been widely criticized for failing to share information with local police departments who police American cities. A GAO report found, “no level of government perceived the process as effective,” and only 13 percent of federal officials and 35 percent of state officials believed that the current level of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local officials was adequate and effective. “Despite repeated FBI assurances that cops are equal partners in the war against terrorism, local cops say they frequently feel like second-class citizens.” [GAO, 8/27/03; Washington Monthly, 9/03]
Bush Proposed Cutting Overtime Pay for Cops. In both the original proposed overtime pay rules and the revised set of rules, the Bush Administration has threatened the overtime pay of thousands of police officers. Under the original Bush plan, “A police officer who walks a beat (manual work) may not lose overtime protection, but a police sergeant who spends significant time supervising two or three other officers will lose overtime protection.” Revised rules did not clarify the problem. [Economic Policy Institute, 7/26/03, 5/4/04]
John Kerry Will Stand by America’s Police Officers:
Support Police Officers in the Battles Against Crime and Terror. Police departments have faced historic burdens since 9/11, including added overtime work and needs for new training and new communications and safety equipment. While George Bush has failed to support these departments, John Kerry will provide $25 billion in immediate fiscal relief to states and communities—money that states and localities will be able to use to give the tools they need to keep our streets safe and protect against terror. In addition, John Kerry will continue the COPS program which he helped create.
Share Intelligence to Protect America Against Terror. John Kerry believes that appropriate state and local authorities should get access to the 58 national terrorist lists and intelligence officials should work to simplify these lists. In addition, a 24-hour operations center should be established in each state to provide a real time intergovernmental link between local and federal law enforcement. Field-level police would contact this center to determine whether to hold or release suspects based on a check of federal databases.
Continue the Assault Weapons Ban. John Kerry believes we can protect the right to bear arms and at the same time keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He stands with law enforcement officers, who put their lives on the line every day, in seeking to ensure that these officers are not outgunned by criminals armed with these weapons of war. John Kerry will renew the assault weapons ban, a measure President Bush claims to support, and will close the gun show loophole.
Support Neighborhood Prosecutor Programs. John Kerry will support police officers and reduce crime by brining prosecutors into high-crime neighborhoods. Kerry’s neighborhood prosecutor program will support states that assign prosecutors to specific communities where they work closely with police officers and residents to combat crimes like drug activity, noise violations, and vandalism. The prosecutors’ offices will be located in the neighborhoods where they are assigned, and prosecutors will regularly attend community meetings to solicit input.
______________________________________________________________________
Kerry Endorsed by International Brotherhood of Police Officers
Only Major National Police Organization to Endorse Last Three Presidential Winners Backs Kerry in 2004
May 14, 2004
For Immediate Release
Washington, DC
Democratic Presidential candidate John Kerry today received the endorsement of thel International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO), the only major national police organization to back the winner of the last three Presidential elections. Having supported George Bush in 2000, IBPO said today it has been let down by the President and that America’s police officers have a strong, lifelong ally in John Kerry.
“As President, I will build a stronger America by standing by police officers and giving them the resources they need to protect our communities,” Kerry said. “I’m honored to receive IBPO’s endorsement today, and I know that together, we’ll work every day to make America safer and more secure. I believe that America should always honor and reward the courage and service of police officers. And when I’m President, that’s exactly what we’re going to do.”
Said IBPO President David Holway, “John Kerry has been a friend of law enforcement officers for nearly thirty years, first as a prosecutor and now as a United States Senator, and the IBPO looks forward to working with him as President. After three and a half years of disappointing leadership under George Bush, we need to change course in November and elect a President with a real record of supporting police officers and a lifetime of standing with law enforcement.”
Kerry has a strong record of standing up for law enforcement and the men and women who protect our communities. He led the fight in the Senate to fund efforts to add 100,000 police officers to our streets and supported the current ban on assault weapons, as well as measures to crack down on armor-piercing, “cop killer,” bullets. As a prosecutor, Kerry put away murderers and mob bosses while building a strong record of being tough on crime.
While IBPO backed George Bush in the 2000 election, he has let them down as President, cutting funding for programs that put cops on the street and threatening the overtime pay of thousands of police officers.
“For some reason, these folks in the White House keep taking cops off the streets,” Kerry said. “For some reason, when they needed money to spend, they thought it was a good idea to take over half a billion dollars from the COPS budget but not one dime from the tax cuts they gave to the wealthiest folks. We know that America is stronger when our neighborhoods are safer and our communities are protected. And with the help of the men and women of law enforcement around the country, that’s what we’ll do.”
As President, John Kerry will stand by America’s police officers. He will provide $25 billion in immediate fiscal relief to states and communities - money that states and localities will be able to use for crime fighting and homeland security efforts. He will promote shared intelligence between state and local authorities and federal agencies in order to strengthen homeland security efforts and reduce crime by creating a neighborhood prosecutor program that will bring prosecutors into high-crime communities. Kerry stands with law enforcement officers and supports reauthorization of the assault weapons ban.
Kerry is also supported by the International Union of Police Associations.
More Cops Endorse Kerry:
Reflects John Kerry’s Strong Anti-Crime Record,
George Bush’s Failures to Support Law Enforcement
The International Brotherhood of Police Officers (IBPO) is the only major national police organization to have endorsed the winner of the last three presidential elections. Today, IBPO endorses John Kerry because of his strong anti-crime record and because of President Bush’s consistent failure to support law enforcement in the battle against crime and the war against terror. Joining the International Union of Police Associations (IUPA) in support of John Kerry, IBPO sends another message that John Kerry stands for a strong and safe America.
IBPO Endorsed George W. Bush in 2000, Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992:
IBPO Called George W. Bush “The Law and Order Candidate” When Endorsing Him in 2000. In the 2000 campaign for President, Governor George W. Bush received the endorsement of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers. IBPO stated: “In this election, Gov. Bush is absolutely the law and order candidate…Governor Bush is a friend of police officers.” [IBPO, Police Chronicle, October, 2000]
IBPO Endorsed Bill Clinton in 1996 and 1992. During the 1992 and 1996 campaigns for President, Bill Clinton received the endorsement of the IBPO. IBPO stated: “We cannot take another four years of a Bush administration…They have stripped police departments and cities of the monies the federal government was pouring in to help us with our war on crime.” Clinton “trumpeted” the endorsement during the campaign. [The Commercial Appeal, 10/10/92; Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 10/10/92; Washington Post, 11/4/96]
John Kerry Has Stood By Police Officers:
John Kerry Led the Fight for Additional 100,000 Police Officers on America’s Streets. John Kerry led the fight to add 100,000 police to our streets through his work on the 1994 crime bill and its Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program. Kerry personally pushed the Clinton White House, the Justice Department, and members of Congress to obtain funding for the 100,000 cops program. Kerry “persuaded the Senate and the Clinton White House to finance a campaign pledge to put 100,000 more police officers on the street.” [Boston Globe, 6/21/03; S.Amdt. 1202 to S 1607, 11/16/03; Reason Magazine. 3/94]
Kerry Worked With Law Enforcement Officials to Ban Military-Style Assault Weapons. John Kerry has strongly supported the current ban on machine guns and assault weapons—including AK-47’s and similar weapons used by terrorists in Afghanistan. Police organizations including IBPO strongly support extension of the current ban. [RC 375, S Amdt. 1152 to S Amdt. 1151 to S 1607, 11/17/93; Orange County Register, 3/2/04]
Kerry is a National Leader in Working to Ban “Cop Killer Bullets.” John Kerry is a national leader in promoting sensible oversight of ammunition sales which have no sporting value yet risk the lives of police officers. Kerry has strongly supported measures to crack down on armor-piecing, “cop killer” bullets. [S. 553, 4/10/97; S. 433, 2/16/95; RC 240, S Amdt. 3351 to S. 2312, 7/28/98; RC 116, S Amdt. 343 to S 254, 5/13/99]
As a County Prosecutor, Kerry Fought Crime and Put Away Murderers and Mob Bosses. John Kerry was the first assistant prosecutor of Middlesex County (one of the largest counties in the country) and won convictions in high profile murder, rape and mafia cases. Kerry led the prosecutor’s office in a major modernization. “He launched initiatives that were innovative at the time: special units to prosecute white-collar and organized crime, programs to counsel rape victims and aid other crime victims and witnesses, and a system for fast-tracking priority cases to trial” and “is credited with reducing the backlog of cases.” [Boston Globe, 6/18/03; Washington Post, 2/21/85]
George Bush Has Turned His Back On Cops:
George Bush Guts Funding for Police Officers. The Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS) program has helped fund more than 100,000 police officers and contributed to one of the largest declines in crime in our nation’s history. Yet President Bush has sought to cut the COPS program in every one of his budgets. His current budget slashes the COPS program for 2005, providing only $97 million, a $646 million (87 percent) cut below the 2004 enacted level. Over the long term, his budget assumes the elimination of COPS hiring programs and technology and safe schools initiatives. [House Budget Committee Democratic Caucus, 2/19/04]
George Bush Says He Supports Extension of Assault Weapons Ban, But Fails to Move It. The White House says that on assault weapons, President Bush “supports the current law, and he supports reauthorization of the current law.” Yet the White House has done nothing to move an extension. President Bush actually opposed efforts to include an extension of the assault weapons ban as part of a bill he strongly supported to protect gun manufacturers from liability. The Bush Administration said: “The Administration urges the Senate to pass a clean bill, in order to ensure enactment of the legislation this year. Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable.” [Knight-Ridder, 4/12/03; Statement of Administrative Policy, 2/24/04; The Hill, 5/12/04]
Without Help From George Bush, War and State Budgets Have Forced Layoffs in Police Departments. While police departments have faced new burdens because of the war on terror, states and cities have had less money to address those burdens because of more than $200 billion in state deficits over the last three years. Without real help from President Bush, cities across America laid off cops. The situation has been made worse by the war on Iraq, which has “required the call-up of huge numbers of reserves, many of whom are cops.” [Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, 2/04; USA Today, 12/2/03; Washington Monthly, 9/03]
The Bush Administration Has Failed to Adequately Share Domestic Intelligence Information with Local Police Departments. The FBI and other intelligence agencies have been widely criticized for failing to share information with local police departments who police American cities. A GAO report found, “no level of government perceived the process as effective,” and only 13 percent of federal officials and 35 percent of state officials believed that the current level of intelligence sharing between federal, state, and local officials was adequate and effective. “Despite repeated FBI assurances that cops are equal partners in the war against terrorism, local cops say they frequently feel like second-class citizens.” [GAO, 8/27/03; Washington Monthly, 9/03]
Bush Proposed Cutting Overtime Pay for Cops. In both the original proposed overtime pay rules and the revised set of rules, the Bush Administration has threatened the overtime pay of thousands of police officers. Under the original Bush plan, “A police officer who walks a beat (manual work) may not lose overtime protection, but a police sergeant who spends significant time supervising two or three other officers will lose overtime protection.” Revised rules did not clarify the problem. [Economic Policy Institute, 7/26/03, 5/4/04]
John Kerry Will Stand by America’s Police Officers:
Support Police Officers in the Battles Against Crime and Terror. Police departments have faced historic burdens since 9/11, including added overtime work and needs for new training and new communications and safety equipment. While George Bush has failed to support these departments, John Kerry will provide $25 billion in immediate fiscal relief to states and communities—money that states and localities will be able to use to give the tools they need to keep our streets safe and protect against terror. In addition, John Kerry will continue the COPS program which he helped create.
