"Never hold your farts in. They travel up your spine, into your brain, and that's how you get shitty ideas "
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Tuesday, February 24, 2004
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/opinion/content/auto/epaper/editions/sunday/opinion_0442326e064c624b0099.html
Censor 'Scooby-Doo'? Words fail
By Dan Moffett, Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer
Sunday, February 8, 2004
The Bush administration has decided that people with bad hearing have bad judgment, too, and need special guidance from the federal government.
So the U.S. Department of Education is declaring about 200 television programs inappropriate for closed-captioning and denying federal grant requests to make them accessible to the hearing-impaired.
The department made its decisions based on the recommendations of a five-member panel. Who the five members are, only the government seems to know, and it isn't saying. But the shows they censored suggest a perspective that is Talibanesque.
The government is refusing to caption Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, apparently fearing that the deaf would fall prey to witchcraft if they viewed the classic sitcoms.
Your government also believes that Law & Order is too intense for the hard-of-hearing. So is Power Rangers. You can rest easy knowing that your federal tax dollars aren't being spent to promote Sanford and Son, Judge Wapner's Animal Court and The Loretta Young Show within the deaf community. Kids with hearing problems can forget about watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, classic cartoons or Nickelodeon features. Even Roy Rogers and Robin Hood are out.
Sports programming took a heavy hit, too. The government has decided that people with hearing problems don't need to watch NASCAR, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League or Professional Golf Association tournaments.
The National Association of the Deaf says the government used to caption these shows but abruptly changed course, deciding that the shows don't fit the required definition of "educational, news or informational" programming.
"They've suddenly narrowed down the definition of those three kinds of programming without public input," says Kelby Brick, director of the NAD's law and advocacy center. "Basically, the department wants to limit captioning to puritan shows. The department wants to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are not exposed to any non-puritan programming. Never mind that the rest of the country is allowed to be exposed."
How imperiled the nation might be if The Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle reached into the living rooms of the impressionable hard-of-hearing. Or, for that matter, Scooby-Doo.
The censorship raises baffling questions about who gets in and who's left out. The government has rejected Nancy Drew but is accepting Andy Hardy. Cory the Clown has won approval, but the Cisco Kid is toast. Charlie Rose and Rod Serling are worthy of captions, but Catherine Crier and Dominick Dunne aren't. Go figure.
The Department of Education is refusing to reveal the names of the panel members whose opinions determined the caption grants and also won't disclose the new guidelines. By every appearance, the government has changed its definition of what constitutes a caption-worthy program. But it's keeping the new rules secret.
"They apparently used a panel of five individuals and then made the censorship decisions based on the individuals' recommendations," Mr. Brick says. "We have found the identity of one of the panelists. This individual tells us that he never knew he was on such a panel and that his views would be used for censorship. No panel was convened. The five panelists were contacted individually and separately."
It could be that people with bad hearing are new casualties of the Bush administration's budget priorities. Paying the Halliburton bills and sending a man to Mars will be costly, perhaps equally so. It could be that missing Bewitched and Law & Order is just one sacrifice the deaf will have to make to advance homeland security and fight terrorism.
The education department makes promises about "No Child Left Behind," but it didn't say anything about leaving behind people with bad hearing. Maybe they should have seen this coming.
The NAD is lobbying Congress to change the policy. Some networks and sponsors are stepping in and providing captions for some of the "inappropriate" shows. But the government's dismissive treatment of 28 million Americans defies words.
"We are outraged the department has taken paternalistic steps to exclude deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals," Mr. Brick says. "Such censorship is offensive and insulting."
dan_moffett@pbpost.com
Censor 'Scooby-Doo'? Words fail
By Dan Moffett, Palm Beach Post Editorial Writer
Sunday, February 8, 2004
The Bush administration has decided that people with bad hearing have bad judgment, too, and need special guidance from the federal government.
So the U.S. Department of Education is declaring about 200 television programs inappropriate for closed-captioning and denying federal grant requests to make them accessible to the hearing-impaired.
The department made its decisions based on the recommendations of a five-member panel. Who the five members are, only the government seems to know, and it isn't saying. But the shows they censored suggest a perspective that is Talibanesque.
The government is refusing to caption Bewitched and I Dream of Jeannie, apparently fearing that the deaf would fall prey to witchcraft if they viewed the classic sitcoms.
Your government also believes that Law & Order is too intense for the hard-of-hearing. So is Power Rangers. You can rest easy knowing that your federal tax dollars aren't being spent to promote Sanford and Son, Judge Wapner's Animal Court and The Loretta Young Show within the deaf community. Kids with hearing problems can forget about watching Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, classic cartoons or Nickelodeon features. Even Roy Rogers and Robin Hood are out.
Sports programming took a heavy hit, too. The government has decided that people with hearing problems don't need to watch NASCAR, Major League Baseball, the National Basketball Association, the National Football League or Professional Golf Association tournaments.
The National Association of the Deaf says the government used to caption these shows but abruptly changed course, deciding that the shows don't fit the required definition of "educational, news or informational" programming.
"They've suddenly narrowed down the definition of those three kinds of programming without public input," says Kelby Brick, director of the NAD's law and advocacy center. "Basically, the department wants to limit captioning to puritan shows. The department wants to ensure that deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals are not exposed to any non-puritan programming. Never mind that the rest of the country is allowed to be exposed."
How imperiled the nation might be if The Simpsons and Malcolm in the Middle reached into the living rooms of the impressionable hard-of-hearing. Or, for that matter, Scooby-Doo.
The censorship raises baffling questions about who gets in and who's left out. The government has rejected Nancy Drew but is accepting Andy Hardy. Cory the Clown has won approval, but the Cisco Kid is toast. Charlie Rose and Rod Serling are worthy of captions, but Catherine Crier and Dominick Dunne aren't. Go figure.
The Department of Education is refusing to reveal the names of the panel members whose opinions determined the caption grants and also won't disclose the new guidelines. By every appearance, the government has changed its definition of what constitutes a caption-worthy program. But it's keeping the new rules secret.
"They apparently used a panel of five individuals and then made the censorship decisions based on the individuals' recommendations," Mr. Brick says. "We have found the identity of one of the panelists. This individual tells us that he never knew he was on such a panel and that his views would be used for censorship. No panel was convened. The five panelists were contacted individually and separately."
It could be that people with bad hearing are new casualties of the Bush administration's budget priorities. Paying the Halliburton bills and sending a man to Mars will be costly, perhaps equally so. It could be that missing Bewitched and Law & Order is just one sacrifice the deaf will have to make to advance homeland security and fight terrorism.
The education department makes promises about "No Child Left Behind," but it didn't say anything about leaving behind people with bad hearing. Maybe they should have seen this coming.
The NAD is lobbying Congress to change the policy. Some networks and sponsors are stepping in and providing captions for some of the "inappropriate" shows. But the government's dismissive treatment of 28 million Americans defies words.
"We are outraged the department has taken paternalistic steps to exclude deaf and hard-of-hearing individuals," Mr. Brick says. "Such censorship is offensive and insulting."
dan_moffett@pbpost.com
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=615&e=1&u=/nm/20040224/pl_nm/bush_gays_dc
Bush to Endorse Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday will endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, seizing the initiative in a contentious issue that could energize his conservative base for the November election.
Same-sex marriage has become a hot-button issue in this presidential election year, with opponents saying it would destroy the institution of marriage.
"The president will announce his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
The Republican president was to make the announcement in the White House at 10:45 a.m. EST, a day after plunging into the political fray with a broad assault on Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), the U.S. senator from Massachusetts who is running for his party's presidential nomination.
Amending the constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
However, Democrats expect conservatives to push the gay marriage issue intensely in an election year in which jobs, health care and the economy are on voters' minds.
Recent polls show the issue could be a winner for Bush, who has long courted Christian conservatives as a key element of his political base.
"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," McClellan said. "This is a principled decision."
Bush has been troubled by events in San Francisco, where marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians. Conservative family groups had asked two courts to halt the flood of City Hall weddings.
The White House is also paying close attention to Massachusetts, where legislators are debating what to do after a state court ruling that gay couples have the right to wed.
Bush will not endorse specific legislative language but says he will work with Congress on the language.
"He is going to urge Congress to move as soon as possible on this issue," McClellan said, while acknowledging it could be a lengthy process. "We need to act now."
Bush to Endorse Amendment Banning Gay Marriage
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush (news - web sites) on Tuesday will endorse a constitutional amendment that would ban gay marriage, seizing the initiative in a contentious issue that could energize his conservative base for the November election.
Same-sex marriage has become a hot-button issue in this presidential election year, with opponents saying it would destroy the institution of marriage.
"The president will announce his support for a constitutional amendment to protect the sanctity of marriage," said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.
The Republican president was to make the announcement in the White House at 10:45 a.m. EST, a day after plunging into the political fray with a broad assault on Democrat John Kerry (news - web sites), the U.S. senator from Massachusetts who is running for his party's presidential nomination.
Amending the constitution is a difficult task. It can take years to win the support of two-thirds of the House of Representatives, two-thirds of the Senate and ratification by three-quarters of the states.
