Say it LOUD and say it CLEAR. Dean is unelectable in a country as closely divided as America is today. Only JOHN KERRY can bring in the centralist votes to beat Bush and can cause many of Bush's supporters vote for a Democrat.
Centrist Democrats Reserved Toward Dean
Sat Jul 26,12:30 PM ET
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential candidate Howard Dean is surging in fund raising and winning over supporters, but leading centrist Democrats still have reservations about the viability of his candidacy.
"Dean has certainly created a lot of excitement and has hooked on to what is the hot button issue," said Al From, founder and chief executive of the centrist Democratic Leadership Council. "His anti-war stance has helped him an awful lot. The enthusiasm is real. But in the long run, the Democratic Party will not elect a president who has not crossed a security threshold."...
____________________________________________________________________
Saturday, July 26, 2003
Once we unite behind JOHN KERRY, we are going to have the fight of your lives on our hands.
Bush Campaign Manager Sees Tough Race
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Republicans worried that bad news in the economy and Iraq (news - web sites) might take a toll on President Bush (news - web sites)'s solid poll numbers should get to work wooing new voters to help ensure his re-election in a tough battle with the Democrats, Bush's campaign manager told party activists Saturday.
"Our numbers look good today," Ken Mehlman told Republican National Committee (news - web sites) members at the end of a four-day meeting. Still, he said, there's no room for complacency about 2004.
"These numbers will come down," Mehlman said. "We must prepare for an election every bit as close as the 2000 election," he said....
__________________________________________________________________________
Bush Campaign Manager Sees Tough Race
By AMY WESTFELDT, Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK - Republicans worried that bad news in the economy and Iraq (news - web sites) might take a toll on President Bush (news - web sites)'s solid poll numbers should get to work wooing new voters to help ensure his re-election in a tough battle with the Democrats, Bush's campaign manager told party activists Saturday.
"Our numbers look good today," Ken Mehlman told Republican National Committee (news - web sites) members at the end of a four-day meeting. Still, he said, there's no room for complacency about 2004.
"These numbers will come down," Mehlman said. "We must prepare for an election every bit as close as the 2000 election," he said....
__________________________________________________________________________
They moved in like the MOB and took over by lying about what they were out to reform.
GOP's Power Play
Sat Jul 26, 1:00 AM ET
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writers
Nearly 10 years after winning control of the House by vowing a fairer and more open Congress, Republicans have tossed aside many of the institutional reforms they promised, increasingly employing hard-nosed tactics they decried a decade ago, according to numerous lawmakers and scholars.
Among the reforms championed by an earlier generation of House Republicans, and subsequently dropped or weakened: term limits for rank-and-file members as well as committee chairmen; stricter ethics laws; and greater power for individual members and the minority party...
_______________________________________________________________________
GOP's Power Play
Sat Jul 26, 1:00 AM ET
By Jim VandeHei and Juliet Eilperin, Washington Post Staff Writers
Nearly 10 years after winning control of the House by vowing a fairer and more open Congress, Republicans have tossed aside many of the institutional reforms they promised, increasingly employing hard-nosed tactics they decried a decade ago, according to numerous lawmakers and scholars.
Among the reforms championed by an earlier generation of House Republicans, and subsequently dropped or weakened: term limits for rank-and-file members as well as committee chairmen; stricter ethics laws; and greater power for individual members and the minority party...
_______________________________________________________________________
Bush learns that John Kerry is closing in on the Democratic nomination.
_____________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________
This "battle" won't happen. Kerry is going to start rising as the nation's candidate because the older, more conservative voters are going to vote for him and they are the only ones who vote in significant numbers, especially during the primaries. Why? Because he's got their issues covered. Why am I constantly beating the drum for him? Because I know he's right on the issues and the man for the job of BEATING GEORGE BUSH AND SENDING HIM PACKING TO CRAWFORD AS THE BIGGEST FRAUD IN U.S. HISTORY.
July 26, 2003
The Battle of Boston?
By ASHBEL GREEN
Let me offer a contrarian prediction. The contest for next year's Democratic presidential nomination will be the most unpredictable in half a century.
There is no front-runner now, and there is not likely to be one by next March, the time that most political experts and journalists usually figure the issue will be decided. My suspicion is that they could be very wrong.
Suppose, in the early primaries and caucuses, Dick Gephardt wins Iowa, Howard Dean or John Kerry takes New Hampshire, John Edwards is first in South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman prevails in Arizona. Where's the groundswell? Where's the Big Mo? Will Time and Newsweek put all the candidates on their covers?
Pundits have become trapped by the memories of what has happened in presidential campaigns the last several decades, forecasting the current war as if it were to be determined by the strategies and tactics of previous conflicts. Their assumptions are that American voters want to make up their minds in a hurry, and that the candidates will run out of money if the process gets extended.
Let me suggest another contrarian notion. Suppose the Democratic nomination doesn't get settled until the national convention. Suppose that several candidates remain in play in July 2004, when the delegates convene in Boston.
The television networks would have to expand their coverage, in expectation that a real competition would greatly enlarge the audience. Americans love a contest, and the sight of presidential aspirants battling head-to-head for delegate votes could well galvanize public attention. The suspense, even if the actual decision was made by party power brokers in a smoke-free room, might excite voters and stimulate interest in the November election.
There hasn't been a true challenge for a nomination since 1956, when Estes Kefauver bested John F. Kennedy for the Democratic vice-presidential designation. Kennedy may have lost that August night in Chicago, but the drama of the contest made him a household name and paved the way for his presidential nomination four years later. For the Democratic Party, now pitted against a popular president with gobs of money, another knockdown imbroglio might be just the thing.
