Will the real turkey please stand up?
Friday, November 28, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A17520-2003Nov27.html
An Indelible Moment in A War and Presidency
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 28, 2003; Page A01
President Bush waves as he emerges from behind
camouflage netting for Thanksgiving Day dinner in Iraq.
(Pool Photo Anja Niedringhaus)
Three images tell the story of George W. Bush's presidency.
The first, of Bush and bullhorn atop the rubble at New York's Ground Zero on Sept. 14, 2001, came to symbolize his transformation into a powerful wartime president. The second, of Bush in flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, became the symbol of Bush's unrealized optimism about the U.S. military's victory in Iraq.
Yesterday, Nov. 27, 2003, brought an equally vivid but more complex image of Bush. His stealthy landing in Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day portrayed a leader well aware of the chaotic and dangerous situation in Iraq but determined to assure the Iraqi people that the United States will not, as he has put it, "cut and run."
While the troops cheered the moment, it is too soon to know whether the image of Bush in his Army jacket yesterday will become a symbol of strong leadership or a symbol of unwarranted bravado.
Iraqis may be reassured that the United States will put down the insurgency and restore order in their country. Or they may take the image of Bush landing unannounced at night without lights and not venturing from a heavily fortified military installation as confirmation that the security situation in Iraq is dire indeed.
But one thing is certain. Bush's Thanksgiving Day surprise ties him, for better or worse, ever more tightly to the outcome of the Iraq struggle.
"It raises the stakes," said Rich Bond, a former head of the Republican Party. "When you're playing poker and somebody is coming at you, a great way to deter them is to raise the stakes. George Bush just placed his stature in an extraordinary way to reassert his commitment to Iraq."
There is nothing novel about presidential visits to war zones at holiday time. Bill Clinton went to Kosovo for Thanksgiving in 1999, Lyndon B. Johnson went to Vietnam for Christmas in 1967, and President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower visited Korean battle fronts in 1952. Richard M. Nixon also traveled to Vietnam, in 1969.
It is also not unprecedented for a president to make unannounced trips in wartime under intense security. Franklin D. Roosevelt's trips to Yalta and other ports during World War II make that clear. And while people may debate the wisdom of sending Air Force One into an area known to have frequent antiaircraft fire, security experts said the secret defensive technologies on Air Force One put the plane at little risk compared with the DHL aircraft that was struck over Baghdad a few days ago.
In contrast to Bush's carrier landing, which they immediately branded a stunt, Bush's critics yesterday did not begrudge him the trip to Iraq, nor the necessary secrecy, nor even the disinformation the White House used to lead people to believe he would be at home on his ranch in Texas all day. Rather, they said the visit may come to reinforce their view that the administration has led the United States into a lonely occupation of Iraq without an obvious exit strategy.
Bush's entourage was fitted with ballistic vests, and the plane came in with neither running lights nor cabin lights, parking on a dark landing strip. "The message to the Iraqis is Bush doesn't think their country is secure," said Sidney Blumenthal, a former adviser to Clinton. "It underscores the insecurity, and it conveys insularity."
Chris Lehane, a strategist for retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential campaign, said Democrats would not fault Bush for visiting the troops.
"It's absolutely appropriate to be honoring our soldiers overseas in battle on a day like Thanksgiving," he said. "It's more important to honor them every day, which includes allowing us to appropriately honor the heroes who come back in caskets and giving our troops a strategy so they're not there next Thanksgiving."
Bush, in his brief words to the troops, had little of the braggadocio from his May 1 speech and much of the grim determination from his bullhorn speech.
There were no pithy slogans on banners behind him. "You're engaged in a difficult mission," he said, with a poor amplification quality that fit the improvised nature of the trip. "Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will."
But, he added to applause, "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins."
The message fit the mood of the weary soldiers. In the audience, Staff Sgt. Gerrie Stokes Holloman of Baltimore said she feels "depressed" being in Iraq but buoyed by Bush's visit: "For the most part, people are tired and want to go home. But the support and encouragement we get from our leadership builds a bond with our soldiers."
Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a commander during the 1991 Persian Gulf War who maintains extensive ties to the Army, predicted the visit would boost soldiers' morale. The visit "brought tears to my eyes," McCaffrey said. "This is the kind of thing that will have a major impact on their level of trust with their own commander in chief."
The visit's impact on U.S. public opinion and on the Iraqi public is not yet knowable. Though it will be to history to judge whether this third major image of Bush's presidency will become shorthand for a failed occupation or a successful war, both supporters and critics yesterday said it was appropriate to make a holiday visit to the soldiers he sent to battle -- and to bind further his political fortunes to the outcome of the mission in Iraq.
"The fact that it's on Thanksgiving is a little bit contrived, but I don't have any problem with it," said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution and a frequent critic of the president's Iraq policy. "It's politics the way it's supposed to be, in a sense."
Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.
An Indelible Moment in A War and Presidency
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 28, 2003; Page A01
President Bush waves as he emerges from behind
camouflage netting for Thanksgiving Day dinner in Iraq.
(Pool Photo Anja Niedringhaus)
Three images tell the story of George W. Bush's presidency.
The first, of Bush and bullhorn atop the rubble at New York's Ground Zero on Sept. 14, 2001, came to symbolize his transformation into a powerful wartime president. The second, of Bush in flight suit with "Mission Accomplished" banner aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln on May 1, 2003, became the symbol of Bush's unrealized optimism about the U.S. military's victory in Iraq.
Yesterday, Nov. 27, 2003, brought an equally vivid but more complex image of Bush. His stealthy landing in Baghdad on Thanksgiving Day portrayed a leader well aware of the chaotic and dangerous situation in Iraq but determined to assure the Iraqi people that the United States will not, as he has put it, "cut and run."
While the troops cheered the moment, it is too soon to know whether the image of Bush in his Army jacket yesterday will become a symbol of strong leadership or a symbol of unwarranted bravado.
Iraqis may be reassured that the United States will put down the insurgency and restore order in their country. Or they may take the image of Bush landing unannounced at night without lights and not venturing from a heavily fortified military installation as confirmation that the security situation in Iraq is dire indeed.
But one thing is certain. Bush's Thanksgiving Day surprise ties him, for better or worse, ever more tightly to the outcome of the Iraq struggle.
"It raises the stakes," said Rich Bond, a former head of the Republican Party. "When you're playing poker and somebody is coming at you, a great way to deter them is to raise the stakes. George Bush just placed his stature in an extraordinary way to reassert his commitment to Iraq."
There is nothing novel about presidential visits to war zones at holiday time. Bill Clinton went to Kosovo for Thanksgiving in 1999, Lyndon B. Johnson went to Vietnam for Christmas in 1967, and President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower visited Korean battle fronts in 1952. Richard M. Nixon also traveled to Vietnam, in 1969.
It is also not unprecedented for a president to make unannounced trips in wartime under intense security. Franklin D. Roosevelt's trips to Yalta and other ports during World War II make that clear. And while people may debate the wisdom of sending Air Force One into an area known to have frequent antiaircraft fire, security experts said the secret defensive technologies on Air Force One put the plane at little risk compared with the DHL aircraft that was struck over Baghdad a few days ago.
In contrast to Bush's carrier landing, which they immediately branded a stunt, Bush's critics yesterday did not begrudge him the trip to Iraq, nor the necessary secrecy, nor even the disinformation the White House used to lead people to believe he would be at home on his ranch in Texas all day. Rather, they said the visit may come to reinforce their view that the administration has led the United States into a lonely occupation of Iraq without an obvious exit strategy.
Bush's entourage was fitted with ballistic vests, and the plane came in with neither running lights nor cabin lights, parking on a dark landing strip. "The message to the Iraqis is Bush doesn't think their country is secure," said Sidney Blumenthal, a former adviser to Clinton. "It underscores the insecurity, and it conveys insularity."
Chris Lehane, a strategist for retired Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential campaign, said Democrats would not fault Bush for visiting the troops.
"It's absolutely appropriate to be honoring our soldiers overseas in battle on a day like Thanksgiving," he said. "It's more important to honor them every day, which includes allowing us to appropriately honor the heroes who come back in caskets and giving our troops a strategy so they're not there next Thanksgiving."
Bush, in his brief words to the troops, had little of the braggadocio from his May 1 speech and much of the grim determination from his bullhorn speech.
There were no pithy slogans on banners behind him. "You're engaged in a difficult mission," he said, with a poor amplification quality that fit the improvised nature of the trip. "Those who attack our coalition forces and kill innocent Iraqis are testing our will."