However, Democrats expect conservatives to push the gay marriage issue intensely in an election year in which jobs, health care and the economy are on voters' minds.
Recent polls show the issue could be a winner for Bush, who has long courted Christian conservatives as a key element of his political base.
"He has always strongly believed that marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman," McClellan said. "This is a principled decision."
Bush has been troubled by events in San Francisco, where marriage licenses have been issued to gays and lesbians. Conservative family groups had asked two courts to halt the flood of City Hall weddings.
The White House is also paying close attention to Massachusetts, where legislators are debating what to do after a state court ruling that gay couples have the right to wed.
Bush will not endorse specific legislative language but says he will work with Congress on the language.
"He is going to urge Congress to move as soon as possible on this issue," McClellan said, while acknowledging it could be a lengthy process. "We need to act now."
Friday, February 20, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040220/ap_on_re_mi_ea/us_iraq_military&cid=540&ncid=1480
U.S. Expects Long-Term Troop Stay in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq (news - web sites) long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday they were confident that the Iraqis, once given political control, would agree U.S. troops should stay. But some outside the government question whether that would hold true once an elected Iraqi government took over.
Anthony Cordesman, a close observer of the Iraq situation as a strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that if political control was turned over on July 1 to an Iraqi body that is not elected, it likely would align itself with U.S. objectives and therefore welcome a continued U.S. military presence. But once elections were held, the U.S. role would be in doubt, he said.
If the new Iraqi government decided it wanted American forces to leave, "We would certainly be obligated to leave, under international law," Cordesman said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told reporters at the Pentagon that there is a "fairly confident belief" that most Iraqis accept the U.S. view that American troops will be needed over the long haul to ensure a stable transition to democracy.
The basis for a continued U.S. military presence under the authority of a transitional Iraqi government is "being developed," Di Rita said without elaborating.
"I think there's a fairly comfortable understanding that the coalition has a lot to offer with respect to continued security in Iraq," Di Rita said, and "that people in Iraq understand that (and) want the coalition to continue to be involved in security in some way."
Di Rita did not define the roles that U.S. troops would play once the occupation ended. Other officials have said troops will be needed to guide the development of Iraqi internal security forces as well as build an Iraqi army that is capable of defending against external threats.
U.S. troops also will be engaged in combat as long as the insurgency remains active.
The legal basis for U.S. troops operating in any foreign country is normally spelled out in a legal arrangement called a status of forces agreement, which defines legal protections for U.S. troops accused of crimes in that country. Without it, U.S. troops in Iraq would be subject to local Iraqi law, once the U.S. occupation authority is ended and a government is restored.
"That would be untenable," Cordesman said.
At this point it is unclear whether American authorities can work out such a complex legal agreement by June 30, when some form of transitional Iraqi government is due to take control.
Cordesman said U.S. officials at one time had hoped to have such an agreement worked out by this month, but that proved impossible because "there is no clear government to work with."
The U.S. plan is to gradually move responsibility for security into the hands of the Iraqis, thereby reducing the U.S. military's role. But senior officials say that process will take many months, if not years.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Bush administration has a plan to accelerate the building of viable Iraqi security forces, which now number over 200,000 and include police, border guards, a civil defense corps and guards for certain key facilities.
"We're going to focus on Iraqi security forces like we've never really focused on them before, and you'll see some of that come out in the next week or so as we try to ensure we have unity of effort on the equipping and training and mentoring of Iraqi security forces," he said.
Even while the Bush administration works toward its goal of restoring Iraqi sovereignty by July 1, U.S. troops are dying at a rate of more than one a day. They are opposed by an insurgency that U.S. commanders say is aimed at preventing a stable Iraqi government from taking root.
Myers said he could not estimate with confidence how long U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq.
"I really do believe it's unknowable," he said. "If I gave a good professional estimate, then that would be a standard that people would point to and, knowing that we can't know it perfectly, we'd get hammered."
For planning purposes, the Army is assuming it will have to keep roughly 100,000 troops in Iraq for at least another two years, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told Congress recently.
U.S. Expects Long-Term Troop Stay in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS, AP Military Writer
WASHINGTON - American officials say U.S. forces will be needed in Iraq (news - web sites) long after a sovereign government is restored this summer, but they have yet to work out the terms of a continued presence.
Senior Pentagon officials said Thursday they were confident that the Iraqis, once given political control, would agree U.S. troops should stay. But some outside the government question whether that would hold true once an elected Iraqi government took over.
Anthony Cordesman, a close observer of the Iraq situation as a strategist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that if political control was turned over on July 1 to an Iraqi body that is not elected, it likely would align itself with U.S. objectives and therefore welcome a continued U.S. military presence. But once elections were held, the U.S. role would be in doubt, he said.
If the new Iraqi government decided it wanted American forces to leave, "We would certainly be obligated to leave, under international law," Cordesman said.
Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld's chief spokesman, Larry Di Rita, told reporters at the Pentagon that there is a "fairly confident belief" that most Iraqis accept the U.S. view that American troops will be needed over the long haul to ensure a stable transition to democracy.
The basis for a continued U.S. military presence under the authority of a transitional Iraqi government is "being developed," Di Rita said without elaborating.
"I think there's a fairly comfortable understanding that the coalition has a lot to offer with respect to continued security in Iraq," Di Rita said, and "that people in Iraq understand that (and) want the coalition to continue to be involved in security in some way."
Di Rita did not define the roles that U.S. troops would play once the occupation ended. Other officials have said troops will be needed to guide the development of Iraqi internal security forces as well as build an Iraqi army that is capable of defending against external threats.
U.S. troops also will be engaged in combat as long as the insurgency remains active.
The legal basis for U.S. troops operating in any foreign country is normally spelled out in a legal arrangement called a status of forces agreement, which defines legal protections for U.S. troops accused of crimes in that country. Without it, U.S. troops in Iraq would be subject to local Iraqi law, once the U.S. occupation authority is ended and a government is restored.
"That would be untenable," Cordesman said.
At this point it is unclear whether American authorities can work out such a complex legal agreement by June 30, when some form of transitional Iraqi government is due to take control.
Cordesman said U.S. officials at one time had hoped to have such an agreement worked out by this month, but that proved impossible because "there is no clear government to work with."
The U.S. plan is to gradually move responsibility for security into the hands of the Iraqis, thereby reducing the U.S. military's role. But senior officials say that process will take many months, if not years.
Gen. Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said the Bush administration has a plan to accelerate the building of viable Iraqi security forces, which now number over 200,000 and include police, border guards, a civil defense corps and guards for certain key facilities.
"We're going to focus on Iraqi security forces like we've never really focused on them before, and you'll see some of that come out in the next week or so as we try to ensure we have unity of effort on the equipping and training and mentoring of Iraqi security forces," he said.
Even while the Bush administration works toward its goal of restoring Iraqi sovereignty by July 1, U.S. troops are dying at a rate of more than one a day. They are opposed by an insurgency that U.S. commanders say is aimed at preventing a stable Iraqi government from taking root.
Myers said he could not estimate with confidence how long U.S. troops will be needed in Iraq.
"I really do believe it's unknowable," he said. "If I gave a good professional estimate, then that would be a standard that people would point to and, knowing that we can't know it perfectly, we'd get hammered."
For planning purposes, the Army is assuming it will have to keep roughly 100,000 troops in Iraq for at least another two years, the Army chief of staff, Gen. Peter Schoomaker, told Congress recently.
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=544&u=/ap/20040219/ap_on_go_pr_wh/laura_bush_interview_5
AP: Laura Bush Stands by Her Man
Thu Feb 19, 2:43 AM ET
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Out on the campaign trail raising re-election cash and promoting reading, Laura Bush is staunchly defending her husband's credibility and taking a shot at Democrats who claim he skipped out on his National Guard duty.
AP Photo
"I think it's a political, you know, witch hunt, actually, on the part of Democrats," the first lady said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The president served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and did report for duty in Alabama where he was briefly assigned, Mrs. Bush said.
"He knows that he served honorably," she said. "He knows that he showed up the whole time."
Mrs. Bush spoke Tuesday as she flew west on a three-day trip to Arkansas, California and Nevada to attend four fund-raisers and four education events. It ends Thursday in Las Vegas.
The first lady's demeanor is quiet and matter-of-fact, yet she sometimes must serve as the president's flak jacket when she's on the road, especially now as his approval ratings are drooping amid a recent barrage of Democratic attacks lobbed during the presidential primaries.
However, she seems to relish the role, traveling the nation to talk about education, especially reading among young students, and to bolster her husband's political positions.
"You know, I'm the one who has seen him up close and can tell people what he's like," she said, sitting on a couch in a private section of the plane and sipping occasionally from a bottle of water. "I've seen how steady he is, how he's steadied our country and how he's steeled our country for the fight against terror. ... I'm really proud of him. I love to have the opportunity to go around the country and talk about him."
Still, she admits being hurt by mostly Democratic allegations that he lied to the American people about his Guard duty, overestimated the potency of Saddam Hussein's weapons when U.S.-led troops went to war in Iraq and isn't taking the right steps to reduce unemployment.
