Guess what? Bush says that he and his administration are NOT ACCOUNTABLE for mistakes made that led up to the war in Iraq? Why? Because those that voted him back into office have made the decision that his policies are best sooooo that means it's THE REPUBLICAN VOTERS' FAULT.
Do you remember in the first election campaign how Bush said over and over that he was bringing accountability back to the White House? Oh, he did all right. He just didn't tell his supporters that THEY were the ones that were accountable for his mistakes. I'd ask if you could believe the gall of this man but why? The gall lies with his supporters, NOT him!
Bush Says Election Ratified Iraq Policy
No U.S. Troop Withdrawal Date Is Set
By Jim VandeHei and Michael A. Fletcher
Washington Post Staff Writers
Sunday, January 16, 2005
President Bush said the public's decision to reelect him was a ratification of his approach toward Iraq and that there was no reason to hold any administration officials accountable for mistakes or misjudgments in prewar planning or managing the violent aftermath.
"We had an accountability moment, and that's called the 2004 elections," Bush said in an interview with The Washington Post. "The American people listened to different assessments made about what was taking place in Iraq, and they looked at the two candidates, and chose me."
[Sam note: I guess this means Bush's voters should pay for the war and that they have the innocent and American blood on their hands. We can't stop paying taxes but I'm reminding my conservative friends that the blood and the war's aftermath is ALL FOR THEM."]
With the Iraq elections two weeks away and no signs of the deadly insurgency abating, Bush set no timetable for withdrawing U.S. troops and twice declined to endorse Secretary of State Colin L. Powell's recent statement that the number of Americans serving in Iraq could be reduced by year's end. Bush said he will not ask Congress to expand the size of the National Guard or regular Army, as some lawmakers and military experts have proposed.
In a wide-ranging, 35-minute interview aboard Air Force One on Friday, Bush laid out new details of his second-term plans for both foreign and domestic policy. For the first time, Bush said he will not press senators to pass a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, the top priority for many social conservative groups. And he said he has no plans to cut benefits for the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who collect monthly disability and survivor payments as he prepares his plan for partial privatization.
Bush was relaxed, often direct and occasionally expansive when discussing his second-term agenda, Iraq and lessons he has learned as president. Sitting at the head of a long conference table in a cabin at the front of the presidential plane, Bush wore a blue Air Force One flight jacket with a red tie and crisp white shirt. Three aides, including his new communications adviser, Nicolle Devenish, accompanied him.
With his inauguration days away, Bush defended the administration's decision to force the District of Columbia to spend $12 million of its homeland security budget to provide tighter security for this week's festivities. He also warned that the ceremony could make the city "an attractive target for terrorists."
"By providing security, hopefully that will provide comfort to people who are coming from all around the country to come and stay in the hotels in Washington and to be able to watch the different festivities in Washington, and eat the food in Washington," Bush said. "I think it provides them great comfort to know that all levels of government are working closely to make this event as secure as possible."
The president's inaugural speech Thursday will focus on his vision for spreading democracy around the world, one of his top foreign policy goals for the new term. But it will be Iraq that dominates White House deliberations off stage. Over the next two weeks, Bush will be monitoring closely Iraq's plan to hold elections for a 275-member national assembly. He must also deliver his State of the Union address with a message of resolve on Iraq, and he will need to seek congressional approval for about $100 billion in emergency spending, much of it for the war.
In the interview, the president urged Americans to show patience as Iraq moves slowly toward creating a democratic nation where a dictatorship once stood. But the relentless optimism that dominated Bush's speeches before the U.S. election was sometimes replaced by pragmatism and caution.
"On a complicated matter such as removing a dictator from power and trying to help achieve democracy, sometimes the unexpected will happen, both good and bad," he said. "I am realistic about how quickly a society that has been dominated by a tyrant can become a democracy. . . . I am more patient than some."
Last week, Powell said U.S. troop levels could be reduced this year, but Bush said it is premature to judge how many U.S. men and women will be needed to defeat the insurgency and plant a new and sustainable government. He also declined to pledge to significantly reduce U.S. troop levels before the end of his second term in January 2009.
