The Founders Speak

THE POINT by Peter Daou
Issue 13- March 20, 2004

The Founders Speak

John Adams comments on the administration’s Enron and Halliburton ties:

Government is instituted for the common good; for the protection, safety, prosperity, and happiness of the people; and not for profit, honor, or private interest of any one man, family, or class of men. John Adams, Thoughts on Government, 1776

Benjamin Franklin comments on John Ashcroft’s abuse of the Patriot Act:

They that can give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety. Benjamin Franklin, Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759

Thomas Jefferson comments on Bush pumping his fist before addressing the nation on the eve of the Iraq war:

An honest man can feel no pleasure in the exercise of power over his fellow citizens.... Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Melish, January 13, 1813

John Adams and Thomas Jefferson comment on the administration’s antipathy to science and the arts:

I must study politics and war that my sons may have liberty to study mathematics and philosophy. My sons ought to study mathematics and philosophy, geography, natural history and naval architecture, navigation, commerce and agriculture, in order to give their children a right to study painting, poetry, music, architecture, statuary, tapestry, and porcelain. John Adams, letter to Abigail Adams, 1780

Enlighten the people, generally, and tyranny and oppressions of body and mind will vanish like spirits at the dawn of day. Thomas Jefferson, letter to Dupont de Nemours, April 24, 1816

Thomas Jefferson comments on Bush’s disregard for the constitutional separation of church and state:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Thomas Jefferson, letter to a Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association, Connecticut, January 1, 1802

James Madison comments on how Bush’s polarizing policies and brash personality weaken America:

America united with a handful of troops, or without a single soldier, exhibits a more forbidding posture to foreign ambition than America disunited, with a hundred thousand veterans ready for combat. James Madison, Federalist No. 14, November 30, 1787

George Washington and James Madison comment on the Bush administration stifling criticism by suggesting that all critics of their foreign policy are “unpatriotic”:

All men having power ought to be distrusted to a certain degree. James Madison, speech at the Constitutional Convention, July 11, 1787

Guard against the impostures of pretended patriotism. George Washington, Farewell Address, September 19, 1796

Peter Daou



___________________________________________________________________________

The 'Big Lie' About Kerry's Record
By George E. Curry | SACOBSERVER.COM WIRE SERVICES

(NNPA) - With public opinion polls showing that if the presidential election were held today, Sen. John Kerry would defeat President George Bush, Republicans have launched a Big Lie campaign to distort the presumptive Democratic nominee's record on military spending. Obviously, they believe that if you tell the same lie over and over, people will eventually believe it.


That would be bad enough. But to make matters worse, some of the country's best journalists are allowing these lies to go unchallenged.

Research by Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), a New York-based media monitoring organization, reports that Kerry is being depicted as one who is repeatedly voting against military funding when that's not the case.

For example, the report notes that Ralph Reed, the former head of the Christian Coalition and now a Bush-Cheney campaign strategist, appeared on CNN (2/3/04) and described Kerry's record in the Senate as "voting to dismantle 27 weapons systems, including the MX missile, the Pershing missile, the B-1, the B-2 stealth bomber, the F-16 fighter jet, cutting another 18 programs, slashing intelligence spending by $2.5 billion, and voting to freeze defense spending for seven years."

Blitzer reacted by turning to Ann Lewis of the Democratic National Committee and saying, "I think it's fair to say, Ann, that there's been some opposition research done."

NBC anchor Tom Brokaw swallowed the line when he said on MSNBC (3/2/04), "…the vice president just today was talking about (Kerry's) votes against the CIA budget, for example, intelligence budgets and also weapons systems. Isn't he going to be very vulnerable come the fall when national security is such a big issue in this country?"

The usually reliable Judy Woodruff was transformed into a parrot in an interview with Rep. Norm Dicks of Washington (2/25/04). She said, "The Republicans list something like 13 different weapon systems that they say the record shows Senator Kerry voting against. The Patriot missile, the B-1 bomber, the Trident missile and on and on and on."

In his response, Dicks did what Woodruff, Brokaw and Blitzer had failed to do: He admitted that Kerry was being attacked for a single vote on the Pentagon's 1991 appropriations bill. No member of the media trio pointed out that 16 senators voted against that bill, including five Republicans, or that 10 of the 13 purported votes against military spending were part of the 1991 defense appropriations bill.

Woodruff was so caught off guard by Dicks' response that she said, "Are you saying that all these weapon systems were part of one defense appropriations bill in 1991?"

That's exactly what he was saying.

Vice President Cheney told Fox News' Brit Hume: "What we're concerned about, what I am concerned about, is (Kerry's) record in the United States Senate, where he clearly has over the years adopted a series of positions that indicated a desire to cut the defense budget, to cut the intelligence budget, to eliminate many major weapons programs."

Hume failed to note that Cheney was criticizing Kerry for a position he had taken around that same period.

In fact, Fred Kaplan of Slate, the online site, noted that Cheney served as the elder George Bush's secretary of defense. He quotes Cheney as telling Congress during that period: "You've squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don't fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements."

He was particularly critical of members of Congress who engage in pork barrel politics by pressuring the Defense Department to move forward on the development of the M-1 tank and the F-14 and F-16 fighters and other weapons that "we have enough of."

Although military spending represents only 20 percent of the federal budget, it eats up approximately half of all federal discretionary spending.

With so much being spent on the military, growing federal deficits fueled by tax cuts that primarily benefits the wealthy, Bush is particularly vulnerable on domestic issues. A recent USA Today/CNN poll shows Kerry leading Bush 52 percent to 44 percent, largely because the public believes Kerry will do a better job of handling such issues as the economy, health care, education and Social Security. Bush's overall rating in the USA Today poll was 49 percent, matching his lowest rating in late January.

Republicans plan to spend $133 million over the next few months to "redefine" Senator Kerry. If this is typical of the way they plan to do that, they are not trying to "redefine" Kerry, they are trying to mis-define him.

George E. Curry is editor-in-chief of the NNPA News Service and BlackPressUSA.com. His most recent book is "The Best of Emerge Magazine," an anthology published by Ballantine Books. He can be reached through his Web site, georgecurry.com.



____________________________________________________________________

One Year After
The New York Times | Editorial

Friday 19 March 2004

One year ago, President Bush began the war in Iraq. Most Americans expected military victory to come quickly, as it did. Despite the administration's optimism about what would follow, it was also easy to predict that the period after the fall of Baghdad would be very messy and very dangerous. In that sense, right now we're exactly where we expected to be.

It's nonetheless important to remember that none of this might have happened if we had known then what we know now. No matter what the president believed about the long-term threat posed by Saddam Hussein, he would have had a much harder time selling this war of choice to the American people if they had known that the Iraqi dictator had been reduced to a toothless tiger by the first Persian Gulf war and by United Nations weapons inspectors. Iraq's weapons programs had been shut down, Mr. Hussein had no threatening weapons stockpiled, the administration was exaggerating evidence about them, and there was, and is, no evidence that Mr. Hussein was involved in the 9/11 attacks.

Right now, our highest priority is making the best of a very disturbing situation. Even our European allies who opposed the war want to see Iraq stabilized and turned over to its citizens — even if they don't necessarily see Washington as the force to do that. The other possibility, an Iraq flung into chaos and civil war, open to manipulation by every unscrupulous political figure and terrorist group in the Middle East, is too awful to contemplate.

This is a good moment to take stock of what has been accomplished and what has not, especially since the day is rapidly approaching when the United States hopes to turn over the governing of Iraq to the leaders of the nation's three major ethnic or religious groups — who have shown no serious signs of being able to cooperate.

Grim Scenes From Iraq

In the short run, the invasion of Iraq and the toppling of its leader have done virtually nothing to stop terrorism. In Iraq, as in Spain, Turkey, Indonesia and other countries, terrorist attacks have continued since the capture of Mr. Hussein. On Wednesday, and again yesterday, Americans saw on television news the flames and casualties from bombings in Baghdad and Basra by forces opposed to the American-led occupation, which have become more deadly and more sophisticated in response to every change in tactics by American soldiers. Indeed, the war in Iraq has diverted scarce resources from the war against terrorism in Afghanistan and other places.

For many Iraqis, freedom has come at a high price. In Baghdad, civilians line up at offices where the American military doles out money to compensate them for relatives killed, limbs lost and eyes blinded in the war. The innocent Iraqi casualties of Mr. Bush's war are literally countless because the Pentagon refuses to estimate their number.

Still, there have been important gains that are the basis of our hopes for the future.

A bloodthirsty dictator who tortured and murdered his people, and sacrificed their well-being to his gilded palaces, is locked up. An interim constitution has been adopted, a step toward laying the groundwork for a democratic government in Iraq, should the country's fractious groups ever resolve their differences. American-led efforts to rebuild Iraq have progressed to the point that some services are better than they were under Mr. Hussein, and Iraqis are starting to express satisfaction with how things are going. Iraq's power grid, for example, generates more electricity than ever.

Still, there are enormous gaps. According to the United States Agency for International Development, Iraq has a third less drinking water than it did before the war. And the pace of the rebuilding is alienating some Iraqis who clearly overestimated the powers and efficiency of the occupying forces. While some of that disappointment was inevitable, there was a bewildering lack of planning put into the occupation by an administration that seemed to believe its own talk about American soldiers' being greeted with flowers as an army of liberation.

The so-called surgical bombing did indeed limit damage to Iraq's civilian areas, but American troops did not come into Baghdad in enough force last April to deter the shocking sabotage and looting that occurred. In addition, the American government, under presidents from both parties, had spent 13 years in denial about the civilian toll of the economic sanctions imposed on Iraq. The Bush administration was unprepared for the total collapse of Iraq and for the disastrous state of crucial services.

Strains on the American Military

The American military's ability to deal with all of this — and supervise the construction of a new democracy — is declining by the week. Even with the current rotation, reducing American troop strength to 110,000 from 130,000, the Army, Marine, National Guard and Army Reserve forces cannot sustain the occupation.