Share Intelligence to Protect America Against Terror. John Kerry believes that appropriate state and local authorities should get access to the 58 national terrorist lists and intelligence officials should work to simplify these lists. In addition, a 24-hour operations center should be established in each state to provide a real time intergovernmental link between local and federal law enforcement. Field-level police would contact this center to determine whether to hold or release suspects based on a check of federal databases.
Continue the Assault Weapons Ban. John Kerry believes we can protect the right to bear arms and at the same time keep guns out of the hands of criminals. He stands with law enforcement officers, who put their lives on the line every day, in seeking to ensure that these officers are not outgunned by criminals armed with these weapons of war. John Kerry will renew the assault weapons ban, a measure President Bush claims to support, and will close the gun show loophole.
Support Neighborhood Prosecutor Programs. John Kerry will support police officers and reduce crime by brining prosecutors into high-crime neighborhoods. Kerry’s neighborhood prosecutor program will support states that assign prosecutors to specific communities where they work closely with police officers and residents to combat crimes like drug activity, noise violations, and vandalism. The prosecutors’ offices will be located in the neighborhoods where they are assigned, and prosecutors will regularly attend community meetings to solicit input.
______________________________________________________________________
Thanks to George Bush's inept leadership your consumer prices are going up as the national debt explodes along with the Middle East. You want a decent economy and a safer world, vote for John Kerry.
Consumer Prices Keep Climbing in April
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices rose by a modest 0.2 percent in April — settling down a bit from a large jump the previous month. (Note the Bush administration spin pasted to this opening sentence to try and sugar-coat the following bad news) Still, the government's latest report on the nation's pricing climate suggested that inflation is coming out of hibernation.
The advance in the Consumer Price Index, the government's most closely watched inflation barometer, followed a sizable 0.5 percent increase in March, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.
Excluding energy and food prices, the "core" rate of inflation rose by 0.3 percent in April, on top of a 0.4 percent rise the month before. This indicated that while inflation is still considered low, it is clearly awakening from a long slumber.
In the first four months of this year, consumer prices rose at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, compared with a 1.9 percent increase for all of last year. Core prices, meanwhile, also picked up steam. So far this year, they went up at a rate of 3 percent, outpacing the 1.1 percent rise for 2003.
Economists were forecasting a 0.3 percent rise in the overall CPI in April and a 0.2 percent increase in core prices.
In other economic news, the Federal Reserve reported that production at the nation's factories, mines and utilities rebounded in April, rising by a strong 0.8 percent. The rise, the biggest increase since November, exceeded analysts' forecasts. In March, industrial activity dipped by 0.1 percent.
The Commerce Department reported that businesses boosted their inventories by 0.7 percent in March, a sign that companies are feeling more confident in the recovery's staying power. Business sales rose by 2.9 percent in March.
On the inflation front, some companies — which had to keep a lid on price increases during the economic slump — are finding it easier to raise prices now that the economy is rebounding.
Wholesale prices jumped by 0.7 percent in April, the largest increase in a year, the government reported on Thursday.
While recent economic reports show inflation moving higher, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at their meeting last week indicated they are not yet worried. "Long-term inflation expectations appear to have remained well contained," they said then.
The Fed decided last week to hold short-term interest rates at a 46-year low of 1 percent, unchanged since last June. But the central bank signaled that rates could move higher now that the economic recovery is firmly rooted. Some economists believe the Fed could begin raising rates as soon as its next meeting in June. Others predict a rate increase will come in August or later this year.
Analysts don't believe inflation now threatens the recovery; but the upward movement in inflation marks a big change in the pricing climate from a year ago. The Fed then was worried about the prospects of deflation, which is a prolonged and widespread price decline.
In April, energy prices rose by 0.1 percent, down from a 1.9 percent spike in March. But some private economists believe energy prices could move higher in the months ahead.
Strong global demand and tensions in the Middle East catapulted oil prices to a record high Thursday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, at $41 a barrel.
Food prices, meanwhile, rose by 0.2 percent in April for the second straight month. Rising prices for beef and veal, dairy products, poultry and fruit swamped falling prices for pork and vegetables.
Elsewhere in the report: airfares prices jumped by 1 percent; medical care costs were up 0.4 percent; and college tuition and fees rose by 0.6 percent. Clothing prices were flat.
__________________________________________________________________________
Consumer Prices Keep Climbing in April
By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Consumer prices rose by a modest 0.2 percent in April — settling down a bit from a large jump the previous month. (Note the Bush administration spin pasted to this opening sentence to try and sugar-coat the following bad news) Still, the government's latest report on the nation's pricing climate suggested that inflation is coming out of hibernation.
The advance in the Consumer Price Index, the government's most closely watched inflation barometer, followed a sizable 0.5 percent increase in March, the Labor Department (news - web sites) reported Friday.
Excluding energy and food prices, the "core" rate of inflation rose by 0.3 percent in April, on top of a 0.4 percent rise the month before. This indicated that while inflation is still considered low, it is clearly awakening from a long slumber.
In the first four months of this year, consumer prices rose at an annual rate of 4.4 percent, compared with a 1.9 percent increase for all of last year. Core prices, meanwhile, also picked up steam. So far this year, they went up at a rate of 3 percent, outpacing the 1.1 percent rise for 2003.
Economists were forecasting a 0.3 percent rise in the overall CPI in April and a 0.2 percent increase in core prices.
In other economic news, the Federal Reserve reported that production at the nation's factories, mines and utilities rebounded in April, rising by a strong 0.8 percent. The rise, the biggest increase since November, exceeded analysts' forecasts. In March, industrial activity dipped by 0.1 percent.
The Commerce Department reported that businesses boosted their inventories by 0.7 percent in March, a sign that companies are feeling more confident in the recovery's staying power. Business sales rose by 2.9 percent in March.
On the inflation front, some companies — which had to keep a lid on price increases during the economic slump — are finding it easier to raise prices now that the economy is rebounding.
Wholesale prices jumped by 0.7 percent in April, the largest increase in a year, the government reported on Thursday.
While recent economic reports show inflation moving higher, Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan and his colleagues at their meeting last week indicated they are not yet worried. "Long-term inflation expectations appear to have remained well contained," they said then.
The Fed decided last week to hold short-term interest rates at a 46-year low of 1 percent, unchanged since last June. But the central bank signaled that rates could move higher now that the economic recovery is firmly rooted. Some economists believe the Fed could begin raising rates as soon as its next meeting in June. Others predict a rate increase will come in August or later this year.
Analysts don't believe inflation now threatens the recovery; but the upward movement in inflation marks a big change in the pricing climate from a year ago. The Fed then was worried about the prospects of deflation, which is a prolonged and widespread price decline.
In April, energy prices rose by 0.1 percent, down from a 1.9 percent spike in March. But some private economists believe energy prices could move higher in the months ahead.
Strong global demand and tensions in the Middle East catapulted oil prices to a record high Thursday on the New York Mercantile Exchange, at $41 a barrel.
Food prices, meanwhile, rose by 0.2 percent in April for the second straight month. Rising prices for beef and veal, dairy products, poultry and fruit swamped falling prices for pork and vegetables.
Elsewhere in the report: airfares prices jumped by 1 percent; medical care costs were up 0.4 percent; and college tuition and fees rose by 0.6 percent. Clothing prices were flat.
__________________________________________________________________________
Center for American Progress
UNDER THE RADAR
CORRECTION: Yesterday's Progress Report said "80 military lawyers 'appealed to a senior representative of the New York State Bar Association to try to persuade the Pentagon to revise its practices' regarding interrogation rules in Iraq." In fact, 8 lawyers appealed. We regret the error.
IRAQ
More Blank Checks
On the same day the White House sent its new $25 billion Iraq spending request to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told lawmakers the administration would actually need at least $50 billion more, and other military experts told CongressDaily that number might even reach $80 billion. The $25-billion request will not release money until October of 2004 – four months from now despite an immediate need for protective equipment. The massive spending request was just one page in length, as the White House refused to detail how it wanted to spend the money – essentially demanding "unfettered flexibility" in an attempt to circumvent any congressional oversight. The legislation also included language allowing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to move resources into classified areas (such as interrogation operations) with next to no congressional approval. The request comes even as the administration has been unable to refute charges that it secretly moved $700 million out of Afghanistan operations and into Iraq war planning in 2002, without the consent of Congress which is required by law.
NEW STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON IRAQ COSTS: The National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group, today released a new report analyzing how much the Iraq War has cost taxpayers in each state, and comparing it to how much each state has received for other federal programs. For instance, in Wisconsin, where President Bush will be giving a commencement address today, the state has forked over roughly $2.6 billion for Iraq, while receiving just $861 million for education programs, and $221 million for environmental protection in the same time period.
LAWMAKERS WANT MORE OVERSIGHT: Lawmakers from both parties yesterday appeared concerned that the carte blanche language in the White House's $25-billion request would allow the administration to spend money wherever it wants, instead of mandating that the money go directly to areas most in need. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) told CongressDaily that "he would insist on some restrictions on flexibility in using the additional funds." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the bill as "a blank check," while "even staunch White House allies like Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) said that the Senate needed more details."