"The sooner the Iraqis are . . . better prepared, better equipped to fight, the sooner our troops can start coming home," he said. Bush did rule out asking Congress to increase the size of the National Guard and regular army, as many lawmakers, including the president's 2004 opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (D-Mass.), are urging. "What we're going to do is make sure that the missions of the National Guard and the reserves closely dovetail with active army units, so that the pressure . . . is eased."
A new report released last week by U.S. intelligence agencies warned that the war in Iraq has created a training ground for terrorists. Bush called the report "somewhat speculative" but acknowledged "this could happen. And I agree. If we are not diligent and firm, there will be parts of the world that become pockets for terrorists to find safe haven and to train. And we have a duty to disrupt that."
As for perhaps the most notorious terrorist, Osama bin Laden, the administration has so far been unsuccessful in its attempt to locate the mastermind of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Asked why, Bush said, "Because he's hiding." While some terrorism experts complain U.S. allies, such as Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, could do more to help capture the al Qaeda leader, Bush said he could not name a single U.S. ally that is not doing everything possible to assist U.S. efforts.
"I am pleased about the hunt, and I am pleased he's isolated," Bush said. "I will be more pleased when he's brought to justice, and I think he will be."
Bush acknowledged that the United States' standing has diminished in some parts of the world and said he has asked Condoleezza Rice, his nominee to replace Powell at the State Department, to embark on a public diplomacy campaign that "explains our motives and explains our intentions."
Bush acknowledged that "some of the decisions I've made up to now have affected our standing in parts of the world," but predicted that most Muslims will eventually see America as a beacon of freedom and democracy.
"There's no question we've got to continue to do a better job of explaining what America is all about," he said.
On the domestic front, Bush said he would not lobby the Senate to pass a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage.
While seeking reelection, Bush voiced strong support for such a ban, and many political analysts credit this position for inspiring record turnout among evangelical Christians, who are fighting same-sex marriage at every juncture. Groups such as the Family Research Council have made the marriage amendment their top priority for the next four years.
The president said there is no reason to press for the amendment because so many senators are convinced that the Defense of Marriage Act -- which says states that outlaw same-sex unions do not have to recognize such marriages conducted outside their borders -- is sufficient. "Senators have made it clear that so long as DOMA is deemed constitutional, nothing will happen. I'd take their admonition seriously. . . . Until that changes, nothing will happen in the Senate."
Bush's position is likely to infuriate some of his socially conservative supporters, but congressional officials say it will be impossible to secure the 67 votes needed to pass the amendment in the Senate.
Yesterday morning, the day after the interview, White House spokesman Scott McClellan called to say the president wished to clarify his position, saying Bush was "willing to spend political capital" but believes it will be virtually impossible to overcome Senate resistance until the courts render a verdict on DOMA.
On the subject of revamping Social Security, Bush said he has no intention of making changes that would affect the approximately 40 percent of Social Security recipients who receive disability or survivor benefits. The Bush administration has privately told Republicans that the White House plan to restructure Social Security will include a reduction in benefits for future retirees. The interview marked the first time Bush strongly suggested disability and survivor benefits would be shielded.
"Frankly, our discussions in terms of reform have not centered on the survivor-disability aspect of Social Security," Bush said. "We're talking about the retirement system of Social Security."
Bush has put an overhaul of Social Security at the top of his domestic priorities. He has revealed few details of his reform proposal, except to say he wants to enable young workers to voluntarily divert a portion of their taxes to private accounts. Program participants could then pass the accounts to their heirs.
Bush said it is imperative that the White House and Congress deal with the "baby boomer bulge" that is threatening the long-term solvency of Medicare as well. Medicare faces the same demographic crunch imperiling Social Security in coming decades, as the population grows older and more money is taken out of the system to pay benefits than is put in by younger Americans funding it. Many lawmakers and policy experts say Medicare is in much bigger trouble than Social Security because of skyrocketing health care costs and the added expense of the prescription drug benefit signed into law by Bush in his first term.
"The difference, of course, is that in Medicare, we began a reform system [in the first term] that hopefully will take some of the pressures off" the system by preventing illnesses and streamlining the program, he said. Social Security and Medicare trustees estimate that the cost of Bush's prescription drug plan will top $8 trillion by 2075 -- more than twice the projected shortfall in Social Security.