Roughly one in three of the Army's 480,000 active-duty soldiers are on duty overseas, and an even higher proportion of its combat brigades are either in the field or have just returned. Rotations are spaced too closely together — some of the troops that took part in the invasion of Iraq are to return there later this year — and that cuts into training and readiness. The strain on the Reserves and the National Guard is already enormous. While sending more American troops to Iraq is not the answer, the United States does need a larger active Army.

For Iraq, the only answer is greater peacekeeping and police help through the United Nations, from nations as varied as France, India, Bangladesh, Russia and the Arab countries. These nations can provide more than the token forces the United States is getting from most of its current allies, but are unlikely to help until their citizens see real United Nations authority, transforming a military occupation into a legitimate exercise in international nation-building.

Some members of Mr. Bush's coalition are shaken by the electoral defeat of the Spanish government that joined the invasion despite the opposition of some 90 percent of its citizens. In Poland, President Aleksander Kwasniewski said yesterday that he might withdraw troops from Iraq next year earlier than planned, adding that Poland had been "misled" about Iraq's weapons programs.

Repairing the Diplomatic Damage

Winning the cooperation of countries like France and Russia will require the Bush administration to be far more serious about turning over real responsibility in Iraq to the United Nations and NATO. The United Nations is, commendably, no longer so hesitant about taking the lead in Iraq.

The Bush administration has barely begun the job of repairing the damage from its virtually unilateral rush to war last year. What the public and foreign leaders have learned about the way it managed the run-up to the invasion is only worsening the situation.

Asking a political leader to take his country to war in the teeth of overwhelming popular opposition is tough enough. Add to that a public that feels misinformed about the reasons for the war, and you've got political combustion. Polls show that a plurality of Americans say it was worth a war simply to remove a vicious dictator — an argument that Mr. Bush offered after it became obvious that his original justifications for the war were vaporous. But in Europe, there remains overwhelming popular opposition to the invasion of Iraq. Vice President Dick Cheney was wrong on Wednesday when he accused Spain of abandoning the war against terrorism by talking about withdrawing its forces from Iraq unless the U.N. becomes more involved. It's nonsensical to suggest that the Spanish people are appeasers, and doing so only isolates Washington further.

This page strongly opposed invading Iraq without international backing. The events since Mr. Bush decided to go ahead with only Britain as a major ally have further underscored the recklessness of this sort of adventurism.

It is not, as Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney have argued in campaign speeches and commercials, a question of getting permission from the United Nations to do the right thing. It is a matter of listening to the reasonable objections of proven friends, like Germany, which was privately warning Washington about the quagmire that Iraq represented.

Stability for a Divided Iraq

The United States is now about 100 days away from June 30, when it hopes to turn Iraq's government over to Iraqis. As welcome as the adoption of the interim constitution was, it underscored how much more remains to be done before the Iraqis can begin to hope for a stable, workable leadership to govern their wounded country. So far, the United States has not found the formula for accomplishing what has in the past always seemed impossible: getting Iraq's majority Shiites, minority Sunnis and separatist Kurds to make real concessions and cooperate in governing Iraq. Days after compromising on the constitution, Shiite leaders were talking of amending it, and it took an ultimatum from Washington this week to make them back down.

Without any culture of trust and accommodation, any form of real elective democracy empowers the Shiites, reduces the influence of the Sunnis and once again leaves the Kurds, who have long wanted to break away from Iraq, at the mercy of people they do not trust. A Shiite-dominated Iraq may run into trouble with Iraq's Arab neighbors, who generally identify with the Sunni Iraqis, who dominate the country's military and ruling classes.

One temporary solution could be a prolonged period of Iraqi federalism imposed from the outside or an international trusteeship. Either, however, is likely to generate intense Iraqi opposition. Whatever model emerges, it must be guided by international bodies and not Washington alone.

In some ways, the prime-minister-in-waiting of Spain, José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero, did Mr. Bush a favor when he said he would withdraw Spain's symbolic military force from Iraq if the United Nations' role did not significantly increase after June 30. He has, in effect, given the president time to plan and to get cooperation from those countries that can contribute real forces. We hope the president uses this time to plan his next steps better than he planned the occupation.



___________________________________________________________________________

washingtonpost.com

Foster: White House Had Role In Withholding Medicare Data
HHS Actuary Feels Bush Aide Put Hold on Medicare Data

By Amy Goldstein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, March 19, 2004; Page A02

Richard S. Foster, the government's chief analyst of Medicare costs who was threatened with firing last year if he disclosed too much information to Congress, said last night that he believes the White House participated in the decision to withhold analyses that Medicare legislation President Bush sought would be far more expensive than lawmakers knew.

Foster has said publicly in recent days that he was warned repeatedly by his former boss, Thomas A. Scully, the Medicare administrator for three years, that he would be dismissed if he replied directly to legislative requests for information about prescription drug bills pending in Congress. In an interview last night, Foster went further, saying that he understood Scully to be acting at times on White House instructions, probably coming from Bush's senior health policy adviser.

Foster said that he did not have concrete proof of a White House role, but that his inference was based on the nature of several conversations he had with Scully over data that Congress had asked for and that Foster wanted to release. "I just remember Tom being upset, saying he was caught in the middle. It was like he was getting dumped on," Foster said.

Foster added that he believed, but did not know for certain, that Scully had been referring to Doug Badger, the senior health policy analyst. He said that he concluded that Badger probably was involved because he was the White House official most steeped in the administration's negotiations with Congress over Medicare legislation enacted late last year and because Badger was intimately familiar with the analyses his office produced.

The account by Foster, a longtime civil servant who has been the Medicare program's chief actuary for nine years, diverges sharply from the explanations of why cost estimates were withheld that were given this week by White House spokesmen and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy G. Thompson. They suggested that Scully, who left for jobs with law and investment firms four months ago, had acted unilaterally and that he was chastised by his superiors when they learned of the blocked information and the threat.

Two days ago, Thompson told reporters: "Tom Scully was running this. Tom Scully was making those decisions." Thompson said the administration did not have final cost estimates until late December predicting that the law would cost $534 billion over 10 years, $139 billion more than the Congressional Budget Office's prediction. Foster has said his own analyses as early as last spring showed that the legislation's cost would exceed $500 billion.

Last night, White House deputy press secretary Trent Duffy said, "It is my understanding that Mr. Badger did not in any way ask anyone to withhold information from Congress or pressure anyone to do the same." Duffy said he asked Badger this week whether he had done so and that Badger replied he had not. Duffy said that Badger was traveling last night and was unreachable to comment. Calls to his home were not returned.

Foster suggested the White House had been involved as new details emerged of the manner in which he had been threatened. The actuary released an e-mail, dated last June 20, from Scully's top assistant at the time regarding one GOP request and two Democratic requests for information about the impact of provisions of the Medicare bill on which the House would vote a week later.

In a bold-faced section of the three-paragraph note -- reported in yesterday's Wall Street Journal -- Scully's assistant, Jeffrey Flick, instructed Foster to answer the Republican's question but warned him not to disclose answers to the Democratic queries "with anyone else until Tom Scully explicitly talks with you -- authorizing release of information. The consequences for insubordination are extremely severe."

The warning came in response to an e-mail Foster had sent to Scully that same Friday afternoon, 22 minutes earlier, in which he said the three questions "strike me as straightforward requests for technical information that would be useful in assessing drug and competition provisions in the House reform package." Foster offered in that e-mail to show Scully his proposed replies in advance.

Flick, who now oversees the Medicare agency's regional office in San Francisco, did not return several phone calls.

Scully was out of town and did not respond to efforts to reach him via e-mail last night. He said in an interview this week that he and Foster had disagreed over how helpful an executive branch employee needed to be to Congress. He called it "a separation of powers issue."

In 1997 budget legislation, Congress sought unsuccessfully to require the Medicare actuary to respond to all of its requests. Such language was included in a conference report on the bill but does not carry the force of law.

Foster said that the e-mail was the only instance in which he had been explicitly threatened in writing, but that "there were other instances in which Tom in an e-mail or just over the phone would clearly be unhappy and would say less formally something to the effect, 'If you want to work for the Ways and Means Committee, I can arrange that.' "

The actuary said that in June 2001, shortly after Scully arrived, he directed Foster to send weekly reports of any requests for information he had received from Capitol Hill or elsewhere in the administration.

Congressional Democrats yesterday called for the General Accounting Office to investigate the episode. Thompson announced Tuesday he had ordered HHS's inspector general to conduct an inquiry.

© 2004 The Washington Post Company



_____________________________________________________________________________

FORMER WHITE HOUSE TERRORISM ADVISOR: BUSH ADMIN WAS DISCUSSING BOMBING IRAQ FOR 9/11 DESPITE KNOWING AL QAEDA WAS TO BLAME
Fri Mar 19 2004 17:49:30 ET

Former White House terrorism advisor Richard Clarke tells Lesley Stahl that on September 11, 2001 and the day after - when it was clear Al Qaeda had carried out the terrorist attacks - the Bush administration was considering bombing Iraq in retaliation. Clarke's exclusive interview will be broadcast on 60 MINUTES Sunday March 21 (7:00-8:00 PM, ET/PT) on the CBS Television Network.

Clarke was surprised that the attention of administration officials was turning toward Iraq when he expected the focus to be on Al Qaeda and Osama bin Laden. "They were talking about Iraq on 9/11. They were talking about it on 9/12," says Clarke.

The top counter-terrorism advisor, Clarke was briefing the highest government officials, including President Bush and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, in the aftermath of 9/11. "Rumsfeld was saying we needed to bomb Iraq....We all said, 'but no, no. Al Qaeda is in Afghanistan," recounts Clarke, "and Rumsfeld said, 'There aren't any good targets in Afghanistan and there are lots of good targets in Iraq.' I said, 'Well, there are lots of good targets in lots of places, but Iraq had nothing to do with [the 9/11 attacks],'" he tells Stahl.

