Never a hostile question for campaigning Bush

Welcome to how the Bush Empire handles public elections...

Sat Aug 14,10:51 PM ET

SIOUX CITY, United States (AFP) - President George W. Bush famously dislikes press conferences but has embraced "Ask President Bush" sessions packed with supporters at least as eager to pay tribute to him as get an answer.

AFP Photo

"Mr President, I don't have a question. I've got three 'thank-yous'," one man told him at such an event in Ohio.

Billed as informal question-and-answer opportunities for curious voters to quiz the most powerful man in the world, the carefully choreographed campaign events usually recycle the central points from his stump speech.

"We're going to call on some of your citizens to help me make some points," he said at the Ohio event.

Bush's well-honed address includes a vow to appoint conservative judges, a defense of his tax cuts as promoting growth, and an emotional argument that going to war with Iraq was the right decision.

At an "Ask President Bush" in Oregon Friday, he was asked to appoint conservative judges; heard that his tax cuts promote growth; and received an emotional tribute from the sister-in-law of an Iraq-bound US soldier.

While he has yet to face a hostile questioner, angry attacks on Democratic White House hopeful John Kerry abound.

In Beaverton, Bush supporters accused the Massachusetts senator of having a "fuzzy memory", of winning two of his five Vietnam war medals for "self-inflicted scratches".

But would-be Bush hecklers face daunting obstacles: Loyalists handle giving out tickets to the event; home-made signs and banners are often forbidden; and in some cases access hinges on signing a loyalty oath.

"First priority goes to volunteers and supporters and then we reach out to people who are undecided and want to hear what the president has to say," according Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel.

The result is a friendly crowd eager to see the candidate they hope will win the November 2 election, while authorities banish protesters to heavily policed sidewalks blocks away.

In fact, the only question that left Bush briefly at a loss for words in Oregon came from a child who stumped him by asking why a school superintendent who "makes 200,000 dollars" would fire the school librarian.

"I can't answer your question why. But (First Lady) Laura (Bush) was a librarian, so maybe the superintendent ought to talk to the librarian, Laura. But, no, I don't know," the president said.

Another child, however, had a more campaign-friendly question -- "Mr president, as a child how can I help you get votes?" -- and received a more confident answer.

"First, you can put signs up in people's yards who want the signs in their yards," said Bush, who urged the tot to find a friend with a sibling over the minimum voting age of 18.

"Say to them, register to vote, and then please do me a favor, vote on my behalf for George W. Bush," said the president, who won laughter from his hand-picked audience.

Study: Tax Burden Shifts to Middle Class

By targeting the tax cut at the rich, Bush is acting like the baseball owner who traded Sammy Sosa for a utility infielder who ended up with 20 career home runs. Oh wait, that was George W. Bush…

WASHINGTON - President Bush's tax cuts since 2001 have shifted more of the tax burden from the nation's rich to middle-class families, according to a study released Friday by the Congressional Budget Office.

The tax rate declined across all income levels — but more so in the top brackets, the report said.

People in the top 20 percent of incomes, averaging $182,700 a year, saw their share of federal taxes decline from 65.3 percent of total payments in 2001 to 63.5 percent this year, according to the study by congressional budget analysts.

In contrast, middle-class taxpayers — with incomes ranging from $51,500 to $75,600 — bear a greater tax burden. Those making an average of $75,600 had the biggest jump in their share of taxes, from 18.5 percent of all payments in 2001 to 19.5 percent this year.

The study, requested by congressional Democrats in May, is expected to provide fodder for the presidential campaign over the fairness of more than $1 trillion in tax cuts Bush has pushed through Congress since taking office.

"George W. Bush keeps trying to mislead Americans into thinking we're turning the corner, but truth is that he is turning his back on middle-class families," Kerry spokesman Phil Singer said. "The Bush policies are exacerbating the squeeze that working families have been feeling for the last four years."

Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said, "Because of President Bush's policies every American pays less in taxes today than they did before he became president...John Kerry has promised to raise taxes during the campaign. That is the clear choice Americans will have in the fall elections."

The study found that the effective tax rate for the top 1 percent of taxpayers dropped from 33 percent in 2001 to 26.7 percent this year, a decline of 19 percent. The middle 20 percent of taxpayers saw a decline of 4 percent.

The study is based on figures in 2001 and assumes no changes in wealth distribution from increases in income, dividends or capital gains.

___

On the Net:

Congressional Budget Office: www.cbo.gov

Young Marines frustrated by lack of progress

By Anne Barnard, Globe Staff | August 12, 2004

RAMADI, Iraq -- Four months into their tour of duty at one of the most dangerous American bases in Iraq, young Marines say the slow pace of progress is shaking their faith in their mission.

Playing cards one recent evening while on call to respond to any outburst of violence, Lance Corporal David Goward and the rest of his squad expressed two growing concerns: that the US military will linger here indefinitely and that the troops' very presence is provoking the fighting it is meant to stop. They are ready for any battle, they said, but a pervasive sense that Iraqis do not want their help has destroyed their enthusiasm for the larger goals of launching democracy and rebuilding the country.

"I don't think any of us even care what happens to this country," Goward said, as half a dozen Marines, all stationed in Ramadi, the capital of restive Anbar Province, nodded in agreement. "I'm here to make sure these guys get home safely. And they're here to make sure I do."...