"Nobody likes that part of campaigning ? the personal attacks," Mrs. Bush said. "I certainly don't like it."
On other issues, Mrs. Bush said Americans need time to sort out their feelings about gay marriage, which she said was a "shocking" concept to many people. And she said abstinence should always be included in sex education.
Asked whether the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, will run for president, she replied, "I doubt it, but I have no idea."
Mrs. Bush said she and the president have been feeling a bit "nostalgic" as they watch the Democratic candidates campaigning in the snows of New Hampshire and Iowa.
"That's a much more up-close and personal campaign because you get to actually be with so many of the voters," she said. "We both miss that."
And she said that despite the lack of privacy that comes with being first lady ? a title she finds "too artificial" ? she doesn't feel as if she must constantly bite her tongue.
"I'm actually very disciplined," she said. "I don't really have to watch everything I say because I'm pretty well-behaved."
In a wide-ranging interview, Mrs. Bush put her stamp of approval on sexual abstinence programs, which would have their doubled under the president's latest budget proposal. Abstinence should be extensively discussed alongside contraception, she said. "I do think abstinence works. We know it works," she said. "It's 100 percent fail-safe."
Mrs. Bush wouldn't disclose her opinion on the issue of gay marriage, a hot-button topic on both coasts.
In California, gay couples have been lining up to get marriage licenses in San Francisco. On the East Coast, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that its state constitution permits gay marriages ? a ruling the president called "deeply troubling."
Bush has said that if judges "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people," he would be forced to protect the "sanctity of marriage" by seeking a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages.
So far, he hasn't.
"It's an issue that people want to talk about and not want the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco to make their choice for them," Mrs. Bush said. "I know that's what the president thinks. I think people ought to have that opportunity to debate it, to think about it, to see what the American people really want to do about the issue."
But when asked how she feels about same-sex marriages, Mrs. Bush replied: "Let's just leave it at that."
AP: Laura Bush Stands by Her Man
Thu Feb 19, 2:43 AM ET
By DEB RIECHMANN, Associated Press Writer
SANTA MONICA, Calif. - Out on the campaign trail raising re-election cash and promoting reading, Laura Bush is staunchly defending her husband's credibility and taking a shot at Democrats who claim he skipped out on his National Guard duty.
AP Photo
"I think it's a political, you know, witch hunt, actually, on the part of Democrats," the first lady said in an interview with The Associated Press.
The president served in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War and did report for duty in Alabama where he was briefly assigned, Mrs. Bush said.
"He knows that he served honorably," she said. "He knows that he showed up the whole time."
Mrs. Bush spoke Tuesday as she flew west on a three-day trip to Arkansas, California and Nevada to attend four fund-raisers and four education events. It ends Thursday in Las Vegas.
The first lady's demeanor is quiet and matter-of-fact, yet she sometimes must serve as the president's flak jacket when she's on the road, especially now as his approval ratings are drooping amid a recent barrage of Democratic attacks lobbed during the presidential primaries.
However, she seems to relish the role, traveling the nation to talk about education, especially reading among young students, and to bolster her husband's political positions.
"You know, I'm the one who has seen him up close and can tell people what he's like," she said, sitting on a couch in a private section of the plane and sipping occasionally from a bottle of water. "I've seen how steady he is, how he's steadied our country and how he's steeled our country for the fight against terror. ... I'm really proud of him. I love to have the opportunity to go around the country and talk about him."
Still, she admits being hurt by mostly Democratic allegations that he lied to the American people about his Guard duty, overestimated the potency of Saddam Hussein's weapons when U.S.-led troops went to war in Iraq and isn't taking the right steps to reduce unemployment.
"Nobody likes that part of campaigning ? the personal attacks," Mrs. Bush said. "I certainly don't like it."
On other issues, Mrs. Bush said Americans need time to sort out their feelings about gay marriage, which she said was a "shocking" concept to many people. And she said abstinence should always be included in sex education.
Asked whether the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush, will run for president, she replied, "I doubt it, but I have no idea."
Mrs. Bush said she and the president have been feeling a bit "nostalgic" as they watch the Democratic candidates campaigning in the snows of New Hampshire and Iowa.
"That's a much more up-close and personal campaign because you get to actually be with so many of the voters," she said. "We both miss that."
And she said that despite the lack of privacy that comes with being first lady ? a title she finds "too artificial" ? she doesn't feel as if she must constantly bite her tongue.
"I'm actually very disciplined," she said. "I don't really have to watch everything I say because I'm pretty well-behaved."
In a wide-ranging interview, Mrs. Bush put her stamp of approval on sexual abstinence programs, which would have their doubled under the president's latest budget proposal. Abstinence should be extensively discussed alongside contraception, she said. "I do think abstinence works. We know it works," she said. "It's 100 percent fail-safe."
Mrs. Bush wouldn't disclose her opinion on the issue of gay marriage, a hot-button topic on both coasts.
In California, gay couples have been lining up to get marriage licenses in San Francisco. On the East Coast, the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court recently ruled that its state constitution permits gay marriages ? a ruling the president called "deeply troubling."
Bush has said that if judges "insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people," he would be forced to protect the "sanctity of marriage" by seeking a constitutional amendment to prohibit same-sex marriages.
So far, he hasn't.
"It's an issue that people want to talk about and not want the Massachusetts Supreme Court or the mayor of San Francisco to make their choice for them," Mrs. Bush said. "I know that's what the president thinks. I think people ought to have that opportunity to debate it, to think about it, to see what the American people really want to do about the issue."
But when asked how she feels about same-sex marriages, Mrs. Bush replied: "Let's just leave it at that."
Wednesday, February 18, 2004
Sunday, February 15, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=578&e=1&u=/nm/20040215/ts_nm/security_iraq_saddam_dc
Iraqis Want to Try Saddam Without POW Status
Sun Feb 15, 1:39 PM ET
KUWAIT (Reuters) - The U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council will ask the United States to hand over Saddam Hussein and to remove his status as a prisoner of war when Iraqis take over power on June 30, Iraq's foreign minister said Sunday.
"Yes, we will demand changing his status and handing him over to Iraqi justice to put him on trial," Hoshiyar Zebari said in response to a question at a news conference after a two-day summit in Kuwait by Iraq and neighboring states.
"In fact, our agreement with the United States and the coalition forces is that when we as Iraqis are ready, especially after June 30, after the return of sovereignty and authority to the interim Iraqi government, we will demand changing Saddam's prisoner of war status."
The United States last month declared the former Iraqi president a prisoner of war, meaning he has certain specific rights under the Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs.
That provoked demonstrations in Baghdad by Iraqis opposed to the move, who also demanded that Saddam face the death penalty. "From a legal viewpoint, his status as a prisoner of war does not bar putting him on trial," Zebari added.
Saddam has been held by U.S. forces since his December 13 capture near Tikrit. The Iraqi Governing Council is setting up a war crimes tribunal to try him on charges that could include genocide and crimes against humanity.
A statement by Iraq and its six neighbors after two days of talks in Kuwait said they "commended the decision of the Iraqi people to bring the leaders of the previous regime, particularly the former President of Iraq, to justice and to try them for their crimes against humanity and call upon all States not to provide them with safe havens."
U.S. officials have said they do not rule out the possibility the United States might re-evaluate Saddam's POW status in the future.
The Pentagon says Saddam is being given all the rights due him under the Geneva Convention.
The convention requires that the International Committee of the Red Cross have access to POWs and that they be treated humanely, including not being subjected to intimidation or insult and not being subjected to public curiosity.
It also requires that POWs be given proper food and freedom, be free to exercise their religion and receive monthly pay depending on rank.
Iraqis Want to Try Saddam Without POW Status
Sun Feb 15, 1:39 PM ET
KUWAIT (Reuters) - The U.S.-backed Iraqi Governing Council will ask the United States to hand over Saddam Hussein and to remove his status as a prisoner of war when Iraqis take over power on June 30, Iraq's foreign minister said Sunday.
"Yes, we will demand changing his status and handing him over to Iraqi justice to put him on trial," Hoshiyar Zebari said in response to a question at a news conference after a two-day summit in Kuwait by Iraq and neighboring states.
"In fact, our agreement with the United States and the coalition forces is that when we as Iraqis are ready, especially after June 30, after the return of sovereignty and authority to the interim Iraqi government, we will demand changing Saddam's prisoner of war status."
The United States last month declared the former Iraqi president a prisoner of war, meaning he has certain specific rights under the Geneva Convention on treatment of POWs.
That provoked demonstrations in Baghdad by Iraqis opposed to the move, who also demanded that Saddam face the death penalty. "From a legal viewpoint, his status as a prisoner of war does not bar putting him on trial," Zebari added.
Saddam has been held by U.S. forces since his December 13 capture near Tikrit. The Iraqi Governing Council is setting up a war crimes tribunal to try him on charges that could include genocide and crimes against humanity.
A statement by Iraq and its six neighbors after two days of talks in Kuwait said they "commended the decision of the Iraqi people to bring the leaders of the previous regime, particularly the former President of Iraq, to justice and to try them for their crimes against humanity and call upon all States not to provide them with safe havens."