Ashbel Green is a book editor.
________________________________________________________________________
July 26, 2003
The Battle of Boston?
By ASHBEL GREEN
Let me offer a contrarian prediction. The contest for next year's Democratic presidential nomination will be the most unpredictable in half a century.
There is no front-runner now, and there is not likely to be one by next March, the time that most political experts and journalists usually figure the issue will be decided. My suspicion is that they could be very wrong.
Suppose, in the early primaries and caucuses, Dick Gephardt wins Iowa, Howard Dean or John Kerry takes New Hampshire, John Edwards is first in South Carolina, and Joe Lieberman prevails in Arizona. Where's the groundswell? Where's the Big Mo? Will Time and Newsweek put all the candidates on their covers?
Pundits have become trapped by the memories of what has happened in presidential campaigns the last several decades, forecasting the current war as if it were to be determined by the strategies and tactics of previous conflicts. Their assumptions are that American voters want to make up their minds in a hurry, and that the candidates will run out of money if the process gets extended.
Let me suggest another contrarian notion. Suppose the Democratic nomination doesn't get settled until the national convention. Suppose that several candidates remain in play in July 2004, when the delegates convene in Boston.
The television networks would have to expand their coverage, in expectation that a real competition would greatly enlarge the audience. Americans love a contest, and the sight of presidential aspirants battling head-to-head for delegate votes could well galvanize public attention. The suspense, even if the actual decision was made by party power brokers in a smoke-free room, might excite voters and stimulate interest in the November election.
There hasn't been a true challenge for a nomination since 1956, when Estes Kefauver bested John F. Kennedy for the Democratic vice-presidential designation. Kennedy may have lost that August night in Chicago, but the drama of the contest made him a household name and paved the way for his presidential nomination four years later. For the Democratic Party, now pitted against a popular president with gobs of money, another knockdown imbroglio might be just the thing.
Ashbel Green is a book editor.
________________________________________________________________________
Thugs are running the House and the Senate while the Village Idiot (albet, a good liar) sits in the White House.
Tears From the Gruff Chairman
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Congress is heading off on vacation after a hilariously dewy-eyed adieu in which vows were exchanged to work harder toward bipartisan decorum — a goal that seems about as achievable as a balanced federal budget. In a surprise, the promises to be nicer were set off by a hand-wringing apology from Representative Bill Thomas, the widely feared California Republican who is notorious for his irascibility in wielding the gavel of the Ways and Means Committee. "I learned a very painful lesson," Mr. Thomas declared, fighting back tears as he expressed remorse for imperiously summoning the Capitol police to deal with protesting Democrats. They had bolted a committee meeting for a rump quorum in the library as Mr. Thomas had tried to ram through a pension bill that the Democrats had not had a chance to read.
The lesson Mr. Thomas really took to heart was that when he calls the police to reinforce G.O.P. hegemony, the Democrats call the news media. The resulting headlines were a rare coup for the minority as it suffers under the thumb of one-party government and rarely dominates any story. No solon was caned to the floor or struck with fire tongs or had his toupee ripped off, as happened in far more spirited Congressional fracases of the past. Shouts of "fruitcake" and "wimp" were the most counteraggression the minority could muster.
There was historical payback behind the Democrats' outcry, for the Republicans suffered the slings and arrows of minority misfortune for 40 years, before Newt Gingrich strategically targeted Democratic leaders as overbearing bullies and led his party to the majority. Mr. Thomas was probably trying to head off a campaign black eye for the G.O.P. more than trying to soften his dictator's reputation. While his contrition drew a bipartisan ovation, the driest eye in the House belonged to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who frostily studied the realpolitik of the gentleman's tears.
____________________________________________________________________________
Tears From the Gruff Chairman
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
Congress is heading off on vacation after a hilariously dewy-eyed adieu in which vows were exchanged to work harder toward bipartisan decorum — a goal that seems about as achievable as a balanced federal budget. In a surprise, the promises to be nicer were set off by a hand-wringing apology from Representative Bill Thomas, the widely feared California Republican who is notorious for his irascibility in wielding the gavel of the Ways and Means Committee. "I learned a very painful lesson," Mr. Thomas declared, fighting back tears as he expressed remorse for imperiously summoning the Capitol police to deal with protesting Democrats. They had bolted a committee meeting for a rump quorum in the library as Mr. Thomas had tried to ram through a pension bill that the Democrats had not had a chance to read.
The lesson Mr. Thomas really took to heart was that when he calls the police to reinforce G.O.P. hegemony, the Democrats call the news media. The resulting headlines were a rare coup for the minority as it suffers under the thumb of one-party government and rarely dominates any story. No solon was caned to the floor or struck with fire tongs or had his toupee ripped off, as happened in far more spirited Congressional fracases of the past. Shouts of "fruitcake" and "wimp" were the most counteraggression the minority could muster.
There was historical payback behind the Democrats' outcry, for the Republicans suffered the slings and arrows of minority misfortune for 40 years, before Newt Gingrich strategically targeted Democratic leaders as overbearing bullies and led his party to the majority. Mr. Thomas was probably trying to head off a campaign black eye for the G.O.P. more than trying to soften his dictator's reputation. While his contrition drew a bipartisan ovation, the driest eye in the House belonged to Nancy Pelosi, the Democratic leader who frostily studied the realpolitik of the gentleman's tears.
____________________________________________________________________________
How many more of these deaths must our nation endure? What kind of changed men and women are returning from this war? How many families will suffer this grief and deal with the pain as this quagmire endures? How many times will the White House change its story on why we went to war in Iraq?