Fear & Loathing Along The Campaign Trail...

...apologies to Hunter S. Thompson.

What happened to democracy at a GOP presidential rally during a national election?



We aren't afraid of letting in all Americans at John Kerry's campaign.

You can tell a great deal about the trust and hope of the Bush camp toward the people they serve from this sort of campaign doctrine. ---Sam

Director Moore Quotes Goss on Lack of CIA Credentials

Straight out of the horse's ass.

By David Morgan

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - U.S. Congressman Porter Goss, President Bush)'s nominee for CIA director, could be his own worst enemy when it comes to making the case that he deserves to lead the U.S. intelligence agency.

"I couldn't get a job with CIA today. I am not qualified," the Florida Republican told documentary-maker Michael Moore's production company during the filming of the anti-Bush movie "Fahrenheit 9/11."

A day after Bush picked Goss for the top U.S. spy job, Moore Wednesday released an excerpt from a March 3 interview in which the 65-year-old former House of Representatives intelligence chief recounts his lack of qualifications for employment as a modern CIA staffer.

"I don't have the language skills. I, you know, my language skills were romance languages and stuff. We're looking for Arabists today. I don't have the cultural background probably," Goss is quoted in an interview transcript.

"And I certainly don't have the technical skills, uh, as my children remind me every day: 'Dad you got to get better on your computer.' Uh, so, the things that you need to have, I don't have."

Goss, who served with the CIA clandestine services in Latin America and Europe in the 1960s, was not immediately available for comment.

The White House dismissed the Moore interview transcript as "ridiculous hearsay" and emphasized the depth of bipartisan respect for Goss on Capitol Hill.

"Porter Goss has very strong support from Republicans, and Democrats including Sen. Bob Graham of Florida," said White House spokesman Trent Duffy. Graham is the former head of Senate intelligence.

"No one's really questioning his qualifications. Even people who say he's too political for the job say he has qualifications for the job," Duffy added.

Goss appears in Moore's film, the most financially successful documentary in history, during a segment devoted to the USA Patriot Act, an anti-terrorism measure.

Moore told Reuters that Goss, who until Tuesday was chairman of the House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, granted an interview to two of his producers without first checking to see who they worked for.

"You'd think the person who was the head of the intelligence committee would ask a few more questions," said Moore.

"The reality is that Porter Goss was in charge of the oversight of the CIA during a time when the CIA didn't do its job, which in part resulted in the loss of lives of 3,000 people," he said via telephone from New York.

Goss is expected to appear at confirmation hearings before the Senate intelligence committee next month.

Pentagon May Hold Back Halliburton Payments

By Sue Pleming

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A new Pentagon audit has lambasted Halliburton's accounting for billions of dollars of work in Iraq, as a Sunday deadline neared to withhold a major slice of payments to the Texas-based firm.

Halliburton's accounting system has been disputed by Pentagon auditors for the past 18 months but the company has so far avoided any withheld payments for work done in Iraq by its unit Kellogg Brown and Root (KBR).

Halliburton said it could weather any such action by in turn withholding payments due to subcontractors, and it disputed the latest audit.

Dan Carlson, a spokesman for U.S. Army Field Support Command in Rock Island Illinois, said work orders with a future value of $8.2 billion could be affected by a 15 percent withholding set to go into effect on Sunday if the billing dispute is not resolved with their client, KBR.

"We continue to work with all parties to resolve issues and continue our essential service to our troops in the field," said Carlson.

He said the potential withhold could amount to about $60 million a month, according to current payment schedules, adding that $4.3 billion had already been paid to Halliburton so far under its logistics contract with the U.S. military.

Halliburton, which was run by Vice President Dick Cheney until 2000, is the U.S. military's biggest contractor in Iraq and its business there has the potential to earn up to $18 billion for the company, according to government estimates.

The Aug. 4 audit by the Pentagon's Defense Contract Audit Agency (DCAA), which has not been publicly released, found flaws in KBR's system for estimating costs on its major logistics contract, a Pentagon spokeswoman said.

"The (auditors') opinion ... is that KBR's estimating system is inadequate," the spokeswoman said.

The auditors said Halliburton should submit within 45 days a plan to fix its system or its cost estimates would be disapproved, meaning they would be subject to more in-depth audits, payments could be suspended or there could be a recommendation to stop the contract.

The auditors have also recommended the company provide detailed cost or pricing data for any bills over $100,000.

News of the latest audit first emerged in a Wall Street Journal report on Wednesday that said Halliburton had inadequately accounted for more than $1.8 billion of work in Iraq, representing 43 percent of the money that its subsidiary has billed so far for feeding and housing troops.

Halliburton spokeswoman Wendy Hall said the company strongly disagreed with the audit and believed the issue would ultimately be resolved in the company's favor.

Halliburton's liquidity would not be affected by any withheld payments even if the billing dispute was not resolved, she said, because Halliburton would in turn withhold payments to subcontractors.

She said the Pentagon auditors had no authority to determine the adequacy of its estimating systems and she also disputed audit findings that Halliburton did not have a system to properly negotiate final prices.

The company has argued that it has become a political target during this election season. Cheney was Halliburton's chief executive from 1995 to 2000.

