http://www.pbs.org/now/transcript/transcript314_full.html
Bill Moyers interview with JOHN DEAN/"Worse Than Watergate"
BILL MOYERS: You could barely keep up with the news about the 9/11
Commission this week. So tonight, we're going to talk to someone with a
long
range perspective...remember Watergate?
WATERGATE HEARINGS: "What did the President know and when did he know
it?"
BILL MOYERS: 1973: The Watergate hearings mesmerized the nation and
brought
down a President of the United States, Richard Nixon. The star witness
was a
thirty-three year old John W. Dean.
JOHN DEAN: I began by telling the president there was a cancer growing
on
the presidency, and if the cancer was not removed, the President
himself
would be killed by it.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean came to the White House in 1970 as Counsel to
the
President, joining a team that included the equally young Dick Cheney
and
Donald Rumsfeld.
When burglars hired by the Nixon Campaign for Re-election were caught
breaking into the offices of the Democratic National Committee, Dean's
role
was to see that they got their "hush money" and kept their mouths shut.
When
the conspiracy began to unravel and it appeared he would be made the
fall
guy, Dean agreed to co-operate with the investigation Richard Nixon
fired
him in April 1973. Two months later, he made his dramatic appearance
before
the Senate committee investigating the scandal.
After five days of his testimony and cross-examination, there was no
doubt
that the cover-up started at the top, with the president himself.
To escape impeachment, Nixon resigned on August 9, 1974. John Dean
pleaded
guilty to conspiracy to obstruct justice and served four months in
prison.
Returning to private life, he began a successful career as an
investment
banker, lecturer and author. His books include three on the Nixon
administration - and now, this one, with the title: WORSE THAN
WATERGATE:
THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF GEORGE W. BUSH.
BILL MOYERS: John Dean joins me now to talk about secrecy in the White
House.
Welcome to NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
BILL MOYERS: Let's start with the news of the day. This morning we
learn
that President Bush has kept thousands of pages of secret documents
from the
Clinton years from being turned over to the commission investigating
the
9/11 attacks. What do you make of that?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I think it's very typical. I think it's very
consistent
with his pattern. It goes all the way back to when Cheney put together
his
Energy Task Force, for example, and put a shroud over that and has
refused,
adamantly, to release any information from that. This is just more of
that
pattern where this White House has decided they're going to take total
control of information.
And, they did it with the Joint Inquiry on Capitol Hill into 9/11. As
John
McCain said they were slow-walked and stonewalled on Capitol Hill by
the
administration. The families of 9/11 then urged that there be a
commission
created which we now have. And they've done the same thing. And brought
it
right into their own campaign.
BILL MOYERS: But these documents deal with al-Qaeda, Osama bin Laden,
the
Clinton team's reaction to the terrorist attack. Why wouldn't they want
the
Congress the investigating commission to have that kind of information
if
they're trying to put the whole story together?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not sure they want the whole story together.
There's
always a situation that when you deal with an investigation you can
either
be aggressive or you can be passive. You can be offensive or defensive.
They've decided to put them self in a defensive posture on this.
And I'm not sure that they haven't been forced to do it because they
have
something that they really don't want out about the way they've handled
it.
Mr. Clarke, his testimony indicates that they might have some things
that
they don't really wanna reveal to the public.
BILL MOYERS: Their efforts to stonewall, as you say, the investigations
have
failed. This is out today about they're holding back the documents from
the
Clinton years to the commission. But political pressure, public opinion
have
forced the testimony next week of Condoleezza Rice.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: So it's not working, is it?
JOHN DEAN: Well, it doesn't work.
They've obviously made a political decision that they cannot refuse to
let
Miss Rice testify. So he's agreed to let her do so. But there's still
more
information we don't know.
And he's also put, they put tight limits on her testimony. She's gonna
do 2
1/2 hours. That isn't a lot of testimony. That's really not a lot at
all.
BILL MOYERS: If Condoleezza Rice asked you to help her prepare for that
testimony, what advice would you give her?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'd say give lots of opinions. Because opinions aren't
perjurious.
BILL MOYERS: They're not?
JOHN DEAN: No. They're not.
BILL MOYERS: Perjurious meaning?
JOHN DEAN: You're convicted of perjury for a false statement.
BILL MOYERS: Give me an example.
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'll give you an example with Clarke. Clarke has said
that
he can't believe that Bush is running on his record of terrorism.
That's
pure opinion. You can't be convicted for perjury on offering an opinion
like
that.
BILL MOYERS: You finished this book when? Back in January?
JOHN DEAN: I finished it in late-January.
BILL MOYERS: So, you actually finished the book before the last month
of
intense activities and disclosures, right?
JOHN DEAN: I did. But the pattern has been so consistent. And I wrote
the
book because no one's talking about these things. Now more with this
issue
has come up. But I, at times, felt sort of like a CIA analyst where I
would
take this fact, that fact, taking my inside knowledge as you could do
as a
former insider. And piecing it together and seeing patterns and
understanding what they're really doing. And that's what this book lays
out.
BILL MOYERS: You write that the administration has tried to block,
frustrate
or control any investigation into 9/11 using, quote, "well-proven
tactics
not unlike those used by the Nixon White House during Watergate." What
tactics?
JOHN DEAN: Stall. Stall. Stall.
We knew that at the Nixon White House. Some of these are time-tested
tactics. When the Congress put together its joint inquiry, a joint
inquiry
itself was self-defeating because it's much more difficult for a joint
inquiry with its size, the lack of attention its staff can give to a
group
that large. It gets diffuse.
BILL MOYERS: So when you testified in Congress in the 70's there was a
Senate Investigating Committee and a House Judiciary Committee, right?
JOHN DEAN: Right. Separate committees. Exactly. And they can get much
more
focused. So it was very effective. And Cheney and Bush were very
involved.
They didn't want any of the standing committees to do it. They put them
together. And that was one of the first signs I saw that they're just
playing it by… I think they found an old playbook down in the basement
that
belonged to Richard Nixon. And they said, "Well, this stuff looks like
it
works."
BILL MOYERS: Be specific with me. What is worse than Watergate?
JOHN DEAN: If there's anything that really is the bottom line, it's
taking
the nation to war in a time when they might not have had to go to war
and
people dying. That is worse than Watergate. No one died for Nixon's
so-called Watergate abuses.
BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write,
quote,
"The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney
have
engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an
impeachable offense."
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states. I
cite
one. I cite one that I found, I tracked down after reading the Nixon
impeachment proceedings when Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to
look
to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the
the
Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case
is
overwhelming that these people presented false information to the
Congress
and to the American people.
BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at
the
time of the Gulf of Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the
basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the
Gulf of
Tonkin. It subsequently turns out there wasn't an attack.
Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and
concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he
hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable
offense
but what is happening now is?
JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it
comes
up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an
impeachable offense. That became a non-high crime or offense because
Nixon
had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson
didn't
tell anybody he was - the game he was playing to my knowledge.
And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make when
you
take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a
President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it
on
bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.
BILL MOYERS: After Congress delegated the authority to the President to
go
to war, it said, "Only, however, if you meet these two conditions. As
you
prove to us, you come back to us and determine that Iraq was involved
with
terrorism with al-Qaeda. And that there are weapons of mass
destruction."
And you say that Bush did not satisfy those two requirements?
JOHN DEAN: He did not. He explained. Had he merely sent his very
general
letter saying, "This is what I've determined." Keeping it very broad,
not
how he determined it or why he deterined it, he might have been all
right.
But he accompanied that with an explanation of how he had done so. And
it's
a bogus explanation.
BILL MOYERS: Secrecy always accompanies war. Presidents can't do their
job,
frankly, in war, without secrecy. Citizens come to take their
government's
word that secrecy is essential.
JOHN DEAN: Yes.
BILL MOYERS: Is the war on terrorism going to confirm people in the
tolerance of secrecy?
JOHN DEAN: The Bush-Cheney secrecy started long before 9-11. Started
long
before there was war. There has been only an acceleration and a use,
and to
me, an abuse, of secrecy using 9-11 as an excuse to make things secret
that
have no business being secret. This is what presidents do.
BILL MOYERS: You're especially agitated in here by what you call the
dirtiest of dirty tricks, the role of the government in revealing that
Ambassador Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plane Wilson, was a covert CIA
agent.
JOHN DEAN: As dirty a trick as I've ever seen, bar none.
BILL MOYERS: Dirtier than Nixon's?
JOHN DEAN: Dirtier. Nixon put no hits out on anybody that I nor did he
pick
on his enemies' wives. And this clearly was a dangerous leak. This
woman,
they knew she was at the CIA. They may or may not have known how much,
how
deeply involved she was. But there was always that risk when you reveal
the
identity of a CIA agent, particularly who's an operative.
BILL MOYERS: And you're satisfied this came from within the
administration?
JOHN DEAN: There's no doubt in my mind. Where else could it have come
from?
Who else has privy to that kind of information? Who else tried to fan
the
fires once it got out there? They were after Wilson for telling the
truth
about whether or not Saddam Hussein had uranium from Africa. And it was
not
a true statement that the President was relying on in this effort to go
to
war.
JOHN DEAN: We don't have all the details. There's a grand jury that's
now
investigating that. Which, incidentally, Bill if that grand jury
doesn't go
beyond just the staff, and talk to and somehow get statements from both
the
President and the Vice President as to what they knew and when they
knew it
because this has been kept buried. And it has all the scent, but not
quite
the smell yet, of cover-up going on in there.
BILL MOYERS: In fact, you claim that this potentially involves a
criminal
conspiracy. Help me to understand that.
JOHN DEAN: Well, if it takes very little to create a criminal
conspiracy. If
you and I agree here this morning that we're gonna rob a bank, and you
say,
"Well, that sounds good to me," and I don't really tell you I go out
and do
it, you're just as guilty as I am. And it doesn't-- and oh, you can
join a
conspiracy as it goes along.
Obstruction of justice is probably one of the broadest, most
ill-defined
federal offenses I know of. I learned about it the painful way. I never
had
thought I wasn't trained as a criminal lawyer. I learned my criminal
law the
hard way. In fact, that was my one mistake. You needed, in that
particular
presidency, to be a very good criminal lawyer.
But, the point I'm making is that, you know, they have walked into a
potential situation by not trying to flush it out right away. And Bush,
for
example, saying, "I don't think they'll ever catch the leaker." That's
sending signals. Keep it you know, keep your head down.
BILL MOYERS: It's potentially a criminal conspiracy, isn't it, because
two
or more officials are involved?
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: And the WASHINGTON POST has said, without identifying
anybody,
that there were at least two officials involved in this leak.
JOHN DEAN: That's right.
BILL MOYERS: You and I both worked for Presidents who were obsessed
with
secrecy. I mean, Lyndon Johnson could be paranoid about leaks. And you
write
in your book that of all the Cold War Presidents, none was more
secretive
than Nixon who, himself, admitted he became almost, quote, "a basket
case
with regard to secrecy." But you go on to write that when it comes to
secrecy, quote, "never before have we had a pair of rulers like Bush
and
Cheney." What do you mean by that?
JOHN DEAN: The Nixon approach as opposed to this White House is much
more
open government. Nixon wanted to, he wanted to share. It's really
during
Watergate when he finds himself in very bad straights that he really
becomes
so secretive. But as I say, and I record in this book chapter by
chapter and
fact by fact, we've never seen secrecy like this.
BILL MOYERS: Why do you think the press has not been talking about it?
JOHN DEAN: I don't know. I find as I discuss in the book, that the
media
decided to give the Bush Administration a pass. One of the immediate
after-effects of Watergate and having watched Presidencies before and
after.
After Watergate, a President was presumed to be doing the wrong thing.
Now,
he wasn't given the benefit of the doubt. Before, he was.
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam has to be an event--
JOHN DEAN: Vietnam--
BILL MOYERS: Vietnam and Watergate. Those were the two--
JOHN DEAN: No question that they are Watergate and Vietnam are very
related
in many ways. But so after Watergate, you have this very questioning
media.
You have a lot of investigative journalism. And this really runs right
through the Clinton Years. And somehow, almost like a switch was hit.
When
the Bush Administration came into office somebody hit that switch. And
no
longer is there that doubt. No longer is that questioning.
BILL MOYERS: You say secrecy is out of hand.
JOHN DEAN: No question. It's out of hand because it's never been as
severe.