U.S. officials have said they do not rule out the possibility the United States might re-evaluate Saddam's POW status in the future.
The Pentagon says Saddam is being given all the rights due him under the Geneva Convention.
The convention requires that the International Committee of the Red Cross have access to POWs and that they be treated humanely, including not being subjected to intimidation or insult and not being subjected to public curiosity.
It also requires that POWs be given proper food and freedom, be free to exercise their religion and receive monthly pay depending on rank.
Friday, February 13, 2004
http://home.eircom.net/content/reuters/worldnews/2528601?view=Eircomnet
U.S. nuke facilities fail security tests - report
From:Reuters
Friday, 13th February, 2004
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Security at two U.S. nuclear weapons facilities has been breached at least three times in mock terrorist drills despite heightened concerns after the September 11 attacks, says CBS news show "60 Minutes."
Security measures failed at the Y-12 nuclear complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- America's primary source of weapons-grade plutonium -- and at Los Alamos National Laboratory near Albuquerque, New Mexico, according to the report to be aired on Sunday.
The scheduled tests showed long-standing security problems had not been adequately addressed despite the new terrorism risk, according to the man who conducted other mock drills for the Department of Energy leading up to the September 11, 2001, assault.
"People should know that the Department of Energy facilities cannot withstand a full terrorist attack ... a realistic attack, serious, state-sponsored," said Richard Levernier, a former senior DOE nuclear security specialist.
A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration said the news release for the segment was "misleading at best and irresponsible at worst."
"Our nuclear materials are secure and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise," said spokesman Anson Franklin, adding: "These tests are designed to find vulnerabilities before someone else does ... it's wrong to suggest that terrorists could easily penetrate security at these sites."
Levernier said there was a 50 percent failure rate in the tests of factories and laboratories he conducted.
Chris Steele, the DOE's senior safety official at Los Alamos, said he was in the process of giving the laboratory an "F" grade because of "systematic nuclear safety violations."
The "60 Minutes" report cited other examples of lax security including the disappearance of hundreds of electronic key cards and master keys at nuclear facilities.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory near San Francisco failed to immediately report its missing keys, while at Sandia National Laboratories near Albuquerque, locks to missing keys had just been replaced after three years, the report said.
"I find it inexplicable and unacceptable that people don't take (security concerns) seriously," NNSA chief Linton Brooks told "60 Minutes."
"And that's why we have been working to fix that problem."
Security at the facilities, however, was "perfectly acceptable," said Brooks. "Safe and no problem are not the same thing."
Copyright (2003) Reuters.
U.S. nuke facilities fail security tests - report
From:Reuters
Friday, 13th February, 2004
NEW YORK (Reuters) - Security at two U.S. nuclear weapons facilities has been breached at least three times in mock terrorist drills despite heightened concerns after the September 11 attacks, says CBS news show "60 Minutes."
Security measures failed at the Y-12 nuclear complex in Oak Ridge, Tennessee -- America's primary source of weapons-grade plutonium -- and at Los Alamos National Laboratory near Albuquerque, New Mexico, according to the report to be aired on Sunday.
The scheduled tests showed long-standing security problems had not been adequately addressed despite the new terrorism risk, according to the man who conducted other mock drills for the Department of Energy leading up to the September 11, 2001, assault.
"People should know that the Department of Energy facilities cannot withstand a full terrorist attack ... a realistic attack, serious, state-sponsored," said Richard Levernier, a former senior DOE nuclear security specialist.
A spokesman for the National Nuclear Security Administration said the news release for the segment was "misleading at best and irresponsible at worst."
"Our nuclear materials are secure and it's irresponsible to suggest otherwise," said spokesman Anson Franklin, adding: "These tests are designed to find vulnerabilities before someone else does ... it's wrong to suggest that terrorists could easily penetrate security at these sites."
Levernier said there was a 50 percent failure rate in the tests of factories and laboratories he conducted.
Chris Steele, the DOE's senior safety official at Los Alamos, said he was in the process of giving the laboratory an "F" grade because of "systematic nuclear safety violations."
The "60 Minutes" report cited other examples of lax security including the disappearance of hundreds of electronic key cards and master keys at nuclear facilities.
Lawrence Livermore Laboratory near San Francisco failed to immediately report its missing keys, while at Sandia National Laboratories near Albuquerque, locks to missing keys had just been replaced after three years, the report said.
"I find it inexplicable and unacceptable that people don't take (security concerns) seriously," NNSA chief Linton Brooks told "60 Minutes."
"And that's why we have been working to fix that problem."
Security at the facilities, however, was "perfectly acceptable," said Brooks. "Safe and no problem are not the same thing."
Copyright (2003) Reuters.
Thursday, February 12, 2004
Dear Friends,
This coming Friday (Februar 13th) Draggie's ashes will be scattered across the Vineyard ocated in Paso Robles, California.
Dr. Valentine and his office assistants do not know what time this will take place, just that Friday is the designated day.
I wanted to invite you to light a candle this Friday at the time of your choosing, and to offer little Draggie a prayer to help send him on his way. It would mean a great to
me if you were part of the day's meditations.
For astrologers, the Moon enters Sagittarius at 3:35 pm PST. This is the sign of Draggie's birth moon. He is sailing across the great divide at his Lunar Return. I know stargazers realize the great significance of this.
Thank you for being there for me and for understanding how deeply important this is to me.
Love & Blessings,
Claudia
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/02/12/bushs_loss_of_flying_status_should_have_spurred_probe/
Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe
By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Globe Staff, 2/12/2004
President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.
Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, for the second day in a row, refused yesterday to answer questions about Bush's failure to take the physical and appeared to retreat from Bush's promise Sunday to make public all of his military records. Asked at a midday press briefing if all of Bush's records would be released, McClellan said, "We'd have to see if there is any new information in that."
Read more coverage of Bush's National Guard service
Late yesterday, assistant White House press secretary Erin Healy said the White House does not have records about the flight physical. "At this point, we've shared everything we have," Healy said. A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said if there are records about any inquiry into Bush's flight status, they would most likely be in Bush's personnel file, stored in a military records facility in Colorado.
For military aviators, the annual flight physical is a line they must cross to retain coveted flying status. Flight surgeons who conduct the examinations have the power to remove pilots from flying duty.
The new questions about Bush's service arose a day after the White House disclosed attendance and payroll records that appeared to show that Bush sporadically attended Guard drills between May 1972 and May 1973 -- even though his superiors at the time said that Bush did not appear at their units in that period.
Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.
Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.
"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.
Bush joined the Texas Air Guard in May 1968 after intercession by friends of his father, who was then a Houston congressman. He was quickly commissioned, spent a year in flight school in Georgia and then six months learning to fly an F-102 fighter-interceptor at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. From June 1970 until April 1972, he flew frequently.
His last flight physical was in May 1971.
The following April, just before his next physical was due, Bush moved temporarily to Alabama to work on a Republican US Senate race, and was given permission to attend Guard drills at a Montgomery Air Guard base. But he did not appear for his May 1972 physical, and he performed no duty at all until late October 1972, according to Guard records that became public this week.
A Sept. 29, 1972, order sent to Bush by the National Guard Bureau, the defense department agency which oversees the Guard, noted that Bush had been verbally suspended from flying on Aug. 1. The written order made it official: "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
The order required Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing and also said: "The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." After that, the commander had two options -- to convene the Evaluation Board to review Bush's suspension or forward a detailed report on his case up the chain of command.
Either way, officials said yesterday, there should have been a record of the investigation.
The issue of Bush's suspension has been clouded in mystery since it first arose during the 2000 campaign. Dan Bartlett, a Bush campaign aide who is now White House communications director, said then that Bush didn't take the physical because his family physician was in Houston and he was in Alabama. But the examination is supposed to be done by a flight surgeon, and could have been done at the base in Montgomery.
It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.
Weaver said it is entirely possible that Killian -- who, according to Bush's biography was also a friend -- concluded that Bush had lost interest in flying, at a time when Weaver said there were numerous active duty pilots with combat experience eager to get flying billets in Guard units.
Weaver, after looking over Bush's light duty load between May 1972 and May 1973, said he doubted that Bush would have been proficient enough to return to the F-102 cockpit. "I would not have let him near the airplane," Weaver said. If there was evidence that Bush's interest in the Guard had waned, Weaver said, then it would have been acceptable for Bush's commanders to "cut their losses" and grant him an early release rather than retain a guard pilot who could no longer fly.
McGinnis said he, too, thought it possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability, so they decided "to get him off the books, make his father happy, and hope no one would notice."
But McGinnis said there should have been an investigation and a report. "If it didn't happen, that shows how far they were willing to stretch the rules to accommodate" then-Lieutenant Bush.
In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush put no limitations on what information would be released to the public. On several occasions, Bush offered broad assurances that he was willing to open his entire military record, as Senator John McCain and retired General Wesley K. Clark had done previously. Asked by the show's host, Tim Russert, if he would authorize the release of "everything to settle this," Bush's response was emphatic: "Yes, absolutely."
At yesterday's press briefing, McClellan accused those who continue to question the president's National Guard service of "gutter politics" and "trolling for trash" in a political campaign season.