"Only in an election year, when Halliburton is being covered in a political context as opposed to business, does a DCAA audit dispute become a news story," said Hall.

Sucker-punched

Is anyone surprised?

Higher Costs Boost School Lunch Prices

Let them eat cake...

By J.M. HIRSCH, Associated Press Writer

SOMERSWORTH, N.H. - Back-to-school checklists will have children scrambling for a new item this year: more lunch money.

Feeling the pressure of rising food, labor and transportation costs, schools nationwide are hiking the price of breakfast and lunch, in some cases for the first time in more than a decade and by as much as $1.

Duane Ford, business director for Somersworth schools, said this year's 25-cent increase — the first in 10 years — is just the start. Staff cuts, eliminating the breakfast program and another increase next year also are being considered.

"What we did in terms of changing our price isn't enough," he said recently. "You start looking at reports saying, 'Oh my God, what are we going to do? This isn't working.'"

The increases don't affect the nearly 17 million children who get free or reduced price lunches and who account for more than half of the 29 million children served by the National School Lunch Program this year.

Forty cents is the limit for a reduced price meal. But prices for kids who don't meet the poverty rules are set by local school districts and have no price cap. It is those prices that some schools are raising — from a few cents to a dollar per meal.

School systems typically get no local money for their lunch programs. They get by on meal sales, vending machine sales and the use of government commodities. But schools complain that the federal system hasn't kept pace with the cost of food. Budgets in the red are routine.

While typical annual food inflation is about 3 percent, dairy prices in June were up 27 percent from a year ago, according to the U.S. Department of Agriculture (news - web sites). Meat and cheese were up 11 percent, and poultry 9 percent.

There also is a catch-up factor at play. Schools generally avoid raising prices for as long as possible. That means many communities are just now covering for years of incremental cost increases in addition to the recent spike.

It all added up to a 17 percent food cost increase at the Galt Joint Union High School District in Galt, Calif., where officials recently relented, raising meal prices to $3 after holding them to $2 for the past 12 years.

The district wanted to hold the increase to 50 cents, but feared having to go back to parents for more money next year.

A reasonable fear, said Barry Sackin, spokesman for the American School Food Service Association. Even tiny price hikes can hurt participation, especially among families that hover above poverty but don't qualify for free or reduced-cost meals.

For Carol Rippa, food service director for 72,000 students at Northside Independent School District in San Antonio, gasoline was a major culprit behind a 25-cent increase.

"We have 350 square miles in our school district," she said. "We're busy taking the food to all 75 schools that are scattered throughout the 350 square miles. The fuel cost makes the food cost more."

At schools in Oshkosh, Wis., where the cost of milk alone is up $100,000 more than the district anticipated, lunch price increases are expected to cost the average child an additional $17.70 a year.

The recent national push to make school food healthier also comes with a price. Eliminating junk food can hurt income.

Texas recently adopted strict new school nutrition standards that include restrictions on fried foods. That's forcing many schools to dump their deep fat fryers and buy pricey new equipment.

In the Hurst-Euless-Bedford Independent School District in Bedford, Texas, school officials increased meal and drink prices to help offset an expected $500,000 needed to equip its 27 schools with new ovens.

Labor prices also have crept up, mostly because of health care costs. Sackin said that while salaries have remained steady, more districts now use health benefits to attract workers.

Schools aren't alone in feeling the pressure. The USDA, which runs the National School Lunch Program, spends about $948 million a year to supply schools with roughly 18 percent of the food they serve.

But this year its buying power is reduced. Like families, the agency is watching prices carefully, hoping to avoid spending more to buy the same amount of food.

The blow is softened somewhat for schools that use outside food service companies, most of which cater for thousands of schools and can leverage that purchasing power for better prices — and creative solutions.

For example, don't be surprised if your child's chicken nuggets are replaced by cheaper chicken-and-soy nuggets this year, said Nancy Quinn of Chartwells School Dining Services, which has contracts with 3,000 schools.

And the outlook isn't all bad. Ephraim Leibtag, a food price economist at the USDA, said the price of milk — the only food federally mandated for every school meal — already shows signs of moderating.

The agency also has increased the credit it gives schools — up 1 1/2 cents to just over 17 cents per meal — for spending on government food commodities in 2005.

Some schools hope the cost hike is temporary and have put off deciding whether to raise prices. At Rio Linda Union School District in Rio Linda, Calif., food service director Susan Stewart is finding ways to save money, instead.

She favors turning off the lights.

"It's been like a contest where every time you leave a room you turn off a light," she said. "It's something that's controllable and it doesn't require a cut in staff or a cut in spending."

Littwin: Condemn anti-Kerry ad? Bush much too busy

August 7, 2004

"I condemn the ad. It is dishonest and dishonorable. I think it is very, very wrong. I hope that the president will also condemn it." - Sen. John McCain, on ABC-TV

Guess what? And you don't need to be on the Kerry train to get this one right.

The president hasn't condemned the ad - which, along with a new book, accuses John Kerry of having lied in Vietnam in order to win his medals.

Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, did say he would never question Kerry's service in Vietnam. And then he got to the real culprit, which he said he "deplored" - yes, those so-called "527" commercials, paid for by a third party with soft money. You can see where he'd get angry, and not just because Democrats use them.

But, of course, George W. Bush can't get to everything. There are other issues.