When these people moved into 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, they closed the
doors, they pulled the shades, and they put, in essence, a gag order
out.
BILL MOYERS: John, what do you think about the fact that the
commission, the
9-11 Commission, has agreed to allow the President and the Vice
President to
appear together before them, with only one staff member present to take
notes? What's behind that?
JOHN DEAN: I just think that is so evident of the lack of George Bush's
knowledge as to what's going on.
BILL MOYERS: How so?
JOHN DEAN: Well, he needs Cheney there to be the man who can get into
depth.
He's as good as his script.
BILL MOYERS: But of course it would also mean that they can keep their
story
straight.
JOHN DEAN: It can do that.
BILL MOYERS: You know, there is no way that we're not gonna be accused
of
Bush-bashing. Part of the temper of the times is that journalistically
it's
inevitable, I think, in this polarized country today. But what's beyond
that? What is at stake here?
JOHN DEAN: Well, I'm not interested in Bush bashing. I'm really only
interested in the truth getting out, people understand a very complex
and
sensitive issue. And that is secrecy.
In fact, I rely, if you notice in the book on every chapter I start
with
somebody who is of Mr. Bush's party, talking and complaining about his
excessive secrecy. This isn't a partisan issue for me.
This isn't an issue of Republicans versus Democrats. This is an issue
of
good government versus bad government. This is an informed electorate
and an
uninformed electorate.
And I don't think there are any options here. And it's not to me, if
the
truth is bashing, I'll take the charge. If when I see people making
wild and
baseless charges, I find that to be bashing.
BILL MOYERS: Are there any sour grapes here? I mean could it be said
that
your White House career ended in disgrace, while the young Cheney and
Rumsfeld went on from one success to another, not only in business, but
in
government? Is there something about-- of an old blood feud here?
JOHN DEAN: Not for me, anyway. Not in the slightest. Bill, this is a
book I
could have never planned on writing. I had written a number of columns.
And
it just kept getting worse and worse and worse.
And I said, "Nobody's speaking to these issues." I have no grudge
against
any of these people at all. I'm just I'm deeply disappointed in them.
Deeply
disappointed. And a bit frightened by them.
BILL MOYERS: You-- how so?
JOHN DEAN: That they absolutely won't, you know, what the world opinion
is,
is irrelevant to them. What the Americans' opinion, other than their
base,
is irrelevant.
They're on their own wavelength, and not listening. And they're men of
zeal,
while I think in their hearts they believe they're doing the right
thing.
This is the most dangerous kinda situation.
When you move in secrecy and you're not taking outside advice, when you
get
that bunker mentality, which I'm sure you saw in the Johnson
administration,
we saw in the Nixon White House. This is when you make bad decisions.
BILL MOYERS: I haven't seen you for many, many years. But I have noted
that
both of us are somewhat zealots ourselves about secrecy. And I know
mine
comes out of realizing too late what the price - that democracy really
does
die behind closed doors.
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely. Well, you know, Bill, I don't come at this as a
partisan. I mean I really left those days long behind me. I'm a
registered
Independent. I vote for both Republicans, I vote for Democrats. I vote
for
the issues.
And you know, I didn't wanna get in the mix of a partisan thing. But I
do
think these are issues that must be on the table.
BILL MOYERS: You say in here that even more so than Nixon, they come
after
their enemies list, the people on their enemies list. I mean we see
what's
happening to Clarke. What's gonna happen to you again?
JOHN DEAN: You know, they can't hurt me at this point. I'm damaged
material
already.
BILL MOYERS: The book is WORSE THAN WATERGATE: THE SECRET PRESIDENCY OF
GEORGE W. BUSH, by John W. Dean. Thank you for joining us on NOW.
JOHN DEAN: Thank you, Bill.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Sunday, April 04, 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=508178
Blair told US was targeting Saddam 'just days after 9/11'
White House faces fresh pressure over flawed intelligence, Saddam's arsenal, and the threat from al-Qa'ida
By Raymond Whitaker
04 April 2004
George Bush asked for Tony Blair's backing to remove Saddam Hussein from power just nine days after the 11 September attacks, over a private dinner at the White House, a US magazine reported last night.
Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, was at the dinner table as Mr Blair replied that he would rather concentrate on ousting the Taliban and restoring peace in Afghanistan.
In a 25,000-word article in this month's American edition of Vanity Fair, Sir Christopher recounts Mr Bush as responding: "I agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." Mr Blair, Sir Christopher writes, "said nothing to demur" at the prospect.
Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11 September.
Sir Christopher's article comes as the new head of British and American arms inspectors in Iraq is under fire for refusing to acknowledge that the programme has all but ground to a halt.
After his first progress report to the US Congress last week, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), was accused of stalling until the presidential election in November is out of the way.
"One ISG member told me that, since last year, the inspectors have been kept in Iraq to save political face rather than to find weapons," said Dr Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge University expert on the WMD issue.
Mr Blair and Mr Bush have all but admitted that the WMD claims which were used to justify war in Iraq were exaggerated or wrong, and have launched inquiries to determine whether there were failures by their intelligence services. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted last week that the "most dramatic" claim in his speech to the UN Security Council weeks before the war that Iraq had mobile biological laboratories appeared to have been based on faulty information.
One of the main reasons the US and Britain have been forced to climb down was the stark announcement by Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who quit in December, that there were no illicit weapons to be found. But in his little-noticed progress report, Mr Duelfer ignored the views of Mr Kay, stating that "the ISG continues to look for weapons of mass destruction". He stressed that the WMD search was difficult and time-consuming.
"We regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about concealed caches [of weapons]," Mr Duelfer insisted.
Dr Rangwala, who has visited Iraq to study the ISG's work, called the report misleading. "Shortly before he quit, Mr Kay cut back site visits," he said. "The inspectors have virtually given up looking for WMD."
Contributed by:
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Blair told US was targeting Saddam 'just days after 9/11'
White House faces fresh pressure over flawed intelligence, Saddam's arsenal, and the threat from al-Qa'ida
By Raymond Whitaker
04 April 2004
George Bush asked for Tony Blair's backing to remove Saddam Hussein from power just nine days after the 11 September attacks, over a private dinner at the White House, a US magazine reported last night.
Sir Christopher Meyer, the former British ambassador to Washington, was at the dinner table as Mr Blair replied that he would rather concentrate on ousting the Taliban and restoring peace in Afghanistan.
In a 25,000-word article in this month's American edition of Vanity Fair, Sir Christopher recounts Mr Bush as responding: "I agree with you Tony. We must deal with this first. But when we have dealt with Afghanistan, we must come back to Iraq." Mr Blair, Sir Christopher writes, "said nothing to demur" at the prospect.
Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11 September.
Sir Christopher's article comes as the new head of British and American arms inspectors in Iraq is under fire for refusing to acknowledge that the programme has all but ground to a halt.
After his first progress report to the US Congress last week, Charles Duelfer, the head of the Iraq Survey Group (ISG), was accused of stalling until the presidential election in November is out of the way.
"One ISG member told me that, since last year, the inspectors have been kept in Iraq to save political face rather than to find weapons," said Dr Glen Rangwala, a Cambridge University expert on the WMD issue.
Mr Blair and Mr Bush have all but admitted that the WMD claims which were used to justify war in Iraq were exaggerated or wrong, and have launched inquiries to determine whether there were failures by their intelligence services. The US Secretary of State, Colin Powell, admitted last week that the "most dramatic" claim in his speech to the UN Security Council weeks before the war that Iraq had mobile biological laboratories appeared to have been based on faulty information.
One of the main reasons the US and Britain have been forced to climb down was the stark announcement by Mr Duelfer's predecessor, David Kay, who quit in December, that there were no illicit weapons to be found. But in his little-noticed progress report, Mr Duelfer ignored the views of Mr Kay, stating that "the ISG continues to look for weapons of mass destruction". He stressed that the WMD search was difficult and time-consuming.
"We regularly receive reports, some quite intriguing and credible, about concealed caches [of weapons]," Mr Duelfer insisted.
Dr Rangwala, who has visited Iraq to study the ISG's work, called the report misleading. "Shortly before he quit, Mr Kay cut back site visits," he said. "The inspectors have virtually given up looking for WMD."
Contributed by:
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Madness takes its toll. Please have exact change.
Friday, April 02, 2004
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=507514
'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 April 2004
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".
She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."
She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."
The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.
The issue what the administration knew and when is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.
Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.
She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission 90 per cent of it related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."
"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.
To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."
Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."
It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qa'ida would attack cities with aeroplanes'
Whistleblower the White House wants to silence speaks to The Independent
By Andrew Buncombe in Washington
02 April 2004
A former translator for the FBI with top-secret security clearance says she has provided information to the panel investigating the 11 September attacks which proves senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida's plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes happened.
She said the claim by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice, that there was no such information was "an outrageous lie".
Sibel Edmonds said she spent more than three hours in a closed session with the commission's investigators providing information that was circulating within the FBI in the spring and summer of 2001 suggesting that an attack using aircraft was just months away and the terrorists were in place. The Bush administration, meanwhile, has sought to silence her and has obtained a gagging order from a court by citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege".
She told The Independent yesterday: "I gave [the commission] details of specific investigation files, the specific dates, specific target information, specific managers in charge of the investigation. I gave them everything so that they could go back and follow up. This is not hearsay. These are things that are documented. These things can be established very easily."
She added: "There was general information about the time-frame, about methods to be used but not specifically about how they would be used and about people being in place and who was ordering these sorts of terror attacks. There were other cities that were mentioned. Major cities with skyscrapers."
The accusations from Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who speaks Azerbaijani, Farsi, Turkish and English, will reignite the controversy over whether the administration ignored warnings about al-Qa'ida. That controversy was sparked most recently by Richard Clarke, a former counter-terrorism official, who has accused the administration of ignoring his warnings.
The issue what the administration knew and when is central to the investigation by the 9/11 Commission, which has been hearing testimony in public and private from government officials, intelligence officials and secret sources. Earlier this week, the White House made a U-turn when it said that Ms Rice would appear in public before the commission to answer questions. Mr Bush and his deputy, Dick Cheney, will also be questioned in a closed-door session.
Mrs Edmonds, 33, says she gave her evidence to the commission in a specially constructed "secure" room at its offices in Washington on 11 February. She was hired as a translator for the FBI's Washington field office on 13 September 2001, just two days after the al-Qa'ida attacks. Her job was to translate documents and recordings from FBI wire-taps.
She said said it was clear there was sufficient information during the spring and summer of 2001 to indicate terrorists were planning an attack. "Most of what I told the commission 90 per cent of it related to the investigations that I was involved in or just from working in the department. Two hundred translators side by side, you get to see and hear a lot of other things as well."
"President Bush said they had no specific information about 11 September and that is accurate but only because he said 11 September," she said. There was, however, general information about the use of airplanes and that an attack was just months away.
To try to refute Mr Clarke's accusations, Ms Rice said the administration did take steps to counter al-Qa'ida. But in an opinion piece in The Washington Post on 22 March, Ms Rice wrote: "Despite what some have suggested, we received no intelligence that terrorists were preparing to attack the homeland using airplanes as missiles, though some analysts speculated that terrorists might hijack planes to try and free US-held terrorists."
Mrs Edmonds said that by using the word "we", Ms Rice told an "outrageous lie". She said: "Rice says 'we' not 'I'. That would include all people from the FBI, the CIA and DIA [Defence Intelligence Agency]. I am saying that is impossible."
It is impossible at this stage to verify Mrs Edmonds' claims. However, some senior US senators testified to her credibility in 2002 when she went public with separate allegations relating to alleged incompetence and corruption within the FBI's translation department.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/02/opinion/02KRUG.html
Smear Without Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 2, 2004
funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.
On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?
On Tuesday, I mentioned remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer; here's a fuller quote, just to remove any ambiguity: "What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically, that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life."
Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.
Mr. Blitzer now says he was talking about remarks made on his own program by a National Security Council spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. But Mr. Wilkinson's remarks are hard to construe as raising questions about Mr. Clarke's personal life.
Instead, Mr. Wilkinson seems to have questioned Mr. Clarke's sanity, saying: "He sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden, and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of `X-Files' stuff." Really?
On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed. . . . It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush." That's not " `X-Files' stuff": it's a literary device, meant to emphasize just how ill conceived our policy is. Mr. Blitzer should be telling Mr. Wilkinson to apologize, not rerunning those comments in his own defense.