WHITE HOUSE HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY ON FUNDING ISSUES: After Wolfowitz made more predictions about the cost of war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questioned his credibility, noting, "You have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions." To see Wolfowitz's and others' false claims about the cost of war, see American Progress's Claims vs. Facts database at www.claimvfact.org – we have just added a special topic on Iraq War Costs.
EVIDENCE WHITE HOUSE NOT TAKING SUPPORT FOR TROOPS SERIOUSLY: Despite the White House saying that the $25-billion request was specifically to help fund immediate military shortfalls, the text of the legislation (page 4 of this document) actually says the money cannot be spent until October 1, 2005 – a full 16 months from now. When this was pointed out by the Center for American Progress, CongressDaily reported that administration "spokesman Chad Kolton said it was in fact a typographical error -albeit a rather big one." Kolton then attacked American Progress for having the nerve to scrutinize the bill so closely, saying, "They might want to try turning the lights out a little earlier over there" – an action that apparently scores of taxpayer-funded staffers writing Bush administration legislation know all too well.
IRAQ
Geneva Conventions
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, contradicted their boss Donald Rumsfeld yesterday in a Senate hearing on interrogation techniques. Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the Pentagon officials acknowledged some of the interrogation techniques which were approved for use in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions, the international rules governing prisoner treatment. Given an example by Reed of "a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes," Wolfowitz conceded, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention." Pace "went a step further, saying directly: 'I would describe it as a violation, sir.'"
EXCLUSIVE NEW PICTURES BRING NEW QUESTIONS: The White House is trying to avoid responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In truth, reports show the abuse was systemic. There's new photographic evidence that the abuse was directly linked to military intelligence; a new picture released to NBC shows military intelligence officers supervising the abuse of an Iraqi captive. Questions have also been raised "about the Defense Department's list of approved rules for interrogations and whether they violate the Geneva Conventions, a series of international treaties that govern the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war." This new photograph could be important in assessing blame and "determining whether interrogation techniques used at the prison were improper in themselves."
RUMSFELD'S SHADY ETHICS: On the same day Wolfowitz and Pace were meeting with the Senate, Rumsfeld took a moment during a flight to Iraq to dissemble about the abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying torture was a matter of opinion. Asked why he refused to acknowledge the Geneva Convention in Iraq had been violated, Rumsfeld said: "I think that everyone has to make those judgments themselves because if you think about it, Geneva doesn't say what you do when you get up in the morning...Some will say, well, I think it's terrific except that in my view it is mental torture to do something that is inconvenient in a certain way for a detainee. Like standing up for a long period or some other thing that someone else might say is not, uh, in any way abusive or - or harmful. And, uh, there's no way to get everybody to agree to all that because when Geneva was prepared and agreed upon, it didn't go to that level of detail."
HARMING AMERICA: The C.I.A. and Justice Department lawyers drew up "secret legal opinions" which the NYT writes "provided a legal basis for the use of harsh interrogation techniques." The memos "advise government officials that if they are contemplating procedures that may put them in violation of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment or the Geneva Conventions, they will not be responsible if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another country." That twisted logic, aside from being ethically and morally repulsive, ultimately damages the United States. The WP editorial page writes, "But there are not separate Geneva Conventions for Americans and for the rest of the world. We learned this week that the Pentagon approved the use of hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs and prolonged solitary confinement as legal under the Geneva Conventions. By defending that policy, Mr. Rumsfeld is further harming America's reputation while sanctioning the use of similar techniques on captured Americans around the world. Instead of defending their use, the administration should be disavowing them and rededicating itself to international law."
HOW TO CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF MORAL AMBIGUITY: Did the White House create the atmosphere that caused or contributed to the abuse of prisoners? The administration has tried to avoid responsibility by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In reality, the administration itself "bears part of the blame for having approved more aggressive interrogation techniques." According to the LAT, senior military lawyers are charging the White House shut them out of the prison policy process, instead relying on politically-motivated civilian lawyers to relax the rules. According to Scott Horton, chairman of the New York City Bar Assn. committee that filed a report this month on the interrogation of detainees, "military lawyers told him that [undersecretary of Defense for policy Doug] Feith pressed for looser interrogation rules and won approval for them from the administration's civilian lawyers earlier in the U.S. war on terrorism." The military lawyers "complained that the Pentagon was creating 'an atmosphere of legal ambiguity'"
ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL?: The WP reports, "Wolfowitz said he had not seen the Army's rules for interrogations of Iraqis -- a document that was released at an Armed Services hearing three days ago and carried in some newspapers." "I saw this document for the first time this morning," he said in yesterday's Senate hearing.
MEDICARE
Of, By & For the Drug Industry
The Bush administration's promise that new Medicare prescription drug cards would immediately save seniors big money is finally meeting reality – and the results are ugly. Seniors are finding mass confusion, and restrictive caveats. Specifically, they are forced to lock into one of the 73 cards, even though the benefits of the card they choose are subject to change whenever drug companies want to maximize profits. Why would the administration set up this kind of system? Maybe because, as the Boston Globe reported, President Bush allowed his longtime Texas crony and financial backer David Halbert – a drug industry executive – to personally "craft the portion of the Medicare bill" that created the drug card program. Halbert's company, Advance PCS – which Bush himself once invested in and made up to $1 million from – was one of the first companies approved to participate in the new drug card program, and stands to make substantial profits. For more on the Bush-Halbert-drug-card nexus, see this special report by the Center for American Progress, and this editorial by the York Sunday News.
INDUSTRY CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THE FACTS: CongressDaily reports that a study commissioned by an industry front group called the "Healthcare Leadership Council" claims "the new drug cards could save more than 20% on the most common prescriptions." Despite the Council's objective-sounding name, its membership reads like a who's who list of major drug companies – and its poll is equally deceptive. The current savings are "based on drug prices posted this week by the providers of the 73 different discount cards" – but those drug prices are subject to change at any time, even though seniors are locked into whichever card they initially choose.
REPORT – INDUSTRY GAVE BUSH/CONGRESS $47M FOR PROVISION: A new study by the Center for American Progress finds that President Bush and key Congressional leaders received $47 million from the same large corporations who lobbied for a provision in the Medicare bill allowing them to dump their retirees from exsiting drug coverage. In January, the WSJ reported that the White House and its allies in Congress added "a little-noticed provision" to the law which rewards companies with a tax subsidy even if they reduce retirees' existing drug coverage – effectively providing a a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits. According to the WSJ, that provision was pushed by the "Employers' Coalition on Medicare." American Progress's study charts how much each member of the "Coalition" gave to Bush and conservatives in Congress, and notes that at least 10 of the companies (who alone gave $17 million) have either tried or are trying to reduce retiree health benefits.
GOVERNORS ACT IN FACE OF WHITE HOUSE SHILLING FOR INDUSTRY: While the Bush administration continues to do the drug industry's bidding by blocking bipartisan prescription drug reimportation legislation, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is moving forward with "a new program that will allow state employees to obtain certain prescription drugs free if they order the medication from a state-inspected Canadian pharmacy." Meanwhile, Oregon became the latest state to join the fight, with Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) "saying he intends to seek federal approval to let Oregonians import medications from Canada."
JUST HOW FAR THE DRUG INDUSTRY WILL GO FOR PROFITS: AP reports "Pfizer Inc. has agreed to plead guilty and pay $430 million in fines to settle charges that its Warner-Lambert unit flouted federal law by promoting non-approved uses for one of its drugs." Under the agreement released yesterday by federal prosecutors, "the company acknowledged spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote non-approved uses for the anti-seizure drug Neurontin, in part by paying doctors hefty speakers' fees and 'educational' trips that involved flying them to lavish resorts."
AFGHANISTAN – "UNWILLING" TO RECOGNIZE THREATS: With Iraq in turmoil, the administration has tried to paint a sunny picture of the postwar situation in Afghanistan; unfortunately, the reality is much grimmer. At a Senate Foreign Relations hearing yesterday, a special advisor from the United States Institute of Peace, Robert M. Perito, testified, "Two and one half years after the defeat of the Taliban, security remains the primary concern in Afghanistan…Today, Afghanistan faces the combined threat of resurgent terrorism, fractional conflict and dependence on narcotics." Following these and other revelations concerning the resurgence of the drug trade, problems registering voters, and an inability to properly account for a "US contractor-financed private foreign security force," International Crisis Group Senior Vice President Mark Schneider placed the blame for Afghanistan's deteriorating security and lack of resources squarely at the feet of the Bush administration: "This effort may fail," he said. "It will not fail because of a lack of desire, a lack of commitment by millions of Afghans… it may fail because the administration has been unwilling to recognize the magnitude of the threats which we face and to direct sufficient political, military and financial resources to overcome them."
CORPORATE – CEO PAY OUT OF CONTROL: Reuters reports, "The median compensation for chief executives at the largest U.S. companies rose to $4.6 million last year, up from a median $3.6 million in 2002." The 27% pay hike for CEOs "exceeds the 11.5% rise in 2002" and stands in stark contrast to stagnating wages for average workers. In 2002, the "median household income fell by $500, or 1.1 percent." The Corporate Library, which conducted the study, said the massive raises for CEOs "shows that calls for pay restraint are being ignored."
GOVERNMENT – OVERLOOKING OVERSIGHT: The Hill reports senior members of both parties believe "Congress has failed to carry out its critical role in overseeing the vast federal bureaucracy, falling particularly short since Republicans captured the White House in 2000." Congressional neglect "touches virtually every federal function — from education programs to government contractors." Some speculate Congress is failing to perform its oversight duties because of the "tightly knit relationship between leading congressional Republicans and President Bush...[who] has yet to issue a veto of any legislation." When an oversight hearing is held "the results aren't always as enlightening as they could be."