But, he added to applause, "We did not charge hundreds of miles into the heart of Iraq, pay a bitter cost in casualties, defeat a brutal dictator and liberate 25 million people only to retreat before a band of thugs and assassins."
The message fit the mood of the weary soldiers. In the audience, Staff Sgt. Gerrie Stokes Holloman of Baltimore said she feels "depressed" being in Iraq but buoyed by Bush's visit: "For the most part, people are tired and want to go home. But the support and encouragement we get from our leadership builds a bond with our soldiers."
Retired Army Gen. Barry R. McCaffrey, a commander during the 1991 Persian Gulf War who maintains extensive ties to the Army, predicted the visit would boost soldiers' morale. The visit "brought tears to my eyes," McCaffrey said. "This is the kind of thing that will have a major impact on their level of trust with their own commander in chief."
The visit's impact on U.S. public opinion and on the Iraqi public is not yet knowable. Though it will be to history to judge whether this third major image of Bush's presidency will become shorthand for a failed occupation or a successful war, both supporters and critics yesterday said it was appropriate to make a holiday visit to the soldiers he sent to battle -- and to bind further his political fortunes to the outcome of the mission in Iraq.
"The fact that it's on Thanksgiving is a little bit contrived, but I don't have any problem with it," said Michael O'Hanlon, a defense analyst at the Brookings Institution and a frequent critic of the president's Iraq policy. "It's politics the way it's supposed to be, in a sense."
Staff writer Vernon Loeb contributed to this report.
Thursday, November 27, 2003
http://www.suntimes.com/output/novak/cst-edt-novak27.html
GOP pulled no punches in struggle for Medicare bill
November 27, 2003
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
During 14 years in the Michigan Legislature and 11 years in Congress, Rep. Nick Smith had never experienced anything like it. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, in the wee hours last Saturday morning, pressed him to vote for the Medicare bill. But Smith refused. Then things got personal.
Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.
The bill providing prescription drug benefits under Medicare would have been easily defeated by Republicans save for the most efficient party whip operation in congressional history. Although President Bush had to be awakened to collect the last two votes, Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Majority Whip Roy Blunt made it that close. ''DeLay the Hammer'' on Saturday morning was hammering fellow conservatives.
Last Friday night, Rep. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania hosted a dinner at the Hunan restaurant on Capitol Hill for 30 Republicans opposed to the bill. They agreed on a scaled-down plan devised by Toomey and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. It would cover only seniors without private prescription drug insurance, while retaining the bill's authorization of private health savings accounts. First, they had to defeat their president and their congressional leadership.
They almost did. There were only 210 yes votes after an hour (long past the usual time for House roll calls), against 224 no's. A weary George W. Bush, just returned from Europe, was awakened at 4 a.m. to make personal calls to House members.
Republicans voting against the bill were told they were endangering their political futures. Major contributors warned Rep. Jim DeMint they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina. A Missouri state legislator called Rep. Todd Akin to threaten a primary challenge against him.
Intense pressure, including a call from the president, was put on freshman Rep. Tom Feeney. As speaker of the Florida House, he was a stalwart for Bush in his state's 2000 vote recount. He is the Class of 2002's contact with the House leadership, marking him as a future party leader. But now, in those early morning hours, Feeney was told a ''no'' vote would delay his ascent into leadership by three years -- maybe more.
Feeney held firm against the bill. So did DeMint and Akin. And so did Nick Smith. A steadfast party regular, he has pioneered private Social Security accounts. But he could not swallow the unfunded liabilities in this Medicare bill. The 69-year-old former dairy farmer this week was still reeling from the threat to his son. ''It was absolutely too personal,'' he told me. Over the telephone from Michigan on Saturday, Brad Smith urged his father to vote his conscience.
However, the leadership was picking off Republican dissenters, including eight of 13 House members who signed a Sept. 17 letter authored by Toomey pledging to support only a Medicare bill very different from the measure on the floor Saturday. That raised the Republican total to 216, still two votes short.
The president took to the phone, but at least two Republicans turned him down. Finally, Bush talked Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona (a ninth defector from the Toomey letter) and Butch Otter of Idaho -- into voting ''yes.'' They were warned that if this measure failed, the much more liberal Democratic bill would be brought up and passed.
The conservative Club for Growth's Steve Moore, writing to the organization's directors and founders, said defeat of the Medicare bill ''would have been a shot across the bow at the Republican establishment that conservatives are sick of the spending splurge that is going on inside Washington these last few years.''
Hammering the conservatives to prevent that may have been only a short-term triumph.
GOP pulled no punches in struggle for Medicare bill
November 27, 2003
BY ROBERT NOVAK SUN-TIMES COLUMNIST
During 14 years in the Michigan Legislature and 11 years in Congress, Rep. Nick Smith had never experienced anything like it. House Speaker Dennis Hastert and Health and Human Services Secretary Tommy Thompson, in the wee hours last Saturday morning, pressed him to vote for the Medicare bill. But Smith refused. Then things got personal.
Smith, self term-limited, is leaving Congress. His lawyer son Brad is one of five Republicans seeking to replace him from a GOP district in Michigan's southern tier. On the House floor, Nick Smith was told business interests would give his son $100,000 in return for his father's vote. When he still declined, fellow Republican House members told him they would make sure Brad Smith never came to Congress. After Nick Smith voted no and the bill passed, Duke Cunningham of California and other Republicans taunted him that his son was dead meat.
The bill providing prescription drug benefits under Medicare would have been easily defeated by Republicans save for the most efficient party whip operation in congressional history. Although President Bush had to be awakened to collect the last two votes, Majority Leader Tom DeLay and Majority Whip Roy Blunt made it that close. ''DeLay the Hammer'' on Saturday morning was hammering fellow conservatives.
Last Friday night, Rep. Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania hosted a dinner at the Hunan restaurant on Capitol Hill for 30 Republicans opposed to the bill. They agreed on a scaled-down plan devised by Toomey and Rep. Mike Pence of Indiana. It would cover only seniors without private prescription drug insurance, while retaining the bill's authorization of private health savings accounts. First, they had to defeat their president and their congressional leadership.
They almost did. There were only 210 yes votes after an hour (long past the usual time for House roll calls), against 224 no's. A weary George W. Bush, just returned from Europe, was awakened at 4 a.m. to make personal calls to House members.
Republicans voting against the bill were told they were endangering their political futures. Major contributors warned Rep. Jim DeMint they would cut off funding for his Senate race in South Carolina. A Missouri state legislator called Rep. Todd Akin to threaten a primary challenge against him.
Intense pressure, including a call from the president, was put on freshman Rep. Tom Feeney. As speaker of the Florida House, he was a stalwart for Bush in his state's 2000 vote recount. He is the Class of 2002's contact with the House leadership, marking him as a future party leader. But now, in those early morning hours, Feeney was told a ''no'' vote would delay his ascent into leadership by three years -- maybe more.
Feeney held firm against the bill. So did DeMint and Akin. And so did Nick Smith. A steadfast party regular, he has pioneered private Social Security accounts. But he could not swallow the unfunded liabilities in this Medicare bill. The 69-year-old former dairy farmer this week was still reeling from the threat to his son. ''It was absolutely too personal,'' he told me. Over the telephone from Michigan on Saturday, Brad Smith urged his father to vote his conscience.
However, the leadership was picking off Republican dissenters, including eight of 13 House members who signed a Sept. 17 letter authored by Toomey pledging to support only a Medicare bill very different from the measure on the floor Saturday. That raised the Republican total to 216, still two votes short.
The president took to the phone, but at least two Republicans turned him down. Finally, Bush talked Reps. Trent Franks of Arizona (a ninth defector from the Toomey letter) and Butch Otter of Idaho -- into voting ''yes.'' They were warned that if this measure failed, the much more liberal Democratic bill would be brought up and passed.
The conservative Club for Growth's Steve Moore, writing to the organization's directors and founders, said defeat of the Medicare bill ''would have been a shot across the bow at the Republican establishment that conservatives are sick of the spending splurge that is going on inside Washington these last few years.''
Hammering the conservatives to prevent that may have been only a short-term triumph.
Wednesday, November 26, 2003
Business Deals of Bush Brother Detailed in Divorce
(2003-11-25) HOUSTON (Reuters) - Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.
Visit this link for the full story:
http://publicbroadcasting.net/phoenix/news/content/573478.html
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to continually be part of unanimity." -- Christopher Morley
(2003-11-25) HOUSTON (Reuters) - Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.
Visit this link for the full story:
http://publicbroadcasting.net/phoenix/news/content/573478.html
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"Read, every day, something no one else is reading. Think, every day, something no one else is thinking. Do, every day, something no one else would be silly enough to do. It is bad for the mind to continually be part of unanimity." -- Christopher Morley
Sunday, November 23, 2003
GROUND FARCE 1 Nov 23 2003
Queen's fury as Bush goons wreck garden
Exclusive By Terry O'Hanlon
THE Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace.
Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.
The rotors of the President's Marine Force One helicopter and two support Black Hawks damaged trees and shrubs that had survived since Queen Victoria's reign.
And Bush's army of clod-hopping security service men trampled more precious and exotic plants.
The Queen's own flock of flamingoes, which security staff insisted should be moved in case they flew into the helicopter rotors, are thought to be so traumatised after being taken to a "place of safety" that they might never return home.
The historic fabric of the Palace was also damaged as high-tech links were fitted for the US leader and his entourage during his three-day stay with the Queen.
The Palace's head gardener, Mark Lane, was reported to be in tears when he saw the scale of the damage.
"The Queen has every right to feel insulted at the way she has been treated by Bush," said a Palace insider.
"The repairs will cost tens of thousands of pounds but the damage to historic and rare plants will be immense. They are still taking an inventory.
"The lawns are used for royal garden parties and are beautifully kept. But 30,000 visitors did not do as much damage as the Americans did in three days.
"Their security people and support staff tramped all over the place and left an absolute mess. It is particularly sad because the Queen Mother loved to wander in the garden just as the Queen and Prince Charles do now.
"Some of the roses, flowers and shrubs damaged are thought to be rare varieties named after members of the Royal Family and planted by the Queen Mother and Queen.
"Other Royals had their own favourite parts of the garden as children and some of those areas have been damaged."
The Queen's insurers have told her she is covered for statues, garden furniture and plants she personally owns, but the bill for repairing damage to the lawns and the structure of the Palace will probably have to be picked up by the Government.
The Americans made alterations to accommodate specialised equipment. The mass of gadgetry meant the Royals couldn't get a decent TV picture during the visit.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Queen's fury as Bush goons wreck garden
Exclusive By Terry O'Hanlon
THE Queen is furious with President George W. Bush after his state visit caused thousands of pounds of damage to her gardens at Buckingham Palace.
Royal officials are now in touch with the Queen's insurers and Prime Minister Tony Blair to find out who will pick up the massive repair bill. Palace staff said they had never seen the Queen so angry as when she saw how her perfectly-mantained lawns had been churned up after being turned into helipads with three giant H landing markings for the Bush visit.
The rotors of the President's Marine Force One helicopter and two support Black Hawks damaged trees and shrubs that had survived since Queen Victoria's reign.
And Bush's army of clod-hopping security service men trampled more precious and exotic plants.
The Queen's own flock of flamingoes, which security staff insisted should be moved in case they flew into the helicopter rotors, are thought to be so traumatised after being taken to a "place of safety" that they might never return home.
The historic fabric of the Palace was also damaged as high-tech links were fitted for the US leader and his entourage during his three-day stay with the Queen.
The Palace's head gardener, Mark Lane, was reported to be in tears when he saw the scale of the damage.
"The Queen has every right to feel insulted at the way she has been treated by Bush," said a Palace insider.
"The repairs will cost tens of thousands of pounds but the damage to historic and rare plants will be immense. They are still taking an inventory.
"The lawns are used for royal garden parties and are beautifully kept. But 30,000 visitors did not do as much damage as the Americans did in three days.
"Their security people and support staff tramped all over the place and left an absolute mess. It is particularly sad because the Queen Mother loved to wander in the garden just as the Queen and Prince Charles do now.
"Some of the roses, flowers and shrubs damaged are thought to be rare varieties named after members of the Royal Family and planted by the Queen Mother and Queen.
"Other Royals had their own favourite parts of the garden as children and some of those areas have been damaged."
The Queen's insurers have told her she is covered for statues, garden furniture and plants she personally owns, but the bill for repairing damage to the lawns and the structure of the Palace will probably have to be picked up by the Government.
The Americans made alterations to accommodate specialised equipment. The mass of gadgetry meant the Royals couldn't get a decent TV picture during the visit.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
----- Original Message -----
From: Claudia D. Dikinis
To: Claudia D. Dikinis
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Text of my resignation letter to AARP
Dear AARP:
Enclosed please find my membership card to AARP. Please cancel my membership immediately.
You have, without my permission, used my membership dues to finance special interest lobbying in support of the Republican Right Wing’s so-called prescription drug plan for Medicare.
You have further misappropriated membership dues for television ads sanctioned by right wing CEO William Novelli, champion of extremist Newt Gingrich and other anti-American politicians and lobbyists, who seek to undermine the will of the members of your organization.
You are in breach of contract with your membership, by having committed fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of your fiduciary duty by using AARP to promote the narrow special interest agenda of Novelli, Gingrich, et al.
I am ashamed and saddened that I ever bothered joining your organization. I have been betrayed by having been used as an instrument for the Republican Right Wing.
I will continue in all ways possible to alert people to the truth of AARP and do my level best to get as many people as possible to resign from your organization.
If money is all you care about, then it looks like the American people are just going to have to take it away from you.
Maybe then you’ll listen.
Sincerely,
Claudia D. Dikinis
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
From: Claudia D. Dikinis
To: Claudia D. Dikinis
Sent: Sunday, November 23, 2003 4:02 PM
Subject: Text of my resignation letter to AARP
Dear AARP:
Enclosed please find my membership card to AARP. Please cancel my membership immediately.
You have, without my permission, used my membership dues to finance special interest lobbying in support of the Republican Right Wing’s so-called prescription drug plan for Medicare.
You have further misappropriated membership dues for television ads sanctioned by right wing CEO William Novelli, champion of extremist Newt Gingrich and other anti-American politicians and lobbyists, who seek to undermine the will of the members of your organization.
You are in breach of contract with your membership, by having committed fraud, misrepresentation, and breach of your fiduciary duty by using AARP to promote the narrow special interest agenda of Novelli, Gingrich, et al.
I am ashamed and saddened that I ever bothered joining your organization. I have been betrayed by having been used as an instrument for the Republican Right Wing.
I will continue in all ways possible to alert people to the truth of AARP and do my level best to get as many people as possible to resign from your organization.
If money is all you care about, then it looks like the American people are just going to have to take it away from you.
Maybe then you’ll listen.
Sincerely,
Claudia D. Dikinis
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Friday, November 21, 2003
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=3845856
U.S.'s 'Iron Hammer' Code Name 1st Used by Nazis
Tue November 18, 2003 01:18 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military's code name for a crackdown on
resistance in Iraq was also used by the Nazis for an aborted operation
to damage the Soviet power grid during World War II.
"Operation Iron Hammer" this week launched the 1st Armored Division's
3rd Brigade into the roughest parts of Baghdad to ferret out the
attackers who have killed scores of U.S. troops since Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in April.
A Pentagon official said the name was chosen because of the "Old
Ironsides" nickname of the 1st Armored Division. He was unaware of any
connection to any Nazi operation.
"Eisenhammer," the German for "iron hammer," was a Luftwaffe code name
for a plan to destroy Soviet generating plants in the Moscow and Gorky
areas in 1943, according to Universal Lexikon on the www.infobitte.de
Web site.
A researcher at Britain's Imperial War Museum confirmed the existence of
Eisenhammer.
The Nazi's long-range bombing operation was repeatedly postponed and was
finally scrapped after an allied air assault destroyed many of the
German planes on the ground in 1945, shortly before the defeat of Germany.
After it declared war on terrorism, U.S. officials changed the code name
for its impending attack on Afghanistan to Operation Enduring Freedom.
The original name, Operation Infinite Justice, was jettisoned amid fears
that the Muslim world, already leery of U.S. intentions, would object on
the basis of Koranic teachings that only God can provide infinite justice.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
U.S.'s 'Iron Hammer' Code Name 1st Used by Nazis
Tue November 18, 2003 01:18 PM ET
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. military's code name for a crackdown on
resistance in Iraq was also used by the Nazis for an aborted operation
to damage the Soviet power grid during World War II.
"Operation Iron Hammer" this week launched the 1st Armored Division's
3rd Brigade into the roughest parts of Baghdad to ferret out the
attackers who have killed scores of U.S. troops since Iraqi leader
Saddam Hussein was ousted in April.
A Pentagon official said the name was chosen because of the "Old
Ironsides" nickname of the 1st Armored Division. He was unaware of any
connection to any Nazi operation.
"Eisenhammer," the German for "iron hammer," was a Luftwaffe code name
for a plan to destroy Soviet generating plants in the Moscow and Gorky
areas in 1943, according to Universal Lexikon on the www.infobitte.de
Web site.