Asked if the same was true in 1992 when Bush's father criticized Governor Bill Clinton for not releasing his military records, stoking the controversy around Clinton's active avoidance of the Vietnam War draft by calling him "Slick Willie," McLellan replied, "I think that you expect the garbage can to be thrown at you in the 11th hour of a campaign, but not nine months before Election Day."
The sensitivity of questions about the president's military service was on display on Capitol Hill yesterday. In an unusually rancorous response, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell took Ohio Democratic Representative Sherrod Brown to task at a House International Relations Committee hearing for saying that Bush "may have been AWOL."
"Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president, because you don't know what you're talking about," the former Joint Chiefs chairman and Vietnam veteran said. "If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let's not go there."
Sacha Pfeiffer, Bryan Bender, and Michael Rezendes of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Bush's loss of flying status should have spurred probe
By Walter V. Robinson and Francie Latour, Globe Staff, 2/12/2004
President Bush's August 1972 suspension from flight status in the Texas Air National Guard -- triggered by his failure to take a required annual flight physical -- should have prompted an investigation by his commander, a written acknowledgement by Bush, and perhaps a written report to senior Air Force officials, according to Air Force regulations in effect at the time.
Bush, who was a fighter-interceptor pilot assigned to the Texas Air National Guard, last flew in April 1972 -- just before the missed physical and 30 months before his flight commitment ended. He also did not attend National Guard training for several months that year and was permitted to cut short his military commitment a year later in 1973.
White House spokesman Scott McClellan, for the second day in a row, refused yesterday to answer questions about Bush's failure to take the physical and appeared to retreat from Bush's promise Sunday to make public all of his military records. Asked at a midday press briefing if all of Bush's records would be released, McClellan said, "We'd have to see if there is any new information in that."
Read more coverage of Bush's National Guard service
Late yesterday, assistant White House press secretary Erin Healy said the White House does not have records about the flight physical. "At this point, we've shared everything we have," Healy said. A spokesman for the National Guard Bureau said if there are records about any inquiry into Bush's flight status, they would most likely be in Bush's personnel file, stored in a military records facility in Colorado.
For military aviators, the annual flight physical is a line they must cross to retain coveted flying status. Flight surgeons who conduct the examinations have the power to remove pilots from flying duty.
The new questions about Bush's service arose a day after the White House disclosed attendance and payroll records that appeared to show that Bush sporadically attended Guard drills between May 1972 and May 1973 -- even though his superiors at the time said that Bush did not appear at their units in that period.
Two retired National Guard generals, in interviews yesterday, said they were surprised that Bush -- or any military pilot -- would forgo a required annual flight physical and take no apparent steps to rectify the problem and return to flying. "There is no excuse for that. Aviators just don't miss their flight physicals," said Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard, in an interview.
Brigadier General David L. McGinnis, a former top aide to the assistant secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs, said in an interview that Bush's failure to remain on flying status amounts to a violation of the signed pledge by Bush that he would fly for at least five years after he completed flight school in November 1969.
"Failure to take your flight physical is like a failure to show up for duty. It is an obligation you can't blow off," McGinnis said.
Bush joined the Texas Air Guard in May 1968 after intercession by friends of his father, who was then a Houston congressman. He was quickly commissioned, spent a year in flight school in Georgia and then six months learning to fly an F-102 fighter-interceptor at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston. From June 1970 until April 1972, he flew frequently.
His last flight physical was in May 1971.
The following April, just before his next physical was due, Bush moved temporarily to Alabama to work on a Republican US Senate race, and was given permission to attend Guard drills at a Montgomery Air Guard base. But he did not appear for his May 1972 physical, and he performed no duty at all until late October 1972, according to Guard records that became public this week.
A Sept. 29, 1972, order sent to Bush by the National Guard Bureau, the defense department agency which oversees the Guard, noted that Bush had been verbally suspended from flying on Aug. 1. The written order made it official: "Reason for suspension: Failure to accomplish annual medical examination."
The order required Bush to acknowledge the suspension in writing and also said: "The local commander who has authority to convene a Flying Evaluation Board will direct an investigation as to why the individual failed to accomplish the medical examination." After that, the commander had two options -- to convene the Evaluation Board to review Bush's suspension or forward a detailed report on his case up the chain of command.
Either way, officials said yesterday, there should have been a record of the investigation.
The issue of Bush's suspension has been clouded in mystery since it first arose during the 2000 campaign. Dan Bartlett, a Bush campaign aide who is now White House communications director, said then that Bush didn't take the physical because his family physician was in Houston and he was in Alabama. But the examination is supposed to be done by a flight surgeon, and could have been done at the base in Montgomery.
It is unclear whether Bush's commander, Lieutenant Colonel Jerry B. Killian, ordered any inquiry, as required.
Weaver said it is entirely possible that Killian -- who, according to Bush's biography was also a friend -- concluded that Bush had lost interest in flying, at a time when Weaver said there were numerous active duty pilots with combat experience eager to get flying billets in Guard units.
Weaver, after looking over Bush's light duty load between May 1972 and May 1973, said he doubted that Bush would have been proficient enough to return to the F-102 cockpit. "I would not have let him near the airplane," Weaver said. If there was evidence that Bush's interest in the Guard had waned, Weaver said, then it would have been acceptable for Bush's commanders to "cut their losses" and grant him an early release rather than retain a guard pilot who could no longer fly.
McGinnis said he, too, thought it possible that Bush's superiors considered him a liability, so they decided "to get him off the books, make his father happy, and hope no one would notice."
But McGinnis said there should have been an investigation and a report. "If it didn't happen, that shows how far they were willing to stretch the rules to accommodate" then-Lieutenant Bush.
In an interview Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush put no limitations on what information would be released to the public. On several occasions, Bush offered broad assurances that he was willing to open his entire military record, as Senator John McCain and retired General Wesley K. Clark had done previously. Asked by the show's host, Tim Russert, if he would authorize the release of "everything to settle this," Bush's response was emphatic: "Yes, absolutely."
At yesterday's press briefing, McClellan accused those who continue to question the president's National Guard service of "gutter politics" and "trolling for trash" in a political campaign season.
Asked if the same was true in 1992 when Bush's father criticized Governor Bill Clinton for not releasing his military records, stoking the controversy around Clinton's active avoidance of the Vietnam War draft by calling him "Slick Willie," McLellan replied, "I think that you expect the garbage can to be thrown at you in the 11th hour of a campaign, but not nine months before Election Day."
The sensitivity of questions about the president's military service was on display on Capitol Hill yesterday. In an unusually rancorous response, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell took Ohio Democratic Representative Sherrod Brown to task at a House International Relations Committee hearing for saying that Bush "may have been AWOL."
"Mr. Brown, I won't dignify your comments about the president, because you don't know what you're talking about," the former Joint Chiefs chairman and Vietnam veteran said. "If you want to have a political fight on this matter, that is very controversial, and I think is being dealt with by the White House, fine. But let's not go there."
Sacha Pfeiffer, Bryan Bender, and Michael Rezendes of the Globe staff contributed to this report.
© Copyright 2004 Globe Newspaper Company.
Tuesday, February 10, 2004
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A28838-2004Feb10.html
White House Releases Bush's Military Records
By Lois Romano and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2004; 4:00 PM
The White House today released records of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard and said they show that he was paid--and therefore was in service--during a year when his presence at drills has not been publicly documented.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."
"It showed that he fulfilled his duties," McClellan said. "There are some that have made outrageous accusations, and I think you need to ask those individuals if they want to continue to stand by those outrageous accusations in the face of documentation that clearly demonstrates the president fulfilled his duties."
The documents released today include an Air Force personnel record card for Bush from May 27, 1972, until May 26, 1973, and a summary prepared by the Defense Financing Accounting Service that shows what days Bush served in 1972 and 1973. Neither of those documents had been released before by Bush. In addition, an Air Force record for annual point summaries was given to reporters that shows dates on which service was performed. A portion of that record had been released before.
At issue is a 12-month period, commencing in May 1972, when Bush moved to Alabama to work on a senatorial campaign. He received permission to transfer to an Alabama unit and was instructed to report to duty there. But until the release of today's information, there had been no evidence that Bush reported to the Alabama unit to perform drills; Bush has said he did report and perform drills.
The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.
A statement by retired Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, also released today by the White House, says the documents show that Bush had a "satisfactory year for retirement/retention" in both 1972 and 1973 and "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner." Lloyd, who reviewed some records for the Bush during the 2000 campaign, served as a personnel officer for the Texas Air National Guard from 1969 to 1995.
There is no indication, however, what duties Bush performed on those 14 days.
In addition, according to the documents, Bush was performing service or unit drills in early 1973, at a time when his commanding officers wrote that they could not evaluate him because "he has not been observed" at Ellington Air Force base in Houston.
No one who served in Bush's Alabama unit at that time has come forward, despite years of publicity on the subject, to confirm the president's assertions about his service. The brigadier general Bush was to report to in Alabama has said he has no recollection of Bush's doing so.
Bush left the Guard in October 1973 to attend Harvard Business School.