MEDIA – CONSERVATIVE SAVAGERY ABOUT PRISON ABUSE: If you thought that Rush Limbaugh had offensive things to say about the prison abuse in Iraq what until you hear Michael Savage. According to a new report by MediaMatters, Savage, a conservative radio host heard by more than 6 million visitors per week, said "these so called abuse photos frankly are mild by comparisons to what goes on in South of Market clubs in San Francisco." Far from condemning the abuse, Savage believes "you're gonna find that we need more of the humiliation tactics, not less." Savage suggests the military "should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail." Savage also told a caller "if there's any way to send a letter to Hillary Clinton and tell her to stop it before she kills more [Nick] Bergs, I would appreciate it."
HOMELAND SECURITY – RIGGS FINED FOR SAUDI ACTIVITY: "Federal banking agencies jointly imposed a near-record $25 million fine on Riggs Bank N.A. for a range of violations of money-laundering laws related to its oversight of accounts held by diplomats for two oil-rich nations." Of particular concern, Riggs failed to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan."
________________________________________________________________________
UNDER THE RADAR
CORRECTION: Yesterday's Progress Report said "80 military lawyers 'appealed to a senior representative of the New York State Bar Association to try to persuade the Pentagon to revise its practices' regarding interrogation rules in Iraq." In fact, 8 lawyers appealed. We regret the error.
IRAQ
More Blank Checks
On the same day the White House sent its new $25 billion Iraq spending request to Congress, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told lawmakers the administration would actually need at least $50 billion more, and other military experts told CongressDaily that number might even reach $80 billion. The $25-billion request will not release money until October of 2004 – four months from now despite an immediate need for protective equipment. The massive spending request was just one page in length, as the White House refused to detail how it wanted to spend the money – essentially demanding "unfettered flexibility" in an attempt to circumvent any congressional oversight. The legislation also included language allowing Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to move resources into classified areas (such as interrogation operations) with next to no congressional approval. The request comes even as the administration has been unable to refute charges that it secretly moved $700 million out of Afghanistan operations and into Iraq war planning in 2002, without the consent of Congress which is required by law.
NEW STATE-BY-STATE REPORT ON IRAQ COSTS: The National Priorities Project, a nonpartisan research group, today released a new report analyzing how much the Iraq War has cost taxpayers in each state, and comparing it to how much each state has received for other federal programs. For instance, in Wisconsin, where President Bush will be giving a commencement address today, the state has forked over roughly $2.6 billion for Iraq, while receiving just $861 million for education programs, and $221 million for environmental protection in the same time period.
LAWMAKERS WANT MORE OVERSIGHT: Lawmakers from both parties yesterday appeared concerned that the carte blanche language in the White House's $25-billion request would allow the administration to spend money wherever it wants, instead of mandating that the money go directly to areas most in need. House Appropriations Committee Chairman Bill Young (R-FL) told CongressDaily that "he would insist on some restrictions on flexibility in using the additional funds." Sen. John McCain (R-AZ) criticized the bill as "a blank check," while "even staunch White House allies like Sens. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) and Wayne Allard (R-CO) said that the Senate needed more details."
WHITE HOUSE HAS LOST ALL CREDIBILITY ON FUNDING ISSUES: After Wolfowitz made more predictions about the cost of war in Iraq, Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) questioned his credibility, noting, "You have made numerous predictions, time and time again, that have turned out to be untrue and were based on faulty assumptions." To see Wolfowitz's and others' false claims about the cost of war, see American Progress's Claims vs. Facts database at www.claimvfact.org – we have just added a special topic on Iraq War Costs.
EVIDENCE WHITE HOUSE NOT TAKING SUPPORT FOR TROOPS SERIOUSLY: Despite the White House saying that the $25-billion request was specifically to help fund immediate military shortfalls, the text of the legislation (page 4 of this document) actually says the money cannot be spent until October 1, 2005 – a full 16 months from now. When this was pointed out by the Center for American Progress, CongressDaily reported that administration "spokesman Chad Kolton said it was in fact a typographical error -albeit a rather big one." Kolton then attacked American Progress for having the nerve to scrutinize the bill so closely, saying, "They might want to try turning the lights out a little earlier over there" – an action that apparently scores of taxpayer-funded staffers writing Bush administration legislation know all too well.
IRAQ
Geneva Conventions
Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Peter Pace, contradicted their boss Donald Rumsfeld yesterday in a Senate hearing on interrogation techniques. Under questioning from Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), the Pentagon officials acknowledged some of the interrogation techniques which were approved for use in Iraq violated the Geneva Conventions, the international rules governing prisoner treatment. Given an example by Reed of "a prisoner who was hooded, naked and forced to crouch for 45 minutes," Wolfowitz conceded, "What you've described to me sounds, to me, like a violation of the Geneva Convention." Pace "went a step further, saying directly: 'I would describe it as a violation, sir.'"
EXCLUSIVE NEW PICTURES BRING NEW QUESTIONS: The White House is trying to avoid responsibility for the abuse at Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In truth, reports show the abuse was systemic. There's new photographic evidence that the abuse was directly linked to military intelligence; a new picture released to NBC shows military intelligence officers supervising the abuse of an Iraqi captive. Questions have also been raised "about the Defense Department's list of approved rules for interrogations and whether they violate the Geneva Conventions, a series of international treaties that govern the appropriate treatment of prisoners of war." This new photograph could be important in assessing blame and "determining whether interrogation techniques used at the prison were improper in themselves."
RUMSFELD'S SHADY ETHICS: On the same day Wolfowitz and Pace were meeting with the Senate, Rumsfeld took a moment during a flight to Iraq to dissemble about the abuse at Abu Ghraib, saying torture was a matter of opinion. Asked why he refused to acknowledge the Geneva Convention in Iraq had been violated, Rumsfeld said: "I think that everyone has to make those judgments themselves because if you think about it, Geneva doesn't say what you do when you get up in the morning...Some will say, well, I think it's terrific except that in my view it is mental torture to do something that is inconvenient in a certain way for a detainee. Like standing up for a long period or some other thing that someone else might say is not, uh, in any way abusive or - or harmful. And, uh, there's no way to get everybody to agree to all that because when Geneva was prepared and agreed upon, it didn't go to that level of detail."
HARMING AMERICA: The C.I.A. and Justice Department lawyers drew up "secret legal opinions" which the NYT writes "provided a legal basis for the use of harsh interrogation techniques." The memos "advise government officials that if they are contemplating procedures that may put them in violation of American statutes that prohibit torture, degrading treatment or the Geneva Conventions, they will not be responsible if it can be argued that the detainees are formally in the custody of another country." That twisted logic, aside from being ethically and morally repulsive, ultimately damages the United States. The WP editorial page writes, "But there are not separate Geneva Conventions for Americans and for the rest of the world. We learned this week that the Pentagon approved the use of hooding, stress positions, sleep deprivation, intimidation by dogs and prolonged solitary confinement as legal under the Geneva Conventions. By defending that policy, Mr. Rumsfeld is further harming America's reputation while sanctioning the use of similar techniques on captured Americans around the world. Instead of defending their use, the administration should be disavowing them and rededicating itself to international law."
HOW TO CREATE AN ATMOSPHERE OF MORAL AMBIGUITY: Did the White House create the atmosphere that caused or contributed to the abuse of prisoners? The administration has tried to avoid responsibility by pinning the blame on a handful of errant reservists. In reality, the administration itself "bears part of the blame for having approved more aggressive interrogation techniques." According to the LAT, senior military lawyers are charging the White House shut them out of the prison policy process, instead relying on politically-motivated civilian lawyers to relax the rules. According to Scott Horton, chairman of the New York City Bar Assn. committee that filed a report this month on the interrogation of detainees, "military lawyers told him that [undersecretary of Defense for policy Doug] Feith pressed for looser interrogation rules and won approval for them from the administration's civilian lawyers earlier in the U.S. war on terrorism." The military lawyers "complained that the Pentagon was creating 'an atmosphere of legal ambiguity'"
ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL?: The WP reports, "Wolfowitz said he had not seen the Army's rules for interrogations of Iraqis -- a document that was released at an Armed Services hearing three days ago and carried in some newspapers." "I saw this document for the first time this morning," he said in yesterday's Senate hearing.
MEDICARE
Of, By & For the Drug Industry
The Bush administration's promise that new Medicare prescription drug cards would immediately save seniors big money is finally meeting reality – and the results are ugly. Seniors are finding mass confusion, and restrictive caveats. Specifically, they are forced to lock into one of the 73 cards, even though the benefits of the card they choose are subject to change whenever drug companies want to maximize profits. Why would the administration set up this kind of system? Maybe because, as the Boston Globe reported, President Bush allowed his longtime Texas crony and financial backer David Halbert – a drug industry executive – to personally "craft the portion of the Medicare bill" that created the drug card program. Halbert's company, Advance PCS – which Bush himself once invested in and made up to $1 million from – was one of the first companies approved to participate in the new drug card program, and stands to make substantial profits. For more on the Bush-Halbert-drug-card nexus, see this special report by the Center for American Progress, and this editorial by the York Sunday News.
INDUSTRY CONVENIENTLY IGNORES THE FACTS: CongressDaily reports that a study commissioned by an industry front group called the "Healthcare Leadership Council" claims "the new drug cards could save more than 20% on the most common prescriptions." Despite the Council's objective-sounding name, its membership reads like a who's who list of major drug companies – and its poll is equally deceptive. The current savings are "based on drug prices posted this week by the providers of the 73 different discount cards" – but those drug prices are subject to change at any time, even though seniors are locked into whichever card they initially choose.
REPORT – INDUSTRY GAVE BUSH/CONGRESS $47M FOR PROVISION: A new study by the Center for American Progress finds that President Bush and key Congressional leaders received $47 million from the same large corporations who lobbied for a provision in the Medicare bill allowing them to dump their retirees from exsiting drug coverage. In January, the WSJ reported that the White House and its allies in Congress added "a little-noticed provision" to the law which rewards companies with a tax subsidy even if they reduce retirees' existing drug coverage – effectively providing a a financial incentive to reduce retiree benefits. According to the WSJ, that provision was pushed by the "Employers' Coalition on Medicare." American Progress's study charts how much each member of the "Coalition" gave to Bush and conservatives in Congress, and notes that at least 10 of the companies (who alone gave $17 million) have either tried or are trying to reduce retiree health benefits.