Clarke goes on to explain what he believes was the reason for the focus on Iraq. "I think they wanted to believe that there was a connection [between Iraq and Al Qaeda] but the CIA was sitting there, the FBI was sitting there, I was sitting there, saying, 'We've looked at this issue for years. For years we've looked and there's just no connection,'" says Clarke.

Clark, who advised four presidents, reveals more about the current administration's reaction to terrorism in his new book, "Against All Enemies."

Developing...



______________________________________________________________________

March 19, 2004
Bush-Approved Lie About Kerry's Support for the Troops

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by One Citizen

The Bush campaign's most recent TV ad attacking John Kerry's vote against supporting our troops is a bald-faced lie.

That ad specifically refers to Senate Bill 1689 passed on 10/17/ 2003

Broadly speaking, it was for the appropriation of $87 BILLION to fund the occupation of Iraq.

The Bush camp has captioned what amounts to a short "clip" of that legislation for the purpose of selling their lie. Senators Kerry, Byrd, and others were actually for the full funding of the troops, but were, in that one Roll Call vote, attempting to place some oversight and accountability for those expenditures by forcing a vote which would have required it.

Because the GOP rubberstamp machine basically wanted to issue Bush's War Department a blank check, their attempt failed. And as a result of that failure, all that cash is now being pissed away on who-knows-what.

For an accurate grasp on how it all went down, check this:

"I twice tried to separate the reconstruction money in this bill, so that those dollars could be considered separately from the military spending. I offered an amendment to force the Administration to craft a plan to get other nations to assist the troops and formulate a plan to get the U.N. in, and the U.S. out, of Iraq. Twice I tried to rid the bill of expansive, flexible authorities that turn this $87 billion into a blank check."- excerpt Robert S. Byrd, October 17, 2003.

Read it and weep for the truth.

Byrd, Kerry, and a handful of other Senators were boldly trying to force Congressional oversight of those expenditures. Wouldn't it have been nice to place some fiscal responsibility over how that $87 BILLION was to be spent, given the rising stories of unchecked spending by the Administration's "rebuilding" contractors?


Before CEO Bush grabbed the reigns of the GOP, fiscal responsibility was one of the mainstays of the Conservative agenda. But thanks to our present Administration and its rubberstamping Congress, we're now facing deficits as far as the eye can see. Each and every baby born in America today is facing a $30,000.00+ debt because their unquestioning support of the Bush Administration agenda of wild deficit spending.

Comparing the date on the legislation to which the ad obliquely refers with the date Bush unleashed his blitzkrieg on Baghdad, I'd say that Bush has actually approved of an ad which proves that he basically sent the troops in ill-equipped.

Based on that simple fact, can any Bush supporter actually say that it was COMMENDABLE that Bush sent those troops into battle ill-equipped for seven months before Congress finally approved of the funds for adequate equipment?

And as a self-professed Christian, didn't Bush break God's Holy Word to never bear false witness against another? Or does all his Christianity fly the window when it comes to campaigning-Texas-style?

Here's an idea. To avoid such embarrassing "mistakes" in the future, Bush GOPeratives should advertise only positive messages of the good legislation that they're proposing in the future. What's could go wrong with sticking to the truth?

Like Gee Dubya's idea of sending Halliburton to Mars [Petroleum News], relaxing the Mexican border security [WJLA.com], his bold plan for curtailing the export of American jobs [Seattle Post-Intelligencer], and making permanent those tax cuts for the rich [New York Times], his future promises for requiring corporate responsibility [BuzzFlash.com], and legislating more secure marriages for heterosexuals.

That's the ticket.

- One Citizen



______________________________________________________________________________

March 19, 2004
Give us the names, dammit!

A BUZZFLASH READER CONTRIBUTION
by Turk Meister

George (AWOL) Bush and Dick (Deferment) Cheney have both been saying that if in fact John Kerry spoke to foreign leaders, he should say who they are so we will know that he is not "making it up." Obviously, these guys think everyone behaves as they do. In spite of the fact that it has now been proven that Kerry didn’t say "foreign" leaders, but said "more" leaders according to Patrick Healy’s mea culpa, Bush and Cheney still inaccurately quote Kerry to diminish his credibility and admonish him to name names. One really has to laugh at this one! Well, anyway, I have some names I would like named as well.

Mr. Bush: Can you give us the names of the Saudis who were allowed to leave this country within hours of the 911 attacks while all other non-military flights were grounded? Do you or your family have any business ties with those you permitted to depart without being adequately interviewed by the FBI? If so, what are the names of these business entities?

Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the names of the members of your Energy Task Force or will you continue to pin your hopes of non-disclosure on the activist (crooked) judges on the Supreme Court?

Mr. Bush or Mr. Cheney: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who committed an act of treason against our country during a time of war (of choice) by giving CIA operative Valerie Plame’s name to that no good traitor Robert Novak?

Mr. Hastert: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons who first tried to bribe and then tried to extort votes on the Medicare Bill?

Mr. Bush: During the 2000 campaign you derided Bill Clinton for "renting out" the Lincoln Bedroom. Can you give us the names of the people you’ve had stay over and can you somehow distinguish your practice of "sleepovers" from those of your predecessor which you denounced?

Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of the person or persons whose funerals you’ve attended after they were killed in your vanity war?

Can anyone give us the names of the brave soldiers who were wounded in Iraq and later succumbed to their injuries so that we can add their number to the obscene but fraudulent death count?

Mr. Bush: Can you give us the name or names of anyone who saw you performing your duties for the ANG in Alabama other than the guy who says he saw you there at times when you were supposedly still in Texas?

Turk Meister




_______________________________________________________________________________________

Elizabeth Cheney, Deferment Baby
How Dick Cheney dodged the Vietnam draft.
By Timothy Noah
SLATE Posted Thursday, March 18, 2004, at 2:09 PM PT

"[T]he Senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Vice President Dick Cheney said during a March 17 visit to the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library and Museum. He was talking, of course, about John Kerry, the putative Democratic presidential nominee. During the past three years, we've all become better acquainted with Vice President Cheney's judgment and attitude toward national security, which are a good deal more hawkish than Kerry's. A widely observed irony is that the dovish Kerry saw combat in Vietnam while the hawkish Cheney accepted a series of student and family-related draft deferments. Cheney's unself-consciousness about this is (or at least was) so pronounced that in 1989 he told George C. Wilson of the Washington Post, "I had other priorities in the '60s than military service."

What Chatterbox never realized until recently, however, is that Cheney's eldest daughter, Elizabeth Cheney, likely owes her very existence to her father's avoidance of the Vietnam draft.

The Washington Post's Phil McCombs made the intimate calculations in a profile published in April 1991, when Cheney was defense secretary. The timeline:

Aug. 29, 1964: Dick and Lynne Cheney marry.

May 19, 1965: The Selective Service classifies Dick Cheney 1-A, "available immediately for military service."

July 28, 1965: President Lyndon Johnson says draft calls will be doubled.

Oct. 26, 1965: The Selective Service declares that married men without children, who were previously exempted from the draft, will now be called up. Married men with children remain exempt.

Jan. 19, 1966: The Selective Service reclassifies Dick Cheney 3-A, "deferred from military service because service would cause hardship upon his family," because his wife is pregnant with their first child.

July 28, 1966: Elizabeth Cheney is born.

Jan. 30, 1967: Dick Cheney turns 26 and therefore becomes ineligible for the draft.

Dedicated students of obstetrics will observe that Elizabeth Cheney's birth date falls precisely nine months and two days after the Selective Service publicly revoked its policy of not drafting childless husbands. This would seem to indicate that the Cheneys, though doubtless planning to have children sometime, were seized with an untamable passion the moment Dick Cheney became vulnerable to the Vietnam draft. And acted on it. Carpe diem!

Who says government policy can't affect human behavior?



______________________________________________________________

Bush campaign gear made in Burma
His campaign store sells a pullover from nation whose products he has banned from being sold in the U.S.

BY LAUREN WEBER
STAFF WRITER

March 18, 2004, 9:49 PM EST

The official merchandise Web site for President George W. Bush's re-election campaign has sold clothing made in Burma, whose goods were banned by Bush from the U.S. last year to punish its military dictatorship.

The merchandise sold on www.georgewbushstore.com includes a $49.95 fleece pullover, embroidered with the Bush-Cheney '04 logo and bearing a label stating it was made in Burma, now Myanmar. The jacket was sent to Newsday as part of an order that included a shirt made in Mexico and a hat not bearing a country-of-origin label.

The Bush merchandise is handled by Spalding Group, a 20-year-old supplier of campaign products and services in Louisville, Ky., that says it worked for the last five Republican presidential nominees.

Ted Jackson, Spalding's president, said, "We have found only one other in our inventory that was made in Burma. The others were made in the U.S.A." He said the company had about 60 of thefleece pullovers in its warehouse, and that a supplier included the Burma product by mistake.

Bush campaign officials did not return calls seeking comment. The imports are potentially an issue because outsourcing has become a hot political topic in the election.

Bush last July signed into law the Burmese Freedom and Democracy Act, saying "The United States will not waver from its commitment to the cause of democracy and human rights in Burma."

Violators of the import ban are subject to fines and jail, according to the U.S. Treasury Department.

Burmese textile workers earn as little as 7 cents per hour, according to the National Labor Committee, a human rights group.

"If it is true, it is very contradictory because the sanctions were imposed by the Bush administration," said Bo Hla-Tint, a spokesman for the Burmese government-in-exile in Washington, D.C.

Spalding, which works exclusively with Republican candidates at both local and national levels, tries to order American-made products, Jackson said. "Our first effort is always to source things from the U.S., but not a lot of garments are made in the U.S. Friday," he said. He said all embroidery is done in the United States...

Sam here. Yeah, but the Kerry campaign uses ONLY American made campaign materials. It's not easy but if you REALLY CARE ABOUT AMERICAN WORKERS you do it.