There's the corner-turning economy. The news today - oh boy: Job growth has all but stopped, with just 32,000 positions added in July, which, according to my math, is slightly lower than the 250,000 being predicted. Meanwhile, job numbers from June, already low, were revised downward. You don't need a graph to see where this is headed.

It looks as if Bush will actually be the first president since Herbert Hoover - a name you won't hear at the Republican convention - to have fewer Americans employed at the end of a term than at the beginning. And for those of you wondering how the old 401(k) is doing, here's your retirement watch: The market hit a low for the year Friday.

Then there's Iraq ... (click title above for rest of story)

Spin the Payrolls

August 10, 2004

OP-ED COLUMNIST NY TIMES

By PAUL KRUGMAN

hen Friday's dismal job report was released, traders in the Chicago pit began chanting, "Kerry, Kerry." But apologists for President Bush's economic policies are frantically spinning the bad news. Here's a guide to their techniques.

First, they talk about recent increases in the number of jobs, not the fact that payroll employment is still far below its previous peak, and even further below anything one could call full employment. Because job growth has finally turned positive, some economists (who probably know better) claim that prosperity has returned - and some partisans have even claimed that we have the best economy in 20 years.

But job growth, by itself, says nothing about prosperity: growth can be higher in a bad year than a good year, if the bad year follows a terrible year while the good year follows another good year. I've drawn a chart of job growth for the 1930's; there was rapid nonfarm job growth (8.1 percent) in 1934, a year of mass unemployment and widespread misery - but that year was slightly less terrible than 1933.

So have we returned to prosperity? No: jobs are harder to find, by any measure, than they were at any point during Bill Clinton's second term. The job situation might have improved somewhat in the past year, but it's still not good.

Second, the apologists give numbers without context. President Bush boasts about 1.5 million new jobs over the past 11 months. Yet this was barely enough to keep up with population growth, and it's worse than any 11-month stretch during the Clinton years.

Third, they cherry-pick any good numbers they can find.

The shocking news that the economy added only 32,000 jobs in July comes from payroll data. Experts say what Alan Greenspan said in February: "Everything we've looked at suggests that it's the payroll data which are the series which you have to follow." Another measure of employment, from the household survey, fluctuates erratically; for example, it fell by 265,000 in February, a result nobody believes. Yet because July's household number was good, suddenly administration officials were telling reporters to look at that number, not the more reliable payroll data.

By the way, over the longer term all the available data tell the same story: the job situation deteriorated drastically between early 2001 and the summer of 2003, and has, at best, improved modestly since then.

Fourth, apologists try to shift the blame. Officials often claim, falsely, that the 2001 recession began under Bill Clinton, or at least that it was somehow his fault. But even if you attribute the eight-month recession that began in March 2001 to Mr. Clinton - a very dubious proposition - job loss during the recession wasn't exceptionally severe. The reason the employment picture looks so bad now is the unprecedented weakness of job growth in the subsequent recovery.

Nor is it plausible to continue attributing poor economic performance to terrorism, three years after 9/11. Bear in mind that in the 2002 Economic Report of the President, the administration's own economists predicted full recovery by 2004, with payroll employment rising to 138 million, 7 million more than the actual number.

Finally, many apologists have returned to that old standby: the claim that presidents don't control the economy. But that's not what the administration said when selling its tax policies. Last year's tax cut was officially named the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 - and administration economists provided a glowing projection of the job growth that would follow the bill's passage. That projection has, needless to say, proved to be wildly overoptimistic.

What we've just seen is as clear a test of trickledown economics as we're ever likely to get. Twice, in 2001 and in 2003, the administration insisted that a tax cut heavily tilted toward the affluent was just what the economy needed. Officials brushed aside pleas to give relief instead to lower- and middle-income families, who would be more likely to spend the money, and to cash-strapped state and local governments. Given the actual results - huge deficits, but minimal job growth - don't you wish the administration had listened to that advice?

Oh, and on a nonpolitical note: even before Friday's grim report on jobs, I was puzzled by Mr. Greenspan's eagerness to start raising interest rates. Now I don't understand his policy at all.

New Generation of Leaders Is Emerging for Al Qaeda

By DAVID JOHNSTON and DAVID E. SANGER

WASHINGTON, Aug. 9 - A new portrait of Al Qaeda's inner workings is emerging from the cache of information seized last month in Pakistan, as investigators begin to identify a new generation of operatives who appear to be filling the vacuum created when leaders were killed or captured, senior intelligence officials said Monday.

Using computer records, e-mail addresses and documents seized after the arrest of Mohammed Naeem Noor Khan last month in Pakistan, intelligence analysts say they are finding that Al Qaeda's upper ranks are being filled by lower-ranking members and more recent recruits.

"They're a little bit of both,'' one official said, describing Al Qaeda's new midlevel structure. "Some who have been around and some who have stepped up. They're reaching for their bench.''

While the findings may result in a significant intelligence coup for the Bush administration and its allies in Britain, they also create a far more complex picture of Al Qaeda's status than Mr. Bush presents on the campaign trail. For the past several months, the president has claimed that much of Al Qaeda's leadership has been killed or captured; the new evidence suggests that the organization is regenerating and bringing in new blood.