A researcher at Britain's Imperial War Museum confirmed the existence of
Eisenhammer.
The Nazi's long-range bombing operation was repeatedly postponed and was
finally scrapped after an allied air assault destroyed many of the
German planes on the ground in 1945, shortly before the defeat of Germany.
After it declared war on terrorism, U.S. officials changed the code name
for its impending attack on Afghanistan to Operation Enduring Freedom.
The original name, Operation Infinite Justice, was jettisoned amid fears
that the Muslim world, already leery of U.S. intentions, would object on
the basis of Koranic teachings that only God can provide infinite justice.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Sunday, November 16, 2003
Better Left Unsaid!
1. Weightlifting commentator at the Olympic Snatch and Jerk Event: "This is
Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up
and it was amazing."
2. Ted Walsh - Horse Racing Commentator: "This is really a lovely horse and
I speak from personal experience since I once mounted her mother."
3. Grand Prix Race Announcer: "The lead car is absolutely, truly unique,
except for the one behind it which is exactly identical to the one in front
of the similar one in back."
4. Greg Norman, Pro Golfer: "I owe a lot to my parents, especially my
mother and father."
5. Ringside Boxing Analyst: "Sure there have been injuries and even some
deaths in boxing - but none of them really that serious."
6. Baseball announcer: "If history repeats itself, I should think we can
expect the same thing again."
7. Basketball analyst: "He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like
it. In fact you can see it all over their faces."
8. At a trophy ceremony BBC TV Boat Race 1988: "Ah, isn't that nice, the
wife of the Cambridge president is hugging the cox of the Oxford crew."
9. Metro Radio, College Football: "Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like
they've got eleven Dicks on the field."
10. US Open TV Commentator: "One of the reasons Arnie Palmer is playing so
well is that, before each final round, his wife takes out his balls and
kisses them. Oh my God, what have I just said?"
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
1. Weightlifting commentator at the Olympic Snatch and Jerk Event: "This is
Gregoriava from Bulgaria. I saw her snatch this morning during her warm up
and it was amazing."
2. Ted Walsh - Horse Racing Commentator: "This is really a lovely horse and
I speak from personal experience since I once mounted her mother."
3. Grand Prix Race Announcer: "The lead car is absolutely, truly unique,
except for the one behind it which is exactly identical to the one in front
of the similar one in back."
4. Greg Norman, Pro Golfer: "I owe a lot to my parents, especially my
mother and father."
5. Ringside Boxing Analyst: "Sure there have been injuries and even some
deaths in boxing - but none of them really that serious."
6. Baseball announcer: "If history repeats itself, I should think we can
expect the same thing again."
7. Basketball analyst: "He dribbles a lot and the opposition doesn't like
it. In fact you can see it all over their faces."
8. At a trophy ceremony BBC TV Boat Race 1988: "Ah, isn't that nice, the
wife of the Cambridge president is hugging the cox of the Oxford crew."
9. Metro Radio, College Football: "Julian Dicks is everywhere. It's like
they've got eleven Dicks on the field."
10. US Open TV Commentator: "One of the reasons Arnie Palmer is playing so
well is that, before each final round, his wife takes out his balls and
kisses them. Oh my God, what have I just said?"
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Thursday, November 13, 2003
WATCH NOVA ON PBS NEXT TUESDAY NIGHT:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
Something potentially earth shattering is brewing deep within the planet's molten core. As much as we hate to admit it, some acts of nature are firmly beyond our control. Case in point is the possible magnetic storm headed our way. PBS offers this timely look at our mysterious magnetic field and how this necessary component to life on Earth could reverse, or even disappear and wreak untold havoc.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/magnetic/
Something potentially earth shattering is brewing deep within the planet's molten core. As much as we hate to admit it, some acts of nature are firmly beyond our control. Case in point is the possible magnetic storm headed our way. PBS offers this timely look at our mysterious magnetic field and how this necessary component to life on Earth could reverse, or even disappear and wreak untold havoc.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Wednesday, November 12, 2003
http://www.buzzflash.com/contributors/03/11/con03340.html
November 12, 2003
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by AWOLBush.com
Mr. Buzz,
Did you notice how the 30 day deadline on El Drugbo's rehab came and went without comment from anyone? Not good. We need to keep this issue front and center.
* * *
The Hillbilly Heroin Update
November 11, 2003
It's been 33 days since Rush Limbaugh abandoned his ditto monkeys for a rubber room at the Hotel California (you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave). For the first time in 15 years, what's left of American culture has brief respite from Slimebaugh's frenzied right wing disinformation campaign.
As El Lardbo's drug saturated brain dries out, the mean and stupid of the world are sobering up from a 15 year hate binge. Not a pretty sight ... and the number of anti-drug rants from Limbaugh's substitute hosts? El Zero.
So where do we stand at this point? Let's review, shall we?
* * *
The official spin on the Maha Gasbag's fall from grace is:
1. Everyone makes mistakes;
2. Anyone can become addicted to drugs;
3. He deserves a second chance;
4. Blah, blah, blah...
This is what's known as the Change The Subject Doctrine. Popular with the Unelected Fratboy Administration.
The real issue isn't wether or not Limbaugh is a drug addict. It's true anyone can fall prey to addiction (just make sure you're rich and politically connected when you get caught). The real issue is that, according to reports, Mr. Family Values knowingly broke the drug laws FOR YEARS. He also pressured his housekeeper (an employee) into breaking the drug laws. All this coming from someone who's built a lucrative career on ruthlessly attacking the frailties of other people.
Imagine if a prominent Democrat were in El Blowhard's shoes. The media storm from the radical right wing would be deafening, with Limbaugh leading the charge.
It will be interesting to see how this latest, and most flagrant right wing hypocrisy to date, shakes out with Limbaugh's hardcore following -- the ditto monkeys. The smart money says he'll emerge from this scandal as someone who courageously "took responsibility" for and overcame an addiction to drugs. The wanton, long term violation of the drug laws will be conveniently overlooked. Classic Republican hypocrisy not seen since a lynch mob of right wing adulterers crucified President Clinton for ... adultery.
Double Standard Alert!
Remember, during the impeachment farce of our last legally elected President, all those self righteous sermons about the "rule of law"?
And finally -- as for those government ads about illegal drug use helping terrorists -- not to worry. There won't be any secret tribunals for the Maha Junkie.
http://www.awolbush.com
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
November 12, 2003
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
by AWOLBush.com
Mr. Buzz,
Did you notice how the 30 day deadline on El Drugbo's rehab came and went without comment from anyone? Not good. We need to keep this issue front and center.
* * *
The Hillbilly Heroin Update
November 11, 2003
It's been 33 days since Rush Limbaugh abandoned his ditto monkeys for a rubber room at the Hotel California (you can check out any time you like, but you can never leave). For the first time in 15 years, what's left of American culture has brief respite from Slimebaugh's frenzied right wing disinformation campaign.
As El Lardbo's drug saturated brain dries out, the mean and stupid of the world are sobering up from a 15 year hate binge. Not a pretty sight ... and the number of anti-drug rants from Limbaugh's substitute hosts? El Zero.
So where do we stand at this point? Let's review, shall we?
* * *
The official spin on the Maha Gasbag's fall from grace is:
1. Everyone makes mistakes;
2. Anyone can become addicted to drugs;
3. He deserves a second chance;
4. Blah, blah, blah...
This is what's known as the Change The Subject Doctrine. Popular with the Unelected Fratboy Administration.
The real issue isn't wether or not Limbaugh is a drug addict. It's true anyone can fall prey to addiction (just make sure you're rich and politically connected when you get caught). The real issue is that, according to reports, Mr. Family Values knowingly broke the drug laws FOR YEARS. He also pressured his housekeeper (an employee) into breaking the drug laws. All this coming from someone who's built a lucrative career on ruthlessly attacking the frailties of other people.
Imagine if a prominent Democrat were in El Blowhard's shoes. The media storm from the radical right wing would be deafening, with Limbaugh leading the charge.
It will be interesting to see how this latest, and most flagrant right wing hypocrisy to date, shakes out with Limbaugh's hardcore following -- the ditto monkeys. The smart money says he'll emerge from this scandal as someone who courageously "took responsibility" for and overcame an addiction to drugs. The wanton, long term violation of the drug laws will be conveniently overlooked. Classic Republican hypocrisy not seen since a lynch mob of right wing adulterers crucified President Clinton for ... adultery.
Double Standard Alert!
Remember, during the impeachment farce of our last legally elected President, all those self righteous sermons about the "rule of law"?