A Marine Is Killed in Iraq, and Grief Ripples at Home
By SARAH KERSHAW
PORTLAND, Ore., July 24 — His family wanted a "showboat funeral" for Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1. And that meant hiring stretch limousines.
It took seven to carry them all: Uncle John, Uncle James, Uncle Joel, Uncle Sam, Uncle Mike, Aunt Katie, Aunt Molly, Aunt Laurie, Aunt Sally and her husband, Uncle Frank — 18 aunts and uncles in all.
Then there were the cousins, dozens of them, including Jack, Christopher and Riley, who as boys traveled with Travis in a pack of four. There was Bobby, the baby sitter, and James, Travis's close friend from Grant High School, who set off a tall pile of fireworks last week — "a 21, two-liter-bomb salute," he called it — to say goodbye to Travis with 30 of his friends.
At the head of the procession, of course, was Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother, Lynn Bradach, 51, and his younger brother, Nick Nall, 19, the two people at the center of this wide circle of sadness, a close-knit clan of more than 100 relatives and friends in Portland rippling now with the grief of one marine's death.
Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother and brother were among those most relieved that he had made it through the war itself — all 37 marines in his unit, Second Platoon, Charlie Company, came out alive, surviving a harrowing ambush near Nasiriya in southern Iraq in late March.
And they are the two who perhaps wish most desperately that Corporal Bradach-Nall had not volunteered to stay on for an extra three months, instead of returning safely with the others on June 21...
_________________________________________________________________________
A Marine Is Killed in Iraq, and Grief Ripples at Home
By SARAH KERSHAW
PORTLAND, Ore., July 24 — His family wanted a "showboat funeral" for Cpl. Travis J. Bradach-Nall, a 21-year-old marine who was killed in Iraq clearing mines on July 1. And that meant hiring stretch limousines.
It took seven to carry them all: Uncle John, Uncle James, Uncle Joel, Uncle Sam, Uncle Mike, Aunt Katie, Aunt Molly, Aunt Laurie, Aunt Sally and her husband, Uncle Frank — 18 aunts and uncles in all.
Then there were the cousins, dozens of them, including Jack, Christopher and Riley, who as boys traveled with Travis in a pack of four. There was Bobby, the baby sitter, and James, Travis's close friend from Grant High School, who set off a tall pile of fireworks last week — "a 21, two-liter-bomb salute," he called it — to say goodbye to Travis with 30 of his friends.
At the head of the procession, of course, was Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother, Lynn Bradach, 51, and his younger brother, Nick Nall, 19, the two people at the center of this wide circle of sadness, a close-knit clan of more than 100 relatives and friends in Portland rippling now with the grief of one marine's death.
Corporal Bradach-Nall's mother and brother were among those most relieved that he had made it through the war itself — all 37 marines in his unit, Second Platoon, Charlie Company, came out alive, surviving a harrowing ambush near Nasiriya in southern Iraq in late March.
And they are the two who perhaps wish most desperately that Corporal Bradach-Nall had not volunteered to stay on for an extra three months, instead of returning safely with the others on June 21...
_________________________________________________________________________
A cancer is growing on the White House.
THE BEGINNING OF THE END?
By Ted Rall
Bush's Cover-Up Precedes the Scandal
NEW YORK--"When it's all said and done," Bush still confidently insists, "the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein ( news -web sites ) had a weapons program." This once again begs the question of presidential dyslexia: You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!
This bizarro Administration does everything bass-ackwards. The recession is hardest on the poor and middle-class, so Bush gives tax cuts to the rich. When an overwhelming invasion force was needed to secure Afghanistan ( news -web sites ) and Iraq ( news -web sites ), Rumsfeld sent in a skeleton crew. Now that the citizens of those countries want us to go home, Gen. Tommy Franks has announced that our 148,000-man, $5 billion-a-month occupation army will get bigger and stick around until whenever...
________________________________________________________________________
THE BEGINNING OF THE END?
By Ted Rall
Bush's Cover-Up Precedes the Scandal
NEW YORK--"When it's all said and done," Bush still confidently insists, "the people of the United States and the world will realize that Saddam Hussein ( news -web sites ) had a weapons program." This once again begs the question of presidential dyslexia: You're supposed to find the WMDs before the war, silly rabbit!
This bizarro Administration does everything bass-ackwards. The recession is hardest on the poor and middle-class, so Bush gives tax cuts to the rich. When an overwhelming invasion force was needed to secure Afghanistan ( news -web sites ) and Iraq ( news -web sites ), Rumsfeld sent in a skeleton crew. Now that the citizens of those countries want us to go home, Gen. Tommy Franks has announced that our 148,000-man, $5 billion-a-month occupation army will get bigger and stick around until whenever...
________________________________________________________________________
Friday, July 25, 2003
It's a QUACKMIRE, stupid!
...The discussions reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, is not the answer. Bremer, who was saluted by Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government. But he said the effort could last for years...
washingtonpost.com
Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration
White House Aims to Address Concerns as Cost, Casualties Mount
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 25, 2003; 7:05 PM
President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his post-war administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.
A series of polls has show U.S. voters becoming increasingly impatient at the prospects of large number of troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely, as the cost rises and guerrilla attacks continue inflicting military casualties long past the fall of Saddam Hussein's government...
__________________________________________________________________
...The discussions reflect a growing realization within the administration that the post-war plan was inadequate and that simple patience, the White House's initial prescription, is not the answer. Bremer, who was saluted by Bush in the Rose Garden on Wednesday, said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday that progress has been made in restoring services and creating a government. But he said the effort could last for years...
washingtonpost.com
Bush Considers New Overhaul of Postwar Iraq Administration
White House Aims to Address Concerns as Cost, Casualties Mount
By Mike Allen and Glenn Kessler
Washington Post Staff Writers
Friday, July 25, 2003; 7:05 PM
President Bush is contemplating the second overhaul in three months of his post-war administration of Iraq, as the White House faces up to the enormity of the task and the need to demonstrate progress to maintain political support for the effort, administration officials said today.