The new picture emerged from interviews with two officials who have been briefed on some of the details of the intelligence and analytical conclusions drawn from the information on computers seized after Mr. Khan's arrest. But they did not identify the more senior Qaeda leaders, and they said it was not yet clear to what extent Osama bin Laden still exercised control over the organization, either directly or through his chief deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri.

Officials say they still do not have a clear picture of the midlevel structure that exists between Mr. Khan, who appeared to be responsible for communications but not operations, and the upper echelons of Al Qaeda.

The new evidence suggests that Al Qaeda has retained some elements of its previous centralized command and communications structure, using computer experts like Mr. Khan to relay encrypted messages and directions from leaders to subordinates in countries like Britain, Turkey and Nigeria.

In the past, officials had a different view of Al Qaeda. After the American-led war in Afghanistan, most American counterterrorism analysts believed that the group had been dispersed and had been trying to re-form in a loosely affiliated collection of extremist groups.

It appears that Al Qaeda is more resilient than was previously understood and has sought to find replacements for operational commanders like Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Abu Zubaydah and Walid Muhammad Salih bin Attash, known as Khallad, all of whom have been captured.

Mr. bin Laden and Mr. Zawahiri are believed to be in hiding in the region along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan. In July, when American officials announced that Al Qaeda intended to strike inside the United States this year, they said that they believed Mr. bin Laden was directing the threats.

The names of senior members of the terror network were not discussed by the intelligence officials, in part, they said, to avoid compromising efforts to kill or capture them. "They are in Pakistan or the region,'' said one official, who also said that the Pakistani government was being "quite helpful'' in helping identify them. That is a significant change from last year, but the attitude of Pakistan's president, Gen. Pervez Musharraf, appeared to change after he survived two assassination attempts that are now believed to have been aided by Qaeda sympathizers. "That focused his mind on the issue,'' one American said.

The Khan computer files also led to the arrest of 11 Qaeda followers last week in Britain. They are described by officials as young, alienated Arab men with extreme anti-American views, much like many of Mr. bin Laden's foot soldiers and many of the 19 men who took part in the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

One key figure among the men arrested in Britain is Abu Issa al-Hindi, who is believed to have supervised the surveillance of financial institutions in New York, New Jersey and Washington. He appears to represent what authorities said was a different kind of Qaeda recruit, a convert to Islam who did not appear to have been trained in Mr. bin Laden's Afghanistan camps.

The arrest of Mr. Khan continued to be debated on Monday in the capital. A Democratic senator, Charles E. Schumer of New York, asked the White House to explain how the identity of the communications expert arrested in Pakistan last month became publicly known.

Mr. Schumer said in a letter to Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, that the disclosure of Mr. Khan's capture may have complicated efforts to combat terror.

The apprehension of Mr. Khan led authorities in Pakistan to computers that provided a wealth of information about Al Qaeda operations, including the surveillance of the financial institutions. It remains unclear whether he was cooperating with Pakistani intelligence at the time of his arrest or had previously provided Islamabad with information about Al Qaeda.

"I believe that openness in government is generally the best policy,'' Mr. Schumer wrote. "But the important exception should be anything that compromises national security. The statements of the British and Pakistani officials indicate that such a compromise may have occurred.''

There have been reports of Pakistani officials complaining that public statements in the United States about Mr. Khan's arrest gave his Qaeda contacts notice that they may be under surveillance.

Mr. bin Laden's precise role in the leadership of his organization remains murky. After the Sept. 11 attacks he did not appear to take an active leadership role in formulating a specific plan, as he had in the Sept. 11 plot, administration officials have said. At times he has appeared to be struggling to maintain his primacy as the leader of the network through messages exhorting his followers to carry out operations against American targets.

But in recent months, there has been evidence leading some analysts to conclude that Mr. bin Laden may have been able to maintain greater control over planning for attacks.

Iraq invasion a "tremendous gift" to bin Laden: CIA analyst

Sun Aug 8, 4:55 PM ET

WASHINGTON (AFP) - The US invasion of Iraq was a "tremendous gift" to Osama bin Laden and a major setback in the struggle against al-Qaeda, according to a CIA terrorism expert who has written a scathing account of the conduct of the US "war on terror."

In an interview with AFP, the author of "Imperial Hubris: Why the West Is Losing the War on Terror" blasted the efforts of successive US governments and the US intelligence community in fighting what he describes as a a global Islamic insurgency.

"Anonymous," as he is known, painted a dismal picture of the situation in Iraq, a "very bleak" outlook for Afghanistan and advocated debate about US policies which he claimed are providing a fertile recruiting ground for al-Qaeda in the Muslim world.

A senior CIA analyst, "Anonymous" has been widely identified as the head of the bin Laden unit at the Central Intelligence Agency's Counterterrorist Center from 1996 to 1999. He was allowed to write the book on condition he not reveal his identity.

Published last month with an initial print run of 10,000 copies the provocative work, which was vetted by his employer for classified material, has climbed to number five on the New York Times list of non-fiction best-sellers.

It has gone back to the printers for another 200,000 copies and translations into nearly a dozen languages are planned. They include Arabic, French, Greek, Japanese and Turkish.

"Anonymous," a bearded, professorial man in his 50s, is blistering in his criticism of the US decision to invade Iraq and topple Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).