GOVERNORS ACT IN FACE OF WHITE HOUSE SHILLING FOR INDUSTRY: While the Bush administration continues to do the drug industry's bidding by blocking bipartisan prescription drug reimportation legislation, Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R-MN) is moving forward with "a new program that will allow state employees to obtain certain prescription drugs free if they order the medication from a state-inspected Canadian pharmacy." Meanwhile, Oregon became the latest state to join the fight, with Gov. Ted Kulongoski (D) "saying he intends to seek federal approval to let Oregonians import medications from Canada."
JUST HOW FAR THE DRUG INDUSTRY WILL GO FOR PROFITS: AP reports "Pfizer Inc. has agreed to plead guilty and pay $430 million in fines to settle charges that its Warner-Lambert unit flouted federal law by promoting non-approved uses for one of its drugs." Under the agreement released yesterday by federal prosecutors, "the company acknowledged spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote non-approved uses for the anti-seizure drug Neurontin, in part by paying doctors hefty speakers' fees and 'educational' trips that involved flying them to lavish resorts."
AFGHANISTAN – "UNWILLING" TO RECOGNIZE THREATS: With Iraq in turmoil, the administration has tried to paint a sunny picture of the postwar situation in Afghanistan; unfortunately, the reality is much grimmer. At a Senate Foreign Relations hearing yesterday, a special advisor from the United States Institute of Peace, Robert M. Perito, testified, "Two and one half years after the defeat of the Taliban, security remains the primary concern in Afghanistan…Today, Afghanistan faces the combined threat of resurgent terrorism, fractional conflict and dependence on narcotics." Following these and other revelations concerning the resurgence of the drug trade, problems registering voters, and an inability to properly account for a "US contractor-financed private foreign security force," International Crisis Group Senior Vice President Mark Schneider placed the blame for Afghanistan's deteriorating security and lack of resources squarely at the feet of the Bush administration: "This effort may fail," he said. "It will not fail because of a lack of desire, a lack of commitment by millions of Afghans… it may fail because the administration has been unwilling to recognize the magnitude of the threats which we face and to direct sufficient political, military and financial resources to overcome them."
CORPORATE – CEO PAY OUT OF CONTROL: Reuters reports, "The median compensation for chief executives at the largest U.S. companies rose to $4.6 million last year, up from a median $3.6 million in 2002." The 27% pay hike for CEOs "exceeds the 11.5% rise in 2002" and stands in stark contrast to stagnating wages for average workers. In 2002, the "median household income fell by $500, or 1.1 percent." The Corporate Library, which conducted the study, said the massive raises for CEOs "shows that calls for pay restraint are being ignored."
GOVERNMENT – OVERLOOKING OVERSIGHT: The Hill reports senior members of both parties believe "Congress has failed to carry out its critical role in overseeing the vast federal bureaucracy, falling particularly short since Republicans captured the White House in 2000." Congressional neglect "touches virtually every federal function — from education programs to government contractors." Some speculate Congress is failing to perform its oversight duties because of the "tightly knit relationship between leading congressional Republicans and President Bush...[who] has yet to issue a veto of any legislation." When an oversight hearing is held "the results aren't always as enlightening as they could be."
MEDIA – CONSERVATIVE SAVAGERY ABOUT PRISON ABUSE: If you thought that Rush Limbaugh had offensive things to say about the prison abuse in Iraq what until you hear Michael Savage. According to a new report by MediaMatters, Savage, a conservative radio host heard by more than 6 million visitors per week, said "these so called abuse photos frankly are mild by comparisons to what goes on in South of Market clubs in San Francisco." Far from condemning the abuse, Savage believes "you're gonna find that we need more of the humiliation tactics, not less." Savage suggests the military "should put dynamite in their behinds and drop them from 35,000 feet, the whole pack of scum out of that jail." Savage also told a caller "if there's any way to send a letter to Hillary Clinton and tell her to stop it before she kills more [Nick] Bergs, I would appreciate it."
HOMELAND SECURITY – RIGGS FINED FOR SAUDI ACTIVITY: "Federal banking agencies jointly imposed a near-record $25 million fine on Riggs Bank N.A. for a range of violations of money-laundering laws related to its oversight of accounts held by diplomats for two oil-rich nations." Of particular concern, Riggs failed to monitor "tens of millions of dollars in cash withdrawals from accounts related to the Saudi Arabian embassy," including "suspicious incidents involving dozens of sequentially numbered cashier's checks and international drafts written by Saudi officials, including Saudi Ambassador Prince Bandar bin Sultan."
________________________________________________________________________
A picture's worth a thousand unanswered questions.
COMMENTARY LA TIMES
He's the Picture of Racial Compassion
The president's website is chock-full of nifty photographs. But does Bush think that images of him hanging out with black people is enough?
By Lawrence Weschler
Lawrence Weschler, author of the forthcoming book "Vermeer in Bosnia," heads the New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU.
May 13, 2004
Quick. Before they take it down. Go to your computer, log on to http://www.georgewbush.com — the official Bush/Cheney '04 reelection website.
OK, now notice how running horizontally along the top there's a row of file tabs: Economy, Compassion, Health Care, Education, Homeland Security and so forth.
So, hmmm: Compassion. What could that mean? What might that involve, thematically speaking? Click the tab, and there you are on the Compassion page.
Nice big picture of Bush merrily shooting the breeze with two black teenage girls. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a quadrant labeled Compassion Photos, with the invitation, "Click here for the Compassion Photo Album." Do so.
And let's see, what have we got? First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click "next." And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. Next: Bush waving to the Urban League. Next: Bush working a crowd, a black — or maybe, in this case, South Indian — kid prominently featured in the foreground, gazing on in amazement. Bush in an African thatch-roofed schoolroom.
It's incredible: The guy is so compassionate. His wife too: She doesn't seem to have any trouble reading to a bunch of kindergartners of color.
And now, there he is again, reading to a different roomful of black schoolchildren. It's amazing — photo after photo, 19 in all, and almost every single one of them giving further testimony to the astonishing capaciousness of the guy's Compassion, by which we are given to understand: He just has no trouble at all touching black people! Hammering with them, bagging groceries, tottering alongside them on weirdly high stools.
It's like Ben Hur among the lepers — the guy doesn't hesitate, he just goes and does it! Why, the Compassion page even includes a photo of him standing next to his own secretary of State, Colin Powell!
I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks.
My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion?
Maybe it's for the president's white supporters, anxious lest they be visited by tinges of self-doubt over their own arguable racism in continuing to support such a state of affairs. Maybe it's all just a mistake — some staffer messed up.
(Although in this context it's worth recalling Bush's own reply to a journalist in 2001 who, citing the new president's highly unusual refusal to address the annual meeting of the NAACP, had asked how he might respond to critics who said his "civil rights record was less than stellar." Smirking, the president replied: "Let's see. There I was sitting around the table with foreign leaders looking at Colin Powell and Condi Rice." End of discussion. Even some conservative commentators were taken aback by the glibness of that answer. Tucker Carlson called it a "lame response" and insulting to Powell and Rice for Bush to say, "I was sitting with black people when I was criticized.")
So let's just say that the Compassion photo page was some staff screw-up. Surely heads are going to roll; somebody is going to be held to account, right? They'll take down the site and somebody is going to take the fall. In fact, maybe they'll replace the Compassion file tab with a new one: I don't know, say: Accountability. And that slide show will display the administration's forthright approach in consistently facing up to and correcting policy lapses, featuring, one after the next, all the Bush appointees who, for failure to head off variously egregious foul-ups, have been required to resign. You know, people like … well, like … hmmm … oh heck, never mind.
*
Lawrence Weschler, author of the forthcoming book "Vermeer in Bosnia," heads the New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU. The photographs discussed here also can be viewed on the Web at http://www.moveon pac.org/compassionmirror.
__________________________________________________________________
COMMENTARY LA TIMES
He's the Picture of Racial Compassion
The president's website is chock-full of nifty photographs. But does Bush think that images of him hanging out with black people is enough?
By Lawrence Weschler
Lawrence Weschler, author of the forthcoming book "Vermeer in Bosnia," heads the New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU.
May 13, 2004
Quick. Before they take it down. Go to your computer, log on to http://www.georgewbush.com — the official Bush/Cheney '04 reelection website.
OK, now notice how running horizontally along the top there's a row of file tabs: Economy, Compassion, Health Care, Education, Homeland Security and so forth.
So, hmmm: Compassion. What could that mean? What might that involve, thematically speaking? Click the tab, and there you are on the Compassion page.
Nice big picture of Bush merrily shooting the breeze with two black teenage girls. Scroll down to the bottom of the page and you'll find a quadrant labeled Compassion Photos, with the invitation, "Click here for the Compassion Photo Album." Do so.
And let's see, what have we got? First one up: short-sleeved Bush, holding a black kid in his arms, a bleacher full of black kids behind him, and he's merrily waving to the crowd. Click "next." And it's Bush at a Waco Habitat for Humanity building site, his arm draped around a black woman, his other hand tapping the shoulder of another of the black construction volunteers. Next: Bush waving to the Urban League. Next: Bush working a crowd, a black — or maybe, in this case, South Indian — kid prominently featured in the foreground, gazing on in amazement. Bush in an African thatch-roofed schoolroom.
It's incredible: The guy is so compassionate. His wife too: She doesn't seem to have any trouble reading to a bunch of kindergartners of color.
And now, there he is again, reading to a different roomful of black schoolchildren. It's amazing — photo after photo, 19 in all, and almost every single one of them giving further testimony to the astonishing capaciousness of the guy's Compassion, by which we are given to understand: He just has no trouble at all touching black people! Hammering with them, bagging groceries, tottering alongside them on weirdly high stools.
It's like Ben Hur among the lepers — the guy doesn't hesitate, he just goes and does it! Why, the Compassion page even includes a photo of him standing next to his own secretary of State, Colin Powell!
I mean, bracket for a moment some of the actual facts concerning the fate of blacks and other people of color across the years of the Bush administration. How, for instance, tax cuts massively skewed toward the wealthy favor whites, while the huge resultant deficits necessitate service cuts massively disfavoring the poor, a group that includes proportionally more blacks.
My question is, for whom is this photo gallery intended? Does anybody seriously think blacks are going to be swayed by one staged photo op after another, in which time and again their confederates are cast as the pitiable recipients of an ostentatious display of kingly compassion?