Defense Department officials said yesterday that they had requested Bush's payroll records from his service in the National Guard be sent to Washington from a DOD archive in Colorado.
Bush, in an interview shown Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he would release all his records, including pay stubs, to put to rest political suggestions that he may not have fulfilled his duty . The president also suggested there might not be anything in the records that has not already been in the public domain.
"I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for [Texas] governor," Bush said. "And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well."
At a briefing today, McClellan, who rarely rebukes reporters, said firmly when a television correspondent continued asking about questions the records do not answer: "The president fulfilled his duties. And if you want to question other people who fulfill their duties, that's your prerogative. I won't."
McClellan was asked whether he would commit to making other relevant records available. "This is what we know that is available that exists," he said.
Administration officials have sought to portray the controversy as old news that was aired during Bush's first campaign for Texas governor and "it was a shame that this was brought up in 1994," McClellan said. "It was as shame that it was brought up in 2000. And it is a shame that it was brought up again."
McClellan said White House communications director Dan Bartlett received the information last night.
Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, two weeks before graduating from Yale and at the height of the Vietnam War.
Bush's service record was explored by the Democrats and the media in 2000 but received new attention recently, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe called Bush "AWOL" -- absent without leave -- during his time in Alabama.
White House Releases Bush's Military Records
By Lois Romano and Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writers
Tuesday, February 10, 2004; 4:00 PM
The White House today released records of President Bush's service in the Texas Air National Guard and said they show that he was paid--and therefore was in service--during a year when his presence at drills has not been publicly documented.
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said the records "show that he was paid for his service, and you get paid for the days on which you serve."
"It showed that he fulfilled his duties," McClellan said. "There are some that have made outrageous accusations, and I think you need to ask those individuals if they want to continue to stand by those outrageous accusations in the face of documentation that clearly demonstrates the president fulfilled his duties."
The documents released today include an Air Force personnel record card for Bush from May 27, 1972, until May 26, 1973, and a summary prepared by the Defense Financing Accounting Service that shows what days Bush served in 1972 and 1973. Neither of those documents had been released before by Bush. In addition, an Air Force record for annual point summaries was given to reporters that shows dates on which service was performed. A portion of that record had been released before.
At issue is a 12-month period, commencing in May 1972, when Bush moved to Alabama to work on a senatorial campaign. He received permission to transfer to an Alabama unit and was instructed to report to duty there. But until the release of today's information, there had been no evidence that Bush reported to the Alabama unit to perform drills; Bush has said he did report and perform drills.
The records indicate that between May 1972 and May 1973, Bush served 14 days -- two days in October, four days in November, six days in January and two days in April. The White House offered no indication of why there was a gap in Bush's service from April to October, 1972.
A statement by retired Lt. Col. Albert C. Lloyd, also released today by the White House, says the documents show that Bush had a "satisfactory year for retirement/retention" in both 1972 and 1973 and "completed his military obligation in a satisfactory manner." Lloyd, who reviewed some records for the Bush during the 2000 campaign, served as a personnel officer for the Texas Air National Guard from 1969 to 1995.
There is no indication, however, what duties Bush performed on those 14 days.
In addition, according to the documents, Bush was performing service or unit drills in early 1973, at a time when his commanding officers wrote that they could not evaluate him because "he has not been observed" at Ellington Air Force base in Houston.
No one who served in Bush's Alabama unit at that time has come forward, despite years of publicity on the subject, to confirm the president's assertions about his service. The brigadier general Bush was to report to in Alabama has said he has no recollection of Bush's doing so.
Bush left the Guard in October 1973 to attend Harvard Business School.
Defense Department officials said yesterday that they had requested Bush's payroll records from his service in the National Guard be sent to Washington from a DOD archive in Colorado.
Bush, in an interview shown Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," said he would release all his records, including pay stubs, to put to rest political suggestions that he may not have fulfilled his duty . The president also suggested there might not be anything in the records that has not already been in the public domain.
"I mean, people have been looking for these files for a long period of time, trust me, and starting in the 1994 campaign for [Texas] governor," Bush said. "And I can assure you in the year 2000 people were looking for those files as well."
At a briefing today, McClellan, who rarely rebukes reporters, said firmly when a television correspondent continued asking about questions the records do not answer: "The president fulfilled his duties. And if you want to question other people who fulfill their duties, that's your prerogative. I won't."
McClellan was asked whether he would commit to making other relevant records available. "This is what we know that is available that exists," he said.
Administration officials have sought to portray the controversy as old news that was aired during Bush's first campaign for Texas governor and "it was a shame that this was brought up in 1994," McClellan said. "It was as shame that it was brought up in 2000. And it is a shame that it was brought up again."
McClellan said White House communications director Dan Bartlett received the information last night.
Bush enlisted in the Texas Air National Guard in 1968, two weeks before graduating from Yale and at the height of the Vietnam War.
Bush's service record was explored by the Democrats and the media in 2000 but received new attention recently, when Democratic National Committee Chairman Terence R. McAuliffe called Bush "AWOL" -- absent without leave -- during his time in Alabama.
Monday, February 09, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=2&u=/ap/20040209/ap_on_el_pr/democrats
Kerry's Wins Have His Rivals Scrambling
February 9, 2004
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer
John Kerry's three-state weekend rout, capped by his coast to victory in Maine, pushed him closer to the Democratic nomination and left his rivals scrambling to find a way to stop the front-runner.
Boasting a daunting record of 10 wins in 12 contests, Kerry focused on the next round — Tuesday's primaries in Virginia and Tennessee — and the opportunity for the Massachusetts senator to show his clout in the South.
Rivals John Edwards and Wesley Clark, the two Southerners in the race, talked of populist themes in hopes of making inroads with voters in the two states that offer 151 pledged delegates and, more important, continued survival in the Democratic race.
Neither Edwards nor Clark — nor one-time front-runner Howard Dean — could match Kerry's advantage in Maine, which held its caucuses Sunday with 24 delegates at stake.
Kerry outpaced Dean by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in the state, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio a distant third. Dean and Kucinich had made 11th-hour appeals to Maine voters. The win there came after Kerry's triumphs in Michigan and Washington state a day earlier.
Kerry has more than twice as many delegates as his closest pursuer, as his win in Maine pushed his total to 426, compared with Dean's 184, according to an Associated Press tally. It takes 2,162 delegates to win the nomination. Kucinich appeared to fall just short of qualifying for delegates in Maine.
Kerry's winning streak is beginning to demoralize his opponents. Aides to both Clark and Edwards said they expect their candidates to lose Tuesday in Virginia and Tennessee.
Clark and Edwards, who promised on Sunday to forge ahead despite Kerry's increasing advantage, are counting on a Feb. 17 showdown in Wisconsin, where the front-runner can expect withering attacks from all his rivals with the potential for a slip-up by the leader.
Looking beyond his Democratic rivals to a matchup with the incumbent president, Kerry issued a statement after his Maine victory vowing that "when the Republican smear machine trots out the same old attacks in this election, this is one Democrat who will fight back. I've fought for my country my entire life, and I'm not about to back down now."
Kerry ignored his primary opponents Sunday and criticized President Bush on Iraq. He also picked up backing from Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
Clark, Dean and Edwards, appearing separately on Sunday television talk shows, all said they would continue to challenge Kerry for the Democratic nomination despite the Massachusetts senator's advantage in the polls and in endorsements.
"Real voters are going to decide who the nominee is," Dean, a former Vermont governor, said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Dean, the former front-runner and winless since the start of voting, declined in interviews to repeat his earlier assertion that he would withdraw from the race if he lost Wisconsin. He planned to begin airing a 60-second biographical ad in Wisconsin that describes him as a maverick and focuses on his medical and gubernatorial background.
Clark said on CNN that he would run at least through the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries, including in California, Ohio and New York.
Edwards noted on "Fox News Sunday" that some 75 percent of delegates to the Democratic National Convention will still be up for grabs after Wisconsin votes.
American Research Group polls give Kerry sizable leads in all three states: 11 points over Edwards and 12 over Clark in Tennessee; 13 points over Edwards and 18 over Clark in Virginia; and 26 points over Clark and 31 over Edwards in Wisconsin. The margin of error in each poll taken last week was plus or minus 4 points.
Accepting Warner's endorsement in Richmond, Kerry said Bush had not fully answered questions about whether he fulfilled his National Guard service in Alabama during the Vietnam War.
"The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."
In an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush said he reported for duty and that his critics were wrong.
Kerry, who watched Bush's interview with Warner at the governor's mansion, also took issue with the president for saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
___
AP Political Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.
Kerry's Wins Have His Rivals Scrambling
February 9, 2004
By DONNA CASSATA, Associated Press Writer
John Kerry's three-state weekend rout, capped by his coast to victory in Maine, pushed him closer to the Democratic nomination and left his rivals scrambling to find a way to stop the front-runner.
Boasting a daunting record of 10 wins in 12 contests, Kerry focused on the next round — Tuesday's primaries in Virginia and Tennessee — and the opportunity for the Massachusetts senator to show his clout in the South.