A series of polls has show U.S. voters becoming increasingly impatient at the prospects of large number of troops remaining in Iraq indefinitely, as the cost rises and guerrilla attacks continue inflicting military casualties long past the fall of Saddam Hussein's government...
__________________________________________________________________
Just WHY did we go to war in Iraq? Shouldn't good, solid MORAL reasons always be the justification for spilling blood in the name of our country? Why does the White House keep changing its story? From that radical rag, THE CHRISTIAN SCIENCE MONITOR:
Now it's right war, wrong reason
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON – "If we are wrong [about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction]," said Prime Minister Tony Blair before Congress last week, "we will have destroyed a threat that, at its very least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering."
President Bush was not ready to concede the possibility of having invaded Iraq on a wrong premise. Standing next to Mr. Blair at the White House, he said, "We won't be proven wrong." However, he did not say that he would be proven right.
A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them...
_________________________________________________________________
Now it's right war, wrong reason
By Daniel Schorr
WASHINGTON – "If we are wrong [about Iraq and weapons of mass destruction]," said Prime Minister Tony Blair before Congress last week, "we will have destroyed a threat that, at its very least, is responsible for inhumane carnage and suffering."
President Bush was not ready to concede the possibility of having invaded Iraq on a wrong premise. Standing next to Mr. Blair at the White House, he said, "We won't be proven wrong." However, he did not say that he would be proven right.
A school of thought is emerging that Saddam Hussein was not so much covering up his possession of banned weapons as his lack of them...
_________________________________________________________________
Bush fought like hell to keep a 9/11 probe from being public then failing that, worked to limit it in resources, money and time. Here's some of the reasons why from the "classified" Congressional investigation (committed in secret) which is separate from the current public investigation. The bottom line is that Bush is an incompetent leader. He dumped the three-year Hart-Rudman Commission's BIPARTISAN report on national security (which outlined Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism and how to prepare for it) when its results were given to him saying Cheney was in charge of such but everyone knows Cheney was holding "secret" court with the energy lobbyists and owners at that time to subvert our nation's energy policies. There is no leadership nor responsibility in this White House. Time to take a broom and sweep it clean (if its possible to remove such a stain).
washingtonpost.com
White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A01
President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
These revelations are not the subject of the congressional report's narratives or findings, but are among the nuggets embedded in a story focused largely on the mid-level workings of the CIA, FBI and U.S. military.
Two intriguing -- and politically volatile -- questions surrounding the Sept. 11 plot have been how personally engaged Bush and his predecessor were in counterterrorism before the attacks, and what role some Saudi officials may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
To varying degrees, the answers remain a mystery, despite an unprecedented seven-month effort by a joint House and Senate panel to fully understand how a group of Arab terrorists could have pulled off such a scheme. The CIA refused to permit publication of information potentially implicating Saudi officials on national security grounds, arguing that disclosure could upset relations with a key U.S. ally. Lawmakers complained it was merely to avoid embarrassment.
The White House, meanwhile, resisted efforts to pin down Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda threats and to catalogue the executive's pre-Sept. 11 strategy to fight terrorists. It was justified largely on legal grounds, but Democrats said the secrecy was meant to protect Bush from criticism...
_______________________________________________________________________________
washingtonpost.com
White House, CIA Kept Key Portions of Report Classified
By Dana Priest
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, July 25, 2003; Page A01
President Bush was warned in a more specific way than previously known about intelligence suggesting that al Qaeda terrorists were seeking to attack the United States, a report on the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks indicated yesterday. Separately, the report cited one CIA memo that concluded there was "incontrovertible evidence" that Saudi individuals provided financial assistance to al Qaeda operatives in the United States.
These revelations are not the subject of the congressional report's narratives or findings, but are among the nuggets embedded in a story focused largely on the mid-level workings of the CIA, FBI and U.S. military.
Two intriguing -- and politically volatile -- questions surrounding the Sept. 11 plot have been how personally engaged Bush and his predecessor were in counterterrorism before the attacks, and what role some Saudi officials may have played in sustaining the 19 terrorists who commandeered four airplanes and flew three of them into the World Trade Center and Pentagon.
To varying degrees, the answers remain a mystery, despite an unprecedented seven-month effort by a joint House and Senate panel to fully understand how a group of Arab terrorists could have pulled off such a scheme. The CIA refused to permit publication of information potentially implicating Saudi officials on national security grounds, arguing that disclosure could upset relations with a key U.S. ally. Lawmakers complained it was merely to avoid embarrassment.
The White House, meanwhile, resisted efforts to pin down Bush's knowledge of al Qaeda threats and to catalogue the executive's pre-Sept. 11 strategy to fight terrorists. It was justified largely on legal grounds, but Democrats said the secrecy was meant to protect Bush from criticism...
_______________________________________________________________________________
You can't make this stuff up! Rice has been caught in lie after lie and still she claims to know nothing. Incompetence or a liar? Either way she's another example of how this administration can not be trusted to carry out the duties of leadership concerning the protection of our country and the safety of the world at large.