Look, I understand why major news organizations must act respectfully toward government officials. But officials shouldn't be sure — as Mr. Wilkinson obviously was — that they can make wild accusations without any fear that they will be challenged on the spot or held accountable later.
And administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. If an administration official is willing to say something on the record, that's a story, because he pays a price if his claims are false. But if unnamed "administration officials" spread rumors about administration critics, reporters have an obligation to check the facts before giving those rumors national exposure. And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Smear Without Fear
By PAUL KRUGMAN
Published: April 2, 2004
funny thing happened to David Letterman this week. Actually, it only started out funny. And the unfunny ending fits into a disturbing pattern.
On Monday, Mr. Letterman ran a video clip of a boy yawning and fidgeting during a speech by George Bush. It was harmless stuff; a White House that thinks it's cute to have Mr. Bush make jokes about missing W.M.D. should be able to handle a little ribbing about boring speeches.
CNN ran the Letterman clip on Tuesday, just before a commercial. Then the CNN anchor Daryn Kagan came back to inform viewers that the clip was a fake: "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later in the day, another anchor amended that: the boy was at the rally, but not where he was shown in the video.
On his Tuesday night show, Mr. Letterman was not amused: "That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape."
But here's the really interesting part: CNN backed down, but it told Mr. Letterman that Ms. Kagan "misspoke," that the White House was not the source of the false claim. (So who was? And if the claim didn't come from the White House, why did CNN run with it without checking?)
In short, CNN passed along a smear that it attributed to the White House. When the smear backfired, it declared its previous statements inoperative and said the White House wasn't responsible. Sound familiar?
On Tuesday, I mentioned remarks by CNN's Wolf Blitzer; here's a fuller quote, just to remove any ambiguity: "What administration officials have been saying since the weekend, basically, that Richard Clarke from their vantage point was a disgruntled former government official, angry because he didn't get a certain promotion. He's got a hot new book out now that he wants to promote. He wants to make a few bucks, and that his own personal life, they're also suggesting there are some weird aspects in his life."
Stung by my column, Mr. Blitzer sought to justify his words, saying that his statement was actually a question, and also saying that "I was not referring to anything charged by so-called unnamed White House officials as alleged today." Silly me: I "alleged" that Mr. Blitzer said something because he actually said it, and described "so-called unnamed" officials as unnamed because he didn't name them.
Mr. Blitzer now says he was talking about remarks made on his own program by a National Security Council spokesman, Jim Wilkinson. But Mr. Wilkinson's remarks are hard to construe as raising questions about Mr. Clarke's personal life.
Instead, Mr. Wilkinson seems to have questioned Mr. Clarke's sanity, saying: "He sits back and visualizes chanting by bin Laden, and bin Laden has a mystical mind control over U.S. officials. This is sort of `X-Files' stuff." Really?
On Page 246 of "Against All Enemies," Mr. Clarke bemoans the way the invasion of Iraq, in his view, played right into the hands of Al Qaeda: "Bush handed that enemy precisely what it wanted and needed. . . . It was as if Usama bin Laden, hidden in some high mountain redoubt, were engaging in long-range mind control of George Bush." That's not " `X-Files' stuff": it's a literary device, meant to emphasize just how ill conceived our policy is. Mr. Blitzer should be telling Mr. Wilkinson to apologize, not rerunning those comments in his own defense.
Look, I understand why major news organizations must act respectfully toward government officials. But officials shouldn't be sure — as Mr. Wilkinson obviously was — that they can make wild accusations without any fear that they will be challenged on the spot or held accountable later.
And administration officials shouldn't be able to spread stories without making themselves accountable. If an administration official is willing to say something on the record, that's a story, because he pays a price if his claims are false. But if unnamed "administration officials" spread rumors about administration critics, reporters have an obligation to check the facts before giving those rumors national exposure. And there's no excuse for disseminating unchecked rumors because they come from "the White House," then denying the White House connection when the rumors prove false. That's simply giving the administration a license to smear with impunity.
E-mail: krugman@nytimes.com
Tuesday, March 30, 2004
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/polls/2004-03-29-poll_x.htm
Majority supports Bush on terrorism
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Most Americans still approve of President Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism, even after a week of accusations that he failed to pay enough attention to intelligence warnings before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Although a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds that 53% believe the Bush administration is "covering up something" about its handling of intelligence before 9/11, 67% say it could not have prevented the attacks. But 54% say Bush still could have done more beforehand (Complete poll results).
For the first time since mid-February, Bush leads Democrat John Kerry, 51%-47%. With independent Ralph Nader in the race, Bush leads 49%-45%, and Nader receives 4%.
The poll suggests that Bush's recent campaign ads, which say Kerry has a record of flip-flopping while serving in the Senate, are taking a toll.
Before the ads began running, 60% rated Kerry favorably and 26% unfavorably. Now, 53% view him favorably and 36% unfavorably. In "battleground" states where the ads have run — states where polls and historic trends indicate the race will be close — Kerry has gone from a 28-point lead to a six-point deficit.
"Bush seems to be having some success in selling the idea that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is all over the place," says Maurice Carroll, polling director at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.
Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign, sees the poll another way. "What is surprising is that after $28 million in negative, misleading ads (by Bush), that the race is neck-and-neck," she says.
When the poll asked who would be more trustworthy in making a decision about sending U.S. troops to war, Bush beat Kerry, 52%-41%. That's a considerable shift from Feb. 1, when Kerry led 50%-45%.
Those polled were split on whether to believe Bush's former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who said last week in interviews, at a Capitol Hill hearing and in a just-released book that Bush mismanaged the use of intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks and made poor decisions in the aftermath. Clarke said Bush was more interested in ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein than battling al-Qaeda. The White House said it was fighting both al-Qaeda and Saddam.
The split — 44% believe Clarke and 46% back the Bush administration — is largely along party lines: 76% of Democrats side with Clarke, and 83% of Republicans with Bush.
"The media played up this story pretty good, and Bush and his people were pushed onto the defensive," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "It is appropriate in a democracy to have such open discussions. But the Democrats are in danger of overplaying their hand by looking like they are rooting for things to go wrong."
Bush has made his leadership in the war on terrorism the centerpiece of his campaign. Most still approve, but at 58%, that approval is the lowest since the Sept. 11 attacks. It is down seven percentage points from December and 28 points from its peak just after the attacks.
The president's overall job approval is up three points to 53%. Matthew Dowd, a Bush pollster and strategist, says that is a key measure. "No incumbent president with a job approval over 50% in March has lost re-election," he points out.
Bill Clinton was at 52% approval in March 1996 and won re-election. Bush's father was at 42% approval in March 1992 and lost. Ronald Reagan, who won a second term in 1984, was at 54% in March of that year.
Kerry pollster Mark Mellman says charges that Bush has not performed well in the war on terrorism are undermining confidence in his ability to carry the fight and will further erode over time.
"A lot of questions have been raised about his core issue," Mellman says.
Overall, 56% of those polled say it was worth going to war in Iraq, little change from the 55% who said that in early March. And 50% see Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, down from 57% last August.
Majority supports Bush on terrorism
By Richard Benedetto, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — Most Americans still approve of President Bush's leadership in the war on terrorism, even after a week of accusations that he failed to pay enough attention to intelligence warnings before the Sept. 11 attacks.
Although a USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll finds that 53% believe the Bush administration is "covering up something" about its handling of intelligence before 9/11, 67% say it could not have prevented the attacks. But 54% say Bush still could have done more beforehand (Complete poll results).
For the first time since mid-February, Bush leads Democrat John Kerry, 51%-47%. With independent Ralph Nader in the race, Bush leads 49%-45%, and Nader receives 4%.
The poll suggests that Bush's recent campaign ads, which say Kerry has a record of flip-flopping while serving in the Senate, are taking a toll.
Before the ads began running, 60% rated Kerry favorably and 26% unfavorably. Now, 53% view him favorably and 36% unfavorably. In "battleground" states where the ads have run — states where polls and historic trends indicate the race will be close — Kerry has gone from a 28-point lead to a six-point deficit.
"Bush seems to be having some success in selling the idea that Kerry's voting record in the Senate is all over the place," says Maurice Carroll, polling director at Quinnipiac University in Connecticut.
Stephanie Cutter, spokeswoman for the Kerry campaign, sees the poll another way. "What is surprising is that after $28 million in negative, misleading ads (by Bush), that the race is neck-and-neck," she says.
When the poll asked who would be more trustworthy in making a decision about sending U.S. troops to war, Bush beat Kerry, 52%-41%. That's a considerable shift from Feb. 1, when Kerry led 50%-45%.
Those polled were split on whether to believe Bush's former counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, who said last week in interviews, at a Capitol Hill hearing and in a just-released book that Bush mismanaged the use of intelligence before the Sept. 11 attacks and made poor decisions in the aftermath. Clarke said Bush was more interested in ousting Iraq's Saddam Hussein than battling al-Qaeda. The White House said it was fighting both al-Qaeda and Saddam.
The split — 44% believe Clarke and 46% back the Bush administration — is largely along party lines: 76% of Democrats side with Clarke, and 83% of Republicans with Bush.
"The media played up this story pretty good, and Bush and his people were pushed onto the defensive," says Merle Black, a political scientist at Emory University in Atlanta. "It is appropriate in a democracy to have such open discussions. But the Democrats are in danger of overplaying their hand by looking like they are rooting for things to go wrong."
Bush has made his leadership in the war on terrorism the centerpiece of his campaign. Most still approve, but at 58%, that approval is the lowest since the Sept. 11 attacks. It is down seven percentage points from December and 28 points from its peak just after the attacks.
The president's overall job approval is up three points to 53%. Matthew Dowd, a Bush pollster and strategist, says that is a key measure. "No incumbent president with a job approval over 50% in March has lost re-election," he points out.
Bill Clinton was at 52% approval in March 1996 and won re-election. Bush's father was at 42% approval in March 1992 and lost. Ronald Reagan, who won a second term in 1984, was at 54% in March of that year.
Kerry pollster Mark Mellman says charges that Bush has not performed well in the war on terrorism are undermining confidence in his ability to carry the fight and will further erode over time.
"A lot of questions have been raised about his core issue," Mellman says.
Overall, 56% of those polled say it was worth going to war in Iraq, little change from the 55% who said that in early March. And 50% see Iraq as part of the war on terrorism, down from 57% last August.
Monday, March 29, 2004
http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2004-03-28-troop-shifts_x.htm?csp=24Shifts from bin Laden hunt evoke questions
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.
Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.
Even before the invasion, the wisdom of shifting resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq was raised privately by top military officials and publicly by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others. Now it's being hotly debated again following an election-year critique of the Bush administration by its former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.
"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."
The Bush administration says the hunt for bin Laden continued throughout the war in Iraq. Officials say it's wrong to speculate that he would have been captured, or other terrorist attacks prevented, if the Iraq war hadn't happened. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on ABC's This Week, called the example of the Special Forces switch "simplistic."
But the Pentagon tacitly acknowledged a problem last year, after the Iraq invasion. It created a new organization, Task Force 121, to better oversee commando operations in the region and ensure a faster response when terrorists can be struck.
Now gaps in capability are being closed as the administration puts record amounts of money into military and spy agencies. More spy aircraft such as the Predator drone are arriving. More troops are getting Arabic training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. CIA Director George Tenet said this month that the agency is filling shortfalls, especially among translators.
Still, the question lingers: Did opening a second front hurt the main effort to defeat terrorism?
Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but "a distraction." The war in Iraq, Andrews notes, entailed the largest deployment of special operations forces — about 10,000 —since the Vietnam War. That's about 25% of all U.S. commandos.
It also siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers. Iraq proved such a drain, one former Pentagon official notes, that there were no AWACS radar jets to track drug-trafficking aircraft in South America.
Saddam was not an immediate threat. "This has been a real diversion from the longer struggle against jihadists," especially in the intelligence field, he says.
Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets. But he argues that long-standing disputes with Saddam needed to be addressed: "This was tearing at us all the time. It was a bleeding wound with Saddam calling the shots in the Middle East."
By Dave Moniz and Steven Komarow, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — In 2002, troops from the 5th Special Forces Group who specialize in the Middle East were pulled out of the hunt for Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan to prepare for their next assignment: Iraq. Their replacements were troops with expertise in Spanish cultures.