On the election Bush said he was puzzled that he received only about 11 percent of the black vote, according to exit polls, about a 2 percentage point increase over his 2000 total.
"I did my best to reach out, and I will continue to do so as the president," Bush said. "It's important for people to know that I'm the president of everybody."
Monday, January 17, 2005
Sunday, January 16, 2005
Bush's Enron Friends Cheat Shareholders Out of Billions
January 17, 2005
What's $13 Million Among Friends?
|
|
ambridge, Mass. — TEN former directors of Enron have agreed to pay $13 million from their own pockets to settle a class action suit stemming from Enron's collapse in 2001, which wiped out some $60 billion in shareholder value. Because directors almost never have to pay even a penny in such suits, the Enron settlement - announced just days after several former WorldCom directors agreed to a similar deal - was widely viewed as a significant development that could discourage potential directors from serving on corporate boards.
This view is mistaken. A close look at the settlement shows that Enron's directors have still not been held accountable in any meaningful way.
Of the 18 former directors who were defendants in the Enron case, only 10 have to pay under the settlement. More important, according to the complaint against them, these 10 sold Enron shares worth more than $250 million during the period in which Enron was misreporting its financial affairs. According to the lawyer for the lead plaintiffs, the settlement requires each of these 10 to pay an amount equal to 10 percent of his or her pretax profits. They will be able to keep the other 90 percent - which amounts to $117 million - while investors who held their Enron stock lost their shirts.
The other eight Enron directors will not pay a penny but nonetheless have all claims against them settled. These directors did not sell shares before their value evaporated, which is presumably why they are not contributing. But they played important roles in the board's oversight failure. They include three of the six members of Enron's audit committee as well as six of the eight members of the finance committee, which reviewed many transactions that Enron used to deceive investors. Despite their role in the oversight failure, these eight directors emerge from Enron's ruins without having to pay a cent.
In a 2002 report, a Senate subcommittee concluded that by failing to protect shareholders' interests and ignoring questionable business practices, the Enron board "contributed to the company's collapse and bears a share of the responsibility for it." With the cases against them settled without any admission of wrongdoing, determining the directors' precise share of responsibility will be left to the judgment of history. But one thing will be clear: their share of the cost will be trivial.
One reason for the directors' ability to walk away relatively scot-free lies in the incentives for the other parties in the litigation. Plaintiffs' lawyers naturally focus on maximizing the total recovery to the class - and therefore on the defendants with the deepest pockets - and not on what portion will be paid by individual directors. Insurance companies are in the business of providing broad protection to directors, who pay for it in advance with shareholders' money.
For these reasons, as well as for various legal rules and charter provisions that protect directors from liability, failing directors practically never have to pay personally for violations of their fiduciary duties. Although these duties are in theory a foundation of the corporate system, their practical significance is far more limited than most investors appreciate.
With Enron, the failure of the board had disastrous consequences, leading to the second largest bankruptcy in American history and shaking investor confidence. It is difficult to envision a stronger case for imposing a meaningful financial penalty on directors. Yet the settlement fails to do so.
The settlement hardly heralds a new era in which directors who fail to act in shareholders' interests pay the price. If even Enron's board members are treated this gently, then other corporate directors can rest easy.
Lucian Bebchuk, a professor at Harvard Law School, is the co-author of "Pay Without Performance: The Unfulfilled Promise of Executive Compensation."
"These [Iraq] elections are a joke" - Middle East Expert
U.S. Lowers Expectations for Once-Heralded Iraq Vote
| Sun Jan 16, 8:08 AM ET |
By Saul Hudson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Unable to deliver on its lofty goal of bringing democracy to Iraq (news - web sites) through the Jan. 30 elections, the Bush administration is pressing a damage-control campaign to lower expectations for the vote.
|
With fears for a low voter turnout among Sunni Arabs due to a boycott and insurgents' intimidation, the administration no longer touts the elections as a catalyst to spread democracy across the Arab world.
Instead, U.S. officials now emphasize the political process that will follow the vote.
"Clearly, we don't see the election itself as a pivotal point," Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told NPR on Friday. "It's the beginning of a process, the process where Iraqis will write a constitution and at the end of the year will actually vote for a permanent government."