_________________________________________________________________

Let's look at the evidence. Two leaders who avoided serving in war are attempting to smear a leader who has fought and bled for this country. Two leaders who have made money off of war through business (Bush's daddy has made millions off of his defense industry investments and Cheney ran Halliburton and is STILL receiving money from them while in office!) are smearing a leader who has questioned throwing money at the defense industry over providing it for soldiers. So now another leader who has fought and bled for this country and was a P.O.W. for several years in Viet Nam speaks out for Kerry. A GOP leader.


McCain Says Kerry Not Weak on Defense

Thu Mar 18,11:28 AM ET

WASHINGTON - Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., said Thursday he did not believe Democratic candidate John Kerry, a friend and Senate colleague, was weak on defense or would compromise national security if elected president.

"This kind of rhetoric, I think, is not helpful in educating and helping the American people make a choice," McCain said on "The Early Show" on CBS. "You know, it's the most bitter and partisan campaign that I've ever observed. I think it's because both parties are going to their bases rather than going to the middle. I regret it."

Republicans, including President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney, have sharply criticized Kerry on a range of defense and security issues, including not supporting the war in Iraq, voting against a measure to provide the war effort $87 billion, and voting against weapons systems critical to waging war.

"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample doubts about his judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," Cheney said in a speech Wednesday.

Asked on NBC's "Today" if he thought Kerry was weak on defense, McCain said: "No, I do not believe that he is, quote, weak on defense. He's responsible for his voting record, as we are all responsible for our records, and he'll have to explain it. But, no, I do not believe that he is necessarily weak on defense. I don't agree with him on some issues, clearly. But I decry this negativism that's going on on both sides. The American people don't need it."

When asked on "The Early Show" if Kerry's election would compromise national security, McCain responded: "I don't think that — I think that John Kerry is a good and decent man. I think he has served his country."

McCain, Bush's rival for the Republican nomination in 2000, said he believes Bush has led the nation with clarity since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and that he supports Bush's re-election. "But I would certainly hope that we could raise the level of this debate. Otherwise, we're going to have very low voter turnouts in November," he told CBS.

McCain and Kerry, both decorated Navy veterans of the Vietnam War, have worked together on veterans issues in the Senate. Although McCain said last week he would consider an offer from Kerry to be his running mate, McCain's office later issued a statement saying he would not run with Kerry.

"I don't want to be vice president of the United States. I do not want to leave the Republican Party. I would not be vice president of the United States on either ticket," McCain told CBS on Thursday.




_______________________________________________________________________

When you want a quick example of bald-faced LYING by a leading government figure responsible for the war in Iraq, just cleck HERE.

No bull$#@*, just a major Bush player getting caught straight up in a lie while back-pedaling during an election year. It would be funny if American soldiers weren't dying and the Middle Class wasn't being saddled with billions of dollars of debt to pay for Bush's huge tax cuts for the wealthy and the special interests that he serves.

BUSH DISHONESTY TAKES CENTER STAGE

President Bush attacked his opponents today, saying, "If you're going to
make an accusation, you ought to back it up with facts." (1) But on
everything from the economy to national security, this high standard stands
in sharp contrast to the president's own behavior.

On Iraq, President Bush said before the war that Iraq "recently sought
significant quantities of uranium from Africa" (2) despite the CIA
previously warning the White House not to make this factually inaccurate
statement (3). He also said there was "no doubt the Iraqi regime continues
to possess the most lethal weapons ever devised" (4) despite receiving
repeated warnings that there was little hard evidence Iraq possessed weapons
of mass destruction after 1991 (5). He even said that "we found the weapons
of mass destruction" when none had been found (6).

On economic policy, President Bush said that, with his tax plan, "by far the
vast majority of the help goes to the people at the bottom end of the
economic ladder." (7) In fact, according to Congress' bipartisan Joint
Committee on Taxation, households making less than $40,000 - roughly the
bottom half of the economic ladder - would receive only 10 percent of Bush's
income tax cut.

On the budget, President Bush said, "This nation has got a deficit because
we have been through a war." (8) He said this two months after his own
budget acknowledged that his economic policies and tax cuts for the
wealthy - not the war - were what created the largest deficits in American
history. (9)

Source:
1. Remarks by President Bush and Prime Minister Balkenende of the
Netherlands in a Photo Opportunity, 03/16/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22469.
2. State of the Union, 01/28/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22470.
3. "Bush Aides Disclose Warnings From CIA", Washington Post, 07/23/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22471.
4. President Says Saddam Hussein Must Leave Iraq Within 48 Hours,
03/17/2003, http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22472.
5. "Doubts, dissent stripped from public Iraq assessment", Mercury News,
02/09/2004,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22473.
6. Interview of the President by TVP, Poland, 05/29/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22474.
7. "Serial Exaggerators", Fair.Org,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22475.
8. President Discusses Plan for Economic Growth in Ohio, 04/24/2003,
http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22476.

Visit Misleader.org for more about Bush Administration distortion. -->
< http://daily.misleader.org/ctt.asp?u=1197000&l=22477 >




__________________________________________________________

Does this windbag shill have no shame? I know he has no decency. Maybe he was looped up on painkillers when he lied his arse off over his radio show and for what? Doesn't Limpballs even care that when he lies he can be called on it by the people he is slandering? Obviously not. The fact these women lost husbands in one of our greatest national tragedies and want answers to PREVENT such in the future means NOTHING to Limpballs because his job is to bark the party line while calling a blue sky green with purple polka dots. ---Sam

Two 9-11 Widows Respond to Rush Limbaugh Attacks

[PHILADELPHIA -- March 10, 2004 -- (TomFlocco.com) -- Radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh weighed in on the subject of current George Bush campaign TV ads with references to September 11 during his nationally broadcast radio show last Friday. The following two letters were written to Mr. Limbaugh today by the two 9-11 widows whose voices were used during his radio broadcast. The controversial Limbaugh referred to Republican Kristen Breitweiser and Monica Gabrielle as Democratic "campaign consultants... not grieving widows... obsessed with rage and hatred."

According to Rush the "Anti-Bush 9/11 Families Backed by Heinz Foundation"
March 9, 2004,
Listen to Rush...
(…recount just how on the money Friday's program was)

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT 12:36 PM ET

RUSH: I can now begin to take credit for some things that happened on this program on Friday - A barnburner of a program. You remember the program opened with some audio examples that we had found of families, certain family members, 9-11 victims, all saying the same things. And I cringed. I couldn't believe that the Democratic Party would sink this low , to exploit and capitalize on the misery and loss of families. But they did it. They found a way. In fact, they found some family members - and I'm going to say this - they found some family members who seemed to have more concern over who the president of this country is than over the sanctity of the loss of their own family members. It is beyond the pale that this could happen. It is beyond the pale, yet people cooperate with it, and so much more has been learned about this since.

It turns out -- and, by the way, the thing I predicted to you on Friday about the 9-11 coffins and "no flag-draped coffins out of Baghdad," that has been picked up. I told you that was a talking point. I told you we're going to be seeing it over the weekend and you did see it over the weekend, and these people are very easily predictable. Well, it turns out that a lot of these 9-11 family members are part of a political organization that is funded in part by Teresa Heinz-Kerry! Well, this stuff is incestuous! You know, these people are poisoned. They have literally been poisoned by their hate. They have been poisoned by their rage. It is unbelievable, the depths to which they will sink.

Here, for those of you that weren't here on Friday, this is the montage. I'm just going to play it one more time. This is two different women, and they appeared on four networks: CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, and NBC, and they each have three phrases that they use verbatim. And these were prepared. These were prepared by Democratic campaign consultants. In fact, these women sound like campaign consultants, not grieving family members, and I was reluctant to make this charge; it's the first thing that crossed my mind. As I say, we've now learned all the organizational effort that's going on behind this and these people are indeed aligned with the Democratic Party, and it's just… I do not know this kind of hatred; I don't know this kind of venom; I don't harbor it; I never have; I don't know what it's like to be governed by this kind of rage, and I don't know what life must be like when it is. I cannot relate. I cannot relate to being obsessed with rage and hatred. I can relate to being obsessed with love and infatuation, but I cannot relate to being obsessed with all this hatred. I just don't get it. It is unspeakable to me. It is dirty. It is wounding. I think this stuff is absolutely poison, the depths -- and Ted Kennedy on Friday goes to the Council on Foreign Relations and -- I got the story coming up -- makes all these wild accusations. John Kerry himself is becoming, if you ask me, a walking caricature of himself already. I think these people have no clue.

You know, one of the things I said all during 2002, is these people have not come to grips with the fact that they're not the majority anymore, and if they have one thing in common with Martha Stewart, and this is not my comment on Martha Stewart , but not the whole comment, but these people do not have the ability to know how average Americans see them. They have no empathy with average Americans. These family members from 9-11 that are on this political witch hunt, the Democratic Party, the presidential campaign leaders, Kerry, all these people, all the Democratic leadership, media, have no clue how they come across to real people...

...Here, listen to this montage in case you missed it on Friday, and understand that these family members are actually part of the Democratic Party machine, as they do this.

VOICE I: I think for someone like President Bush who has not cooperated with this commission, who has stonewalled this commission.

VOICE II: This president and his administration blocked the creation of the commission, have stonewalled the commission.

VOICE I: If this was realistic from the morning of September 11th, it would show President Bush before a group of school children listening to them read, while the twin towers were burning.

VOICE II: If he wants to show a picture of 9-11 depicting what he was doing, it should be a picture of him sitting and reading in a classroom to school children. That's where he was on 9-11.

VOICE I: And we need to find out why 3,000 people were murdered on his watch.

VOICE II: Well, you know, this happened on his watch.

RUSH: Yeah. Yeah, I'd love to hear some original thoughts from any of these people, but I don't think that the Democrats trust them to speak originally. Was a piece -- I'm looking for it now. I should have put it in the right order but I didn't. In the Wall Street Journal yesterday from a woman named Burlingame , was a little editorial, small little op-ed. And it has some great lines in it. She's a family member of 9-11 that does not agree with these people and really rips them to shreds in a very classy way.