Maybe it's for the president's white supporters, anxious lest they be visited by tinges of self-doubt over their own arguable racism in continuing to support such a state of affairs. Maybe it's all just a mistake — some staffer messed up.
(Although in this context it's worth recalling Bush's own reply to a journalist in 2001 who, citing the new president's highly unusual refusal to address the annual meeting of the NAACP, had asked how he might respond to critics who said his "civil rights record was less than stellar." Smirking, the president replied: "Let's see. There I was sitting around the table with foreign leaders looking at Colin Powell and Condi Rice." End of discussion. Even some conservative commentators were taken aback by the glibness of that answer. Tucker Carlson called it a "lame response" and insulting to Powell and Rice for Bush to say, "I was sitting with black people when I was criticized.")
So let's just say that the Compassion photo page was some staff screw-up. Surely heads are going to roll; somebody is going to be held to account, right? They'll take down the site and somebody is going to take the fall. In fact, maybe they'll replace the Compassion file tab with a new one: I don't know, say: Accountability. And that slide show will display the administration's forthright approach in consistently facing up to and correcting policy lapses, featuring, one after the next, all the Bush appointees who, for failure to head off variously egregious foul-ups, have been required to resign. You know, people like … well, like … hmmm … oh heck, never mind.
*
Lawrence Weschler, author of the forthcoming book "Vermeer in Bosnia," heads the New York Institute for the Humanities at NYU. The photographs discussed here also can be viewed on the Web at http://www.moveon pac.org/compassionmirror.
__________________________________________________________________
Note how Rummy gives lip service to a free press and then turns on it when it exposes the truth.
COMMENTARY LA TIMES
Extra! Read Nothing About It
By William Powers
William Powers is the media critic for the National Journal.
May 14, 2004
"I've stopped reading the newspapers," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday in Baghdad to a gathering of soldiers, who broke out in rousing applause.
It was a joke. Or was it? After all, this is not exactly an administration of news junkies. The president himself admitted last year he "rarely" reads news stories, relying instead on the more "objective sources" on his staff to tell him what's happening in the world. (Truth be told, White House staffers often outshine real journalists. That story they did about the African uranium was unforgettable, like a great novel.)
Here's another reason I thought it might be a joke. Just a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld told a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors that America's leaders must be "challenged, internally through the complex constitutional system of checks and balances, and externally by a free and energetic press." He also said our political system "needs information to be self-correcting."
But that was before all this horrible news starting breaking, and reading the paper became so, well, unpleasant. The first lady said this week she "can't bear" to look at the torture photos in the papers.
One can imagine even a man of Rumsfeld's sturdy temperament being unable to stomach what's on the front pages. It's gruesome stuff, real depravity. To immerse yourself in that every day can be downright depressing. And a Defense secretary has to keep his spirits high! No wonder those soldiers cheered. A democracy may need newspapers, but that doesn't mean anyone has to actually read them.
Still, the Pentagon chief needs a sense of the news, just in case it comes up in one of those endless Senate hearings they're always making him attend lately.
I propose we put together an executive summary of what's in the newspapers each day, specifically tailored to Rumsfeld's professional needs. In fact, today's "alpha" edition of the Daily Rummy is just out for his reading enjoyment.
Front Page: The only news that matters is the weather: "fair and breezy" in Washington. Summary: Iraq prison scandal could blow away by the weekend, as a "free and energetic press" loses steam and moves on to the Next Big Thing. Fingers crossed for a new Michael Jackson bombshell.
Politics: Kerry narrowing VP choices. Summary: Ridiculous future SecDef chatter gone, finito. And no mention of McCain — yes!
Metro: Local schools getting ready for graduation. Summary: Just as in Iraq, where schools are open, roads are being rebuilt, democracy is blossoming and many, many other good things are being ignored by this excessively negative journalistic establishment that secretly doesn't want the truth to prevail.
Business: Wall Street mixed, but recovery appears on track. Summary: The Iraq mission isn't hurting the economy at all. Heck, the war might even deserve a little credit for stimulating this bounce-back, but nobody ever mentions that. Talk about ungrateful.
Media: Air America, new liberal radio network, floundering. Summary: Further proof there's absolutely no constituency for the leftist antiwar message. Besides, who listens to radio any more? It's old hat, just like the newspapers. TV is where the action is, and really, who's better on Russert than a certain strong-jawed, unflappable Cabinet member?
Sports: Millions watch NBA Playoffs on TV. Summary: May mean smaller audiences for newscasts, where some are taking this challenging-the-leadership idea to shameless extremes.
Comics: Beetle Bailey has a couple of good old-fashioned soldiers engaging in wholesome G-rated pranks where nobody gets hurt or humiliated — no naked pyramids or leashes. Summary: Those were the days.
Editorial Page: Defense secretary mentioned seven times, but not once in context of resignation. Summary: Mission accomplished.
Classified: Numerous help-wanted listings, perhaps a result of the recovering economy. One seeks individual "with major leadership experience on a global scale," to take over a large multinational corporation. Promises seven-figure salary with benefits. Summary: Clip and save.
________________________________________________________________________
COMMENTARY LA TIMES
Extra! Read Nothing About It
By William Powers
William Powers is the media critic for the National Journal.
May 14, 2004
"I've stopped reading the newspapers," Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday in Baghdad to a gathering of soldiers, who broke out in rousing applause.
It was a joke. Or was it? After all, this is not exactly an administration of news junkies. The president himself admitted last year he "rarely" reads news stories, relying instead on the more "objective sources" on his staff to tell him what's happening in the world. (Truth be told, White House staffers often outshine real journalists. That story they did about the African uranium was unforgettable, like a great novel.)
Here's another reason I thought it might be a joke. Just a few weeks ago, Rumsfeld told a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors that America's leaders must be "challenged, internally through the complex constitutional system of checks and balances, and externally by a free and energetic press." He also said our political system "needs information to be self-correcting."
But that was before all this horrible news starting breaking, and reading the paper became so, well, unpleasant. The first lady said this week she "can't bear" to look at the torture photos in the papers.
One can imagine even a man of Rumsfeld's sturdy temperament being unable to stomach what's on the front pages. It's gruesome stuff, real depravity. To immerse yourself in that every day can be downright depressing. And a Defense secretary has to keep his spirits high! No wonder those soldiers cheered. A democracy may need newspapers, but that doesn't mean anyone has to actually read them.
Still, the Pentagon chief needs a sense of the news, just in case it comes up in one of those endless Senate hearings they're always making him attend lately.
I propose we put together an executive summary of what's in the newspapers each day, specifically tailored to Rumsfeld's professional needs. In fact, today's "alpha" edition of the Daily Rummy is just out for his reading enjoyment.
Front Page: The only news that matters is the weather: "fair and breezy" in Washington. Summary: Iraq prison scandal could blow away by the weekend, as a "free and energetic press" loses steam and moves on to the Next Big Thing. Fingers crossed for a new Michael Jackson bombshell.
Politics: Kerry narrowing VP choices. Summary: Ridiculous future SecDef chatter gone, finito. And no mention of McCain — yes!
Metro: Local schools getting ready for graduation. Summary: Just as in Iraq, where schools are open, roads are being rebuilt, democracy is blossoming and many, many other good things are being ignored by this excessively negative journalistic establishment that secretly doesn't want the truth to prevail.
Business: Wall Street mixed, but recovery appears on track. Summary: The Iraq mission isn't hurting the economy at all. Heck, the war might even deserve a little credit for stimulating this bounce-back, but nobody ever mentions that. Talk about ungrateful.
Media: Air America, new liberal radio network, floundering. Summary: Further proof there's absolutely no constituency for the leftist antiwar message. Besides, who listens to radio any more? It's old hat, just like the newspapers. TV is where the action is, and really, who's better on Russert than a certain strong-jawed, unflappable Cabinet member?
Sports: Millions watch NBA Playoffs on TV. Summary: May mean smaller audiences for newscasts, where some are taking this challenging-the-leadership idea to shameless extremes.
Comics: Beetle Bailey has a couple of good old-fashioned soldiers engaging in wholesome G-rated pranks where nobody gets hurt or humiliated — no naked pyramids or leashes. Summary: Those were the days.
Editorial Page: Defense secretary mentioned seven times, but not once in context of resignation. Summary: Mission accomplished.
Classified: Numerous help-wanted listings, perhaps a result of the recovering economy. One seeks individual "with major leadership experience on a global scale," to take over a large multinational corporation. Promises seven-figure salary with benefits. Summary: Clip and save.
________________________________________________________________________
Cold Turkey
by Kurt Vonnegut
Many years ago, I was so innocent I still considered it possible that we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was no peace.
But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America’s becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.
-------------------------
When you get to my age, if you get to my age, which is 81, and if you have reproduced, you will find yourself asking your own children, who are themselves middle-aged, what life is all about. I have seven kids, four of them adopted.
Many of you reading this are probably the same age as my grandchildren. They, like you, are being royally shafted and lied to by our Baby Boomer corporations and government.
I put my big question about life to my biological son Mark. Mark is a pediatrician, and author of a memoir, The Eden Express. It is about his crackup, straightjacket and padded cell stuff, from which he recovered sufficiently to graduate from Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Vonnegut said this to his doddering old dad: “Father, we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.” So I pass that on to you. Write it down, and put it in your computer, so you can forget it.
I have to say that’s a pretty good sound bite, almost as good as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucius, a Chinese philosopher, 500 years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ.
The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one.
But back to people, like Confucius and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, who’ve said how we could behave more humanely, and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favorites is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana. Get a load of this:
Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was only 4, ran 5 times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I’m of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Doesn’t anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all?
How about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. …
And so on.
Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
-------------------------
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
But, when you stop to think about it, only a nut case would want to be a human being, if he or she had a choice. Such treacherous, untrustworthy, lying and greedy animals we are!
I was born a human being in 1922 A.D. What does “A.D.” signify? That commemorates an inmate of this lunatic asylum we call Earth who was nailed to a wooden cross by a bunch of other inmates. With him still conscious, they hammered spikes through his wrists and insteps, and into the wood. Then they set the cross upright, so he dangled up there where even the shortest person in the crowd could see him writhing this way and that.