Almost two years after Operation Iraqi Freedom, a raging insurgency across mainly Sunni areas forced the White House this week to prepare the American public for elections it called "less than perfect."
For months, the Bush administration has been steadily lowering expectations over the vote, beginning with Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld in September warning violent areas of the country might be excluded.
And with just two weeks to go, the administration acknowledges that despite military offensives meant to provide security for the vote, the fear of bullets and bombs will keep many for the 20 percent Sunni minority away from the ballot box.
Rather than ushering in Iraq's first free and fair national elections for decades, the Bush administration has now limited its ambition for a vote it refuses to postpone.
"I think a successful election will be an election where most of the population has gotten a chance to vote, and even though we may not get the same kind of numbers in the Sunni area, we're going to have to go forward and use the results of this election to build on," Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites) told PBS.
Powell has lobbied the Shi'ites, who were oppressed under former President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) by the dominant Sunnis, to include the disenfranchised Sunnis in the government after they overwhelmingly win the skewed vote.
But the top U.S. diplomat acknowledged such maneuvering also risked inflaming the insurgency.
"The insurgency is not going away as a result of this election. In fact, perhaps, the insurgents might become more emboldened," Powell said.
GIVING DEMOCRACY A BAD NAME
Critics of the administration's Iraq policy complain the elections for a 275-member assembly that should draw up a constitution and pick a transitional government are so flawed they will be illegitimate -- and counterproductive for democracy in the region.
"These elections are a joke," said Juan Cole, a professor of modern Middle East history at the University of Michigan.
"The Bush administration has created the worst possible advertisement for democracy because the perception across the Middle East is that democracy means you get a country where everything is out of control," he said.
Before the vote, the administration "has definitely gone into damage-control mode," Stephen Zunes, a politics professor at the University of San Francisco said.
"Once their original rationale (to rid Iraq of weapons of mass destruction) fell apart, they created very high expectations for democracy to be able to justify their takeover," he said. "Now that they have ended up with a not particularly good demonstration of democracy, they are forced to lower the public's expectations for these elections."
BUSH ADMINISTRATION'S ROLE SWEPT UNDER THE RUG
NEWS ANALYSIS
Higher Officials Unlikely to Be Tried
By Jonathan Peterson
L.A. Times Staff Writer
January 16, 2005
WASHINGTON — The jail term meted out to Army Spc. Charles A. Graner Jr. for abuses at Abu Ghraib prison may prove to be the stiffest criminal punishment that emerges from the entire scandal, according to experts on military justice.
To some, the low-level Army reservist may look like the fall guy in a debacle that embarrassed the United States throughout the world and tainted the image of American forces in Iraq. Yet analysts said that for now, at least, it was doubtful that higher-level officials would be found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of criminal wrongdoing at the Iraqi prison where Graner ran a notorious, late-night guard shift.
"This is the guy that it seems easiest for us to blame," said Beth Hillman, a specialist on military justice at Rutgers University School of Law in Camden, N.J., of the low-level reservist who was sentenced to 10 years in prison. "That doesn't mean there aren't other people who should pay a price for their role in making this possible."
The question of responsibility for sadistic behavior at Abu Ghraib leads to murky distinctions between foot soldiers such as Graner, who committed the abuses, and senior officials who failed to prevent them and denied specific knowledge.
More broadly, some point out, the crimes at Abu Ghraib occurred as U.S. policy became increasingly tolerant of rough interrogation practices that were previously forbidden. Approved practices, such as forcing detainees to wear hoods or creating extreme physical discomfort — though controversial — did not include the sexual humiliation and other tactics captured in photographs.
"I've seen no convincing evidence that higher-ups authorized the forms of abuse that made Abu Ghraib the story it is," said Peter D. Feaver, a political scientist at Duke University and author of "Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight and Civil-Military Relations."
"That doesn't mean there aren't failures up the chain of command," he said.
To be sure, the saga continues to unfold, and it is too soon to predict with certainty where ongoing investigations might lead and who might face future punishment. The Justice Department recently began investigating FBI reports of abusive interrogations by the military of prisoners at the naval facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and in Iraq.