END TRANSCRIPT

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_030904/content/see_i_told_you_so.guest.html



Response from Widow Kristen Breitweiser

Mr. Limbaugh,

For your information, I am one of the widows you are wrongly accusing of being "schooled" by the Democratic Party.

My name is Kristen Breitweiser. I am not a Democrat. I voted for President Bush. So did my husband who was killed on 9/11.

I would encourage you to educate yourself on who I am, prior to your making erroneous statements about me on your radio show.

I would also encourage you to visit the website of the 9/11 Family Steering Committee (911independentcommission.org) of which I am a founding member.

The members of the Family Steering Committee (a non-partisan, completely self-funded organization) have been tireless advocates working to get answers as to why our loved ones were killed on the morning of 9/11 and why this nation was so very vulnerable to terrorism on that horrible day. In order to make this nation safer and to ensure that our loved ones were not killed in vain, we believe that we must learn from the tragic failures that occurred leading up to and on 9/11.

The only way we can be safe in the future is to learn from the past. The only way we can have a thorough examination of the past is with a cooperative government. Sadly, President Bush has been our biggest adversary in trying to find out what happened on 9/11. And, after voting for him in the last election, I am gravely disappointed in his behavior in fighting this commission and their noble efforts to explain why we as a nation were so vulnerable to terrorism on 9/11.

I look forward to your apology.

Many thanks,

Kristen Breitweiser.

P.S. And, as an aside, you failed to mention the following actual fact in your show: that Mayor Giuliani, Police Commissioner Kerik, Former Fire Commissioner Von-Essen, and 9/11 Widow Deena Burnett were "BOOKED" BY THE GOP to go on those shows. (See Washington Post article on Friday). I, on the other hand, was "booked" by no one other than myself. Frankly, Mr. Limbaugh, I expected better from you.

************************************************

Response from Widow Monica Gabrielle

Dear Mr. Limbaugh,

My name is Monica Gabrielle. I was forwarded a transcript of your recent radio show. Plain and simple – I expect an apology for your false statements and erroneous accusations.

In order to enlighten you:

- NO Democratic or other party member “schooled” me or prepared my statements! To date, I have been quite capable of thinking for myself.

- Neither I, nor the Family Steering Committee has received ANY FUNDING from ANY person or organization. We are a completely non-partisan, self-funded organization.

We have worked tirelessly for over 2 years to have the facts surrounding the 9/11 attacks and the murder of my husband along with 3,000 other innocent people brought to light. Until we know why we, as a nation, were left so utterly exposed, we will remain at risk. In order to accomplish such a lofty goal, we need to thoroughly examine what protocols and procedures were in place prior to and on 9/11. We need to find out where the breakdowns occurred.

Thus, ALL persons (BOTH political parties, BOTH past and present administrations) with any relevant knowledge need to share what they knew, when they knew it. Only then can we truly find where the failures occurred and correct them. Can we – as a nation – demand any less?

Sadly, President Bush and his administration have been staunchly opposed to any type of investigation into the murder of 3,000 innocent souls (not to mention the billions in property damage). This, to me, is unimaginable. Who wouldn’t want to know how and why all our defensive postures failed so miserably on 9/11? Who wouldn’t want to know that these “flaws” have been properly fixed? Who wants to have the same person/protocol in place today if it didn’t work on 9/11? Who wants to be the victim’s family member speaking up the next time tragedy strikes?

We, as citizens with the help of the 9/11 Independent Commission, have an opportunity to examine and hopefully correct the flaws which led to the horrors of 9/11 . We need to seize this opportunity – together – to make us all safer and quell some of the nightmares.

These are just a few of the issues which should have been debated on your program. More are available on our website (www.911independentcommission.org). The attacking of 9/11 families with false, inflammatory statements is beneath even you. Unfortunately, it accomplishes nothing and serves only to avoid the real issues.

I respectfully await your apology.

Sincerely,

Monica Gabrielle



_________________________________________________________

The "Business" President who not only has seen the greatest loss of jobs in American history under his stewardship but as the "Energy" President we've seen gas prices achieve new highs! ---Sam

Kerry Campaign Chair Awards Bush the “Herbert Hoover Award”


March 09, 2004
Washington, DC

Today as President Bush handed out awards at the Malcolm Baldridge National Quality awards ceremony, Kerry Campaign Chairwoman Jeanne Shaheen awarded George Bush the “Herbert Hoover Award” for presiding over the worst record on jobs of any president in American history.

“Since the president is handing out awards today, we wanted to give him one,” said Governor Shaheen. “So, on behalf of the nearly 3 million people who have lost their jobs under this administration, we are awarding George Bush the first ever ‘Herbert Hoover Award’ for having the worst jobs record since the Great Depression. It’s a special award reserved for presidents that have somehow managed to lose jobs on their watch. The American people need to know that their president has failed to lead on jobs, and that John Kerry is running for president to change the direction of this economy and get people back to work.”

To view the Herbert Hoover Award, click here:

GEORGE W. BUSH: WINNER OF THE “HERBERT HOOVER AWARD” – A RECORD OF FAILURE ON JOBS

BUSH: Worst Job Creation Record Since Hoover. “The economy has lost 2.2 million payroll jobs since January 2001, giving Bush the worst job creation record of any president since Herbert Hoover. The U.S. economy, to match the White House's jobs forecast, would have to churn out well over 220,000 new jobs each month for the rest of the year, economists say.” [Associated Press, 2/11/04]

The Numbers Tell the Story of Failure

ALMOST THREE MILLION: Since George W. Bush took office, America has lost almost 3 million private sector jobs.

EVERY MONTH: Manufacturing jobs have been lost every single month of the Bush Presidency.

ONE MILLION: One million jobs have been outsourced since President Bush took office.

33 PERCENT HIGHER: Unemployment has increased 33 percent since Bush took office.

$10,368. American families will pay 10,368 in interest on the debt by 2014.

George Bush’s Solution: More of the Same, More Broken Promises

Even though George Bush’s economic plan of tax cuts for the wealthy have only led to more job losses, he is offering more of the same: one trillion more in tax cuts targeted to the wealthy and new promises that he cannot meet.

First Tax Cut:
Bush Promise: Will create 800,000 jobs by the end of 2002.
Reality: American lost 1.9 million jobs.

Second Tax Cut:
Bush Promise: Will create 1 million new jobs.
Reality: America lost 53,000 jobs.

New Promise:
Bush Promise: 2.6 million jobs in 2004.
Reality: FED Chairman Alan Greenspan says it’s unlikely.

Nationally, 2.9 Million Jobs Lost; Unemployment Rate Up 33 Percent. The national unemployment rate in January 2004 was 5.6 percent, up from 4.2 percent when Bush took office in January 2001 - a 33 percent increase. Nationally, the economy has lost 2.9 million private sector jobs under Bush. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov]

Bush Promised, Then Backed Away From 2.6 New Million Jobs This Year. “Thursday's report also showed that the number of unemployed people collecting jobless benefits for more than a week rose by 106,000 to 3.2 million for the week ending Feb. 7, the most recent period for which that information is available. This suggests that jobs are still hard to find for some workers. The report comes as recent Bush administration comments about the job climate touched a political nerve and raise questions about the White House's economic grasp. President Bush on Wednesday distanced himself from an earlier prediction by his economic advisors that that the economy would add 2.6 million new jobs this year.” [Associated Press, 2/19/04]

One Tenth Needed Jobs Created in February. “About 21,000 jobs were created in February, the Labor Department said yesterday, a sixth the size of economists' forecasts. The unemployment rate remained at 5.6 percent as 392,000 people dropped out of the labor force, just as the presidential campaign kicked into high gear. The Labor Department, which originally estimated an increase of 112,000 jobs in January, also revised that number downward, to 97,000.” [Baltimore Sun, 3/6/04]

Nationally, Nearly 2.8 Million Manufacturing Jobs Lost Under Bush. The manufacturing industry has lost 2,787,000 jobs nationwide since Bush took office in January 2001. Employment for this key sector of the American economy is at its lowest level since October 1958. Of the 2.9 million private sector jobs lost under Bush, manufacturing losses account for 95 percent. [Bureau of Labor Statistics, http://www.bls.gov]

Nationally, Workers’ Wages and Salaries Are Stagnant. In the third quarter of 2003, America's gross domestic product surged at a rate of 8.2 percent and corporate profits grew at an annual rate above 40 percent. But during this same period, wages and salaries grew by less than 1 percent. Furthermore, in the six months that ended in November 2003, income from wages rose just 0.65 percent after inflation. [Department of Commerce, 12/23/03; New York Times, 12/31/03; Charleston Gazette (West Virginia), 1/2/04]

Bush Presided Over “Biggest Gusher of Red Ink In History.” ”President George W. Bush has now presided over the biggest gusher of red ink in the nation's history, from a surplus of $127 billion when he entered office for fiscal 2001 to a 2004 deficit projection of $521 billion. …” [Business Week Online, 2/3/04]

Think Tanks Predicts Debt of $5.3 Trillion in Ten Years. “In a study of budget trends, the Brookings Institution said the national debt will increase by $5.3 trillion over the next decade, so that by 2014 the increase in government borrowing will cost the average household in America an extra $3,000 just to pay interest on the debt. … If the tax cuts are made permanent as Bush wants, the Congressional Budget Office says that could increase the deficit by another $1.4 trillion over the next decade.” [Chicago Tribune, 2/8/04]

Nationally, 3.5 Million More Americans Have Fallen Into Poverty Under Bush. In 2002, the number of Americans living in poverty increased to 34.6 million. Three-and-a-half million more Americans live in poverty under Bush. For 2002, a family with two parents and two children lives in poverty if their total household income is below $18,244. [Census Bureau, Poverty in the United States: 2002, Table 4, http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/poverty.html]

Bush Proposed to Eliminate Overtime for 8 Million Workers. Bush proposed regulations that would end eligibility for overtime pay—a critical source of income—for 8 million workers by reclassifying them as managers, administrative workers or professional employees. In addition, Bush's Department of Labor issued advice to companies in its explanation of the proposal on strategies to avoid paying overtime. Among these were cutting workers' base pay to subtract extra overtime pay costs and cutting workers' hours to strictly enforce a 40 hour work week. The non-partisan Economic Policy Institute called the proposal “pure special-interest politics with complete disregard for the democratic process.” [Akron Beacon -Journal, 12/5/03; EPI, 7/03, www.epi.org; New York Times, 7/1/03; AP, 1/6/04]

Republicans Say Larger Spending Increases Than Democrats. “[Reporter David GREGORY]: But the deficit and the Bush record of annual spending increases--larger than any since Lyndon Johnson was in the White House--has created a potent election-year issue for Democrats. … The real political trouble for the president is that it's not just Democrats piling on, but even conservatives. Rush Limbaugh delivered this stinging blow to his radio audience Thursday.