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Condoleezza Rice is the nation’s top national security official. After September 11th, she claimed that the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. That assertion was proven false. In the months before the Iraq War, Rice repeatedly reassured the public that the U.S. was seeking a peaceful resolution, and that war was not a foregone conclusion. However, it now appears that at the same time she was saying this, she was telling senior State Department officials that the decision to go to war had already been made – well before diplomatic efforts to diffuse the situation even began. Most recently, it appears that she has given three separate, incongruent stories about her role in the massive intelligence breakdown that led to the White House making false statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It appears that Rice has either been misleading the public about her role in that fiasco, or alternately, has been grossly negligent in not reading the government’s most important intelligence documents.
CONDI’S AMAZING SEPTEMBER 11TH STORY – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE HAD NO PRIOR WARNING OF HIJACKINGS
On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING PEACE STORY – PUBLICLY CLAIMED TO SEEK PEACE, WHILE TELLING STATE DEPT. WAR PRE-DETERMINED
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #1 – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE DID NOT KNOW OF NUCLEAR MISGIVINGS
When questioned about why she did not raise objections to the bogus Iraq-nuclear claim in Bush’s State of the Union speech, Rice said on July 8 that "no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” [AP, 7/23/03] However, 15 days later, the White House acknowledged that “the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa” [Washington Post, 7/23/03].
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #2 – ADMITTED WHITE HOUSE KNEW MISGIVINGS, FALSELY CLAIMED CIA APPROVED
Rice told reporters on July 11th that the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety.” As AP reported, “if Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House, she said.” However, “Stephen Hadley, Rice's top aide, said on July 23 that in fact he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet last October warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #3 – ADMITS CIA OBJECTED, THEN CLAIMED THAT SHE SIMPLY DIDN’T READ MEMO
Facing questions over Rice’s changing stories, the White House then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that Rice and Bush both failed to even fully read the intelligence documents they were given - as if negligence obviates responsibility for misleading the nation. As the Washington Post reported, on the eve of war, “President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was ‘highly dubious,’ White House officials said.” That assessment, called the National Intelligence Estimate, is considered the U.S. government’s most important intelligence document and contained “a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies” [Washington Post, 7/19/03]. When asked about Rice’s new claim to not have read critical CIA memos sent directly to her that debunked the Iraq-nuclear claim, Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, admitted “I can't tell you she read it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
Stay Tuned, we're sure there will be more . . .
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
__________________________________________________________________________________
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Condoleezza Rice is the nation’s top national security official. After September 11th, she claimed that the White House had no prior knowledge that Al Qaeda was planning to hijack planes in a terrorist attack. That assertion was proven false. In the months before the Iraq War, Rice repeatedly reassured the public that the U.S. was seeking a peaceful resolution, and that war was not a foregone conclusion. However, it now appears that at the same time she was saying this, she was telling senior State Department officials that the decision to go to war had already been made – well before diplomatic efforts to diffuse the situation even began. Most recently, it appears that she has given three separate, incongruent stories about her role in the massive intelligence breakdown that led to the White House making false statements about Iraq’s nuclear capabilities. It appears that Rice has either been misleading the public about her role in that fiasco, or alternately, has been grossly negligent in not reading the government’s most important intelligence documents.
CONDI’S AMAZING SEPTEMBER 11TH STORY – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE HAD NO PRIOR WARNING OF HIJACKINGS
On May 16th, 2002, Rice said “I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,"[CBS News, 5/17/02]. But according to the bipartisan 9/11 commission report, “intelligence reports from December 1998 until the attacks said followers of bin Laden were planning to strike U.S. targets, hijack U.S. planes, and two individuals had successfully evaded checkpoints in a dry run at a New York airport,” [Reuters, 7/24/03]. More specifically, “White House officials acknowledged that U.S. intelligence officials informed President Bush weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks that bin Laden's terrorist network might try to hijack American planes.” [ABC News, 5/16/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING PEACE STORY – PUBLICLY CLAIMED TO SEEK PEACE, WHILE TELLING STATE DEPT. WAR PRE-DETERMINED
Throughout 2002 and early 2003, Rice repeatedly insisted that the Administration sought a peaceful solution to the Iraq conflict and that war was only a last resort. In October of 2002, she said, “We're going to seek a peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible” [CBS, 10/20/02]. Then in November of 2002, she said, “We all want very much to see this resolved in a peaceful way” [Briefing, 11/21/02]. In March of 2003, she claimed “we are still in a diplomatic phase here” [ABC, 3/9/03]. However, according to Richard Haas, Bush’s director of policy planning at the State Department, the decision had already been made by July of 2002. When asked exactly when he learned war in Iraq was definite, Haas said, “The moment was the first week of July (2002), when I had a meeting with Condi. I raised this issue about were we really sure that we wanted to put Iraq front and center at this point, given the war on terrorism and other issues. And she said, essentially, that that decision's been made, don't waste your breath. And that was early July. So then when Powell had his famous dinner with the President, in early August, 2002 [in which Powell persuaded Bush to take the question to the U.N.] the agenda was not whether Iraq, but how” [New Yorker, 3/31/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #1 – FALSELY CLAIMED WHITE HOUSE DID NOT KNOW OF NUCLEAR MISGIVINGS
When questioned about why she did not raise objections to the bogus Iraq-nuclear claim in Bush’s State of the Union speech, Rice said on July 8 that "no one in our circles knew that there were doubts and suspicions that this might be a forgery” [AP, 7/23/03] However, 15 days later, the White House acknowledged that “the CIA sent two memos to the White House in October voicing strong doubts about a claim President Bush made three months later in the State of the Union address that Iraq was trying to buy nuclear material in Africa” [Washington Post, 7/23/03].