Brig. Gen. Richard Formica, meanwhile, has been conducting a Pentagon investigation of abuse of prisoners by U.S. Special Forces in Iraq. Three other soldiers at Abu Ghraib — including Pfc. Lynndie R. England who was photographed holding an Iraqi prisoner on a leash — have yet to face court-martial proceedings.
Another four have pleaded guilty and been sentenced for crimes at Abu Ghraib.
Although the United States has little tradition of holding senior commanders criminally accountable for abuses committed by their subordinates, one example involved an enemy general.
U.S. officials charged Japanese Gen. Tomoyuki Yamashita with failing in his duty as a commander to prevent atrocities committed by Japanese troops in the Philippines in 1944 and 1945. Yamashita was executed in 1946.
"It was never clear — at least in my mind — that Yamashita ordered the things that went wrong," Hillman said Saturday.
In the case of Abu Ghraib, some observers say that the acts for which Graner and other soldiers are being held accountable should be understood in the context of broader U.S. policy directives. Starting in Afghanistan, American officials established new rules for interrogation designed to soften up prisoners more harshly than in the past.
The approach continued at Guantanamo Bay, where for example, the use of intimidating guard dogs was among approved procedures.
In August 2004, a report by an independent panel headed by former Defense Secretary James R. Schlesinger found that such practices "migrated" to Iraq. While finding institutional and personal responsibility "at higher levels," the report stopped short of accusing top military and civilian leaders of condoning the abuses committed by Graner and others.
There has been little indication that the White House plans to hold top civilian officials in the Defense Department responsible for abuses at the prison.
"Stuff like this doesn't happen in a prison in Iraq out of the blue," said Kevin J. Barry, a retired military judge and co-founder of the National Institute of Military Justice. "Surely, you can throw Graner in jail. But it would be a horrible injustice if Graner goes to jail for a long period of time and nobody higher than him is ever held accountable."
In an attempt to ease his sentence, Graner on Saturday sought to make a similar point, noting that military intelligence officials had been given authority over Abu Ghraib and arguing that he was abiding by their instructions.
"If [military intelligence] asks you to do this, it needs to be done," he said during the sentencing hearing at Ft. Hood, Texas. "They're in charge. Follow their orders."
Although the low-level guards so far have faced the brunt of criminal charges, higher-level officials may be paying a less severe, if personally painful, price.
For example, Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez, whose responsibilities included detention facilities in Iraq, was cruising toward a prestigious fourth star until revelations about Abu Ghraib stalled his rise and jeopardized any future promotion.
"The military has various ways to punish people," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington lawyer and expert on military justice. It may be different for a senior officer than for a junior one. "An admiral or general may be forced into retirement or lose a pay grade," he said.
To many, such an allocation of justice may seem less than satisfying. But given the high burden of proof for criminal convictions, it may be what is in store.
"Are we asking the system to undo the public relations disaster of Abu Ghraib? That can't happen," Feaver said. "But we can ask the system to demonstrate that when U.S. soldiers misbehave there are consequences. That goal is achievable."
14 Days in Iraq
January 16, 2005
14 Days in Iraq
|
|
n the first two weeks of January, at least 202 people died as a result of the insurgency in Iraq. The killings have been indiscriminate. The dead include Iraqi officials, police officers, civilians and, of course, Iraqi, American and coalition soldiers. The attacks shown here took place across the country, but there is a clear concentration in the so-called Sunni Triangle, which stretches from Tikrit in the north to Baghdad in the east and to Falluja and Ramadi in the west.
While the daily toll is noted by the news media in headlines and video clips, many Americans have a hard time incorporating these individual pieces of information into a coherent image over time. This map, based on Pentagon data and news reports, shows the number killed and wounded since Jan. 1. Because of the limits placed on reporters and the military's need to inform families, there may have been additional casualties during this period that are not noted here. The map also does not include Iraqi civilians accidentally killed by coalition forces. Still, it is our attempt to visually depict the human cost of a fortnight in an embattled land.
Adriana Lins de Albuquerque is a senior research assistant at the Brookings Institution in Washington. Alicia Cheng is a graphic designer at mgmt. design in Brooklyn.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)