Can you imagine people doing such a thing to a person?
No problem. That’s entertainment. Ask the devout Roman Catholic Mel Gibson, who, as an act of piety, has just made a fortune with a movie about how Jesus was tortured. Never mind what Jesus said.
During the reign of King Henry the Eighth, founder of the Church of England, he had a counterfeiter boiled alive in public. Show biz again.
Mel Gibson’s next movie should be The Counterfeiter. Box office records will again be broken.
One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
-------------------------
And what did the great British historian Edward Gibbon, 1737-1794 A.D., have to say about the human record so far? He said, “History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
The same can be said about this morning’s edition of the New York Times.
The French-Algerian writer Albert Camus, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, wrote, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”
So there’s another barrel of laughs from literature. Camus died in an automobile accident. His dates? 1913-1960 A.D.
Listen. All great literature is about what a bummer it is to be a human being: Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Red Badge of Courage, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Crime and Punishment, the Bible and The Charge of the Light Brigade.
But I have to say this in defense of humankind: No matter in what era in history, including the Garden of Eden, everybody just got there. And, except for the Garden of Eden, there were already all these crazy games going on, which could make you act crazy, even if you weren’t crazy to begin with. Some of the games that were already going on when you got here were love and hate, liberalism and conservatism, automobiles and credit cards, golf and girls’ basketball.
Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.
Actually, this same sort of thing happened to the people of England generations ago, and Sir William Gilbert, of the radical team of Gilbert and Sullivan, wrote these words for a song about it back then:
I often think it’s comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.
Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life that you have to be one or the other? If you aren’t one or the other, you might as well be a doughnut.
If some of you still haven’t decided, I’ll make it easy for you.
If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal.
If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative.
What could be simpler?
-------------------------
My government’s got a war on drugs. But get this: The two most widely abused and addictive and destructive of all substances are both perfectly legal.
One, of course, is ethyl alcohol. And President George W. Bush, no less, and by his own admission, was smashed or tiddley-poo or four sheets to the wind a good deal of the time from when he was 16 until he was 41. When he was 41, he says, Jesus appeared to him and made him knock off the sauce, stop gargling nose paint.
Other drunks have seen pink elephants.
And do you know why I think he is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra. Arabs also invented the numbers we use, including a symbol for nothing, which nobody else had ever had before. You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with Roman numerals.
We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans.”
How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today.
So let’s give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That’ll teach bin Laden a lesson he won’t soon forget. Hail to the Chief.
That chief and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay.
Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People.
About my own history of foreign substance abuse. I’ve been a coward about heroin and cocaine and LSD and so on, afraid they might put me over the edge. I did smoke a joint of marijuana one time with Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead, just to be sociable. It didn’t seem to do anything to me, one way or the other, so I never did it again. And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic, largely a matter of genes. I take a couple of drinks now and then, and will do it again tonight. But two is my limit. No problem.
I am of course notoriously hooked on cigarettes. I keep hoping the things will kill me. A fire at one end and a fool at the other.
But I’ll tell you one thing: I once had a high that not even crack cocaine could match. That was when I got my first driver’s license! Look out, world, here comes Kurt Vonnegut.
And my car back then, a Studebaker, as I recall, was powered, as are almost all means of transportation and other machinery today, and electric power plants and furnaces, by the most abused and addictive and destructive drugs of all: fossil fuels.
When you got here, even when I got here, the industrialized world was already hopelessly hooked on fossil fuels, and very soon now there won’t be any more of those. Cold turkey.
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn’t like TV news, is it?
Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey.
And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on.
© 2004 In These Times
by Kurt Vonnegut
Many years ago, I was so innocent I still considered it possible that we could become the humane and reasonable America so many members of my generation used to dream of. We dreamed of such an America during the Great Depression, when there were no jobs. And then we fought and often died for that dream during the Second World War, when there was no peace.
But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America’s becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas.
-------------------------
When you get to my age, if you get to my age, which is 81, and if you have reproduced, you will find yourself asking your own children, who are themselves middle-aged, what life is all about. I have seven kids, four of them adopted.
Many of you reading this are probably the same age as my grandchildren. They, like you, are being royally shafted and lied to by our Baby Boomer corporations and government.
I put my big question about life to my biological son Mark. Mark is a pediatrician, and author of a memoir, The Eden Express. It is about his crackup, straightjacket and padded cell stuff, from which he recovered sufficiently to graduate from Harvard Medical School.
Dr. Vonnegut said this to his doddering old dad: “Father, we are here to help each other get through this thing, whatever it is.” So I pass that on to you. Write it down, and put it in your computer, so you can forget it.
I have to say that’s a pretty good sound bite, almost as good as, “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” A lot of people think Jesus said that, because it is so much the sort of thing Jesus liked to say. But it was actually said by Confucius, a Chinese philosopher, 500 years before there was that greatest and most humane of human beings, named Jesus Christ.
The Chinese also gave us, via Marco Polo, pasta and the formula for gunpowder. The Chinese were so dumb they only used gunpowder for fireworks. And everybody was so dumb back then that nobody in either hemisphere even knew that there was another one.
But back to people, like Confucius and Jesus and my son the doctor, Mark, who’ve said how we could behave more humanely, and maybe make the world a less painful place. One of my favorites is Eugene Debs, from Terre Haute in my native state of Indiana. Get a load of this:
Eugene Debs, who died back in 1926, when I was only 4, ran 5 times as the Socialist Party candidate for president, winning 900,000 votes, 6 percent of the popular vote, in 1912, if you can imagine such a ballot. He had this to say while campaigning:
As long as there is a lower class, I am in it.
As long as there is a criminal element, I’m of it.
As long as there is a soul in prison, I am not free.
Doesn’t anything socialistic make you want to throw up? Like great public schools or health insurance for all?
How about Jesus’ Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes?
Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the Earth.
Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy.
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God. …
And so on.
Not exactly planks in a Republican platform. Not exactly Donald Rumsfeld or Dick Cheney stuff.
For some reason, the most vocal Christians among us never mention the Beatitudes. But, often with tears in their eyes, they demand that the Ten Commandments be posted in public buildings. And of course that’s Moses, not Jesus. I haven’t heard one of them demand that the Sermon on the Mount, the Beatitudes, be posted anywhere.
“Blessed are the merciful” in a courtroom? “Blessed are the peacemakers” in the Pentagon? Give me a break!
-------------------------
There is a tragic flaw in our precious Constitution, and I don’t know what can be done to fix it. This is it: Only nut cases want to be president.
But, when you stop to think about it, only a nut case would want to be a human being, if he or she had a choice. Such treacherous, untrustworthy, lying and greedy animals we are!
I was born a human being in 1922 A.D. What does “A.D.” signify? That commemorates an inmate of this lunatic asylum we call Earth who was nailed to a wooden cross by a bunch of other inmates. With him still conscious, they hammered spikes through his wrists and insteps, and into the wood. Then they set the cross upright, so he dangled up there where even the shortest person in the crowd could see him writhing this way and that.
Can you imagine people doing such a thing to a person?
No problem. That’s entertainment. Ask the devout Roman Catholic Mel Gibson, who, as an act of piety, has just made a fortune with a movie about how Jesus was tortured. Never mind what Jesus said.
During the reign of King Henry the Eighth, founder of the Church of England, he had a counterfeiter boiled alive in public. Show biz again.
Mel Gibson’s next movie should be The Counterfeiter. Box office records will again be broken.
One of the few good things about modern times: If you die horribly on television, you will not have died in vain. You will have entertained us.
-------------------------
And what did the great British historian Edward Gibbon, 1737-1794 A.D., have to say about the human record so far? He said, “History is indeed little more than the register of the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind.”
The same can be said about this morning’s edition of the New York Times.
The French-Algerian writer Albert Camus, who won a Nobel Prize for Literature in 1957, wrote, “There is but one truly serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide.”
So there’s another barrel of laughs from literature. Camus died in an automobile accident. His dates? 1913-1960 A.D.
Listen. All great literature is about what a bummer it is to be a human being: Moby Dick, Huckleberry Finn, The Red Badge of Courage, the Iliad and the Odyssey, Crime and Punishment, the Bible and The Charge of the Light Brigade.
But I have to say this in defense of humankind: No matter in what era in history, including the Garden of Eden, everybody just got there. And, except for the Garden of Eden, there were already all these crazy games going on, which could make you act crazy, even if you weren’t crazy to begin with. Some of the games that were already going on when you got here were love and hate, liberalism and conservatism, automobiles and credit cards, golf and girls’ basketball.
Even crazier than golf, though, is modern American politics, where, thanks to TV and for the convenience of TV, you can only be one of two kinds of human beings, either a liberal or a conservative.
Actually, this same sort of thing happened to the people of England generations ago, and Sir William Gilbert, of the radical team of Gilbert and Sullivan, wrote these words for a song about it back then:
I often think it’s comical
How nature always does contrive
That every boy and every gal
That’s born into the world alive
Is either a little Liberal
Or else a little Conservative.
Which one are you in this country? It’s practically a law of life that you have to be one or the other? If you aren’t one or the other, you might as well be a doughnut.
If some of you still haven’t decided, I’ll make it easy for you.
If you want to take my guns away from me, and you’re all for murdering fetuses, and love it when homosexuals marry each other, and want to give them kitchen appliances at their showers, and you’re for the poor, you’re a liberal.
If you are against those perversions and for the rich, you’re a conservative.
What could be simpler?
-------------------------
My government’s got a war on drugs. But get this: The two most widely abused and addictive and destructive of all substances are both perfectly legal.
One, of course, is ethyl alcohol. And President George W. Bush, no less, and by his own admission, was smashed or tiddley-poo or four sheets to the wind a good deal of the time from when he was 16 until he was 41. When he was 41, he says, Jesus appeared to him and made him knock off the sauce, stop gargling nose paint.
Other drunks have seen pink elephants.
And do you know why I think he is so pissed off at Arabs? They invented algebra. Arabs also invented the numbers we use, including a symbol for nothing, which nobody else had ever had before. You think Arabs are dumb? Try doing long division with Roman numerals.
We’re spreading democracy, are we? Same way European explorers brought Christianity to the Indians, what we now call “Native Americans.”