Rivals John Edwards and Wesley Clark, the two Southerners in the race, talked of populist themes in hopes of making inroads with voters in the two states that offer 151 pledged delegates and, more important, continued survival in the Democratic race.
Neither Edwards nor Clark — nor one-time front-runner Howard Dean — could match Kerry's advantage in Maine, which held its caucuses Sunday with 24 delegates at stake.
Kerry outpaced Dean by a nearly 2-to-1 margin in the state, with Rep. Dennis Kucinich of Ohio a distant third. Dean and Kucinich had made 11th-hour appeals to Maine voters. The win there came after Kerry's triumphs in Michigan and Washington state a day earlier.
Kerry has more than twice as many delegates as his closest pursuer, as his win in Maine pushed his total to 426, compared with Dean's 184, according to an Associated Press tally. It takes 2,162 delegates to win the nomination. Kucinich appeared to fall just short of qualifying for delegates in Maine.
Kerry's winning streak is beginning to demoralize his opponents. Aides to both Clark and Edwards said they expect their candidates to lose Tuesday in Virginia and Tennessee.
Clark and Edwards, who promised on Sunday to forge ahead despite Kerry's increasing advantage, are counting on a Feb. 17 showdown in Wisconsin, where the front-runner can expect withering attacks from all his rivals with the potential for a slip-up by the leader.
Looking beyond his Democratic rivals to a matchup with the incumbent president, Kerry issued a statement after his Maine victory vowing that "when the Republican smear machine trots out the same old attacks in this election, this is one Democrat who will fight back. I've fought for my country my entire life, and I'm not about to back down now."
Kerry ignored his primary opponents Sunday and criticized President Bush on Iraq. He also picked up backing from Virginia Gov. Mark Warner.
Clark, Dean and Edwards, appearing separately on Sunday television talk shows, all said they would continue to challenge Kerry for the Democratic nomination despite the Massachusetts senator's advantage in the polls and in endorsements.
"Real voters are going to decide who the nominee is," Dean, a former Vermont governor, said on CNN's "Late Edition."
Dean, the former front-runner and winless since the start of voting, declined in interviews to repeat his earlier assertion that he would withdraw from the race if he lost Wisconsin. He planned to begin airing a 60-second biographical ad in Wisconsin that describes him as a maverick and focuses on his medical and gubernatorial background.
Clark said on CNN that he would run at least through the March 2 "Super Tuesday" primaries, including in California, Ohio and New York.
Edwards noted on "Fox News Sunday" that some 75 percent of delegates to the Democratic National Convention will still be up for grabs after Wisconsin votes.
American Research Group polls give Kerry sizable leads in all three states: 11 points over Edwards and 12 over Clark in Tennessee; 13 points over Edwards and 18 over Clark in Virginia; and 26 points over Clark and 31 over Edwards in Wisconsin. The margin of error in each poll taken last week was plus or minus 4 points.
Accepting Warner's endorsement in Richmond, Kerry said Bush had not fully answered questions about whether he fulfilled his National Guard service in Alabama during the Vietnam War.
"The issue here is, as I have heard it raised, is was he present and active in Alabama at the time he was supposed to be," said Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran. "I don't have the answer to that question and just because you get an honorable discharge does not, in fact, answer that question."
In an interview broadcast Sunday on NBC's "Meet the Press," Bush said he reported for duty and that his critics were wrong.
Kerry, who watched Bush's interview with Warner at the governor's mansion, also took issue with the president for saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein had the ability to produce weapons of mass destruction.
___
AP Political Writer Ron Fournier contributed to this report.
Friday, February 06, 2004
Dear Friends,
Starcat Draggie crossed the great water today, February 5, 2004, between 12:42 and 12:50 pm.
The Rainbow Bridge
His passing was assisted by Dr. Roger Valentine,
DVM one of his assistants. Draggie's passing was very gentle and very easy. He
was ready. There was nothing that could be done to save him. Draggie passed
right here at home on my bed with his favorite toys and favorite blanket
around him. We had a long, long time together last night to talk and share and
love.
I know Draggie is at peace and it was the right thing to do. Draggie
will be cremated and his ashes will be spread across a vineyard located in
Pasa Robles, California. This is being arranged as a special favor to me
courtesy of Dr. Valentine. It is wonder knowing that Draggie will join with
the good earth and the fruit of the vine.
Thank you for being there for us. I thank you, and
both Starcats Buggie and Jiqqi Jaqqi thank you, too.
Love, Claudia
Thursday, February 05, 2004
http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1141401,00.html
There was no failure of intelligence
US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday February 5, 2004
The Guardian
Before he departed on his quest for Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction last June, David Kay, chief of the Iraq Survey Group, told friends that he expected promptly to locate the cause of the pre-emptive war. On January 28, Kay appeared before the Senate to testify that there were no WMDs. "It turns out that we were all wrong," he said. President Bush, he added helpfully, was misinformed by the whole intelligence community which, like Kay, made assumptions that turned out to be false.
Within days, Bush declared that he would, after all, appoint a commission to investigate; significantly, it would report its findings only after the presidential election.
Kay's testimony was the catalyst for this u-turn, but only one of his claims is correct: that he was wrong. The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution.
Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president.
At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed.
Bruce Hardcastle was a senior officer for the Middle East for the Defence Intelligence Agency. When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons programme and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the DIA reported otherwise. According to Patrick Lang, the former head of human intelligence at the CIA, Hardcastle "told [the Bush administration] that the way they were handling evidence was wrong." The response was not simply to remove Hardcastle from his post: "They did away with his job," Lang says. "They wanted only liaison officers ... not a senior intelligence person who argued with them."
When the state department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR) submitted reports which did not support the administration's case - saying, for example, that the aluminum tubes Saddam possessed were for conventional rocketry, not nuclear weapons (a report corroborated by department of energy analysts), or that mobile laboratories were not for WMDs, or that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was bogus, or that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida (a report backed by the CIA) - its analyses were shunted aside. Greg Thielman, chief of the INR at the time, told me: "Everyone in the intelligence community knew that the White House couldn't care less about any information suggesting that there were no WMDs or that the UN inspectors were very effective."
When the CIA debunked the tales about Niger uranium and the Saddam/al-Qaida connection, its reports were ignored and direct pressure applied. In October 2002, the White House inserted mention of the uranium into a speech Bush was to deliver, but the CIA objected and it was excised. Three months later, it reappeared in his state of the union address. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed never to have seen the original CIA memo and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley said he had forgotten about it.
Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into CIA's Langley headquarters to argue with mid-level managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice vice president Cheney and Lewis Libby, his chief of staff, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang: "They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you're supposed to do. They would say: 'you haven't looked at the evidence'. The answer would be, those reports [from Iraqi exiles] aren't valid. The analysts would be told, you should look at this again'. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them."
The CIA had visitors too, according to Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East. Newt Gingrich came, and Condi Rice, and as for Cheney, "he likes the soup in the CIA cafeteria," McGovern jokes.
Meanwhile, senior intelligence officers were kept in the dark about the OSP. "I didn't know about its existence," said Thielman. "They were cherry picking intelligence and packaging it for Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."
CIA director George Tenet, for his part, opted to become a political advocate for Bush's brief rather than a protector of the intelligence community. On the eve of the congressional debate, in a crammed three-week period, the agency wrote a 90-page national intelligence estimate justifying the administration's position on WMDs and scrubbed of all dissent. Once the document was declassifed after the war it became known that it contained 40 caveats - including 15 uses of "probably", all of which had been removed from the previously published version. Tenet further ingratiated himself by remaining silent about the OSP. "That's totally unacceptable for a CIA director," said Thielman.
On February 5 2003, Colin Powell presented evidence of WMDs before the UN. Cheney and Libby had tried to inject material from Iraqi exiles and the OSP into his presentation, but Powell rejected most of it. Yet, for the most important speech of his career, he refused to allow the presence of any analysts from his own intelligence agency. "He didn't have anyone from INR near him," said Thielman. "Powell wanted to sell a rotten fish. He had decided there was no way to avoid war. His job was to go to war with as much legitimacy as we could scrape up."
Powell ignored INR analysts' comments on his speech. Almost every piece of evidence he unveiled turned out later to be false.
This week, when Bush announced he would appoint an investigative commission, Powell offered a limited mea culpa at a meeting at the Washington Post. He said that if only he had known the intelligence, he might not have supported an invasion. Thus he began to show carefully calibrated remorse, to distance himself from other members of the administration and especially Cheney. Powell also defended his UN speech, claiming "it reflected the best judgments of all of the intelligence agencies".
Powell is sensitive to the slightest political winds, especially if they might affect his reputation. If he is a bellwether, will it soon be that every man must save himself?
Sidney_Blumenthal@yahoo.com
There was no failure of intelligence
US spies were ignored, or worse, if they failed to make the case for war
Sidney Blumenthal
Thursday February 5, 2004
The Guardian
Before he departed on his quest for Saddam Hussein's fabled weapons of mass destruction last June, David Kay, chief of the Iraq Survey Group, told friends that he expected promptly to locate the cause of the pre-emptive war. On January 28, Kay appeared before the Senate to testify that there were no WMDs. "It turns out that we were all wrong," he said. President Bush, he added helpfully, was misinformed by the whole intelligence community which, like Kay, made assumptions that turned out to be false.