And finally -- as for those government ads about illegal drug use helping terrorists -- not to worry. There won't be any secret tribunals for the Maha Junkie.
http://www.awolbush.com
A BUZZFLASH READER COMMENTARY
Tuesday, November 11, 2003
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/politics/story.jsp?story=462607
President George Bush now faces a dilemma over whether to back down and remove the steel tariffs. The American government issued a statement yesterday saying that it disagreed with the ruling but would study it carefully.
The WTO's decision comes at a sensitive time, with the US presidential campaign about to begin in earnest. In drawing up its list of sanctions, the EU has deliberately selected products from states which are crucial to President Bush's electoral hopes.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
President George Bush now faces a dilemma over whether to back down and remove the steel tariffs. The American government issued a statement yesterday saying that it disagreed with the ruling but would study it carefully.
The WTO's decision comes at a sensitive time, with the US presidential campaign about to begin in earnest. In drawing up its list of sanctions, the EU has deliberately selected products from states which are crucial to President Bush's electoral hopes.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
First Christmas joke of the season (NOT):
A Christmas Story
Three men died on Christmas Eve and were met
by Saint Peter at the pearly gates.
"In honor of this holy season," Saint Peter said,
"you must each possess something that symbolizes
Christmas to get into heaven."
The first man fumbled through his pockets and
pulled out a lighter. He flicked it on. It represents
a candle, he said. You may pass through the
pearly gates Saint Peter said.
The second man reached into his pocket and
pulled out a set of keys. He shook them and
said, "They're bells". Saint Peter said you may
pass through the pearly gates.
The third man started searching desperately through
his pockets and finally pulled out a pair of women's
panties. St. Peter looked at the man with a raised
eyebrow and asked, "And just what do those symbolize?"
The man replied, "They're Carol's".
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
A Christmas Story
Three men died on Christmas Eve and were met
by Saint Peter at the pearly gates.
"In honor of this holy season," Saint Peter said,
"you must each possess something that symbolizes
Christmas to get into heaven."
The first man fumbled through his pockets and
pulled out a lighter. He flicked it on. It represents
a candle, he said. You may pass through the
pearly gates Saint Peter said.
The second man reached into his pocket and
pulled out a set of keys. He shook them and
said, "They're bells". Saint Peter said you may
pass through the pearly gates.
The third man started searching desperately through
his pockets and finally pulled out a pair of women's
panties. St. Peter looked at the man with a raised
eyebrow and asked, "And just what do those symbolize?"
The man replied, "They're Carol's".
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Sunday, November 09, 2003
'No President has lied so boldly and so often and so demonstrably'
By Andrew Gumbel
09 November 2003
"The intelligence process is a bit like virginity," says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. "Once you prostitute it, it's never the same. Your credibility never recovers.
"Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped."
Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air.
Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President's daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.
What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. "The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That's very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It's so blatant."
Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry.
"Many of us felt there had to be something there ... If this had been another country, one would have written a convincing analysis that this guy is lying through his teeth, that there are no weapons in Iraq. But people thought, the President can't say he knows something if he doesn't. That was persuasive, in a way.
"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."
It will, Mr McGovern believes, take a change of president and a change of CIA director to even begin to repair the damage done by what he sees as an overt politicisation of the intelligence business. But even that may not be enough.
"Unless what has happened in the past year and a half is recognised as a scandal, in which the CIA has been badly abused, then there's no hope," he said. "I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days. Turns out, surprise surprise, that even the US press doesn't like to be lied to."
By Andrew Gumbel
09 November 2003
"The intelligence process is a bit like virginity," says Ray McGovern, who worked as a CIA analyst for 27 years. "Once you prostitute it, it's never the same. Your credibility never recovers.
"Watching what has happened with Iraq over the past several months has been like watching your daughter being raped."
Such is an indication of the extraordinary depth of feeling within the US intelligence community as the Bush administration's basis for the war in Iraq - the weapons of mass destruction, the dark hint of links between Saddam Hussein and al-Qa'ida - has been shown to have been built on air.
Mr McGovern worked near the very top of his profession, giving direct advice to Henry Kissinger during the Nixon era and preparing the President's daily security brief for Ronald Reagan. Now he is co-founder of a group of former CIA employees called Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity, or Vips for short.
What the Bush White House has done, he believes, is far worse than the false premise that dragged the United States into the Vietnam War - a reported second attack on a US destroyer in the Gulf of Tonkin which later turned out not to have taken place. "The Gulf of Tonkin was a spur-of-the-moment thing, and Lyndon Johnson seized on that. That's very different from the very calculated, 18-month, orchestrated, incredibly cynical campaign of lies that we've seen to justify a war. This is an order of magnitude different. It's so blatant."
Mr McGovern accuses Mr Bush of an extraordinary act of chutzpah - taking advantage of his authority as President of the United States to make people believe there must be something to his insistent allegations that Iraq possessed potentially devastating weaponry.
"Many of us felt there had to be something there ... If this had been another country, one would have written a convincing analysis that this guy is lying through his teeth, that there are no weapons in Iraq. But people thought, the President can't say he knows something if he doesn't. That was persuasive, in a way.
"Now we know that no other President of the United States has ever lied so baldly and so often and so demonstrably ... The presumption now has to be that he's lying any time that he's saying anything."
It will, Mr McGovern believes, take a change of president and a change of CIA director to even begin to repair the damage done by what he sees as an overt politicisation of the intelligence business. But even that may not be enough.
"Unless what has happened in the past year and a half is recognised as a scandal, in which the CIA has been badly abused, then there's no hope," he said. "I pin my hopes mostly on the press these days. Turns out, surprise surprise, that even the US press doesn't like to be lied to."
Friday, November 07, 2003
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9708-2003Nov6.html
White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A29
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer questions "in a timely fashion."
It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen.
"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."
Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
Campen's e-mail wording suggests the policy may extend to other inquiries about the functioning of the Executive Office of the President, but the immediate targets were the spending committees. For years, those panels had a strong bipartisan tradition in which the majority party generally joined the minority in tough oversight of the administration.
Brookings Institution government scholar Thomas Mann said the Democrats have little ability to challenge the decision. "This is just one of many instances where Republicans have a legal basis for what they're doing, but it violates long-standing norms," he said. All the Democrats can do, he said, "is carp."
The White House said it is in discussions to reach an amicable compromise. "There have been staff-level discussions about ways to better coordinate requests from Congress," said spokeswoman Ashley Snee. "It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask questions without the consent of the majority."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
White House Puts Limits on Queries From Democrats
By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, November 7, 2003; Page A29
The Bush White House, irritated by pesky questions from congressional Democrats about how the administration is using taxpayer money, has developed an efficient solution: It will not entertain any more questions from opposition lawmakers.
The decision -- one that Democrats and scholars said is highly unusual -- was announced in an e-mail sent Wednesday to the staff of the House and Senate Appropriations Committees. House committee Democrats had just asked for information about how much the White House spent making and installing the "Mission Accomplished" banner for President Bush's May 1 speech aboard the USS Abraham Lincoln.
The director of the White House Office of Administration, Timothy A. Campen, sent an e-mail titled "congressional questions" to majority and minority staff on the House and Senate Appropriations panels. Expressing "the need to add a bit of structure to the Q&A process," he wrote: "Given the increase in the number and types of requests we are beginning to receive from the House and Senate, and in deference to the various committee chairmen and our desire to better coordinate these requests, I am asking that all requests for information and materials be coordinated through the committee chairmen and be put in writing from the committee."
He said this would limit "duplicate requests" and help answer questions "in a timely fashion."
It would also do another thing: prevent Democrats from getting questions answered without the blessing of the GOP committee chairmen.
"It's saying we're not going to allow the opposition party to ask questions about the way we use tax money," said R. Scott Lilly, Democratic staff director for the House committee. "As far as I know, this is without modern precedent."
Norman Ornstein, a congressional specialist at the American Enterprise Institute, agreed. "I have not heard of anything like that happening before," he said. "This is obviously an excuse to avoid providing information about some of the things the Democrats are asking for."
Campen's e-mail wording suggests the policy may extend to other inquiries about the functioning of the Executive Office of the President, but the immediate targets were the spending committees. For years, those panels had a strong bipartisan tradition in which the majority party generally joined the minority in tough oversight of the administration.
Brookings Institution government scholar Thomas Mann said the Democrats have little ability to challenge the decision. "This is just one of many instances where Republicans have a legal basis for what they're doing, but it violates long-standing norms," he said. All the Democrats can do, he said, "is carp."
The White House said it is in discussions to reach an amicable compromise. "There have been staff-level discussions about ways to better coordinate requests from Congress," said spokeswoman Ashley Snee. "It was not the intent to suggest minority members should not ask questions without the consent of the majority."