How ungrateful they were! How ungrateful are the people of Baghdad today.
So let’s give another big tax cut to the super-rich. That’ll teach bin Laden a lesson he won’t soon forget. Hail to the Chief.
That chief and his cohorts have as little to do with Democracy as the Europeans had to do with Christianity. We the people have absolutely no say in whatever they choose to do next. In case you haven’t noticed, they’ve already cleaned out the treasury, passing it out to pals in the war and national security rackets, leaving your generation and the next one with a perfectly enormous debt that you’ll be asked to repay.
Nobody let out a peep when they did that to you, because they have disconnected every burglar alarm in the Constitution: The House, the Senate, the Supreme Court, the FBI, the free press (which, having been embedded, has forsaken the First Amendment) and We the People.
About my own history of foreign substance abuse. I’ve been a coward about heroin and cocaine and LSD and so on, afraid they might put me over the edge. I did smoke a joint of marijuana one time with Jerry Garcia and the Grateful Dead, just to be sociable. It didn’t seem to do anything to me, one way or the other, so I never did it again. And by the grace of God, or whatever, I am not an alcoholic, largely a matter of genes. I take a couple of drinks now and then, and will do it again tonight. But two is my limit. No problem.
I am of course notoriously hooked on cigarettes. I keep hoping the things will kill me. A fire at one end and a fool at the other.
But I’ll tell you one thing: I once had a high that not even crack cocaine could match. That was when I got my first driver’s license! Look out, world, here comes Kurt Vonnegut.
And my car back then, a Studebaker, as I recall, was powered, as are almost all means of transportation and other machinery today, and electric power plants and furnaces, by the most abused and addictive and destructive drugs of all: fossil fuels.
When you got here, even when I got here, the industrialized world was already hopelessly hooked on fossil fuels, and very soon now there won’t be any more of those. Cold turkey.
Can I tell you the truth? I mean this isn’t like TV news, is it?
Here’s what I think the truth is: We are all addicts of fossil fuels in a state of denial, about to face cold turkey.
And like so many addicts about to face cold turkey, our leaders are now committing violent crimes to get what little is left of what we’re hooked on.
© 2004 In These Times
Thursday, May 13, 2004
May 14, 2004 NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Nicholas Berg's Death
It's easy to say he should not have been in Iraq, but Nicholas Berg was a type familiar to all danger zones: an adventurous and naïve young man who was perhaps keen to do a bit of business, but keener yet to test himself; old enough to understand the danger, but young enough to defy it. It is impossible not to feel grief, and horror, at his terrible end.
The claim of this young American's murderers that they were retaliating for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is a cruel ruse. They killed him out of the same madness that drove their comrades in Al Qaeda to slaughter thousands on Sept. 11, 2001. But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture.
Mr. Berg's parents have legitimate questions for the United States government about how he came to be in Iraqi police custody immediately before his kidnapping, what happened to him there and what knowledge American officials had about his situation. The occupation authority needs to stop passing off those questions to the Iraqi police force, which does not exist other than as an agent of American power. The Berg family deserves answers so they can grieve for their son's death in peace.
_______________________________________________________________________
Nicholas Berg's Death
It's easy to say he should not have been in Iraq, but Nicholas Berg was a type familiar to all danger zones: an adventurous and naïve young man who was perhaps keen to do a bit of business, but keener yet to test himself; old enough to understand the danger, but young enough to defy it. It is impossible not to feel grief, and horror, at his terrible end.
The claim of this young American's murderers that they were retaliating for the mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners is a cruel ruse. They killed him out of the same madness that drove their comrades in Al Qaeda to slaughter thousands on Sept. 11, 2001. But this manipulative attempt to establish a moral equivalence between the gruesome execution of Mr. Berg and the torture of Iraqi prisoners is now being mimicked by some hard-core supporters of the American war in Iraq. They are cynically trying to use the images of Mr. Berg to wipe away the images of Abu Ghraib, turning the abhorrence for the murderers into an excuse for demonizing Arabs and Muslims, or for sanctioning their torture.
Mr. Berg's parents have legitimate questions for the United States government about how he came to be in Iraqi police custody immediately before his kidnapping, what happened to him there and what knowledge American officials had about his situation. The occupation authority needs to stop passing off those questions to the Iraqi police force, which does not exist other than as an agent of American power. The Berg family deserves answers so they can grieve for their son's death in peace.
_______________________________________________________________________
May 14, 2004 NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Wrong Direction
Watching President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this week, it was hard to avoid the sinking feeling that they had already moved on from the Abu Ghraib prison mess and were back to their well-established practice of ignoring all bad news and marching blindly ahead as if nothing unusual had happened. That was the impression that emerged from Mr. Bush's disconnected performance on Monday, when he viewed photos and video stills of the atrocious treatment of prisoners by soldiers under his and Mr. Rumsfeld's command, and then announced that the defense secretary was doing a "superb job." It was stronger than ever yesterday, during Mr. Rumsfeld's road trip to Iraq, where he drew a curious parallel between himself and Ulysses S. Grant and announced his approach to the prison scandal: "I've stopped reading newspapers."
Mr. Rumsfeld told the soldiers that they had broad public support at home despite the Abu Ghraib scandal. That is obviously true. It is also beside the point. The proper way for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld to show support for the troops is not to use them as a screen from the heat over the mismanagement of the military prisons. It is to fix the problem, now. The solution is real changes, not cosmetic ones like yesterday's announcement that Abu Ghraib's inmates would be moved within the prison grounds to new temporary quarters, which have been dubbed Camp Redemption.
Each passing day has made it more clear that the routine treatment of prisoners in military prisons violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and American values of due process and humane behavior. This is a terrible burden for the fine men and women serving in Iraq to bear, as they live their lives among an ever more hostile populace. Rather than assuring his uniformed audience — and the world — that the administration is moving heaven and earth to wipe out the rottenness within the prison system, the defense secretary simply urged the soldiers to ignore the politics back home.
There are things Mr. Bush can do quickly to demonstrate the American commitment to the decent treatment of Iraqi prisoners without jeopardizing the fairness of the coming trials of the soldiers charged with inexcusable actions at Abu Ghraib. The first is to drop the Camp Redemption foolishness, remove the prisoners from Abu Ghraib and raze the entire compound, a symbol of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror that has become a symbol of American brutality. Beyond that, the president should take these steps:
¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to get military intelligence personnel out of the business of overseeing the detention and interrogation of Iraqi prisoners; an overwhelming majority of the prisoners have no intelligence value.
¶Ban private contractors from American military prisons.
¶Take all of the available trained military prison guards and send them to Iraq to relieve the exhausted troops who are doing work for which they were never prepared.
¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to immediately issue new regulations that not only say that prisoners and detainees must be treated according to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but also ban, one by one, the harsh practices inflicted on prisoners.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld should also stop trying to dump the blame on the shoulders of America's enlisted men and women. The entire chain of command in Iraq must be part of the investigation. That includes Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq who authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who may have helped create the conditions that led to the outrages at Abu Ghraib, should be replaced as the head of the military prisons in Iraq.
Finally, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress should stop trying to evade responsibility by accusing those who want to ask tough questions of being disloyal to the troops and the war effort.
_______________________________________________________________________
The Wrong Direction
Watching President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld this week, it was hard to avoid the sinking feeling that they had already moved on from the Abu Ghraib prison mess and were back to their well-established practice of ignoring all bad news and marching blindly ahead as if nothing unusual had happened. That was the impression that emerged from Mr. Bush's disconnected performance on Monday, when he viewed photos and video stills of the atrocious treatment of prisoners by soldiers under his and Mr. Rumsfeld's command, and then announced that the defense secretary was doing a "superb job." It was stronger than ever yesterday, during Mr. Rumsfeld's road trip to Iraq, where he drew a curious parallel between himself and Ulysses S. Grant and announced his approach to the prison scandal: "I've stopped reading newspapers."
Mr. Rumsfeld told the soldiers that they had broad public support at home despite the Abu Ghraib scandal. That is obviously true. It is also beside the point. The proper way for Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld to show support for the troops is not to use them as a screen from the heat over the mismanagement of the military prisons. It is to fix the problem, now. The solution is real changes, not cosmetic ones like yesterday's announcement that Abu Ghraib's inmates would be moved within the prison grounds to new temporary quarters, which have been dubbed Camp Redemption.
Each passing day has made it more clear that the routine treatment of prisoners in military prisons violates international law, the Geneva Conventions and American values of due process and humane behavior. This is a terrible burden for the fine men and women serving in Iraq to bear, as they live their lives among an ever more hostile populace. Rather than assuring his uniformed audience — and the world — that the administration is moving heaven and earth to wipe out the rottenness within the prison system, the defense secretary simply urged the soldiers to ignore the politics back home.
There are things Mr. Bush can do quickly to demonstrate the American commitment to the decent treatment of Iraqi prisoners without jeopardizing the fairness of the coming trials of the soldiers charged with inexcusable actions at Abu Ghraib. The first is to drop the Camp Redemption foolishness, remove the prisoners from Abu Ghraib and raze the entire compound, a symbol of Saddam Hussein's reign of terror that has become a symbol of American brutality. Beyond that, the president should take these steps:
¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to get military intelligence personnel out of the business of overseeing the detention and interrogation of Iraqi prisoners; an overwhelming majority of the prisoners have no intelligence value.
¶Ban private contractors from American military prisons.
¶Take all of the available trained military prison guards and send them to Iraq to relieve the exhausted troops who are doing work for which they were never prepared.
¶Order Mr. Rumsfeld to immediately issue new regulations that not only say that prisoners and detainees must be treated according to the letter and spirit of the Geneva Conventions, but also ban, one by one, the harsh practices inflicted on prisoners.
Mr. Bush and Mr. Rumsfeld should also stop trying to dump the blame on the shoulders of America's enlisted men and women. The entire chain of command in Iraq must be part of the investigation. That includes Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, the commander in Iraq who authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller, who may have helped create the conditions that led to the outrages at Abu Ghraib, should be replaced as the head of the military prisons in Iraq.
Finally, Mr. Bush and his Republican allies in Congress should stop trying to evade responsibility by accusing those who want to ask tough questions of being disloyal to the troops and the war effort.
_______________________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)