The CIA, meanwhile, was stretched badly in its capacity to collect, translate and analyze information coming from Afghanistan. When the White House raised a new priority, it took specialists away from the Afghanistan effort to ensure Iraq was covered.
Those were just two of the tradeoffs required because of what the Pentagon and CIA acknowledge is a shortage of key personnel to fight the war on terrorism. The question of how much those shifts prevented progress against al-Qaeda and other terrorists is putting the Bush administration on the defensive.
Even before the invasion, the wisdom of shifting resources from the bin Laden hunt to the war in Iraq was raised privately by top military officials and publicly by Sen. Bob Graham, D-Fla., and others. Now it's being hotly debated again following an election-year critique of the Bush administration by its former counterterrorism adviser, Richard Clarke.
"If we catch him (bin Laden) this summer, which I expect, it's two years too late," Clarke said Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press. "Because during those two years when forces were diverted to Iraq ... al-Qaeda has metamorphosized into a hydra-headed organization with cells that are operating autonomously, like the cells that operated in Madrid recently."
The Bush administration says the hunt for bin Laden continued throughout the war in Iraq. Officials say it's wrong to speculate that he would have been captured, or other terrorist attacks prevented, if the Iraq war hadn't happened. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, speaking on ABC's This Week, called the example of the Special Forces switch "simplistic."
But the Pentagon tacitly acknowledged a problem last year, after the Iraq invasion. It created a new organization, Task Force 121, to better oversee commando operations in the region and ensure a faster response when terrorists can be struck.
Now gaps in capability are being closed as the administration puts record amounts of money into military and spy agencies. More spy aircraft such as the Predator drone are arriving. More troops are getting Arabic training at Fort Bragg in North Carolina. CIA Director George Tenet said this month that the agency is filling shortfalls, especially among translators.
Still, the question lingers: Did opening a second front hurt the main effort to defeat terrorism?
Bob Andrews, former head of a Pentagon office that oversaw special operations, says that removing Saddam Hussein was a good idea but "a distraction." The war in Iraq, Andrews notes, entailed the largest deployment of special operations forces — about 10,000 —since the Vietnam War. That's about 25% of all U.S. commandos.
It also siphoned spy aircraft and light infantry soldiers. Iraq proved such a drain, one former Pentagon official notes, that there were no AWACS radar jets to track drug-trafficking aircraft in South America.
Saddam was not an immediate threat. "This has been a real diversion from the longer struggle against jihadists," especially in the intelligence field, he says.
Stan Florer, a retired Army colonel and former Green Beret, agrees that Iraq diverted enormous military and intelligence assets. But he argues that long-standing disputes with Saddam needed to be addressed: "This was tearing at us all the time. It was a bleeding wound with Saddam calling the shots in the Middle East."
Sunday, March 28, 2004
http://www.wvgazette.com/webtools/print/News/2004032632
March 27, 2004
Rockefeller sounds off on Iraq
By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER
"If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted against it,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday. “I have admitted that my vote was wrong.”
The key Senate vote authorizing a war against Iraq came Oct. 11, 2003. It passed 77 to 23. The opponents included Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., an outspoken opponent of President Bush’s war plans. (The House of Representatives voted to pass a similar resolution, 296 to 133.)
“The decision got made before there was a whole bunch of intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “I think the intelligence was shaped. And I think the interpretation of the intelligence was shaped.
“You had a president who we now know was determined to go to war. He was going to be a war president,” Rockefeller said during an interview with editors at The Charleston Gazette on Friday.
“We had this feeling we could be welcomed as liberators. Americans don’t know history, geography, ethnicity,” Rockefeller said. “The administration had no idea of what they were getting into in Iraq. We are not internationalists. We border on being isolationists. We don’t know anything about the Middle East.”
Rockefeller also said he is disturbed at the failure to involve the United Nations in creating a new government and finding peace in Iraq.
“He [Bush] has been stiffing the United Nations,” the senator said. “He doesn’t believe in the United Nations. He doesn’t understand the United Nations.”
The political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., changed dramatically after Bush took office, said Rockefeller, who has served in the Senate since 1985. “Republicans fell totally in line since Bush came into office. They have a loyalty I have never seen before.
“They are true believers. It started with [Rep.] Newt Gingrich [R-Ga.] in 1994. Nothing gets in their way. Facts don’t get in their way.
“And three chairmen of major [Senate] committees were told by Dick Cheney not to investigate anything in the administration.”
Many of the senator’s feelings were strengthened during his five-day trip with four other senators to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations last week.
In Iraq, the senators visited a team of researchers investigating the presence of weapons of mass destruction. “They have three million pieces of paper,” Rockefeller said. “But it is a sham. There is nothing to point to any weapons of any kind.”
Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the influence of terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida, is growing. “But only about five percent of the insurgents in Iraq are coming across the borders into the country. Most of them are homegrown.”
Domestic problems will continue to grow, Rockefeller believes, since Bush administration tax cuts could put the nation in a deficit for the next 50 years.
Tax cuts are hurting all federal social, educational and medical programs. The only agencies currently getting significantly increased funding today are military, homeland security and intelligence operations.
Rockefeller said he was particularly outraged by recent revelations that Bush administration leaders failed to provide Congress and the public with honest estimates of the costs of prescription drug benefits in the Medicare program.
When Bush signed the new bill late last year, he said costs for prescription drugs would be $400 billion over the next 10 years. Then, in late January, Bush admitted those costs actually would be $534 billion.
“Bush withheld the real costs of Medicare. That is absolutely unheard of,” Rockefeller said. “There will be an investigation of that.”
Rockefeller had high praise for Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism chief who served for 30 years under three Republican presidents and one Democratic president.
Clarke has sparked a major controversy with testimony and public statements that Bush administration leaders ignored reports of possible terrorist attacks before Sept. 11, 2001. (His new book, “Against All Enemies: Inside the White House’s War on Terror — What Really Happened,” has just been published.)
“Clarke is a master. He is not particularly liked, not a pleasant person. But he is bright, smart and tough,” Rockefeller said. “He disdains politicians of whatever stripe, whatever party. But if you have done something all your life and take great pride in it, then see it crumbling, you get angry.”
To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use e-mail or call 348-5164.
March 27, 2004
Rockefeller sounds off on Iraq
By Paul J. Nyden
STAFF WRITER
"If I had known then what I know now, I would have voted against it,” Sen. Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., said Friday. “I have admitted that my vote was wrong.”
The key Senate vote authorizing a war against Iraq came Oct. 11, 2003. It passed 77 to 23. The opponents included Sen. Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., an outspoken opponent of President Bush’s war plans. (The House of Representatives voted to pass a similar resolution, 296 to 133.)
“The decision got made before there was a whole bunch of intelligence,” Rockefeller said. “I think the intelligence was shaped. And I think the interpretation of the intelligence was shaped.
“You had a president who we now know was determined to go to war. He was going to be a war president,” Rockefeller said during an interview with editors at The Charleston Gazette on Friday.
“We had this feeling we could be welcomed as liberators. Americans don’t know history, geography, ethnicity,” Rockefeller said. “The administration had no idea of what they were getting into in Iraq. We are not internationalists. We border on being isolationists. We don’t know anything about the Middle East.”
Rockefeller also said he is disturbed at the failure to involve the United Nations in creating a new government and finding peace in Iraq.
“He [Bush] has been stiffing the United Nations,” the senator said. “He doesn’t believe in the United Nations. He doesn’t understand the United Nations.”
The political atmosphere in Washington, D.C., changed dramatically after Bush took office, said Rockefeller, who has served in the Senate since 1985. “Republicans fell totally in line since Bush came into office. They have a loyalty I have never seen before.
“They are true believers. It started with [Rep.] Newt Gingrich [R-Ga.] in 1994. Nothing gets in their way. Facts don’t get in their way.
“And three chairmen of major [Senate] committees were told by Dick Cheney not to investigate anything in the administration.”
Many of the senator’s feelings were strengthened during his five-day trip with four other senators to Iraq and other Middle Eastern nations last week.
In Iraq, the senators visited a team of researchers investigating the presence of weapons of mass destruction. “They have three million pieces of paper,” Rockefeller said. “But it is a sham. There is nothing to point to any weapons of any kind.”
Rockefeller, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said the influence of terrorist groups, such as al-Qaida, is growing. “But only about five percent of the insurgents in Iraq are coming across the borders into the country. Most of them are homegrown.”
Domestic problems will continue to grow, Rockefeller believes, since Bush administration tax cuts could put the nation in a deficit for the next 50 years.
Tax cuts are hurting all federal social, educational and medical programs. The only agencies currently getting significantly increased funding today are military, homeland security and intelligence operations.
Rockefeller said he was particularly outraged by recent revelations that Bush administration leaders failed to provide Congress and the public with honest estimates of the costs of prescription drug benefits in the Medicare program.
When Bush signed the new bill late last year, he said costs for prescription drugs would be $400 billion over the next 10 years. Then, in late January, Bush admitted those costs actually would be $534 billion.
“Bush withheld the real costs of Medicare. That is absolutely unheard of,” Rockefeller said. “There will be an investigation of that.”
Rockefeller had high praise for Richard A. Clarke, the former White House counter-terrorism chief who served for 30 years under three Republican presidents and one Democratic president.
Clarke has sparked a major controversy with testimony and public statements that Bush administration leaders ignored reports of possible terrorist attacks before Sept. 11, 2001. (His new book, “Against All Enemies: Inside the White House’s War on Terror — What Really Happened,” has just been published.)
“Clarke is a master. He is not particularly liked, not a pleasant person. But he is bright, smart and tough,” Rockefeller said. “He disdains politicians of whatever stripe, whatever party. But if you have done something all your life and take great pride in it, then see it crumbling, you get angry.”
To contact staff writer Paul J. Nyden, use e-mail or call 348-5164.
Saturday, March 20, 2004
Claudia just sent me this link:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the the truth to drive the country to war.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/03/10/osp_moveon/
The new Pentagon papers
A high-ranking military officer reveals how Defense Department extremists suppressed information and twisted the the truth to drive the country to war.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Friday, March 19, 2004
Ex-Watergate writer laments 'idiot culture'
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/19/Tampabay/Ex_Watergate_writer_l.shtml
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein told about 200 people in Tampa that today's media is more gossip and trash than news.
By BRADY DENNIS, Times Staff Writer
Published March 19, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA - Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein riffed Thursday night about President Bush, the Martha Stewart trial, the war in Iraq and his affection for Florida.
But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."
Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at the Wyndham Westshore, he placed most of the blame on modern media outlets.
Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.
That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them."
He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.
"Their interest in truth is secondary to their interest in huge profits," Bernstein said.
Still, he said people can change that trend by exploring the Internet and piecing together from reputable sources their own news about important world matters.
He offered another solution to avoiding the trash that fills the airwaves: "Change the damn channel. Simple."
Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."
Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.
"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.
Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.
"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."
Try as he might, Bernstein could not escape the ghosts of Watergate, even for one night. A man stood during the post-speech question-and-answer session and asked if Deep Throat, the anonymous source used by Woodward and Bernstein, was a real person.
Bernstein smiled and broke into an impression of Nixon, grumbling to an assistant and wondering himself about Deep Throat's identity.
"It is one person," Bernstein said, finally. "We did not make it up."
And when Deep Throat dies, he said, "We will reveal him."
© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://www.sptimes.com/2004/03/19/Tampabay/Ex_Watergate_writer_l.shtml
Former Washington Post reporter Carl Bernstein told about 200 people in Tampa that today's media is more gossip and trash than news.
By BRADY DENNIS, Times Staff Writer
Published March 19, 2004
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TAMPA - Legendary reporter Carl Bernstein riffed Thursday night about President Bush, the Martha Stewart trial, the war in Iraq and his affection for Florida.
But mostly he talked about an epidemic that troubles him deeply these days. He calls it "the triumph of idiot culture."
Speaking to a crowd of about 200 at the Wyndham Westshore, he placed most of the blame on modern media outlets.
Bernstein, the former Washington Post journalist who, along with fellow reporter Bob Woodward, unearthed the Watergate scandal that led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon, said much of today's news has deteriorated into gossip, sensationalism and manufactured controversy.
That type of news panders to the public and insults their intelligence, ignoring the context of real life, he said. Good journalism, Bernstein said, "should challenge people, not just mindlessly amuse them."