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #2 – ADMITTED WHITE HOUSE KNEW MISGIVINGS, FALSELY CLAIMED CIA APPROVED
Rice told reporters on July 11th that the CIA “cleared the speech in its entirety.” As AP reported, “if Tenet, the CIA director, had any misgivings, he never shared them with the White House, she said.” However, “Stephen Hadley, Rice's top aide, said on July 23 that in fact he received two memos from the CIA and a phone call from Tenet last October warning him that evidence that Iraq was trying to obtain uranium in Africa was not reliable. One memo was also directed to Rice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
CONDI’S AMAZING IRAQ-NUKE STORY #3 – ADMITS CIA OBJECTED, THEN CLAIMED THAT SHE SIMPLY DIDN’T READ MEMO
Facing questions over Rice’s changing stories, the White House then attempted to deflect criticism by claiming that Rice and Bush both failed to even fully read the intelligence documents they were given - as if negligence obviates responsibility for misleading the nation. As the Washington Post reported, on the eve of war, “President Bush and his national security adviser did not entirely read the most authoritative prewar assessment of U.S. intelligence on Iraq, including a State Department claim that an allegation Bush would later use in his State of the Union address was ‘highly dubious,’ White House officials said.” That assessment, called the National Intelligence Estimate, is considered the U.S. government’s most important intelligence document and contained “a classified, 90-page summary that was the definitive assessment of Iraq's weapons programs by U.S. intelligence agencies” [Washington Post, 7/19/03]. When asked about Rice’s new claim to not have read critical CIA memos sent directly to her that debunked the Iraq-nuclear claim, Stephen Hadley, Rice’s top aide, admitted “I can't tell you she read it. But in some sense, it doesn't matter. Memo sent, we're on notice.” [AP, 7/23/03]
Stay Tuned, we're sure there will be more . . .
The Amazing Stories of Condoleezza Rice
__________________________________________________________________________________
It was a Mafia hit, not a reasoned military mission (to yield information from the brothers to track their father down with). The White House needed something for the news to counter all the stories cropping up on their inept cover-up of their political manipulation of our intelligence sources over the Niger false statements.
Excessive Force?
By Rod Nordland, Newsweek Web Exclusive
It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein's sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.
AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.
Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime's Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren't they just taken alive?...
__________________________________________________________________________
Excessive Force?
By Rod Nordland, Newsweek Web Exclusive
It was much-needed tangible proof that America was making progress in the war in Iraq. After several weeks of drooping morale and a daily, if single-digit body count, the U.S. military on Tuesday announced its soldiers had killed Saddam Hussein's sons in a ferocious firefight in their Mosul hideout.
AMERICAN OFFICIALS crowed about it, troops around Iraq high-fived each other, friendly Iraqis fired their guns in the air in celebration. Even the stock markets rose on the news.
Certainly only a few diehards mourned the passing of Uday and Qusay Hussein; the regime's Caligula and its Heir Apparent were if anything despised and feared even more than their dad. But as details became clearer of the raid that eliminated what the U.S. military calls High Value Targets (HVTs) Nos. 2 and 3, a lot of people in the intelligence community were left wondering: why weren't they just taken alive?...
__________________________________________________________________________
Hey, Rummy. What kind of war is this again?
U.S. Troops Fight Invisible Enemy in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:28 AM ET
By D'ARCY DORAN, Associated Press Writer
AMBUSH ALLEY, Iraq - A flash shattered the darkness and a bomb blew up in front of Sgt. First Class Mike Mizell's tank. Within seconds, a rocket-propelled grenade whistled overhead.
"Driver, stop! Gunner, reverse to the left!" the 35-year-old tank commander from Orangeburg, S.C., shouted into his radio.
For commanders like Mizell, the attack along the dangerous Highway 1, dubbed "Ambush Alley," wasn't unexpected. The goal on this patrol, like many others, was to bait the enemy into attacking armored infantry units and draw them away from more vulnerable targets.
"It's as dangerous as hell," 68th Armored's commander Lt. Col. Aubrey Garner, 39, said. "But soldiers are willing to put themselves in danger to kill the enemy."
The gunners sprayed machine gun tracer fire a line of palm and eucalyptus trees where the attacker took cover to fire the RPG. Two Apache helicopter gunships clattered in to chase down anyone running away. The other pair of tanks in Mizell's patrol fired their machine guns toward the spot, guided by the initial tracer rounds. It was impossible to tell if any Iraqi fighters were killed or wounded.
Daily guerrilla ambushes have pushed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq to near 160, and troops said they expected Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists to step up attacks after the Tuesday killing of his sons Odai and Qusai. On top of that, an Arab satellite broadcaster aired an audiotape Wednesday thought to have been the voice of Saddam calling his former soldiers to rise up against the Americans.
The brothers' death didn't stop attacks on "Ambush Alley."...
____________________________________________________________________________
U.S. Troops Fight Invisible Enemy in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:28 AM ET
By D'ARCY DORAN, Associated Press Writer
AMBUSH ALLEY, Iraq - A flash shattered the darkness and a bomb blew up in front of Sgt. First Class Mike Mizell's tank. Within seconds, a rocket-propelled grenade whistled overhead.
"Driver, stop! Gunner, reverse to the left!" the 35-year-old tank commander from Orangeburg, S.C., shouted into his radio.
For commanders like Mizell, the attack along the dangerous Highway 1, dubbed "Ambush Alley," wasn't unexpected. The goal on this patrol, like many others, was to bait the enemy into attacking armored infantry units and draw them away from more vulnerable targets.
"It's as dangerous as hell," 68th Armored's commander Lt. Col. Aubrey Garner, 39, said. "But soldiers are willing to put themselves in danger to kill the enemy."