© 2003 The Washington Post Company
Wednesday, November 05, 2003
http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editorial_opinion/
How the White House deletes the truth
By Derrick Z. Jackson, 11/5/2003
This is the same president who erases history itself.
Bush's desire for us to become ostriches over the deaths and wounding of American soldiers in Iraq -- 379 dead and 2,155 hurt at last count -- is but one more pathological act in sticking all of America into the sand. Bush severely limited access to the presidential papers of his father. Vice President Dick Cheney erected an iron curtain around his energy task force. Hundreds of Muslim immigrants were detained without due process and with no evidence they were involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The administration wiped out parts of an Environmental Protection Agency report that specifically tied human activities to global warming.
Bush has his eraser out again. The Justice Department recently released a commissioned report on diversity among its attorneys. Half of its 186 pages were blacked out.
The Bush administration made sure to filter in the good news in the report. The federal government, regardless of which party is in power, has long been more inviting to people of color at the entry level than the private sector. The Justice Department is no different. Its attorney work force is 15 percent of color and 38 percent women, compared to 12 percent and 30 percent, respectively, in the national legal labor pool.
The blacked-out pages betray a Justice Department that does not want America to know what happens after people are hired. The full report is available on a Web site called the Memory Hole, which electronically lifted the blacked-out sections. Among the conclusions of the full report were:
"When controlling for component, grade, and salary, we found that the average minority is currently residing approximately one-third step lower than the average white and the average woman is currently residing approximately one-half step lower than the average man. These effects are statistically significant."
"Race and gender combine for a particularly strong negative effect of identity for minority women."
"Section chiefs are an extremely critical element of the department's diversity climate. They have significant authority in recruitment, hiring, promotion, performance appraisal, case assignment, and career development. The section chief work force is not diverse, and turnover is low. This pattern, combined with the generally low attention that these managers pay to staff career development, leads minorities to perceive a lack of advancement opportunities."
The sections on "stereotyping," "racial and gender tension," "harassment behavior," and "mentoring," were completely blacked out. Asked if employees felt free to "express differences that may be due to different cultural backgrounds," 83 percent of white men and 73 percent of white women said yes. Only 56 percent of men of color and 42 percent of women of color said yes.
Deleted was this statement: "More than 40 percent of racial minorities participating in the study believe that stereotyping of minorities having limited abilities is a problem. Further analysis shows that an actual majority (51 percent) of nonwhite women hold this belief. Although we do not know the extent to which this belief is based on actual differential treatment of people, it clearly represents a barrier to the goal of creating an environment where all members feel equally valued and able to contribute."
An further analysis provides an even more deeper divide. While only 13 percent of white attorneys at the Justice Department say people of color are stereotyped, 60 percent of African-American lawyers say attorneys of color "are often stereotyped here."
Deleted was a paragraph that showed that about 20 percent of lawyers of color say they have personally experienced racial harassment at the department. Deleted was the fact that only 53 percent of attorneys of color felt that the promotion process was fair with respect to color compared with 87 percent of white attorneys. Deleted was the fact that 60 percent of women felt that the promotion process was fair with regards to gender, compared with 81 percent of men.
Deleted was the fact that only 45 percent of attorneys of color, compared with 74 percent of white lawyers, "feel that assignments I receive, and management decisions about my career development, have been made without regard to my race/gender/ ethnic origin."
With all these deletions, it was no surprise that all nine pages of "Recommendations" were blacked out. Hear no problem, see no problem, solve no problem. Bush blames the media when he is bringing back memories of Nixon erasing tapes. The administration deleted the data on global warming. It blacked out diversity reports. It disappears immigrants. With a war built on falsehoods failing with fatal consequences, Bush now wants to disappear the media. It is all part of Bush erasing you.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
How the White House deletes the truth
By Derrick Z. Jackson, 11/5/2003
This is the same president who erases history itself.
Bush's desire for us to become ostriches over the deaths and wounding of American soldiers in Iraq -- 379 dead and 2,155 hurt at last count -- is but one more pathological act in sticking all of America into the sand. Bush severely limited access to the presidential papers of his father. Vice President Dick Cheney erected an iron curtain around his energy task force. Hundreds of Muslim immigrants were detained without due process and with no evidence they were involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. The administration wiped out parts of an Environmental Protection Agency report that specifically tied human activities to global warming.
Bush has his eraser out again. The Justice Department recently released a commissioned report on diversity among its attorneys. Half of its 186 pages were blacked out.
The Bush administration made sure to filter in the good news in the report. The federal government, regardless of which party is in power, has long been more inviting to people of color at the entry level than the private sector. The Justice Department is no different. Its attorney work force is 15 percent of color and 38 percent women, compared to 12 percent and 30 percent, respectively, in the national legal labor pool.
The blacked-out pages betray a Justice Department that does not want America to know what happens after people are hired. The full report is available on a Web site called the Memory Hole, which electronically lifted the blacked-out sections. Among the conclusions of the full report were:
"When controlling for component, grade, and salary, we found that the average minority is currently residing approximately one-third step lower than the average white and the average woman is currently residing approximately one-half step lower than the average man. These effects are statistically significant."
"Race and gender combine for a particularly strong negative effect of identity for minority women."
"Section chiefs are an extremely critical element of the department's diversity climate. They have significant authority in recruitment, hiring, promotion, performance appraisal, case assignment, and career development. The section chief work force is not diverse, and turnover is low. This pattern, combined with the generally low attention that these managers pay to staff career development, leads minorities to perceive a lack of advancement opportunities."
The sections on "stereotyping," "racial and gender tension," "harassment behavior," and "mentoring," were completely blacked out. Asked if employees felt free to "express differences that may be due to different cultural backgrounds," 83 percent of white men and 73 percent of white women said yes. Only 56 percent of men of color and 42 percent of women of color said yes.
Deleted was this statement: "More than 40 percent of racial minorities participating in the study believe that stereotyping of minorities having limited abilities is a problem. Further analysis shows that an actual majority (51 percent) of nonwhite women hold this belief. Although we do not know the extent to which this belief is based on actual differential treatment of people, it clearly represents a barrier to the goal of creating an environment where all members feel equally valued and able to contribute."
An further analysis provides an even more deeper divide. While only 13 percent of white attorneys at the Justice Department say people of color are stereotyped, 60 percent of African-American lawyers say attorneys of color "are often stereotyped here."
Deleted was a paragraph that showed that about 20 percent of lawyers of color say they have personally experienced racial harassment at the department. Deleted was the fact that only 53 percent of attorneys of color felt that the promotion process was fair with respect to color compared with 87 percent of white attorneys. Deleted was the fact that 60 percent of women felt that the promotion process was fair with regards to gender, compared with 81 percent of men.
Deleted was the fact that only 45 percent of attorneys of color, compared with 74 percent of white lawyers, "feel that assignments I receive, and management decisions about my career development, have been made without regard to my race/gender/ ethnic origin."
With all these deletions, it was no surprise that all nine pages of "Recommendations" were blacked out. Hear no problem, see no problem, solve no problem. Bush blames the media when he is bringing back memories of Nixon erasing tapes. The administration deleted the data on global warming. It blacked out diversity reports. It disappears immigrants. With a war built on falsehoods failing with fatal consequences, Bush now wants to disappear the media. It is all part of Bush erasing you.
Derrick Z. Jackson's e-mail address is jackson@globe.com.
© Copyright 2003 Globe Newspaper Company.
Tuesday, November 04, 2003
Enough to really make one sick:
Sick soldiers wait for treatment
By Mark Benjamin
UPI Investigations Editor
http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20031029-020609-6750r
Published 10/29/2003 3:58 PM
FORT KNOX, Ky., Oct. 29 (UPI) -- More than 400 sick and injured soldiers, including some who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom, are stuck at Fort Knox, waiting weeks and sometimes months for medical treatment, a score of soldiers said in interviews.
The delays appear to have demolished morale -- many said they had lost faith in the Army and would not serve again -- and could jeopardize some soldiers' health, the soldiers said.
The Army Reserve and National Guard soldiers are in what the Army calls "medical hold," like roughly 600 soldiers under similar circumstances waiting for doctors at Fort Stewart, Ga.
The apparent lack of care at both locations raises the specter that Reserve and Guard soldiers, including many who returned from Iraq, could be languishing at locations across the country, according to Senate investigators.
Representatives from the office of Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., were at Fort Knox Wednesday looking into conditions at the post.
Following reports from Fort Stewart, Senate investigators said that the medical system at that post was overwhelmed and they were looking into whether the situation was Army-wide.