"It's a disaster," he said. "I'm not an expert at all on Saddam or WMD (weapons of mass destruction) or Iraq but as it factors into the war against al-Qaeda or al-Qaedaism it was a tremendous gift to bin Laden.

"It validated so many of the arguments he's made over the past decade," "Anonymous" said, particularly the claim by the Saudi-born al-Qaeda leader that the West seeks to occupy the Islamic holy places.

"We have the first one, the most important in the Arabian peninsula, we occupy that in their eyes," he said in a reference to Saudi Arabia. "We now occupy Iraq, the second holiest place, and the Israelis have Jerusalem, the third.

"The idea that we would smash any government that posed a threat to Israel -- that's validated by our actions," he continued. "And his claim that we lust after control of Arab oil; Iraq has the second greatest reserves in the Arab world.

"So it's been an astounding victory for Osama bin Laden in terms of perceptions and perceptions are reality so often," "Anonymous" said.

He said the situation in Iraq, where more than 900 US soldiers have died, "looks like Afghanistan in the '80s with the Soviets, kind of a mujahedeen magnet.

"I think you can see already the fighters that are flowing in from Algeria and from Saudi Arabia and from Malaysia and from all other places," he said.

As for Afghanistan, "Anonymous" said: "It's very bleak."

"The insurgency is increasing day by day in small measures," he said. "Eventually we'll be faced with a lose-lose situation of either increasing our forces dramatically or leaving."

"Anonymous" said capturing or killing bin Laden would be important "symbolically" but "he's also very valuable in death as a martyr.

"If he dies he'll be replaced and the movement goes on so the worth of taking him out is still there but it's drastically reduced from what it was four or five years ago in terms of its impact on improving American security," he said.

"Al-Qaeda is transforming really into al-Qaedism, if you will, more of a movement than just an organization," he said. "Not all of it agrees with bin Laden's theological arguments or his military actions but they're all united at least in the sense of detesting our policies."

To counter al-Qaeda, "Anonymous" advocates a coordinated strategy of tough military action, diplomacy, intelligence, energy independence, propaganda and debate over longstanding US policies.

"Rhetoric is not going to work," he said. "There's no one listening out there. I think the best we can do in the near term is to undercut the room bin Ladenism has to grow.

"And because we don't have any diplomacy that's working, because our policies basically are hated in the Muslim world, we only have a military option.

"It seems to me that the one national security effort we haven't made is to debate whether policies that have been on autopilot for 30 years are still serving us well," he said.

Asked what the reaction to his book has been at his workplace, "Anonymous" said "I think it represents a good deal of the views of the people who actually work this issue on a day to day basis.

"I can't claim that I speak for anyone but me but the reaction among my colleagues has certainly been positive," he said. "On the other hand from my superiors there's been kind of a thundering silence."

GOP Sen. Blasts Ashcroft For Hostility Toward Prosecutors

Sun Aug 8,12:34 PM ET

WASHINGTON - In blunt, private letters, the Senate Finance Committee chairman has told Attorney General John Ashcroft he believes the Justice Department has retaliated against prosecutors in a Detroit terror trial because they cooperated with Congress.

Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, has written Ashcroft or his deputies at least three times to accuse department officials of taking "hostile actions" and "reprisals" against the trial prosecutors.

In one letter, Grassley demanded that Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino and his colleagues in Detroit "be made whole and not suffer reprisals." The senator asked Ashcroft to rectify the matter before it begins "exposing the department to public criticisms."

Grassley also dismissed as "bureaucratic, legalistic spin" the department's explanations for why the prosecution team was subjected to internal investigation.

"Federal law provides individuals who are congressional witnesses or assisting congressional investigations protection from retaliation," Grassley wrote.

Justice officials declined comment.

Convertino, a 14-year career prosecutor, helped win the convictions of three men accused of operating a terror cell in Detroit last summer, but he came under investigation when his bosses learned Grassley's committee had subpoenaed him to testify, said Bill Sullivan, Convertino's attorney.

Sullivan said Convertino had been asked by Grassley's committee last fall to narrowly testify about terror financing schemes, and had no intention of discussing the friction with Washington or the missed evidence opportunities that arose during the trial.

Convertino remains employed by Justice but has been detailed to Congress to assist Grassley. He recently sued Ashcroft, accusing Justice officials of interfering with the case and retaliating against him.

"The complaints that Rick has must be appropriately answered so that no other prosecutors ever be faced with the obstacles that were imposed in the Detroit case," Sullivan said.

AP: Superiors Hindered Terror Prosecutors

No thanks to John Ashcroft! ---Sam

By JOHN SOLOMON, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Prosecutors in the first major terror trial after Sept. 11 were hindered by superiors from presenting some of their most powerful evidence, including testimony from an al-Qaida leader and video footage showing Osama bin Laden's European operatives casing American landmarks, Justice Department memos show.

The department's terrorism unit "provided no help of any kind in this prosecution," the U.S. Attorney's office in Detroit wrote in one of the memos, which detail bitter divisions between front-line prosecutors and their superiors in Washington...

Anemic Job Growth Adds to Economic Worries

By JEANNINE AVERSA, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - America's payrolls grew by an anemic 32,000 new jobs in July, suggesting the economy is stuck in summer lethargy three months before voters elect a president. The report rattled Wall Street and sent stocks tumbling...