The gunners sprayed machine gun tracer fire a line of palm and eucalyptus trees where the attacker took cover to fire the RPG. Two Apache helicopter gunships clattered in to chase down anyone running away. The other pair of tanks in Mizell's patrol fired their machine guns toward the spot, guided by the initial tracer rounds. It was impossible to tell if any Iraqi fighters were killed or wounded.
Daily guerrilla ambushes have pushed the number of U.S. soldiers killed in action in Iraq to near 160, and troops said they expected Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) loyalists to step up attacks after the Tuesday killing of his sons Odai and Qusai. On top of that, an Arab satellite broadcaster aired an audiotape Wednesday thought to have been the voice of Saddam calling his former soldiers to rise up against the Americans.
The brothers' death didn't stop attacks on "Ambush Alley."...
____________________________________________________________________________
Besides our own soldiers dying in Iraq, you don't hear much about the innocents still being killed and maimed along with the horrible tragedies constantly being created by this war.
Family Tragedy Shows Life Tough in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:23 AM ET
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
BAYJI, Iraq - In just a few seconds, an attack by U.S. forces killed Faheema Jassim Khalaf's mother and two sisters, tore apart her right leg below the knee and shattered her ankle.
Khalaf is too weak to talk for long, but what she was able to whisper as she lay on the floor of her home's living room on a recent day painted a disturbing picture of how easily lives are lost in an Iraq (news - web sites) embroiled in conflict more than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
The death of civilians is common in any conflict, and Iraq has not been an exception. But the Bayji killings underline the daily perils faced by ordinary Iraqis, even since the end of major combat on May 1, as they try to rebuild their lives.
The U.S. military says the Khalaf family was caught in the crossfire as troops fired at a suspect in a poor district of Bayji, a city about 145 miles north of Baghdad. Khalaf, 15, and her relatives told The Associated Press in extensive interviews that they were the only target in the May 30 attack....
_____________________________________________________________________
Family Tragedy Shows Life Tough in Iraq
Fri Jul 25, 3:23 AM ET
By HAMZA HENDAWI, Associated Press Writer
BAYJI, Iraq - In just a few seconds, an attack by U.S. forces killed Faheema Jassim Khalaf's mother and two sisters, tore apart her right leg below the knee and shattered her ankle.
Khalaf is too weak to talk for long, but what she was able to whisper as she lay on the floor of her home's living room on a recent day painted a disturbing picture of how easily lives are lost in an Iraq (news - web sites) embroiled in conflict more than three months after U.S.-led forces toppled Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
The death of civilians is common in any conflict, and Iraq has not been an exception. But the Bayji killings underline the daily perils faced by ordinary Iraqis, even since the end of major combat on May 1, as they try to rebuild their lives.
The U.S. military says the Khalaf family was caught in the crossfire as troops fired at a suspect in a poor district of Bayji, a city about 145 miles north of Baghdad. Khalaf, 15, and her relatives told The Associated Press in extensive interviews that they were the only target in the May 30 attack....
_____________________________________________________________________
Remember, Bush is responsible for making the proper changes in our intelligence communities for making our nation safe post the 9/11 attacks. Yet, he can't even get the record straight on who put false information in his State of the Union address. Hell, he won't even take responsibility for his part in it. Is Bush the straight-talking guy he claims or a lying-arse, devious, and also dull-headed politician whose lack of leadership is endangering the country AND the world? You know my answer but can you delude yourself and risk the chance for your children and family's sake? It's time to send this two-faced cowboy back to the sticks of Crawford for good on election day.
Before and After Sept. 11
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might have been disrupted if America's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies had done a better job sharing information they already possessed about the activities of Al Qaeda members. That is the most chilling finding of an unflinching Congressional inquiry into the performance of the country's spy agencies in the years leading up to the attacks. It would be nice to believe that all the problems had been fixed. Unfortunately, much work remains to be done, and it is not at all clear in some important areas, like reform of the F.B.I., that change is coming fast enough to prevent another terror strike...
__________________________________________________________________
Before and After Sept. 11
NY TIMES EDITORIAL
The Sept. 11 terrorist attacks might have been disrupted if America's foreign and domestic intelligence agencies had done a better job sharing information they already possessed about the activities of Al Qaeda members. That is the most chilling finding of an unflinching Congressional inquiry into the performance of the country's spy agencies in the years leading up to the attacks. It would be nice to believe that all the problems had been fixed. Unfortunately, much work remains to be done, and it is not at all clear in some important areas, like reform of the F.B.I., that change is coming fast enough to prevent another terror strike...
__________________________________________________________________
Rummy goes runny on the question of a guerrilla war in Iraq. How come the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq says it IS a guerrilla war? Just shows how the Bush White House can't get its stories straight and all they care about is running for re-election (so don't call it a guerrilla war!).
Rumsfeld Denies Guerrilla War in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military debate continues: Are U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) fighting a guerrilla war or not?
On June 30, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said no. Sixteen days later, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said yes. Asked again on Thursday, Rumsfeld said he's sticking to his guns.
"I am not uncomfortable with the response I gave," he told reporters.
"As I said that day," he added, given the complexity of the situation and shadowy nature of the opposition forces, "there's not a single bumper sticker phrase that is perfectly appropriate to what's taking place." He said that he checked the dictionary and settled on the term "unconventional" war, since the resistance is not in the form of conventional armies or navies.
He was more adamantly opposed to the term "guerrilla war" when the topic first came up June 30.
"The reason I don't use the phrase `guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," he said then...
____________________________________________________________________
Rumsfeld Denies Guerrilla War in Iraq
WASHINGTON - The military debate continues: Are U.S. forces in Iraq (news - web sites) fighting a guerrilla war or not?