Mr. RUSH LIMBAUGH: Bush has outspent Clinton.

GREGORY: Spending--like Mr. Bush's plan to send a man to Mars, and his projected 17 percent budget increase for the national endowment for the arts--has the president's political base agitated. Both are seen as outreach efforts to swing voters, but allies warn it could backfire on Election Day.” [NBC Nightly News, 1/30/04]

Small Businesses Shutting Down. In fact, for the first time since 1990, more businesses with more than one and fewer than 500 employees shut down in 2001 and 2002 than were created, according to the Small Business Administration's most recent data.

Bush Eliminates Key Part of Small Business Loan Program—First Time in 50 Years. “The Bush administration's recently released federal budget is a travesty for small business. In the whopping $2.4 trillion budget, the Small Business Administration gets a measly $678.4 million — a decrease of $119.5 million, or 15%, from last year’s already low level.

Here are some ways President Bush's budget slashes small-business assistance:
Entirely eliminates the Microloan Program.

* Reduces government guarantees from 75% to 50% and increases fees on the SBA 7(a) loan program.
* Reduces funding for Small Business Development Centers.
* Slashes the Manufacturing Extension Partnership from $106 million to a paltry $39 million.

‘This would be the first time in the 50-year history of SBA that zero appropriations would be provided the 7(a) program,’ said Anthony R. Wilkinson, president of the National Association of Government Guaranteed Lenders — a group of private-industry bankers. It will be much more difficult — and costly — for entrepreneurs to qualify for SBA loans. Keep in mind these programs are highly successful and cost efficient. In fact, there's solid evidence that SBA loans and SBDC assistance result in increased tax revenues. …During the last decade, small business has become an even more important part of the American economy. Indeed, if it weren't for the jobs created by small business, the American employment picture would be far more dismal than it is. Virtually every study of new job creation shows that it's small and new companies — not big or existing businesses — creating jobs. A 2003 Census study found most job growth came from companies less than 2 years old.” [Rhonda Abrams Money column, USA Today, 2/14/03 (author of The Successful Business Plan: Secrets & Strategies)]




__________________________________________________________________

Statement from Kerry Spokesperson on Bush Attacks on Kerry Record on Intelligence

March 08, 2004

Washington, DC – John Kerry Campaign Spokesperson Chad Clanton issued the following statement today in response to President Bush’s misleading attacks on Kerry’s record on intelligence issues and funding.

“This misleading attack is a reminder of why George Bush has lost credibility with the American people. You bet, John Kerry voted against business as usual in our intelligence community. It’s no secret that we’ve got some serious gaps in our intelligence. He voted against a proposed billion dollar bloat in the intelligence budget, because it was essentially a slush fund for defense contractors. Unlike George Bush, John Kerry does not and will not support every special spending project supported by Halliburton and other defense contractor.”

Fact Check: John Kerry has supported $200 billion in intelligence funding over the past seven years – a 50 percent increase since 1996.

* FY03 Intel Authorization $39.3-$41.3 Billion*
[2002, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/02]

* FY02 Intel Authorization $33 Billion*
[2001, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/13/01]

* FY01 Intel Authorization $29.5-$31.5 Billion*
[2000, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 12/6/00]

* FY00 Intel Authorization $29-$30 Billion*
[1999, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 11/19/1999]

* FY99 Intel Authorization $29.0 Billion*
[1998, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 10/8/98]

* FY98 Intel Authorization $26.7 Billion*
[1997, Senate Roll Call Vote #109]

* FY97 Intel Authorization $26.6 Billion*
[1996, Unanimous Senate Voice Vote 9/25/96]

* [Authorization levels are classified. Levels are an estimate based upon the Center for Defense Information Terrorism Project, Intelligence Funding and the War on Terror, http://www.cdi.org/terrorism/intel-funding.cfm]

It was widely known that the intelligence budget was overridden with pet projects and pork and was no longer appropriate to the intelligence tasks at hand. The nation was shifting from the cold war to a transnational threat involving terror, drug traffickers and international crime and proliferation of weapons of mass destruction.

Aspin Commission found reductions “critical.”
“Indeed, finding such reductions is critical if funds are to be found for the investments in the intelligence capabilities that the nation will need in the future, capabilities that are not now funded in the proposed program and budget.” [Preparing for the 21st Century: an appraisal of U.S. Intelligence, Report of Commission on the Roles and Capabilities of the United States Intelligence Community, March 1, 1996, 137; http://www.access.gpo.gov/su_docs/dpos/epubs/int/]

Intelligence agencies; in particular the NRO, were being mismanaged.
The National Reconnaissance Office (NRO), the agency in charge of the nation’s spy satellites, was embroiled in controversy because of a $300 million land deal. According to the Washington Post, The NRO “bought almost 14 acres more than needed for its controversial new $ 304 million, four-building headquarters complex in the Westfields development near Dulles International Airport …. NRO, which designs, procures and manages intelligence satellites, planned to use the surplus Westfields acreage to build two additional office buildings that could be sold or leased to its contractors. The only way the NRO could buy the land it wanted was to purchase additional land, so the developers who owned it could get the profit they wanted. … [A] CIA-Pentagon investigation begun in August found that the NRO had failed to disclose the cost of the headquarters to Congress and found it was 30 percent bigger than the organization needed for its 2,190 employees and nearly 1,000 contractor personnel. The Westfields developer got NRO to purchase roughly eight additional acres because the spy satellite agency planners insisted they had to build and own the complex themselves. They refused to allow the developer to construct and rent the buildings to NRO under a long-term lease. Therefore, selling the land was the only way the developer would make money from the NRO deal.” [Washington Post, November 9, 1994]

Mismanagement resulted in $1 billion in unspent funds.
In Senate hearings in 1996, Sen. Arlen Specter announced: “[T]he failure of NRO officials to tell either the DCI or Congress that the NRO had accumulated over $1 billion in unused funds--further convinced our Committee that the intelligence community needed greater central direction and accountability.” [September 17, 1996; Senate Hearings; CR Page S10637]

In September of 1995, a secret billion dollar slush fund was found in the intelligence budget which served as a full employment opportunity for defense contractors.
The White House said yesterday it was "inexcusable" that the top secret agency that manages U.S. spy satellites had reportedly hoarded $ 1 billion in unspent funds. Chief of Staff Leon E. Panetta said John M. Deutch, director of the Central Intelligence Agency, had ordered an investigation into how the National Reconnaissance Office managed to stash away so much money without informing supervisors at the Pentagon or Congress. … The unspent funds were discovered after the Senate intelligence committee questioned a luxurious $ 300 million headquarters the NRO was building in a Washington suburb. [Washington Post, September 25, 1995]

Arlen Specter and Bob Kerrey sought to strip the intelligence budget of its pet projects and pork, and shift our intelligence from the cold war to the threat of terrorism and the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. The same day that John Kerry proposed to cut the intelligence budget, Senators Specter and Kerrey introduced a similar bill, which passed by a bipartisan voice vote.


S.AMDT.2881 to S.922: To reduce the total amount of funds authorized to be appropriated for the National Reconnaissance Office to offset the availability of certain prior year appropriations. [9/29/1995: Proposed by Senator Coats for Senator Specter. Agreed to in Senate by Voice Vote.]



_________________________________________________________________

February 16, 2004
Top Dean Aide Discusses Plans to Back Kerry
By JODI WILGOREN

MILWAUKEE, Feb. 15 — The chairman of Howard Dean's presidential campaign said on Sunday that he would leave and shift his support to Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts if Dr. Dean lost the Wisconsin primary on Tuesday, an outcome he sees as all but inevitable.

"If Howard Dean does not win the Wisconsin primary, I will reach out to John Kerry unless he reaches out to me first," said the chairman, Steven Grossman, who was chairman of Mr. Kerry's 1996 Senate race. "I will make it clear that I will do anything and everything I can to help him become the next president, and I will do anything and everything I can to build bridges with the Dean organization."

The comments by Mr. Grossman, a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee who has known Mr. Kerry for 34 years, came as Dr. Dean faced growing pressure from aides and outside backers to abandon his quest. But while many leading supporters and staff members expect him to either quit the campaign altogether or radically scale it back by the end of this week, the candidate remained steadfast Sunday that he would soldier on.

"We're not dropping out after Tuesday, period," Dr. Dean said in a television interview with the Fox affiliate here Sunday.

But in a debate here with the other four Democratic candidates Sunday evening, Dr. Dean skipped several opportunities to directly challenge Mr. Kerry.

Dr. Dean has no events scheduled beyond Tuesday night, when he plans to fly home to Burlington, Vt., to regroup. He has not won in any of the 16 states that have voted. His bank account is dwindling. Many of his aides are planning vacations or seeking jobs with other candidates.

While many in the Dean camp felt Mr. Grossman had spoken out of school, none disputed the essence of what he said: that the campaign would not last the week in its current incarnation.

Roy Neel, Dr. Dean's campaign manager, said "anything is possible" after Wisconsin. "I'm not going to contradict Steve," Mr. Neel said of Mr. Grossman. "Every possibility is still on the table. The governor's not made a decision.