Bad News on the Job Front

August 7, 2004

here is no sugarcoating yesterday's employment report. The consensus forecast was for the American economy to add more than 200,000 new jobs in July. The actual number was 32,000. June's already weak report was revised downward, to 78,000 jobs from 112,000. Even May's hopeful numbers turned out to be less so, with 27,000 fewer jobs created than originally reported. The report's immediate impact will be to neutralize, if not undercut, President Bush's campaign boasts of a strong economic recovery.

Mr. Bush runs the risk of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a net decline in the number of jobs. This may not be all his fault; he inherited a bursting bubble, after all, and there are limits to a president's ability to counter economic cycles. But Mr. Bush is always just as eager to have the buck stop at his desk to take credit for good economic news as he is to deny or spin bad news. Yesterday was no exception.

Addressing a conference of minority journalists in Washington, President Bush was unwilling to acknowledge the implications of the jobs report. "Economic growth is strong and it's getting stronger,'' he said. Meanwhile, the White House economic team was peddling its tired line that the administration's tax cuts, which were costly without being effective as a stimulus for hiring, had helped bring about an 11th consecutive month of job growth.

Left unsaid was that it was a sputtering, tepid month, just at the time when the recovery should be gathering steam. The disappointing numbers come on top of - and help explain - other recent signs of a slowdown, including an abrupt drop in economic growth, to a 3 percent annual rate in the second quarter from 4.5 percent in this year's first quarter. Consumer spending, the mainstay of the economy, fell 0.7 percent in June, its steepest drop since September 2001. Financial markets reacted bearishly to the latest news, with stock market indexes hitting new lows for the year yesterday, and the dollar weakening against other currencies.

Even worse for the president, three years of tax cuts and war have left him with virtually no policy tools to counteract economic weakness in the near term. A direct fiscal stimulus is precluded by the staggering $445 billion deficit expected for the year. The White House tried to whitewash the release of that latest estimate last week by noting that the shortfall was lower than its initial (conveniently large) projection, instead of lamenting that it was higher than last year's deficit.

The Federal Reserve Board is also unable to come to the rescue because it is rightly concerned about the danger of keeping short-term interest rates below the rate of inflation. Next week, Alan Greenspan and his colleagues are expected to continue on their course of gradually inching up rates, which have been at emergency-level lows. This may turn into a sequel of the 1992 tensions between the Fed chairman and a Bush White House that wants looser monetary policy on the eve of an election.

Most economic forecasts have predicted a healthy economy in the second half of the year, and consumer surveys have been bullish, even as people have trimmed their spending. The trouble is, companies will have to start adding at least 200,000 new jobs a month to justify this optimism, especially now that the government's ability to apply a fiscal or monetary stimulus is so constrained. Those stubbornly high fuel prices show how external shocks can slam the brakes on the pace of this recovery.

Voters deserve to have both presidential candidates address and debate solutions to some of the structural problems that are thwarting a stronger economic recovery, like our nation's dependence on foreign oil and the spiraling cost of health care. But like the rosy estimate of hundreds of thousands of new jobs for July, such a meaningful debate may be too much to count on.

3rd-Generation Yalie Bush Opposes Legacies

Have you noticed in the Bush family that whether it's getting Dad's help in getting out of the war or getting into school that it's always okay for Bush but not for others? ---Sam

By TERENCE HUNT, AP White House Correspondent

WASHINGTON - President Bush, who followed his father and grandfather to Yale University despite an undistinguished academic record, said Friday that colleges should get rid of "legacy" admission preferences that favor the sons and daughters of alumni.

"I think it ought to be based on merit," Bush told a conference of minority journalists when he was pressed about his views on affirmative action. "And I think colleges need to work hard for diversity." ...

... A member of a politically influential family, Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 and didn't try to hide that he had enjoyed the party life in college and had taken — as he put it — the "academic road less traveled." Returning to Yale four months after moving into the White House, Bush said with a grin, "To the 'C' students, I say you, too, can be president of the United States."

"In my case I had to knock on a lot of doors to follow the old man's footsteps," Bush said Friday, although it wasn't clear if he was talking about Yale or the White House.

Veteran Backs Off Attack on Kerry's War Record

BOSTON (Reuters) - John Kerry's commanding officer in Vietnam has backed away from attacks on the Democratic presidential candidate, saying he made a mistake in accusing the U.S. senator of having lied about his wartime record.

George Elliott, who was one of Kerry's superiors in Vietnam when he was awarded medals for heroic actions, had signed an affidavit suggesting Kerry did not deserve the Silver Star.

In the document, Elliott said, "I was never informed that he had simply shot a wounded, fleeing Viet Cong in the back."

But in Friday's Boston Globe, Elliott said: "It was a terrible mistake probably for me to sign the affidavit with those words. I'm the one in trouble here."

Elliott told the newspaper he thinks Kerry did deserve the medal.

"I still don't think he (Kerry) shot the guy in the back," Elliott is quoted as saying in the Globe.

Kerry used his nominating convention in Boston in July to paint himself as a decorated war hero capable of leading the nation in troubled times and a man better qualified to be commander-in-chief than President Bush.

But Elliott and other members of a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, oppose Kerry.

This week they launched a television advertisement accusing the Democrat of having lied about his service in Vietnam and hurting other veterans by criticizing the war after returning home. Next week the group will publish a book, "Unfit for Command: Swift Boat Veterans Speak Out Against John Kerry."