Army officials at the Pentagon said they are investigating that possibility. "We are absolutely taking a look at this across the Army and not just at Fort Stewart," Army spokesman Joe Burlas said Wednesday.
"I joined to serve my country," said Cpl. Waymond Boyd, 34. He served in Iraq with the National Guard's 1175 Transportation Company. He has been in medical hold since the end of July.
"It doesn't make any sense to go over there and risk your life and come back to this," Boyd said. "It ain't fair and it ain't right. I used to be patriotic." He has served the military for 15 years.
Boyd's knee and wrist injuries were severe enough that he was evacuated to Germany at the end of July and then sent to Fort Knox. His medical records show doctor appointments around four weeks apart. He said it took him almost two months to get a cast for his wrist, which is so weak he can't lift 5 pounds or play with his two children. He is taking painkilling drugs and walks with a cane with some difficulty.
Many soldiers at Fort Knox said their injuries and illnesses occurred in Iraq. Some said the rigors of war exacerbated health problems that probably should have prevented them from going in the first place.
Boyd's X-rays appear to show the damage to his wrist but also bone spurs in his feet that are noted in his medical record before being deployed, but the records say "no health problems noted" before he left.
"I don't think I was medically fit to go. But they said 'go.' That is my job," Boyd said.
Fort Knox Public Affairs Officer Connie Shaffery said, "Taking care of patients is our priority." Soldiers see specialists within 28 days, Shaffery said and Fort Knox officials hope to cut that time lag.
"I think that we would like for all the soldiers to get care as soon as possible," Shaffery said.
Shaffery said of the 422 soldiers on medical hold at Fort Knox, 369 did not deploy to Operation Iraqi Freedom because of their illnesses. Around two-thirds of the soldiers at Fort Stewart did serve in Operation Iraqi Freedom.
Soldiers at Fort Knox describe strange clusters of heart problems and breathing problems, as did soldiers at Fort Stewart and other locations.
Command Sgt. Major Glen Talley, 57, is in the hospital at Fort Knox for heart problems, clotting blood and Graves' disease, a thyroid disorder. All of the problems became apparent after he went to war in April, he says. He is a reservist.
Talley said he was moved to Fort Knox on Oct. 16 and had not seen a doctor yet, only a physician's assistant. His next appointment with an endocrinologist was scheduled for Dec. 30.
"I don't mind serving my country," Talley said. "I just hate what they are doing to me now." Talley has served for 30 years. He was awarded two Purple Hearts in Vietnam.
Sgt. Buena Montgomery has breathing problems since serving in Operation Iraqi Freedom. She said she has been able to get to doctors but worries about many others who have not.
"The Army did not prepare for the proper medical care for the soldiers that they knew were going to come back from this war," Montgomery said. "Now the Army needs to step up to the plate and fix this problem."
In nearly two dozen interviews conducted over three days, soldiers also described substandard living conditions -- though they said conditions had improved recently.
A UPI photographer working on this story without first having cleared his presence with base public affairs officials was detained for several hours for questioning Tuesday and then released. He was told he would need an Army escort for any further visits to the base. He returned to the base accompanied by an Army escort on Wednesday.
This reporter also was admonished that he had to be accompanied by an Army public affairs escort when on base. The interviews had been conducted without the presence of an escort.
After returning from Iraq, some soldiers spent about eight weeks in Spartan, dilapidated World War II-era barracks with leaking roofs, animal infestations and no air conditioning in the Kentucky heat.
"I arrived here and was placed in the World War II barracks," one soldier wrote in an internal Fort Knox survey of the conditions. "On the 28th of August we moved out. On 30 Aug. the roof collapsed. Had we not moved, someone would be dead," that soldier wrote.
Shaffery said all of the soldiers have moved out of those barracks. "As soon as we were able to, we moved them out," Shaffery said. The barracks now stand empty and have been condemned.
Also like Fort Stewart, soldiers at Fort Knox claimed they are getting substandard treatment because they are in the National Guard or Army Reserve as opposed to regular Army. The Army has denied any discrepancies in treatment or housing.
"We have provided, are providing, and will continue to provide our soldiers -- active and Reserve component -- the best health care available," Army spokesman Maj. Steve Stover said Oct. 20. He said Army policy provides health care priority based on a "most critically ill" basis, without differentiation between active and our Reserve soldiers.
"Medical hold issues are not new and the Army has been working diligently to address them across the Army," Stover said.
"They are treating us like second-class citizens," said Spc. Brian Smith, who served in Operation Iraqi Freedom until Aug. 16 and said he is having trouble seeing doctors at Fort Knox. The Army evacuated him through Germany for stomach problems, among other things. "My brother wants to get in (the military). I am now discouraging him from doing it," Smith said.
"I have never been so disrespected in my military career," said Lt. Jullian Goodrum, who has been in the Army Reserve for 16 years. His health problems do not appear to be severe -- injured wrists -- but he said the medical situation at Fort Knox is bad. He said he waited a month for therapy. "I have never been so treated like dirt."
Copyright © 2001-2003 United Press International
Sunday, November 02, 2003
Bush says God chose him to lead his nation
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075950,00.html
Book reveals how President's religious and political beliefs are entwined - and claims he did pray with Blair
Paul Harris in New York
Sunday November 2, 2003
The Observer
President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth centre last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.
'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,' he said, referring to his own conversion, which led to him giving up drinking.
Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.
Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious.
The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians.
Bush is already under fire for allowing the appointment of General William Boykin to head the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Boykin, who speaks at evangelical Christian meetings, once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and also told a Somali warlord that, 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'
Bush has also been accused of a 'creeping Christianisation' of federal government programmes. In September, the government made more than $60 billion available for religious charitable groups. Critics say the groups will be able to use the cash to promote their religion. One group that benefited from previous grants was an Iowa prison project that entitled inmates to televisions, private bathrooms and computers - in return for Christian counselling.
Now Bush is likely to face intense scrutiny. The book, The Faith of George W. Bush, was written by Christian author Stephen Mansfield. It details numerous incidents where Bush's faith has been shown to be at the centre of his political thinking.
Among Mansfield's revelations is his insistence that Bush and Tony Blair have prayed together at a private meeting at Camp David. Blair has previously denied this.
Mansfield, however, says that, while there were no witnesses, aides were left in little doubt as to what had happened. He told The Observer: 'There is no question they have shared scripture and prayed together.'
The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.
However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.
The author also proves anecdotes about Bush that had previously been dismissed as false. Rumours that he had prayed with a young soldier who had lost a hand in Iraq were thought to be myth, but Mansfield tracked down witnesses and a hospital chaplain who said that Bush had prayed with the man, ending by kissing him on the forehead and telling him he loved him. 'For me, that sums up Bush's beliefs. He really believes Jesus is taken up in his heart and soul,' Mansfield said.
· A woman rammed a car carrying her children, aged three, five and eight, into a building where Bush was campaigning in Mississippi yesterday. Betina Mixon, 29, was dragged away at gunpoint and charged with aggravated assault.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1075950,00.html
Book reveals how President's religious and political beliefs are entwined - and claims he did pray with Blair
Paul Harris in New York
Sunday November 2, 2003
The Observer
President George W. Bush stood before a cheering crowd at a Dallas Christian youth centre last week, and told them about being 'born again' as a Christian.
'If you change their heart, then they change their behaviour. I know,' he said, referring to his own conversion, which led to him giving up drinking.
Behind Bush were two banners. 'King of Kings', proclaimed one. 'Lord of Lords', said the other. The symbolism of how fervent Christianity has become deeply entwined with the most powerful man on the planet could not have been stronger.
Few US Presidents have been as openly religious as Bush. Now a new book has lifted the lid on how deep those Christian convictions run. It will stir up controversy at a time when the administration is keen to portray its 'war on terror' as non-religious.
The book, which depicts a President who prays each day and believes he is on a direct mission from God, will give ammunition to critics who claim Bush's administration is heavily influenced by extremist Christians.
Bush is already under fire for allowing the appointment of General William Boykin to head the hunt for Osama bin Laden. Boykin, who speaks at evangelical Christian meetings, once said the war on terror was a fight against Satan, and also told a Somali warlord that, 'My God was bigger than his. I knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.'
Bush has also been accused of a 'creeping Christianisation' of federal government programmes. In September, the government made more than $60 billion available for religious charitable groups. Critics say the groups will be able to use the cash to promote their religion. One group that benefited from previous grants was an Iowa prison project that entitled inmates to televisions, private bathrooms and computers - in return for Christian counselling.
Now Bush is likely to face intense scrutiny. The book, The Faith of George W. Bush, was written by Christian author Stephen Mansfield. It details numerous incidents where Bush's faith has been shown to be at the centre of his political thinking.