"He believes it's premature to make up his mind because we don't have the results from Tuesday night yet. He's still planning to win the primary."

The most recent polls here show Mr. Kerry 40 points ahead of Dr. Dean, who also trailed Mr. Edwards.

Aides to Dr. Dean and Mr. Kerry have met to discuss Dr. Dean's future plans, a Democratic operative said Sunday night on condition on anonymity.

"None of us are doing a whole lot right now, because there's not a whole lot to do," one top Dean aide said Sunday, on the condition he not be named. "We've put one ad on the air in Wisconsin. We're not polling anymore. We're not going to have the money to run some full-fledged campaign for March 2."

By contrast, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina promised to compete in all 10 states with primaries and caucuses on March 2, though he said he might bypass Hawaii, Idaho and Utah, which vote Feb. 24.

"This is becoming a two-person race between John Edwards and John Kerry," Mr. Edwards told reporters after a rally at the University of Wisconsin campus in Waukesha, about 20 miles from here. Like Mr. Edwards, Dr. Dean had hoped to remain standing long enough to get a one-on-one face-off with Mr. Kerry, whom he has denounced as beholden to special interests and indistinguishable from Republicans.

After the debate Sunday, Dr. Dean told supporters at a local bar, Caffrey's, that he would keep campaigning, win or lose, saying he would go on to New York, California, Ohio and even Hawaii.

But having not won a single state, his prospects seem dimmer by the day, leaving Dr. Dean with the task of transforming his organization into a force for political change while keeping his dignity.

Many supporters believe his best option would be to turn his campaign into a political action group devoted to defeating President Bush.

"Right now there is nothing that he is doing that anyone I've spoken to believes is detrimental to the Democratic party," said Andrew L. Stern, president of the Service Employees International Union, which plans to reassess its endorsement of Dr. Dean on Wednesday. "Some people may say if they were him they wouldn't do this because it may be detrimental to his reputation. I guess he's in charge of his own reputation."

Mr. Grossman, the campaign chairman, predicted that after a Dean loss here on Tuesday, "you will see a fundamental shift in rhetoric and in tone and perhaps in how the candidate uses his time."

He said Dr. Dean's name would remain on the ballot in remaining primaries, so he might still collect votes, but that he would cease criticism of Mr. Kerry.

"I think Howard is very clearly focused on making sure that we have a Democratic president in November and that this movement, hundreds of thousands of citizens or more, play an active participatory role in the fall election," Mr. Grossman said, adding that his comments reflected a lengthy recent conversation with the candidate.

Mr. Grossman said he believed Dr. Dean would work "to help the nominee, presumably John Kerry, become the president, defeat Bush, and he will work equally hard to ensure that this movement that he has led for the last year will grow."

After the news of Grossman's decision to leave the campaign became public Sunday night, Dr. Dean, through his spokesman, Jay Carson, said Mr. Grossman had "meant a lot to this campaign."

"We'll miss him and we wish him well," Dr. Dean said through his spokesman.

Randal C. Archibold contributed reporting for this article.




____________________________________________________________

Here's the kind of illegal behavior an unethical leader like Mr. DeLay inspires.

February 16, 2004
WASHINGTON TALK
Partisan Denunciations Fly Over Secret Strategy Memos
By NEIL A. LEWIS

WASHINGTON, Feb. 15 — Democrats and Republicans in the Senate have been matching each other with nasty accusations for well over two years in the debate over the treatment of Bush administration judicial candidates.

But the Democrats have now confidently gathered in a herd on the moral high ground over disclosures that some Republican staff aides had improperly obtained confidential strategy memorandums from a Senate computer. The Senate sergeant-at-arms, who is nearing the end of an investigation into the tampering, told senators last week that the Republican staff members' activities went on much longer and were far more extensive than previously believed.

They spanned more than two years and involved conscious computer hacking as some 3,000 Democratic documents were secretly downloaded, read and distributed by some number of Republican aides, said people who attended the briefings. No evidence that senators were involved has surfaced.

When the Judiciary Committee convened Thursday for the first time since the new disclosures, Democratic senators were present in full force to denounced the spying, saying it was a violation of both the criminal code and the unwritten rules of political behavior in the Senate under which the two parties get along.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts compared the situation to Watergate. Senator Charles E. Schumer of New York invoked the depredations of Hitler and Stalin.

Before the new disclosures, Republicans had erected a common defense, saying the "spying" was little more than some staff members' peeking at a few documents made available to them through a computer flaw. More important, they argued, the documents themselves show a pattern of perfidy on the part of the Democrats in that they consulted and collaborated with outside liberal groups to oppose President Bush's judicial nominees, who were criticized in harsh terms.

But by Thursday, that appeared to some Republican senators a wan comeback.

When the Democrats began their serial denunciations, they all complimented Senator Orrin G. Hatch, the Utah Republican who is chairman of the committee, for his alacrity in initiating the investigation and his statements that he was mortified at what had occurred, comments that have earned him criticism from some conservative groups that he was caving in to the Democrats' demand for an investigation.

"He is the only Republican senator to have apologized for what occurred," said Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat.

With that, Democrats looked across the U-shaped committee table and glared at the Republicans.

Faced with a difficult-to-defend situation, many Republicans simply withdrew from the field of battle, quietly slipping out of the room. Senators Jon Kyl of Arizona and Lindsey Graham of South Carolina joined Mr. Hatch in agreeing that what had happened was terribly wrong.

Senator John Cornyn, a freshman Republican of Texas, concurred but was less conciliatory. Mr. Cornyn said Democrats had recently used stolen documents to discredit William Pryor Jr., one of Mr. Bush's nominees to a federal appeals court.

Mr. Cornyn said a former employee of the Republican Attorneys General Association had passed documents to Democratic staff aides showing that Mr. Pryor, the Alabama attorney general, might have solicited money for the attorneys general's group from people who had business before him.

The documents suggested that the group was improperly raising money from groups like tobacco companies. But the person who took those documents from the group's files was not a Senate employee, Democrats pointed out, but was someone they regard as a whistle-blower, even as Republicans called her a thief.

The most unrepentant of Republicans was Senator Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania, a member of the Republican leadership. According to the newspaper Roll Call, Mr. Santorum told reporters that he still believed that "the real potential criminal behavior" was with the Democrats because the content showed their unwholesome ways of colluding with outside interest groups to oppose Mr. Bush's judicial nominees.





_____________________________________________________________

The most vile snake in the Congress, Tom DeLay.

February 16, 2004
Inquiry Focuses on Group DeLay Created
By RICHARD A. OPPEL Jr.

AUSTIN, Tex. — A political action committee created by Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, enjoyed tremendous success here in 2002: all but 3 of 21 Republican candidates the committee backed for state representative won their races, helping the party take control of the Texas House.

Last year, the Republicans used that clout to carve Texas into new Congressional districts under a plan that political analysts say will bring them at least five new seats in Congressional elections this year.

But local prosecutors and a grand jury here have been investigating the committee, Texans for a Republican Majority, including its use of corporate donations in the election, lawyers close to the case said.

Investigators are also examining whether there were violations of a law intended to curb the ability of outside groups to influence the race for House speaker, the lawyers said. The investigation follows a complaint filed with prosecutors last year by Texans for Public Justice, a campaign watchdog group.

The extent to which Texans for a Republican Majority used corporate money in the 2002 races is laid out in a trail of recently obtained documents. Under Texas law, political action committees are generally prohibited from using corporate and union donations for anything other than administrative expenses, like rent and utilities.

But records and interviews show that fund-raisers from Texans for a Republican Majority who were paid with corporate money solicited donations on behalf of individual candidates backed by the committee, which also spent corporate donations on fund-raising events, polling and a voter identification project.

In one case, corporate donations were used to pay a $1,200 legal bill to defend a new Republican legislator, Bill Zedler, against accusations from his opponent that he did not live in the district that elected him.

The documents, and interviews, also show that the committee often coordinated its efforts with Tom Craddick, a Republican state representative whom lawmakers elected speaker of the House after the 2002 elections. Later, at the urging of Mr. DeLay, Mr. Craddick helped lead the bitter fight to carve the state into new Congressional districts.

John Colyandro, who was the committee's executive director, said that Texans for a Republican Majority operated lawfully and that hundreds of other political action committees in Texas had conducted business similarly.

"The notion that TRMPAC alone administered itself in this way is deceitful and offensive," Mr. Colyandro said. The payment in the Zedler case, made several days after the election, was legal because it had "nothing to do with the campaign," he said. Mr. Colyandro has been granted limited immunity in return for grand jury testimony, a person close to the case said.

But Cris Feldman, a lawyer in Austin who has sued the treasurer of Texans for a Republican Majority on behalf of four defeated Democratic House candidates, said Mr. DeLay and his aides "clandestinely funneled illegal corporate cash into the elections."

In all, the committee spent $1.5 million, including $600,000 in corporate money, according to an analysis by Texans for Public Justice.

Jim Ellis, Mr. DeLay's political aide, said he, Mr. DeLay and Mr. Colyandro created the committee. Mr. DeLay served on a five-member advisory board, which decided whom to endorse, Mr. Colyandro said. Mr. Ellis, executive director of Mr. DeLay's own political action committee, Americans for a Republican Majority, was one of three officers authorized to make decisions about expenditures and contributions by Texans for a Republican Majority, state records show.

Mr. DeLay's daughter was also paid by the committee to set up events, other records show.

Before the 2002 elections, Mr. DeLay wanted lawmakers to take up redistricting, Mr. Ellis said, adding that "there is no question" that Mr. DeLay wanted Mr. Craddick elected speaker. The two men served in the Texas House together in the 1980's.

But Mr. Ellis said the committee's main goals were to "elect Republicans and further the Republican agenda." He added that the investigation "seems to be getting to the point of being ridiculous" and that any mistakes by the committee "certainly weren't intentional."

But Ronnie Earle, the Democratic district attorney in Travis County, who is leading the inquiry, calls the investigation "an effort to unravel a tangled web of secret money."