Elliott was not immediately available for comment.

Kerry, arguing his combat experience in Vietnam qualifies him as a strong leader on national security issues, has surrounded himself with other veterans who have said the candidate did heroic deeds to save his own crew mates.

The new attacks on Kerry sparked an angry response from Republican Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), also a Vietnam veteran, who called the attack dishonorable and dishonest and urged the Bush administration to also denounce the ad.

The administration distanced itself from the advertisement on Thursday but did not condemn it.

"We have not and we will not question Sen. Kerry's service in Vietnam," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.

Failure of Leadership

By BOB HERBERT
OP-ED COLUMNIST NY TIMES

nthony Dixon and Adam Froehlich were best friends who grew up in the suburbs of southern New Jersey, not far from Philadelphia. They went to junior high school together. They wrestled on the same team at Overbrook High School in the town of Pine Hill. They enlisted in the Army together in 2002. And both died in Iraq, in roadside bombings just four months apart.

Specialist Dixon was killed on Sunday in Samarra. Specialist Froehlich was killed in March near Baquba. They were 20 years old.

No one has a clue how this madness will end. As G.I.'s continue to fight and die in Iraq, the national leaders who put them needlessly in harm's way are now flashing orange alert signals to convey that Al Qaeda - the enemy that should have been in our sights all along - is poised to strike us again.

It's as if the government were following a script from the theater of the absurd. Instead of rallying our allies to a coordinated and relentless campaign against Al Qaeda after Sept. 11, we insulted the allies, gave them the back of our hand and arrogantly sent the bulk of our forces into the sand trap of Iraq.

Now we're in a fix.

The war in Iraq has intensified the hatred of America around the world and powerfully energized Al Qaeda-type insurgencies. At the same time, it has weakened our defenses by diverting the very resources we need - personnel, matériel and boatloads of cash - to meet the real terror threats.

President Bush's re-election mantra is that he's the leader who can keep America safe. But that message was stepped on by the urgent, if not frantic, disclosures this week by top administration officials that another Al Qaeda attack on the United States might be imminent.

A debate emerged almost immediately about whether the intelligence on which those disclosures were based was old or new, or a combination of both. Nevertheless, because of the growing sense of alarm, there was an expansion of the already ubiquitous armed, concrete-fortified sites in New York City and Washington.

The pressure may be getting to Mr. Bush. He came up with a gem of a Freudian slip yesterday. At a signing ceremony for a $417 billion military spending bill, the president said: "Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

The nation seems paralyzed, unsure of what to do about Iraq or terrorism. The failure of leadership that led to the bonehead decision to invade Iraq remains painfully evident today. Nobody seems to know where we go from here.

What Americans need more than anything else right now is some honest information about the critical situations we're facing.

What's the military mission in Iraq? Can it be clearly defined? Is it achievable? At what cost and over what time frame? How many troops will be needed? How many casualties are we willing to accept? And how much suffering are we willing to endure here at home in terms of the domestic needs that are unmet?

Neither Lyndon Johnson nor Richard Nixon was honest with the American people about Vietnam, and the result was a monumental tragedy. George W. Bush has not leveled with the nation about Iraq, and we are again trapped in a long, tragic nightmare.

As for the so-called war on terror, there is no evidence yet that the administration has a viable plan for counteracting Al Qaeda and its America-hating allies, offshoots and imitators. Whether this week's clumsy sequence of press conferences, leaks and alerts was politically motivated or not, the threat to the U.S. is both real and grave. And it can't be thwarted with military power alone.

Does the administration have any real sense of what motivates the nation's enemies? Does it understand the ways in which American policies are empowering its enemies? Does it grasp the crucial importance of international alliances and coordinated intelligence activity in fighting terror? And is it even beginning to think seriously about lessening our debilitating dependence on Middle Eastern oil?

The United States is the greatest military and economic power in the history of the planet. But it lacks a unifying sense of national purpose at the moment, and seems uncertain, even timid, as the national security challenges continue to mount. That is what a failure of leadership can do to a great power.

Texan Bankrolls Anti-Kerry Vets Group

By SHARON THEIMER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - A wealthy Texan and prolific Republican donor is helping bankroll a television ad assailing Democrat John Kerry's decorated military record in the Vietnam War.

Houston homebuilder Bob J. Perry has donated at least $100,000 to Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, a suburban Washington-based group airing a new ad in which Vietnam veterans who served on swiftboats accuse the Democratic presidential nominee of lying about his war record.

The group bought $500,000 of airtime for the 60-second ad to air in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Ohio and West Virginia.

The effort is reminiscent of a 2000 effort that helped drive George W. Bush's then-rival John McCain from the presidential race.

Four years ago, Dallas brothers Sam and Charles Wyly financed $2.5 million in ads run under the auspices of "Republicans for Clean Air" criticizing McCain in the week before GOP presidential primaries in California, New York and Ohio. Those ads promoted then-Texas Gov. Bush's environmental record and criticized that of McCain, the Arizona senator. Bush won the primaries in all three states.

Perry's June donation accounted for most of the $158,750 that Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, founded in April, reported raising as of June 30. John Krugh, a spokesman for Perry Homes, declined to comment on Perry's contribution.... (Click link above for full story)