He said the modern press lacks true leadership, citing such examples as AOL Time Warner and mogul Rupert Murdoch as media owners that have increasingly abandoned the principles of meaningful reporting.
"Their interest in truth is secondary to their interest in huge profits," Bernstein said.
Still, he said people can change that trend by exploring the Internet and piecing together from reputable sources their own news about important world matters.
He offered another solution to avoiding the trash that fills the airwaves: "Change the damn channel. Simple."
Bernstein also turned his attention Thursday to the coming election, calling President Bush "the most radical president of my lifetime and perhaps in the century."
Bernstein said Bush "is radical in every degree," from a favoritism of the wealthy to a pre-emptive foreign policy to a lack of concern for civil rights.
"He certainly seems more ideological than any of our presidents," Bernstein said.
Even so, Bernstein said he hopes a genuine debate can take place this year about the future of the country, rather than the petty quarrels and meaningless accusations that so often dominate campaign coverage.
"Let's move beyond the absurd name-calling and sound bite journalism," he said. "It is our job ... to force a real debate."
Try as he might, Bernstein could not escape the ghosts of Watergate, even for one night. A man stood during the post-speech question-and-answer session and asked if Deep Throat, the anonymous source used by Woodward and Bernstein, was a real person.
Bernstein smiled and broke into an impression of Nixon, grumbling to an assistant and wondering himself about Deep Throat's identity.
"It is one person," Bernstein said, finally. "We did not make it up."
And when Deep Throat dies, he said, "We will reveal him."
© Copyright 2003 St. Petersburg Times. All rights reserved
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com >^..^<
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Friday, March 12, 2004
Claudia sent this to me . . .she forever finds real news:
God, I'm going to miss him!
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers29.html
It's true what you have read and heard. I will leave NOW after the election later this year. I am not leaving because anyone is pushing me, but because something is pulling me. I turn 70 this year and while there's no marker at the border, I know I'm entering unfamiliar territory.
It's as if some imaginary trip wire breaks and the little odometer on your psychic dashboard starts clicking faster and faster. All of a sudden the horizon that once seemed far, far away, looms right there in front of you. You feel an irresistible urge to slow down, take your foot off the accelerator, touch it to the brake-gently, but surely-and start negotiating yourself out of the fast lane. You begin to think about that side road you never took, the country lane you once spotted in the rearview mirror and promised yourself you would return to one day, but never did. All of a sudden you want to get to know the person who's been sitting there in the seat beside you all these years, when the only thing zipping by faster than the traffic was life itself. You don't want to quit altogether. You keep thinking of those lines from Tennyson's "Ulysses,"
how dull it is to pause, to make an end
to rust unburnished, not to shine in use
But slowing down is not quitting. And you also think about the legendary black pitcher Satchel Paige, who spent most of his career in what was then called the Negro Baseball League. By the time the racial barriers were relaxed he was, as baseball measures the life span, an old man. That didn't stop him from doing the one thing he knew how to do well -- he just kept on pitching, and pitching, and pitching. When a reporter asked him, "How old are you?" He replied: "How old would you be if you didn't know how old you was?" One day, though, he found out, and even Satchel Paige handed the ball to a younger man and left the mound for good. Knowing when is the trick; timing is what counts.
All the septuagenarians I've interviewed through the years have taught me something. They lived long enough to turn their experience into wisdom, and to share it, which is the reason I wanted to talk to them in the first place; listening to the wisdom of the elders can be like tasting vintage wine. Recently I interviewed the actor Hal Holbrook, who has been performing as Mark Twain for 50 years. He's 79 now, and still at it — just as good as Hal Holbrook as he is as Mark Twain. I learned that acting is not his only gig; he's a sailor, too. Once he traveled 2400 miles through the Pacific in a 40-foot boat…alone. What wisdom could he share from that experience? "You have to learn to give to nature just enough to stay alive and stay upright," he said. It comes down to that, on sea, or shore, on television, in life. You learn to give to nature just enough to stay upright… perhaps to make your way back to that road never traveled.
Truth is, the foreign country ahead of me — the seventies — is not as exotic in my imagination as my long-ago twenties or thirties. Trying to remember those years is like taking down an old map from a musty attic to discover the world laid out there is gone forever. So you give a quick check in the rearview mirror and a light touch on the pedal; all that's left is the open road and you're grateful once again to be on it.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
God, I'm going to miss him!
http://www.pbs.org/now/commentary/moyers29.html
It's true what you have read and heard. I will leave NOW after the election later this year. I am not leaving because anyone is pushing me, but because something is pulling me. I turn 70 this year and while there's no marker at the border, I know I'm entering unfamiliar territory.
It's as if some imaginary trip wire breaks and the little odometer on your psychic dashboard starts clicking faster and faster. All of a sudden the horizon that once seemed far, far away, looms right there in front of you. You feel an irresistible urge to slow down, take your foot off the accelerator, touch it to the brake-gently, but surely-and start negotiating yourself out of the fast lane. You begin to think about that side road you never took, the country lane you once spotted in the rearview mirror and promised yourself you would return to one day, but never did. All of a sudden you want to get to know the person who's been sitting there in the seat beside you all these years, when the only thing zipping by faster than the traffic was life itself. You don't want to quit altogether. You keep thinking of those lines from Tennyson's "Ulysses,"
how dull it is to pause, to make an end
to rust unburnished, not to shine in use
But slowing down is not quitting. And you also think about the legendary black pitcher Satchel Paige, who spent most of his career in what was then called the Negro Baseball League. By the time the racial barriers were relaxed he was, as baseball measures the life span, an old man. That didn't stop him from doing the one thing he knew how to do well -- he just kept on pitching, and pitching, and pitching. When a reporter asked him, "How old are you?" He replied: "How old would you be if you didn't know how old you was?" One day, though, he found out, and even Satchel Paige handed the ball to a younger man and left the mound for good. Knowing when is the trick; timing is what counts.
All the septuagenarians I've interviewed through the years have taught me something. They lived long enough to turn their experience into wisdom, and to share it, which is the reason I wanted to talk to them in the first place; listening to the wisdom of the elders can be like tasting vintage wine. Recently I interviewed the actor Hal Holbrook, who has been performing as Mark Twain for 50 years. He's 79 now, and still at it — just as good as Hal Holbrook as he is as Mark Twain. I learned that acting is not his only gig; he's a sailor, too. Once he traveled 2400 miles through the Pacific in a 40-foot boat…alone. What wisdom could he share from that experience? "You have to learn to give to nature just enough to stay alive and stay upright," he said. It comes down to that, on sea, or shore, on television, in life. You learn to give to nature just enough to stay upright… perhaps to make your way back to that road never traveled.
Truth is, the foreign country ahead of me — the seventies — is not as exotic in my imagination as my long-ago twenties or thirties. Trying to remember those years is like taking down an old map from a musty attic to discover the world laid out there is gone forever. So you give a quick check in the rearview mirror and a light touch on the pedal; all that's left is the open road and you're grateful once again to be on it.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
Thursday, March 11, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040310/ap_on_el_pr/kerry_mccain_3
McCain 'Would Entertain' Being Kerry's VP
Wed Mar 10, 5:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush — a far-flung notion the senator's staff quickly squashed.
McCain said in a television interview that he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.
McCain had emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was.
"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."
McCain gained a reputation as a party maverick who appeals to independent voters during his 2000 race against Bush for the Republican nomination. This year, McCain has campaigned for the president and said he would continue to do so.
Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn't railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest "the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen" and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.
McCain 'Would Entertain' Being Kerry's VP
Wed Mar 10, 5:35 PM ET
WASHINGTON - Republican Sen. John McCain allowed a glimmer of hope Wednesday for Democrats fantasizing about a bipartisan dream team to defeat President Bush — a far-flung notion the senator's staff quickly squashed.
McCain said in a television interview that he would consider the unorthodox step of running for vice president on the Democratic ticket — in the unlikely event he received such an offer from the presidential candidate.
"John Kerry is a close friend of mine. We have been friends for years," McCain said Wednesday when pressed to squelch speculation about a Kerry-McCain ticket. "Obviously I would entertain it."
Within hours, the Arizona senator's chief of staff, Mark Salter, closed the door on that idea. "Senator McCain will not be a candidate for vice president in 2004," Salter told The Associated Press, saying he spoke for the senator.
McCain had emphasized how unlikely the whole idea was.
"It's impossible to imagine the Democratic Party seeking a pro-life, free-trading, non-protectionist, deficit hawk," the senator told ABC's "Good Morning America" during an interview about illegal steroid use. "They'd have to be taking some steroids, I think, in order to let that happen."
McCain gained a reputation as a party maverick who appeals to independent voters during his 2000 race against Bush for the Republican nomination. This year, McCain has campaigned for the president and said he would continue to do so.
Unlike some other Republican senators, he hasn't railed against Kerry, a fellow Vietnam veteran. McCain called the Kerry-Bush contest "the nastiest campaign so far that we have seen" and said he preferred campaigning for candidates instead of against their opponents.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&e=5&u=/ap/20040309/ap_on_el_pr/kerry
Kerry Shifts on Views of Arafat
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
TAMPA, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside.
In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press, he said he no longer views Arafat favorably.
"Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant."
On Tuesday, Kerry visited a coffee shop in a Cuban-American neighborhood in Tampa before flying to Chicago for campaign appearances. He was awaiting results in four Southern states — Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — with delegate elections.
In a wide-ranging interview Monday with the AP, Kerry said Arafat "blew his opportunity" to be effective in 1999 and 2000.
"He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."
The Bush administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, a veteran Palestinian activist, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In the peace process, the administration has dealt only with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.
Of the campaign against Bush, Kerry said, "It's not personal."
"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."
Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."
In discussing foreign policy, the Massachusetts senator said he couldn't guarantee that Saddam Hussein would now be out of power in Iraq if he had been president over the past year.
"I can't tell you that," said Kerry, who faults Bush for not allowing continued U.N. inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction Saddam was said to be hiding.
"If we had exhausted that process and built a legitimate coalition and Saddam Hussein had not complied, I would not have hesitated to march with that coalition against him," said Kerry. "You don't know how an appropriate global coalition with the proper amount of patience might have coerced him into a different set of behaviors."
Kerry, who was on the final day of a swing through the four Southern states that vote Tuesday, said the South has "changed dramatically" since the last election.
Al Gore, the nominee in 2000 and a native Tennessean, fared poorly in the region, which Kerry said was largely due to Gore's staunch support for gun control. A hunter and gun owner, Kerry said he expected to fare better.
Kerry also rejected suggestions that the gay marriage issue would be a potent weapon against him in the South. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, but favors giving such couples certain rights. He also said he didn't think Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning such unions would sell well in the South.
"The people of the South who are conservative would never want to disrespect the Constitution of the United States for wildly political purposes," Kerry said. He said economic issues will resonate more.
Kerry, meanwhile, said his former rivals have largely fallen into line and that he was meeting this week with Howard Dean (news - web sites) and John Edwards (news - web sites), both of whom want to "be part of the team."
"I think our party is more united than it has been in years," he said.
Kerry declined to address any aspect of his search for a running mate. "I have not talked to anyone on my staff about this," he said. "I want to keep it personal and I want to keep it private."
Kerry Shifts on Views of Arafat
By MIKE GLOVER, Associated Press Writer
TAMPA, Fla. - Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry says he no longer considers Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat to be a statesman, but rather "an outlaw to the peace process" in the Middle East who has been rightly shuffled aside.
In a 1997 book, Kerry described "Arafat's transformation from outlaw to statesman." But in an interview with The Associated Press, he said he no longer views Arafat favorably.
"Obviously, Yasser Arafat has been an impediment to the peace process," said Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee-in-waiting. "He missed a historic opportunity and he's proved himself to be irrelevant."
On Tuesday, Kerry visited a coffee shop in a Cuban-American neighborhood in Tampa before flying to Chicago for campaign appearances. He was awaiting results in four Southern states — Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas — with delegate elections.
In a wide-ranging interview Monday with the AP, Kerry said Arafat "blew his opportunity" to be effective in 1999 and 2000.
"He was (a statesman) in 1995," Kerry said, recalling frequent White House meetings between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in search of peace in the Middle East. "As far as I'm concerned, he's an outlaw to the peace process."
The Bush administration has ruled out dealing with Arafat, a veteran Palestinian activist, claiming he is tainted with terror against Israel, a close U.S. ally. In the peace process, the administration has dealt only with Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon and senior Palestinian officials appointed by Arafat.