In an interview, Mr. Colyandro said he believed that the committee was legally allowed to spend corporate money to raise other money that the committee collected and then distributed to candidates.

But in a separate interview, Susan Lilly, the committee's Texas fund-raiser during the 2002 elections, said she had a different understanding: that people involved in raising money intended for state campaigns — whether or not that money first passes through a political action committee — are not supposed to be paid with corporate money.

Ms. Lilly said she did not know Texans for a Republican Majority had paid her with corporate money until after the election, when prosecutors began looking at the committee's activities. She said she solicited donations that went straight to candidates, confirming a report in The Austin American-Statesman.

Records and interviews show that other committee officials were involved in raising money sent directly to candidates.

On Aug. 12, 2002, Ms. Lilly wrote an e-mail message to Mr. Colyandro and Warren Robold, a fund-raiser for Mr. DeLay who worked for the committee and, records show, was paid with money from corporate donations. In it, she described a visit from Ron Olson, an official with Union Pacific railroad.

Mr. Olson, she wrote, "came down this morning and said that through DeLay's efforts (i.e. Warren) that UP had identified $25,000 worth of TRMPAC targets that he is supposed to individually go and give checks to. However, he was asked that a `DeLay' person accompany him when he gives the checks (so that the recipient will know that it was TRMPAC related)."

A Union Pacific spokeswoman confirmed that Mr. Robold asked Union Pacific to make donations from its political action committee to candidates backed by Texans for a Republican Majority. He made the request, she said, after the railroad declined to donate to the committee.

Union Pacific donated to 11 candidates but would have made those donations anyway, she said. She also confirmed Mr. Craddick handed out some Union Pacific checks to candidates, explaining that company officials did not have time to do it.

Mr. Robold did not return calls seeking comment. He has been subpoenaed by prosecutors, a person close to the case said.

Another document, dated Sept. 27, 2002, and written by Ms. Lilly, states that committee officials sent letters to the candidates letting them know that some donations made by others were due to their efforts.

"All checks that have been distributed were pre-empted by faxed notes from Beverly or Dianne letting the recipient know the checks were coming via TRMPAC's efforts," the document states, referring to two state representatives on the committee's advisory board, Dianne Delisi and Beverly Woolley. "The only exception was the Union Pacific checks which were given to Tom and he distributed. TRMPAC has gotten credit for all the funds distributed to date."

An attached spreadsheet lists donations made by others directly to candidates at the request of the committee, including $22,000 by Compass Bancshares' political action committee. A separate document, outlining the itinerary for a fund-raising trip to Houston by Ms. Lilly and Ms. Woolley on Sept. 9, 2002, mentions a visit to an official at Compass Bank. Next to that is written, "22K direct." Ms. Woolley and bank officials did not return phone calls for comment.

Mr. Colyandro said he did not recall the documents outlining contributions by others at the committee's request. But he said, "Raising any money on behalf of any specific candidate and being compensated with corporate money is inappropriate."

Documents show that Mr. Craddick worked closely with officials from the committee to raise money. In turn, the committee sent Mr. Craddick campaign checks that he then distributed to individual candidates. For example, on Oct. 18, 2002, Mr. Colyandro wrote an e-mail message instructing the committee's accountant to send Mr. Craddick, via Federal Express, $152,000 in checks made out to 14 Republican House candidates, records show.

A spokesman for Mr. Craddick, Bob Richter, said Mr. Craddick "never passed out any money to any members or would-be members with the idea that they would vote for him for speaker. There was never a quid pro quo: I give you this check and you give me your support for speaker."

In another episode drawing scrutiny, the committee donated $190,000 raised from corporations to the Republican National Committee on Sept. 10, 2002. On Oct. 4, the national committee wrote checks totaling the same amount to seven Texas House candidates supported by the committee, money that unlike that sent to the national committee could be given directly to a campaign.

A spokesman for the national committee said there was "no record" of discussions about the transactions with Texans for a Republican Majority. Mr. Ellis also said he could not recall whether he discussed the state candidates when he delivered the check to the national committee.




________________________________________________________________

February 15, 2004 NY TIMES
Intelligence Panel's Finances Will Stay Private
By ERIC LICHTBLAU

WASHINGTON, Feb. 14 — The White House is declining to make public the financial histories of the commissioners President Bush appointed to investigate American intelligence failures.

Administration officials say the arrangement has helped to attract the best-qualified people for the panel, but critics say the White House's refusal to disclose financial information raises questions about potential conflicts of interest that could cloud the commission's work.

Citing an exemption to federal ethics regulations, the White House says the financial disclosure statements filed by the commission's nine members will remain confidential because they are not being paid for their work.

"The president was looking for highly qualified, well-respected individuals to serve on a temporary basis, and he thought that this was the best way to set up the commission," Erin Healy, a White House spokeswoman, said in an interview.

While ethics specialists said members of most federal commissions typically have to disclose their financial interests to the public, the White House pointed to a number of exceptions in foreign intelligence and domestic security. "There are several out there like this. I don't think it's unique," Ms. Healy said.

But experts said the White House's refusal to make public the commission's business links may fuel questions about its independence and taint its investigation into one of the Bush administration's biggest potential political vulnerabilities: the quality of intelligence used to justify the Iraq war and other issues involving unconventional weapons.

The issue mirrors some of the concerns raised in 2002 when a commission was appointed to investigate the Sept. 11 terror attacks, only to have its original chairman and vice chairman step down, in part because of private business interests.

After initially resisting calls for a commission to study intelligence failures surrounding the Iraqi war buildup, Mr. Bush created the intelligence commission on Feb. 6 and gave it a broad mandate to look at intelligence on unconventional weapons around the globe. But before the commission has even begun its work, some critics are already suggesting that political as well as financial conflicts could influence its findings.

Laurence H. Silberman, a conservative judge who is one of the commission's two chairmen, has drawn particular criticism from liberal groups because of his judicial record and close ties to the Bush administration. Several other commissioners also have financial links to groups in the Middle East and the defense industry that could become involved in the inquiry.

"This is a critical commission, and if the White House is going to withhold basic information about its members that should be made public, that's a shame," said Bill Allison, a spokesman for the Center for Public Integrity, a nonprofit group in Washington that tracks government ethics issues.

"The point of a financial disclosure form is that it's supposed to be disclosed," Mr. Allison said. "This completely defeats the purpose. You're starting from a position of bad faith."

One high-level commission that does make public the financial interests of its members is the panel created by Congress and the White House in late 2002 to investigate the Sept. 11 attacks. But it, too, has been dogged by charges of conflicts of interest.

The original chairman of the Sept. 11 commission, Henry A. Kissinger, stepped down abruptly because he said resolving potential conflicts of interest would have meant liquidating his consulting firm, while his vice chairman, former Senator George J. Mitchell, stepped aside in part because of an unwillingness to sever ties with his law firm. The commission's current executive director and a commissioner have also been interviewed by the commission about their knowledge of intelligence activities leading up to the Sept. 11 attacks, spurring charges of a conflict from some of the victims' survivors.

Bush administration officials and ethics specialists said that when politicians seek to appoint people with broad experience to serve on important commissions, charges of conflicts arise almost inevitably because those people usually have extensive contacts in business and global affairs as well.

"It's a problem that's endemic to Washington," said Stan Brand, a Washington lawyer specializing in government ethics. "If this commission is really going to conduct a wide-ranging review of intelligence gathering, at some point its members are going to bump into individuals or entities of the kind that they've represented, and they're going to have to confront that by sealing themselves off from those clients."

The nine members of the intelligence commission include both Republicans and Democrats, and the White House points to their broad experience in intelligence, the military, academics, law and the private sector. Joining Judge Silberman as co-chairman is Charles S. Robb, the former Democrat senator and governor of Virginia.

Critics, however, suggest that the commissioners' extensive résumés may create conflicts.

One commissioner, William O. Studeman, for instance, was a former official at the Central Intelligence Agency and the National Security Agency and is now a senior executive at Northrop Grumman, a military contractor that does work in weaponry and in planning and detection for unconventional weapons, among many other areas.

Also on the panel is Lloyd M. Cutler, a prominent Washington lawyer who has served in several Democratic administrations. The firm he founded, Wilmer Cutler & Pickering, has done work for the Carlyle Group, a large Washington equity firm that has used former President George Bush and other well-connected Republicans to advance its interests in Saudi Arabia and elsewhere. Mr. Cutler said in an interview, however, that he had not personally represented the Carlyle Group.

Clearly the most scrutiny has fallen on Judge Silberman, a senior part-time judge on the United States Court of Appeals in Washington.

Conservatives hail Judge Silberman as a well-respected and savvy leader who has had a long and diverse career as a diplomat, law enforcement official and jurist. But several liberal groups and Democratic lawmakers have attacked what they call his severe partisanship on and off the bench in episodes including the Iran-contra affair, the Whitewater investigation and accusations of sexual misconduct against President Bill Clinton.

In a lengthy attack on Judge Silberman delivered on the Senate floor on Wednesday, Senator Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, charged that "the canons of judicial ethics meant nothing" to the judge and that he should be replaced on the panel.

Judge Silberman, Mr. Reid said, was on the panel "to protect the president, not to get fair information." As long as Judge Silberman is associated with the panel, he said, "it is smeared with partisan prejudice."

Judge Silberman, in an interview, dismissed such charges as "fabrications" and said he did not believe they would distract from the commission's work.

"This all sounds like politics," he said. "Why should I be concerned if I know these charges have no merit?"

Judge Silberman acknowledged that he counts among his friends both Vice President Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, two of President Bush's most influential advisers on Iraq. And he said, "I plead guilty to being something of a conservative," but added that this would not color his leadership of the commission.

As for the commission members' financial interests, Judge Silberman said he was unaware that the White House planned to keep the information confidential, and he pledged to make his own disclosure form available in the coming days.

"It's plain vanilla — the only financial interests I have are mutual funds," he said.





__________________________________________________________________