Within days, Bush declared that he would, after all, appoint a commission to investigate; significantly, it would report its findings only after the presidential election.
Kay's testimony was the catalyst for this u-turn, but only one of his claims is correct: that he was wrong. The truth is that much of the intelligence community did not fail, but presented correct assessments and warnings, that were overridden and suppressed. On virtually every single important claim made by the Bush administration in its case for war, there was serious dissension. Discordant views - not from individual analysts but from several intelligence agencies as a whole - were kept from the public as momentum was built for a congressional vote on the war resolution.
Precisely because of the qualms the administration encountered, it created a rogue intelligence operation, the Office of Special Plans, located within the Pentagon and under the control of neo-conservatives. The OSP roamed outside the ordinary inter-agency process, stamping its approval on stories from Iraqi exiles that the other agencies dismissed as lacking credibility, and feeding them to the president.
At the same time, constant pressure was applied to the intelligence agencies to force their compliance. In one case, a senior intelligence officer who refused to buckle under was removed.
Bruce Hardcastle was a senior officer for the Middle East for the Defence Intelligence Agency. When Bush insisted that Saddam was actively and urgently engaged in a nuclear weapons programme and had renewed production of chemical weapons, the DIA reported otherwise. According to Patrick Lang, the former head of human intelligence at the CIA, Hardcastle "told [the Bush administration] that the way they were handling evidence was wrong." The response was not simply to remove Hardcastle from his post: "They did away with his job," Lang says. "They wanted only liaison officers ... not a senior intelligence person who argued with them."
When the state department's bureau of intelligence and research (INR) submitted reports which did not support the administration's case - saying, for example, that the aluminum tubes Saddam possessed were for conventional rocketry, not nuclear weapons (a report corroborated by department of energy analysts), or that mobile laboratories were not for WMDs, or that the story about Saddam seeking uranium in Niger was bogus, or that there was no link between Saddam and al-Qaida (a report backed by the CIA) - its analyses were shunted aside. Greg Thielman, chief of the INR at the time, told me: "Everyone in the intelligence community knew that the White House couldn't care less about any information suggesting that there were no WMDs or that the UN inspectors were very effective."
When the CIA debunked the tales about Niger uranium and the Saddam/al-Qaida connection, its reports were ignored and direct pressure applied. In October 2002, the White House inserted mention of the uranium into a speech Bush was to deliver, but the CIA objected and it was excised. Three months later, it reappeared in his state of the union address. National security adviser Condoleezza Rice claimed never to have seen the original CIA memo and deputy national security adviser Stephen Hadley said he had forgotten about it.
Never before had any senior White House official physically intruded into CIA's Langley headquarters to argue with mid-level managers and analysts about unfinished work. But twice vice president Cheney and Lewis Libby, his chief of staff, came to offer their opinions. According to Patrick Lang: "They looked disapproving, questioned the reports and left an impression of what you're supposed to do. They would say: 'you haven't looked at the evidence'. The answer would be, those reports [from Iraqi exiles] aren't valid. The analysts would be told, you should look at this again'. Finally, people gave up. You learn not to contradict them."
The CIA had visitors too, according to Ray McGovern, former CIA chief for the Middle East. Newt Gingrich came, and Condi Rice, and as for Cheney, "he likes the soup in the CIA cafeteria," McGovern jokes.
Meanwhile, senior intelligence officers were kept in the dark about the OSP. "I didn't know about its existence," said Thielman. "They were cherry picking intelligence and packaging it for Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld to take to the president. That's the kind of rogue operation that peer review is intended to prevent."
CIA director George Tenet, for his part, opted to become a political advocate for Bush's brief rather than a protector of the intelligence community. On the eve of the congressional debate, in a crammed three-week period, the agency wrote a 90-page national intelligence estimate justifying the administration's position on WMDs and scrubbed of all dissent. Once the document was declassifed after the war it became known that it contained 40 caveats - including 15 uses of "probably", all of which had been removed from the previously published version. Tenet further ingratiated himself by remaining silent about the OSP. "That's totally unacceptable for a CIA director," said Thielman.
On February 5 2003, Colin Powell presented evidence of WMDs before the UN. Cheney and Libby had tried to inject material from Iraqi exiles and the OSP into his presentation, but Powell rejected most of it. Yet, for the most important speech of his career, he refused to allow the presence of any analysts from his own intelligence agency. "He didn't have anyone from INR near him," said Thielman. "Powell wanted to sell a rotten fish. He had decided there was no way to avoid war. His job was to go to war with as much legitimacy as we could scrape up."
Powell ignored INR analysts' comments on his speech. Almost every piece of evidence he unveiled turned out later to be false.
This week, when Bush announced he would appoint an investigative commission, Powell offered a limited mea culpa at a meeting at the Washington Post. He said that if only he had known the intelligence, he might not have supported an invasion. Thus he began to show carefully calibrated remorse, to distance himself from other members of the administration and especially Cheney. Powell also defended his UN speech, claiming "it reflected the best judgments of all of the intelligence agencies".
Powell is sensitive to the slightest political winds, especially if they might affect his reputation. If he is a bellwether, will it soon be that every man must save himself?
Sidney_Blumenthal@yahoo.com
Wednesday, February 04, 2004
http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/News/Election+2004/13DA4E0D2566C7D286256E300018A2F2?OpenDocument&Headline=State-by-state+roundup
State-by-state roundup
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
02/04/2004
Results as of early today:
ARIZONA
Vote: John Kerry 43 percent; Wesley Clark 27 percent; Howard Dean 14 percent; John Edwards 7 percent; Joe Lieberman 7 percent; Dennis Kucinich 2 percent; Al Sharpton less than 1 percent.
Delegates: 55; Kerry won 25, Clark 19, Dean 1.
Exit Poll: Hispanics went strongly for Kerry, who got almost half their votes, followed by Clark with one-fourth of the vote.
Of note: "It's clear that Arizonans, like the rest of the country, want a candidate who can send George Bush and his radical policies back to Texas," said Kerry spokeswoman Laura Kapps.
2000 general election winner: George W. Bush
DELAWARE
Vote: With all votes in, Kerry had 50 percent; Lieberman 11 percent; Edwards 11 percent; Dean 10 percent; Clark 9 percent; Sharpton 6 percent; Kucinich 1 percent.
Delegates: 15; Kerry won 14, Sharpton won 1.
Exit poll: Kerry's support was solid across the board: among men and women, blacks and whites, rich and poor and in all age groups, particularly the elderly.
Of note: Despite having the opportunity to vote in Delaware's first binding presidential primary, a vast majority of Delaware's 224,925 registered Democrats didn't cast ballots.
2000 general election winner: Al Gore
NEW MEXICO
Vote: In early caucus returns, Kerry had 41 percent; Clark 21 percent; Dean 17 percent; Edwards 11 percent; Kucinich 5 percent; Lieberman 3 percent.
Delegates: 26; Kerry won 7, Clark 5, Dean 3.
Of note: A winter storm and a little confusion frustrated some New Mexico voters in the state's first-ever presidential preference caucus. There were some long waits at several caucus sites.
2000 general election winner: Gore
NORTH DAKOTA
Vote: With all caucus returns in, Kerry had 51 percent; Clark 24 percent; Dean 12 percent; Edwards 10 percent; Kucinich 3 percent; Lieberman 1 percent; Sharpton less than 1 percent.
Delegates: 14; Kerry won 9, Clark 5.
Of note: Caucuses were held in nearly 100 locations including courthouses, city halls, centers for the elderly, private homes, restaurants and bars.
2000 general election winner: Bush
OKLAHOMA
Vote: With all votes in, Clark had 29.9 percent; Edwards 29.5 percent; Kerry 27 percent; Lieberman 7 percent; Dean 4 percent; Sharpton 1 percent; Kucinich 1 percent.
Delegates: 40; Clark won 15, Edwards 13, Kerry 12
Exit poll: Just over half the voters in Oklahoma disapproved of the war, compared with seven in 10 in the four other states with exit polls, Arizona, Delaware, Missouri and South Carolina.
Of note: Edwards earned the endorsement of former Oklahoma football coach Barry Switzer, who remains a popular figure after leading the Sooners to three national championships, then winning the 1995 Super Bowl with the Dallas Cowboys.
2000 general election winner: Bush
SOUTH CAROLINA
Vote: Edwards had 45 percent; Kerry 30 percent; Sharpton 10 percent; Clark 7 percent; Dean 5 percent; Lieberman 2 percent; Kucinich less than 1 percent.
Delegates: 45; Edwards won 28, Kerry 17.
Exit poll: Black voters split between Edwards and Kerry, with each getting one-third of the vote. Sharpton got about one in six.
Of note: "We won South Carolina in a resounding fashion and won both the African-American and white vote in South Carolina, and we go from here to other states - Michigan, Virginia and Tennessee," Edwards told The Associated Press. "It's very easy to lay out the map to get us to the nomination."
2000 general election winner: Bush
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)