Of the campaign against Bush, Kerry said, "It's not personal."
"He's an enjoyable person to be with," Kerry said. "He's funny and so forth, but he doesn't keep his promises."
Kerry added: "It has nothing to do with him being a good man, bad man. I'm not here to judge him personally, that's up to other people, that's up to God."
In discussing foreign policy, the Massachusetts senator said he couldn't guarantee that Saddam Hussein would now be out of power in Iraq if he had been president over the past year.
"I can't tell you that," said Kerry, who faults Bush for not allowing continued U.N. inspections in Iraq for weapons of mass destruction Saddam was said to be hiding.
"If we had exhausted that process and built a legitimate coalition and Saddam Hussein had not complied, I would not have hesitated to march with that coalition against him," said Kerry. "You don't know how an appropriate global coalition with the proper amount of patience might have coerced him into a different set of behaviors."
Kerry, who was on the final day of a swing through the four Southern states that vote Tuesday, said the South has "changed dramatically" since the last election.
Al Gore, the nominee in 2000 and a native Tennessean, fared poorly in the region, which Kerry said was largely due to Gore's staunch support for gun control. A hunter and gun owner, Kerry said he expected to fare better.
Kerry also rejected suggestions that the gay marriage issue would be a potent weapon against him in the South. Kerry opposes same-sex marriage, but favors giving such couples certain rights. He also said he didn't think Bush's support for a constitutional amendment banning such unions would sell well in the South.
"The people of the South who are conservative would never want to disrespect the Constitution of the United States for wildly political purposes," Kerry said. He said economic issues will resonate more.
Kerry, meanwhile, said his former rivals have largely fallen into line and that he was meeting this week with Howard Dean (news - web sites) and John Edwards (news - web sites), both of whom want to "be part of the team."
"I think our party is more united than it has been in years," he said.
Kerry declined to address any aspect of his search for a running mate. "I have not talked to anyone on my staff about this," he said. "I want to keep it personal and I want to keep it private."
Monday, March 08, 2004
http://www.glocom.org/opinions/essays/20040301_tsurumi_president/
Clauida just sent this to me. The below is an opinion piece written by one of President Bush's ex-law proffessor's at Harvard:
March 1, 2004
Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan
President George Bush and the Gilded Age
Yoshi Tsurumi (Professor of International Business, Baruch College, the City University of New York )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something really strange has happened to the U.S. under the Bush Administration. With her ever bulging budget deficits and foreign debts, America's skewed income distribution is rapidly making the U.S. resemble Argentina or Mexico. The "Jobless Recovery" is not a political mirage, but a serious problem. America's GDP is increasing at an annual rate of about 4.0% this year. But, only those Wall Street "money gamers" and self-dealing "management aristocrats" of Corporate America are dizzy with their huge bonuses, padded salaries, and self-dealt stock options. The remaining hard working Americans cannot eat "GDP." The U.S. has widening income gap between a few "haves" and many "have-nots."
During the last economic recovery period of March 1991 to April 1993, a 10% increase in GDP increased manufacturing jobs and service jobs 3% and 5.9% respectively. However, for the present economic recovery since November 2001, a 10% increase in GDP is increasing manufacturing and service jobs only 0.7% and 0.9% respectively. Just to keep up with her population growth, the U.S. needs to create about 230,000 jobs a month. If the U.S. wants to employ the 3 million unemployed workers thrown out of work under the Bush Administration, the U.S. would have to create a lot more jobs monthly. Last month, however, the U.S. only created 115,000 jobs. President Bush has now abandoned his earlier declared promise of "creating 2.6 million jobs by the fall of 2004."
The unemployed rate of January this year was 5.6%, dipping only 0.1 percentage point. President Bush hailed it as the "unemployment declines for four months in a row." In reality, however, the U.S. has had four months of consecutive decline in the unemployment rate because so many formerly "unemployed" became too discouraged to keep seeking jobs and were eliminated from the unemployment statistics. The U.S. has over 5 million part-time job holders who want full time jobs but cannot find them. In addition, the U.S. has 8 million persons who have had to settle for full time jobs paying far less than their previous jobs. The "jobless recovery" and the widening income gaps are aggravated by massive migrations of good paying manufacturing and service jobs abroad. Such migrations have been accelerated by President Bush's misguided tax cuts.
At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." Recently, President Bush's Federal Appeals Court Nominee, California's Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, repeated the same broadside at her Senate hearing. She knew that her pronouncement would please President Bush and Karl Rove and their Senators. President Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, are leading a radical revolution of destroying all the democratic political, social, judiciary, and economic institutions that both Democrats and moderate Republicans had built together since Roosevelt's New Deal.
In June 2003, Bill Moyers said that "Karl Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William Mckinley (1897-1901) and modeled himself on Mark Hanna, the man who virtually manufactured McKinley. Mark Hanna saw to it that Washington was ruled by business, railroads, and public utility corporations." President Bush's tax cuts have given over 93% of their benefits to large corporations and well-to-do households with over 250,000 dollars of annual income (about 10% of the U.S. households). Moreover, President Bush's tax cuts are abolishing taxes on such asset-based income as stock dividends and capital gains. He is opposed to taxing management aristocrats' self-dealt stock options (salary payment in kind). He is opposed to requiring the corporations to treat such stock options as their personnel expenses. More than anything else, management aristocrats' stock options are encouraging many corporations to abandon manufacturing-and-supply procurements at home and switching to imports from China and other lower-wage countries. He is phasing out estate taxes. All these measures are transforming the past "potbelly flower vase" shape of the U.S. income distribution to the "bottom-heavy hour glass" shape.
This was the same kind of income distribution that the U.S. built during the McKinley-Gilded Age. There was no Securitiesy Exchange Commission to check "creative accounting" and Enron-WorldCom like malfeasance of corporations. America had poor public schools and medical care. There was no minimum wage or labor standard. Both federal and state governments and courts were hostile to labor unions and civic groups protesting the "injustices" of the society. The natural environment was ravaged by railroads, mining, lumbering, and newly emerging oil and gas firms. Abortion was illegal. Women did not even have the vote. In the South, Christian fundamentalists were pressuring public schools to stop teaching Charles Darwin's evolution theories. During the McKinley-Gilded Age, America's democracy atrophied. And America embarked on her imperialistic expansions of colonising Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines.
Clauida just sent this to me. The below is an opinion piece written by one of President Bush's ex-law proffessor's at Harvard:
March 1, 2004
Center for Global Communications, International University of Japan
President George Bush and the Gilded Age
Yoshi Tsurumi (Professor of International Business, Baruch College, the City University of New York )
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Something really strange has happened to the U.S. under the Bush Administration. With her ever bulging budget deficits and foreign debts, America's skewed income distribution is rapidly making the U.S. resemble Argentina or Mexico. The "Jobless Recovery" is not a political mirage, but a serious problem. America's GDP is increasing at an annual rate of about 4.0% this year. But, only those Wall Street "money gamers" and self-dealing "management aristocrats" of Corporate America are dizzy with their huge bonuses, padded salaries, and self-dealt stock options. The remaining hard working Americans cannot eat "GDP." The U.S. has widening income gap between a few "haves" and many "have-nots."
During the last economic recovery period of March 1991 to April 1993, a 10% increase in GDP increased manufacturing jobs and service jobs 3% and 5.9% respectively. However, for the present economic recovery since November 2001, a 10% increase in GDP is increasing manufacturing and service jobs only 0.7% and 0.9% respectively. Just to keep up with her population growth, the U.S. needs to create about 230,000 jobs a month. If the U.S. wants to employ the 3 million unemployed workers thrown out of work under the Bush Administration, the U.S. would have to create a lot more jobs monthly. Last month, however, the U.S. only created 115,000 jobs. President Bush has now abandoned his earlier declared promise of "creating 2.6 million jobs by the fall of 2004."
The unemployed rate of January this year was 5.6%, dipping only 0.1 percentage point. President Bush hailed it as the "unemployment declines for four months in a row." In reality, however, the U.S. has had four months of consecutive decline in the unemployment rate because so many formerly "unemployed" became too discouraged to keep seeking jobs and were eliminated from the unemployment statistics. The U.S. has over 5 million part-time job holders who want full time jobs but cannot find them. In addition, the U.S. has 8 million persons who have had to settle for full time jobs paying far less than their previous jobs. The "jobless recovery" and the widening income gaps are aggravated by massive migrations of good paying manufacturing and service jobs abroad. Such migrations have been accelerated by President Bush's misguided tax cuts.
At Harvard Business School, thirty years ago, George Bush was a student of mine. I still vividly remember him. In my class, he declared that "people are poor because they are lazy." He was opposed to labor unions, social security, environmental protection, Medicare, and public schools. To him, the antitrust watch dog, the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition." To him, Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism." Recently, President Bush's Federal Appeals Court Nominee, California's Supreme Court Justice Janice Brown, repeated the same broadside at her Senate hearing. She knew that her pronouncement would please President Bush and Karl Rove and their Senators. President Bush and his brain, Karl Rove, are leading a radical revolution of destroying all the democratic political, social, judiciary, and economic institutions that both Democrats and moderate Republicans had built together since Roosevelt's New Deal.
In June 2003, Bill Moyers said that "Karl Rove has modeled the Bush presidency on that of William Mckinley (1897-1901) and modeled himself on Mark Hanna, the man who virtually manufactured McKinley. Mark Hanna saw to it that Washington was ruled by business, railroads, and public utility corporations." President Bush's tax cuts have given over 93% of their benefits to large corporations and well-to-do households with over 250,000 dollars of annual income (about 10% of the U.S. households). Moreover, President Bush's tax cuts are abolishing taxes on such asset-based income as stock dividends and capital gains. He is opposed to taxing management aristocrats' self-dealt stock options (salary payment in kind). He is opposed to requiring the corporations to treat such stock options as their personnel expenses. More than anything else, management aristocrats' stock options are encouraging many corporations to abandon manufacturing-and-supply procurements at home and switching to imports from China and other lower-wage countries. He is phasing out estate taxes. All these measures are transforming the past "potbelly flower vase" shape of the U.S. income distribution to the "bottom-heavy hour glass" shape.
This was the same kind of income distribution that the U.S. built during the McKinley-Gilded Age. There was no Securitiesy Exchange Commission to check "creative accounting" and Enron-WorldCom like malfeasance of corporations. America had poor public schools and medical care. There was no minimum wage or labor standard. Both federal and state governments and courts were hostile to labor unions and civic groups protesting the "injustices" of the society. The natural environment was ravaged by railroads, mining, lumbering, and newly emerging oil and gas firms. Abortion was illegal. Women did not even have the vote. In the South, Christian fundamentalists were pressuring public schools to stop teaching Charles Darwin's evolution theories. During the McKinley-Gilded Age, America's democracy atrophied. And America embarked on her imperialistic expansions of colonising Cuba, Panama, and the Philippines.
Great Quotes by Great Ladies!
Inside every older person is a younger person -- wondering what the hell
happened.
-Cora Harvey Armstrong-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The hardest years in life are those between ten and seventy.
-Helen Hayes (at 73)-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray
eyebrows.
-Janette Barber-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.
-Lily Tomlin-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.
-Carrie Snow-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry with your
girlfriends.
-Laurie Kuslansky-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
My second favorite household chore is ironing. My first being, hitting my
head on the top bunk bed until I faint.
-Erma Bombeck-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old age ain't no place for sissies.
-Bette Davis-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A man's got to do what a man's got to do. A woman must do what he can't.
-Rhonda Handsome-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The phrase "working mother" is redundant.
-Jane Sellman-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Every time I close the door on reality it comes in through the windows.
-Jennifer Unlimited-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whatever women must do they must do twice as well as men to be thought
half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.
-Charlotte Whitton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thirty-five is when you finally get your head together and your body
starts falling apart.
-Caryn Leschen-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at
once.
-Jennifer Unlimited-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible
warning.
-Catherine-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I was young, I was put in a school for retarded kids for two years
before they realized I actually had a hearing loss. And they called ME
slow!
-Kathy Buckley-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb
.. and I'm also not blonde.
-Dolly Parton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If high heels were so wonderful, men would still be wearing them.
-Sue Grafton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not going to vacuum 'til Sears makes one you can ride on.
-Roseanne Barr-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade
another country.