On June 30, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said no. Sixteen days later, the commander of U.S. forces in Iraq said yes. Asked again on Thursday, Rumsfeld said he's sticking to his guns.
"I am not uncomfortable with the response I gave," he told reporters.
"As I said that day," he added, given the complexity of the situation and shadowy nature of the opposition forces, "there's not a single bumper sticker phrase that is perfectly appropriate to what's taking place." He said that he checked the dictionary and settled on the term "unconventional" war, since the resistance is not in the form of conventional armies or navies.
He was more adamantly opposed to the term "guerrilla war" when the topic first came up June 30.
"The reason I don't use the phrase `guerrilla war' is because there isn't one," he said then...
____________________________________________________________________
Poll: Kerry Holds Slight Lead Over Dean
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential hopeful John Kerry held a slight lead over Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) has lost ground in a poll of likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
The survey, released Friday, also found a significant jump in the number of undecided voters, from 19 percent in April to 30 percent in July, reflecting the wide-open race and absence of a clear front-runner.
Kerry had 25 percent support to Dean's 19 percent while the third New Englander in the race, Lieberman, was at 6 percent, a drop from 11 percent in June for the Connecticut senator. Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri was third at 10 percent, according to the poll by American Research Group of Manchester, N.H.
Last month, Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, held a 10-point lead over Dean, the former Vermont governor.
At 2 percent were Sen. John Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina, Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) of Florida and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who has not announced his candidacy.
Carol Moseley Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) and Al Sharpton were at 1 percent, with Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who has not decided yet on a presidential bid.
Kerry was viewed favorably by 66 percent of those polled; Dean at 57 percent. Of the 30 percent who are undecided, 45 percent have a favorable view of Kerry and 42 percent have a favorable view of Dean.
The telephone poll of 600 registered Democrats and undeclared voters conducted July 21-24 has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
________________________________________________________________________
By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - Presidential hopeful John Kerry held a slight lead over Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman (news - web sites) has lost ground in a poll of likely voters in the New Hampshire Democratic primary.
The survey, released Friday, also found a significant jump in the number of undecided voters, from 19 percent in April to 30 percent in July, reflecting the wide-open race and absence of a clear front-runner.
Kerry had 25 percent support to Dean's 19 percent while the third New Englander in the race, Lieberman, was at 6 percent, a drop from 11 percent in June for the Connecticut senator. Rep. Dick Gephardt (news - web sites) of Missouri was third at 10 percent, according to the poll by American Research Group of Manchester, N.H.
Last month, Kerry, the Massachusetts senator, held a 10-point lead over Dean, the former Vermont governor.
At 2 percent were Sen. John Edwards (news, bio, voting record) of North Carolina, Sen. Bob Graham (news, bio, voting record) of Florida and retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who has not announced his candidacy.
Carol Moseley Braun, Rep. Dennis Kucinich (news, bio, voting record) and Al Sharpton were at 1 percent, with Sen. Joe Biden of Delaware, who has not decided yet on a presidential bid.
Kerry was viewed favorably by 66 percent of those polled; Dean at 57 percent. Of the 30 percent who are undecided, 45 percent have a favorable view of Kerry and 42 percent have a favorable view of Dean.
The telephone poll of 600 registered Democrats and undeclared voters conducted July 21-24 has an error margin of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
________________________________________________________________________
Thursday, July 24, 2003
July 16, 2003
John Kerry Raps George Bush’s ‘Preparedness Gap’
Kerry Challenges Bush To ‘Tell the Truth’ About America’s Security Needs
Bronx, New York John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, today criticized the Bush Administration’s failures to meet the real needs of homeland security and America’s national security. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has served eighteen years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and wrote the 1997 book ‘The New War’ which addressed the challenges of global terrorism, took aim at the Administration’s broken promises on security and urged the President to ‘tell the truth’ about America’s homeland security challenges.
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión said, "I'm very pleased to welcome Senator Kerry to the Bronx for this critical policy discussion. As we in New York City know only too well, the state of preparedness of our emergency response teams is a matter of paramount importance."
“We cannot afford to leave our first responders without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq,” challenged John Kerry. “Just as President Bush did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today he still does not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack. Americans have a right to ask: Are we safer today than we were on September 11th? Are our nation’s firefighters and police officers better prepared to wage the war on terror?”....
CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE
__________________________________________________________
John Kerry Raps George Bush’s ‘Preparedness Gap’
Kerry Challenges Bush To ‘Tell the Truth’ About America’s Security Needs
Bronx, New York John Kerry, Democratic candidate for President, today criticized the Bush Administration’s failures to meet the real needs of homeland security and America’s national security. Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran who has served eighteen years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, six years on the Senate Intelligence Committee, and wrote the 1997 book ‘The New War’ which addressed the challenges of global terrorism, took aim at the Administration’s broken promises on security and urged the President to ‘tell the truth’ about America’s homeland security challenges.
Bronx Borough President Adolfo Carrión said, "I'm very pleased to welcome Senator Kerry to the Bronx for this critical policy discussion. As we in New York City know only too well, the state of preparedness of our emergency response teams is a matter of paramount importance."
“We cannot afford to leave our first responders without the resources they need anymore than we can afford to leave our soldiers vulnerable to enemy attack in Iraq,” challenged John Kerry. “Just as President Bush did not have a viable plan for Iraq after the capture of Baghdad, today he still does not have a real plan and enough resources for preparedness against a terrorist attack. Americans have a right to ask: Are we safer today than we were on September 11th? Are our nation’s firefighters and police officers better prepared to wage the war on terror?”....
CLICK TO READ FULL ARTICLE
__________________________________________________________
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