Among Mansfield's revelations is his insistence that Bush and Tony Blair have prayed together at a private meeting at Camp David. Blair has previously denied this.
Mansfield, however, says that, while there were no witnesses, aides were left in little doubt as to what had happened. He told The Observer: 'There is no question they have shared scripture and prayed together.'
The book also shows that in the lead-up to announcing his candidacy for the presidency, Bush told a Texan evangelist that he had had a premonition of some form of national disaster happening.
Bush said to James Robinson: 'I feel like God wants me to run for President. I can't explain it, but I sense my country is going to need me. Something is going to happen... I know it won't be easy on me or my family, but God wants me to do it.'
In another incident, Mansfield recounts how, on Palm Sunday last year, Bush was flying back from El Salvador aboard the presidential jet Air Force One and seemed to be destined to miss church.
However, knowing that Bush hated to miss a service, some officials suggested they worship in the air. Bush agreed, and soon 40 officials were crammed into the plane's conference room. The service was led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, while the lesson was read by close Bush aide Karen Hughes.
The author also proves anecdotes about Bush that had previously been dismissed as false. Rumours that he had prayed with a young soldier who had lost a hand in Iraq were thought to be myth, but Mansfield tracked down witnesses and a hospital chaplain who said that Bush had prayed with the man, ending by kissing him on the forehead and telling him he loved him. 'For me, that sums up Bush's beliefs. He really believes Jesus is taken up in his heart and soul,' Mansfield said.
· A woman rammed a car carrying her children, aged three, five and eight, into a building where Bush was campaigning in Mississippi yesterday. Betina Mixon, 29, was dragged away at gunpoint and charged with aggravated assault.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Screen Shot of Right Wing Kathy Parker Column, Which She Later Altered, That Quotes An Admired Source Saying that the Democratic Presidential Candidates Should be Lined Up and Shot 11/2
Look at the third paragraph below:
Now here is her edited article:
Politics are out of place in time of war
Kathleen Parker
November 1, 2003
Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller explained his surprising early endorsement of George Bush for 2004 in terms of trust and the future.
The next five years will determine what kind of world his children and grandchildren inherit, he said. And he doesn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates to secure that future.
Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: "These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and slapped."
"All this carping and undercutting of our foreign policy - whatever happened to politics stops at the water's edge? - is giving strength and hope to our enemies. That makes them fight harder and longer and in the end costs the very lives they claim to care so much about."
OK, so he's a little emotional. We'll pardon him, given that earlier in the day he had learned of a pal's death in Afghanistan with whom he served several years. His friend was no kid, but a veteran of many wars. A Native American Indian, they called him "Chief," which he liked just fine so everybody in the ethnic sensitivity guard can relax.
My friend's disgust with the current climate of debate may be extreme but not uncommon, especially among military folks. His remarks also speak to a spirit and a reality that the Democratic candidates might do well to consider before they shoot themselves in whatever extremities remain free of self-inflicted wounds.
That spirit is this: Americans are willing to entertain legitimate criticism and discussion, but not bile and invective driven by the politics of self-promotion. When people are dying, it ain't kosher. It's also dishonest.
It is disingenuous to vote in favor of war, as some of the candidates did, and then to declare when the going gets tough that you favored war only if everything went according to plan - a plan, incidentally, that was visible only in a rearview mirror.
Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry, for instance, say they supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but disapprove of the way Bush has executed the war. Shoulda, Coulda and Woulda are brilliant on Monday mornings, but no war goes according to anyone's plan.
Then retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who's still attached to the fraudulent "imminent threat" meme, says he was always against the war, even though he's on record contradicting himself. Clark is like the news on eggs. One day eggs are good, next day they're bad. Whatever they are, he always knew it.
The reality portion of this picture, as Bush continues to reiterate, is that we should not, cannot and will not abandon the Iraqi people to be subsumed by terrorists now infiltrating the country or devoured by the subterranean Saddam and his Baathist ghouls.
Miller's trust in Bush, meanwhile, mirrors that of 56 percent of Americans who are sticking with him despite imperfections, such as that pre-war intelligence was weak to wrong, depending on the item; post-war planning was inadequate; American soldiers' falling to snipers and suicide bombers is distressing and apparently unexpected.
Personally, I find reprehensible the administration's policy of concealing our military dead. On the eve of the Iraq war, the Pentagon issued a directive forbidding "arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel."
Bush as nanny doesn't fit Bush as commander-in-chief. We're grown-ups out here.
As grown-ups, Americans can absorb the reality that the war against Iraq was both legitimate given Saddam's refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions and necessary as a response to Sept. 11, even absent a group hug between al-Qaida and the Saddamites.
We hit Saddam because we could, as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote, "and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that (Arab-Muslim terrorist) world. . Every neighboring government - and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message."
At this point, our future depends on staying on message, as politicians like to say. The next president will be the man or woman Americans trust most to understand that.
©2003 Tribune Media Services
Look at the third paragraph below:
Now here is her edited article:
Politics are out of place in time of war
Kathleen Parker
November 1, 2003
Georgia Democrat Sen. Zell Miller explained his surprising early endorsement of George Bush for 2004 in terms of trust and the future.
The next five years will determine what kind of world his children and grandchildren inherit, he said. And he doesn't "trust" any of the nine Democratic presidential candidates to secure that future.
Miller is not alone, though some are more sanguine when it comes to evaluating the roster of contenders. Here's a note I got recently from a friend and former Delta Force member, who has been observing American politics from the trenches: "These bastards like Clark and Kerry and that incipient ass, Dean, and Gephardt and Kucinich and that absolute mental midget Sharpton, race baiter, should all be lined up and slapped."
"All this carping and undercutting of our foreign policy - whatever happened to politics stops at the water's edge? - is giving strength and hope to our enemies. That makes them fight harder and longer and in the end costs the very lives they claim to care so much about."
OK, so he's a little emotional. We'll pardon him, given that earlier in the day he had learned of a pal's death in Afghanistan with whom he served several years. His friend was no kid, but a veteran of many wars. A Native American Indian, they called him "Chief," which he liked just fine so everybody in the ethnic sensitivity guard can relax.
My friend's disgust with the current climate of debate may be extreme but not uncommon, especially among military folks. His remarks also speak to a spirit and a reality that the Democratic candidates might do well to consider before they shoot themselves in whatever extremities remain free of self-inflicted wounds.
That spirit is this: Americans are willing to entertain legitimate criticism and discussion, but not bile and invective driven by the politics of self-promotion. When people are dying, it ain't kosher. It's also dishonest.
It is disingenuous to vote in favor of war, as some of the candidates did, and then to declare when the going gets tough that you favored war only if everything went according to plan - a plan, incidentally, that was visible only in a rearview mirror.
Sens. John Edwards and John Kerry, for instance, say they supported getting rid of Saddam Hussein, but disapprove of the way Bush has executed the war. Shoulda, Coulda and Woulda are brilliant on Monday mornings, but no war goes according to anyone's plan.
Then retired Gen. Wesley Clark, who's still attached to the fraudulent "imminent threat" meme, says he was always against the war, even though he's on record contradicting himself. Clark is like the news on eggs. One day eggs are good, next day they're bad. Whatever they are, he always knew it.
The reality portion of this picture, as Bush continues to reiterate, is that we should not, cannot and will not abandon the Iraqi people to be subsumed by terrorists now infiltrating the country or devoured by the subterranean Saddam and his Baathist ghouls.
Miller's trust in Bush, meanwhile, mirrors that of 56 percent of Americans who are sticking with him despite imperfections, such as that pre-war intelligence was weak to wrong, depending on the item; post-war planning was inadequate; American soldiers' falling to snipers and suicide bombers is distressing and apparently unexpected.
Personally, I find reprehensible the administration's policy of concealing our military dead. On the eve of the Iraq war, the Pentagon issued a directive forbidding "arrival ceremonies for, or media coverage of, deceased military personnel."
Bush as nanny doesn't fit Bush as commander-in-chief. We're grown-ups out here.
As grown-ups, Americans can absorb the reality that the war against Iraq was both legitimate given Saddam's refusal to abide by U.N. resolutions and necessary as a response to Sept. 11, even absent a group hug between al-Qaida and the Saddamites.
We hit Saddam because we could, as Thomas Friedman of The New York Times wrote, "and because he deserved it and because he was right in the heart of that (Arab-Muslim terrorist) world. . Every neighboring government - and 98 percent of terrorism is about what governments let happen - got the message."
At this point, our future depends on staying on message, as politicians like to say. The next president will be the man or woman Americans trust most to understand that.
©2003 Tribune Media Services
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)