-Elayne Boosler-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Behind every successful man is a surprised woman.
-Maryon Pearson-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man- if you want anything
done, ask a woman.
-Margaret Thatcher-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a
career.
-Gloria Steinem-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.
-Zsa Zsa Gabor-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
Inside every older person is a younger person -- wondering what the hell
happened.
-Cora Harvey Armstrong-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The hardest years in life are those between ten and seventy.
-Helen Hayes (at 73)-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I refuse to think of them as chin hairs. I think of them as stray
eyebrows.
-Janette Barber-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Things are going to get a lot worse before they get worse.
-Lily Tomlin-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A male gynecologist is like an auto mechanic who never owned a car.
-Carrie Snow-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Laugh and the world laughs with you. Cry and you cry with your
girlfriends.
-Laurie Kuslansky-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
My second favorite household chore is ironing. My first being, hitting my
head on the top bunk bed until I faint.
-Erma Bombeck-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Old age ain't no place for sissies.
-Bette Davis-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
A man's got to do what a man's got to do. A woman must do what he can't.
-Rhonda Handsome-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
The phrase "working mother" is redundant.
-Jane Sellman-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Every time I close the door on reality it comes in through the windows.
-Jennifer Unlimited-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Whatever women must do they must do twice as well as men to be thought
half as good. Luckily, this is not difficult.
-Charlotte Whitton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Thirty-five is when you finally get your head together and your body
starts falling apart.
-Caryn Leschen-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I try to take one day at a time, but sometimes several days attack me at
once.
-Jennifer Unlimited-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If you can't be a good example, then you'll just have to be a horrible
warning.
-Catherine-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I was young, I was put in a school for retarded kids for two years
before they realized I actually had a hearing loss. And they called ME
slow!
-Kathy Buckley-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not offended by all the dumb blonde jokes because I know I'm not dumb
.. and I'm also not blonde.
-Dolly Parton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
If high heels were so wonderful, men would still be wearing them.
-Sue Grafton-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I'm not going to vacuum 'til Sears makes one you can ride on.
-Roseanne Barr-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
When women are depressed they either eat or go shopping. Men invade
another country.
-Elayne Boosler-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Behind every successful man is a surprised woman.
-Maryon Pearson-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
In politics, if you want anything said, ask a man- if you want anything
done, ask a woman.
-Margaret Thatcher-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I have yet to hear a man ask for advice on how to combine marriage and a
career.
-Gloria Steinem-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
I am a marvelous housekeeper. Every time I leave a man I keep his house.
-Zsa Zsa Gabor-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Nobody can make you feel inferior without your permission.
-Eleanor Roosevelt-
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4467791
2004 Campaign: A 'Shocking' Stumble
Newsweek
March 15 issue - The controversy over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring fake firefighters and fleeting images of the 9/11 attacks threw campaign officials on the defensive—and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to effectively spend its massive $150 million war chest, some GOP insiders say. The president's ad team, led by Austin, Texas-based media maven Mark McKinnon, had carefully road-tested the spots in focus groups, and Bush himself signed off. But the rollout of the ads, which argue that Bush has made the country "safer, stronger," was quickly marred by charges from some 9/11 families that the Bush team was seeking to exploit the attacks for political gain. One scene shows footage of a flag-draped coffin of a terror victim; another has an American flag waving in front of World Trade Center wreckage. Publicly, Bush aides were dismissive and insisted the flap had only strengthened their plan to make 9/11 "a central topic of the campaign." "There's no way you can talk about George W. Bush without talking about September 11," said one campaign adviser. "It's like talking about Franklin Roosevelt without mentioning World War II." But privately, some GOP strategists were disturbed by the backlash and suggested the ad team had misjudged how the imagery would play. "It's quite shocking to a number of Republicans to watch them stumble out of the block like this," said one veteran GOP consultant, who added that the big question in GOP circles is "Do they [the Bush-Cheney campaign] know how to spend" their huge budget?
Another less-publicized aspect of the ad flap: the use of paid actors—including two playing firefighters with fire hats and uniforms in what looks like a fire station. "Where the hell did they get those guys?" cracked Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed John Kerry, when he first saw the ads. (A union spokesman said the shots prompted jokes that the fire hats looked like the plastic hats "from a birthday party.") "There's many reasons not to use real firemen," retorted one Bush media adviser. "Mainly, its cheaper and quicker."
The flap is likely to put renewed attention on the White House's continuing wrangle with the 9/11 Commission. Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of a 9/11 family group, charged it was "hypocritical" of the Bush team to use September 11 when the president has refused to turn over sensitive intelligence documents to the full commission and, more recently, insisted that Bush himself will meet with the panel's chair and co-chair for only one hour. Even some GOP panel members are miffed at the White House stand—and blame it on administration lawyers. In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won't walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.
—Michael Isikoff and T. Trent Gegax, with Tamara Lipper in Crawford, Texas
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc
2004 Campaign: A 'Shocking' Stumble
Newsweek
March 15 issue - The controversy over President George W. Bush's new TV ads featuring fake firefighters and fleeting images of the 9/11 attacks threw campaign officials on the defensive—and raised questions about the Bush team's ability to effectively spend its massive $150 million war chest, some GOP insiders say. The president's ad team, led by Austin, Texas-based media maven Mark McKinnon, had carefully road-tested the spots in focus groups, and Bush himself signed off. But the rollout of the ads, which argue that Bush has made the country "safer, stronger," was quickly marred by charges from some 9/11 families that the Bush team was seeking to exploit the attacks for political gain. One scene shows footage of a flag-draped coffin of a terror victim; another has an American flag waving in front of World Trade Center wreckage. Publicly, Bush aides were dismissive and insisted the flap had only strengthened their plan to make 9/11 "a central topic of the campaign." "There's no way you can talk about George W. Bush without talking about September 11," said one campaign adviser. "It's like talking about Franklin Roosevelt without mentioning World War II." But privately, some GOP strategists were disturbed by the backlash and suggested the ad team had misjudged how the imagery would play. "It's quite shocking to a number of Republicans to watch them stumble out of the block like this," said one veteran GOP consultant, who added that the big question in GOP circles is "Do they [the Bush-Cheney campaign] know how to spend" their huge budget?
Another less-publicized aspect of the ad flap: the use of paid actors—including two playing firefighters with fire hats and uniforms in what looks like a fire station. "Where the hell did they get those guys?" cracked Harold Schaitberger, president of the International Association of Fire Fighters, which has endorsed John Kerry, when he first saw the ads. (A union spokesman said the shots prompted jokes that the fire hats looked like the plastic hats "from a birthday party.") "There's many reasons not to use real firemen," retorted one Bush media adviser. "Mainly, its cheaper and quicker."
The flap is likely to put renewed attention on the White House's continuing wrangle with the 9/11 Commission. Kristin Breitweiser, a leader of a 9/11 family group, charged it was "hypocritical" of the Bush team to use September 11 when the president has refused to turn over sensitive intelligence documents to the full commission and, more recently, insisted that Bush himself will meet with the panel's chair and co-chair for only one hour. Even some GOP panel members are miffed at the White House stand—and blame it on administration lawyers. In what appears to be an attempt to defuse some of the controversy, NEWSWEEK has learned, White House officials have privately signaled to the commission that Bush will not rigidly stick to the one-hour time limit. When time is up, Bush won't walk out if there are still more questions, an aide said.
—Michael Isikoff and T. Trent Gegax, with Tamara Lipper in Crawford, Texas
© 2004 Newsweek, Inc
Sunday, March 07, 2004
http://www.madison.com/captimes/opinion/editorial/69612.php
Editorial: Bush ads exploit tragedy of 9/11
An editorial
March 7, 2004
President Bush took American political discourse to a new low last week when his re-election campaign began airing television commercials that exploit the horror and misery of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The president's willingness to pick at the still open wounds of that tragedy in a crass appeal for political support illustrates the desperation of the man and his political team to cling to power.
But this time Bush has gone too far.
Families and friends of the thousands of people who died as a result of those attacks are condemning the president's grotesque exploitation of their suffering. "After 3,000 people were murdered on his watch, it seems that that takes an awful lot of audacity," says Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband in the attacks. "Honestly, it's in poor taste."
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people. It's unconscionable," says Monica Gabrielle, who also lost her husband in the collapse of the twin towers. Gabrielle, like many of the families that are complaining, is angry with Bush for refusing to cooperate with the commission that is investigating the attacks. The president continues to reject requests that he testify in open session before the commission.
Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on a hijacked American Airlines flight that day, explains, "I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty. But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."
The Bush ads feature images of remains being lifted from ground zero. "How heinous is that?" asks Mindy Kleinberg. "That's somebody's (loved one)."
The Bush camp has been rattled by the whole controversy.
Veteran Bush aide Karen Hughes started taking partisan jabs, declaring that "some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president ... brought to our country in the aftermath of that." Hughes seems to think that anyone who criticizes the president, even someone who lost a family member in the collapse of the twin towers, is automatically a Democrat.
Hughes also seems to think that the commercials are "tasteful." But the taste that is being left in the mouths of those who continue to suffer the pain of their 9/11 losses is a bitter one.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said New York City firefighter Tommy Fee. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."
Tommy Fee is right. President Bush should order his campaign to take the offending advertisements off the air.
To allow these ads to continue being broadcast adds unnecessary, and unreasonable, insult to injury.
Editorial: Bush ads exploit tragedy of 9/11
An editorial
March 7, 2004
President Bush took American political discourse to a new low last week when his re-election campaign began airing television commercials that exploit the horror and misery of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
The president's willingness to pick at the still open wounds of that tragedy in a crass appeal for political support illustrates the desperation of the man and his political team to cling to power.
But this time Bush has gone too far.
Families and friends of the thousands of people who died as a result of those attacks are condemning the president's grotesque exploitation of their suffering. "After 3,000 people were murdered on his watch, it seems that that takes an awful lot of audacity," says Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her husband in the attacks. "Honestly, it's in poor taste."
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people. It's unconscionable," says Monica Gabrielle, who also lost her husband in the collapse of the twin towers. Gabrielle, like many of the families that are complaining, is angry with Bush for refusing to cooperate with the commission that is investigating the attacks. The president continues to reject requests that he testify in open session before the commission.
Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on a hijacked American Airlines flight that day, explains, "I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty. But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."
The Bush ads feature images of remains being lifted from ground zero. "How heinous is that?" asks Mindy Kleinberg. "That's somebody's (loved one)."
The Bush camp has been rattled by the whole controversy.
Veteran Bush aide Karen Hughes started taking partisan jabs, declaring that "some Democrats might not want the American people to remember the great leadership and strength the president ... brought to our country in the aftermath of that." Hughes seems to think that anyone who criticizes the president, even someone who lost a family member in the collapse of the twin towers, is automatically a Democrat.
Hughes also seems to think that the commercials are "tasteful." But the taste that is being left in the mouths of those who continue to suffer the pain of their 9/11 losses is a bitter one.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place," said New York City firefighter Tommy Fee. "The image of firefighters at ground zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics."
Tommy Fee is right. President Bush should order his campaign to take the offending advertisements off the air.
To allow these ads to continue being broadcast adds unnecessary, and unreasonable, insult to injury.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
List of Divorced Republicans
To those wonderful conservatives who are worried about gay and lesbian combinations hurting the sanctity of marriage, look at what our conservative leaders have done with their matrimonial connections. Our present president preaching abstinence, has only impregnated his wife once. I suppose he also practices
what he preaches!!!
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a
daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will, conservative columnist - divorced
*Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author
and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH
marriage are you defending?!?
One addition-- Barr, a staunchly anti-choice crusader. Drove his (then) wife to an abortion clinic and signed the check for
her to have the abortion and then left her there to go back to work. I've seen a copy of the cancelled check! That muck-
raking thanks to Larry Flint.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
*Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced
Henry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
*Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
Don't let homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage? The Christian Republicans are doing a fine job without
anyone's help!
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
To those wonderful conservatives who are worried about gay and lesbian combinations hurting the sanctity of marriage, look at what our conservative leaders have done with their matrimonial connections. Our present president preaching abstinence, has only impregnated his wife once. I suppose he also practices
what he preaches!!!
Ronald Reagan - divorced the mother of two of his children to marry Nancy Reagan who bore him a
daughter only 7 months after the marriage.
Bob Dole - divorced the mother of his child, who had nursed him through the long recovery from his war wounds.
Newt Gingrich - divorced his wife who was dying of cancer.
Dick Armey - House Majority Leader - divorced
Sen. Phil Gramm of Texas - divorced
Gov. John Engler of Michigan - divorced
Gov. Pete Wilson of California - divorced
George Will, conservative columnist - divorced
*Sen. Lauch Faircloth - divorced
Rush Limbaugh - Rush and his current wife Marta have six marriages and four divorces between them.
Rep. Bob Barr of Georgia - Barr, not yet 50 years old, has been married three times. Barr had the audacity to author
and push the "Defense of Marriage Act." The current joke making the rounds on Capitol Hill is "Bob Barr...WHICH
marriage are you defending?!?
One addition-- Barr, a staunchly anti-choice crusader. Drove his (then) wife to an abortion clinic and signed the check for
her to have the abortion and then left her there to go back to work. I've seen a copy of the cancelled check! That muck-
raking thanks to Larry Flint.
Sen. Alfonse D'Amato of New York - divorced
*Sen. John Warner of Virginia - divorced (once married to Liz Taylor.)
Gov. George Allen of Virginia - divorced
Henry Kissinger - divorced
Rep. Helen Chenoweth of Idaho - divorced
*Sen. John McCain of Arizonia - divorced
Rep. John Kasich of Ohio - divorced
Rep. Susan Molinari of New York - Republican National Convention Keynote Speaker - divorced
Don't let homosexuals destroy the institution of marriage? The Christian Republicans are doing a fine job without
anyone's help!
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
Friday, March 05, 2004
http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-usleak0305,0,2896503.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
Air Force One phone records subpoenaed
Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was blown
BY TOM BRUNE
STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.
Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.
The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.
The investigation seeks to determine if anyone violated federal law that prohibits officials with security clearances from intentionally or knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover agent.
White House implicated
The subpoenas underscore indications that the initial stages of the investigation have focused largely on the White House staff members most involved in shaping the administration's message on Iraq, and appear to be based in part on specific information already gathered by investigators, attorneys said Thursday.
Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment.
The investigation arose in part out of concerns that Bush administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
In 2002, Wilson went to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He reported that Iraq sought commercial ties but that businessmen said the Iraqis didn't try to buy uranium.
All three subpoenas were sent to employees of the Executive Office of the President under a Jan. 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the documents, which include phone messages, e-mails and handwritten notes, was "mandatory" and setting a Jan. 29 deadline.
"The president has always said we would fully comply with the investigation, and the White House counsel's office has directed the staff to fully comply," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday.
The Novak column
Two of the subpoenas focus mainly on White House records, events and contacts in July, both before and after the July 14 column by Robert Novak that said "two senior administration officials" told him Plame was a CIA officer.
The third subpoena repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported on July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.
The subpoena added journalists such as Mike Allen and Dana Priest of the Washington Post, Michael Duffy of Time magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC's "Meet the Press," Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball," and reporters from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. There have been no reports of journalists being subpoeaned.
The subpoenas required the White House to produce the documents in three stages -- the first on Jan. 30, a second on Feb. 4 and the third on Feb. 6 -- even as White House aides began appearing before the grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.
The subpoena with the first production deadline sought three sets of documents.
It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 to 12, while Bush was visting several nations in Africa. The White House declined Thursday to release a list of those on the trip.
That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria.
That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.
Finally, the subpoena requested a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.
The White House at the time announced the reception would honor Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said the event was closed to the press.
The White House Thursday declined to release the list and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, which paid for the event, did not return phone calls.
The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.
What about Karl Rove?
It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Wilson alleged in September that Rove was involved in the leak but a day later pulled back from that, asserting that Rove had "condoned" it.
Hughes left the White House in the summer of 2002. Matalin, who left at the end of 2002, did not return a call for comment. Matalin appeared before the grand jury Jan. 23, the day after the subpoenas were issued.
The subpoena with the last production date repeated the Justice Department's informal request to the White House last fall for documents from Feb. 1, 2002, through 2003 related to Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger, to Plame and to contacts with journalists.
Current White House press secretary Scott McClellan, press aide Claire Buchan and former press aide Adam Levine have told reporters they appeared before the grand jury Feb. 6. At least five others have reportedly been questioned.
Air Force One phone records subpoenaed
Grand jury to review call logs from Bush’s jet in probe of how a CIA agent’s cover was blown
BY TOM BRUNE
STAFF WRITER
WASHINGTON -- The federal grand jury probing the leak of a covert CIA officer's identity has subpoenaed records of Air Force One telephone calls in the week before the officer's name was published in a column in July, according to documents obtained by Newsday.
Also sought in the wide-ranging document requests contained in three grand jury subpoenas to the Executive Office of President George W. Bush are records created in July by the White House Iraq Group, a little-known internal task force established in August 2002 to create a strategy to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein.
And the subpoenas asked for a transcript of a White House spokesman's press briefing in Nigeria, a list of those attending a birthday reception for a former president, and, casting a much wider net than previously reported, records of White House contacts with more than two dozen journalists and news media outlets.
The three subpoenas were issued to the White House on Jan. 22, three weeks after Patrick Fitzgerald, the U.S. attorney in Chicago, was appointed special counsel in the probe and during the first wave of appearances by White House staffers before the grand jury.
The investigation seeks to determine if anyone violated federal law that prohibits officials with security clearances from intentionally or knowingly disclosing the identity of an undercover agent.
White House implicated
The subpoenas underscore indications that the initial stages of the investigation have focused largely on the White House staff members most involved in shaping the administration's message on Iraq, and appear to be based in part on specific information already gathered by investigators, attorneys said Thursday.
Fitzgerald's spokesman declined to comment.
The investigation arose in part out of concerns that Bush administration officials had called reporters to circulate the name of the CIA officer, Valerie Plame, in an attempt to discredit the criticism of the administration's Iraq policy by her husband, former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.
In 2002, Wilson went to Niger at the behest of the CIA to check out reports that Iraq was seeking to buy uranium "yellow cake" to develop nuclear weapons. He reported that Iraq sought commercial ties but that businessmen said the Iraqis didn't try to buy uranium.
All three subpoenas were sent to employees of the Executive Office of the President under a Jan. 26 memo by White House counsel Alberto Gonzalez saying production of the documents, which include phone messages, e-mails and handwritten notes, was "mandatory" and setting a Jan. 29 deadline.
"The president has always said we would fully comply with the investigation, and the White House counsel's office has directed the staff to fully comply," White House spokeswoman Erin Healy said Thursday.
The Novak column
Two of the subpoenas focus mainly on White House records, events and contacts in July, both before and after the July 14 column by Robert Novak that said "two senior administration officials" told him Plame was a CIA officer.
The third subpoena repeats an informal Justice Department document request to the White House last fall seeking records about staff contacts with Novak and two Newsday reporters, Knut Royce and Timothy Phelps, who reported on July 22 that Plame was a covert agent and Novak had blown her cover.
The subpoena added journalists such as Mike Allen and Dana Priest of the Washington Post, Michael Duffy of Time magazine, Andrea Mitchell of NBC's "Meet the Press," Chris Matthews of MSNBC's "Hardball," and reporters from The New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Associated Press. There have been no reports of journalists being subpoeaned.
The subpoenas required the White House to produce the documents in three stages -- the first on Jan. 30, a second on Feb. 4 and the third on Feb. 6 -- even as White House aides began appearing before the grand jury sitting in Washington, D.C.
The subpoena with the first production deadline sought three sets of documents.
It requested records of telephone calls to and from Air Force One from July 7 to 12, while Bush was visting several nations in Africa. The White House declined Thursday to release a list of those on the trip.
That subpoena also sought a complete transcript of a July 12 press "gaggle," or informal briefing, by then-White House press secretary Ari Fleischer while at the National Hospital in Abuja, Nigeria.
That transcript is missing from the White House Web site containing transcripts of other press briefings. In a transcript the White House released at the time to Federal News Service, Fleischer discusses Wilson and his CIA report.
Finally, the subpoena requested a list of those in attendance at the White House reception on July 16 for former President Gerald Ford's 90th birthday.
The White House at the time announced the reception would honor Federal Reserve Board Chairman Alan Greenspan, but said the event was closed to the press.
The White House Thursday declined to release the list and the Gerald R. Ford Foundation, which paid for the event, did not return phone calls.
The subpoena with the second production deadline sought all documents from July 6 to July 30 of the White House Iraq Group. In August, the Washington Post published the only account of the group's existence.
What about Karl Rove?
It met weekly in the Situation Room, the Post said, and its regular participants included senior political adviser Karl Rove; communication strategists Karen Hughes, Mary Matalin and James R. Wilkinson; legislative liaison Nicholas E. Calio; policy advisers led by National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and her deputy Stephen J. Hadley; and I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney.
Wilson alleged in September that Rove was involved in the leak but a day later pulled back from that, asserting that Rove had "condoned" it.
Hughes left the White House in the summer of 2002. Matalin, who left at the end of 2002, did not return a call for comment. Matalin appeared before the grand jury Jan. 23, the day after the subpoenas were issued.
The subpoena with the last production date repeated the Justice Department's informal request to the White House last fall for documents from Feb. 1, 2002, through 2003 related to Wilson's February 2002 trip to Niger, to Plame and to contacts with journalists.
Current White House press secretary Scott McClellan, press aide Claire Buchan and former press aide Adam Levine have told reporters they appeared before the grand jury Feb. 6. At least five others have reportedly been questioned.
Thursday, March 04, 2004
http://www.nydailynews.com/front/story/170291p-148587c.html
Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad
By MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York
amd THOMAS M. DeFRANK in Washington
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."
Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.
"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."
Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.
"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."
The gauzy, upbeat spots, aimed at shoring up Bush's sagging approval numbers, begin airing today on national cable networks and 50 media markets in 17 states that Bush-Cheney strategists consider electoral battlegrounds.
Two ads, including a Spanish version, show fleeting images of the World Trade Center devastation. The 30-second spots include a poignant image of an American flag fluttering defiantly amid the WTC wreckage.
One, titled "Safer, Stronger," also features a one-second shot of firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim from the twisted debris.
Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work.
Bush officials defended the imagery as totally appropriate.
"9/11 was the defining moment of these times," campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters. "Because of that day, America is at war and still is."
Charging Democratic rival John Kerry with politicizing the attacks by alleging Bush has turned his back on the city, Mehlman added: "The President's never forgotten. It's a central part of his leadership."
The spots, pegged to the theme of "steady leadership in time of change," do not mention Kerry. Instead, their uplifting message hopes to refurbish Bush's battered image after two months of harsh Democratic attacks and a series of missteps by the normally surefooted White House political apparatus.
"We've been off our game for weeks," a senior Bush strategist conceded. "Thank goodness, there's plenty of time to get well, and plenty of grist to chop Kerry down to size."
With Kenneth R. Bazinet and Michele McPhee
Furor over Bush's 9/11 ad
By MAGGIE HABERMAN in New York
amd THOMAS M. DeFRANK in Washington
DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITERS
The Bush reelection campaign yesterday unveiled its first three campaign commercials showcasing Ground Zero images, angering some 9/11 families who accused President Bush of exploiting the tragedy for political advantage.
"It's a slap in the face of the murders of 3,000 people," said Monica Gabrielle, whose husband died in the twin tower attacks. "It is unconscionable."
Gabrielle and several other family members said the injury was compounded by Bush's refusal to testify in open session before the 9/11 commission.
"I would be less offended if he showed a picture of himself in front of the Statue of Liberty," said Tom Roger, whose daughter was a flight attendant on doomed American Airlines Flight 11. "But to show the horror of 9/11 in the background, that's just some advertising agency's attempt to grab people by the throat."
Mindy Kleinberg said she was offended because the White House has not cooperated fully with the commission and because of the sight of remains being lifted out of Ground Zero in one of the spots.
"How heinous is that?" Kleinberg asked. "That's somebody's [loved one]."
Firefighter Tommy Fee in Rescue Squad 270 in Queens was appalled.
"It's as sick as people who stole things out of the place. The image of firefighters at Ground Zero should not be used for this stuff, for politics," Fee said.
But Jennie Farrell, who lost her brother, electrician James Cartier, called the ad "tastefully done," adding: "It speaks to the truth of the times. Sept. 11 ... was something beyond the realm of imagination, and George Bush ... led us through one of the darkest moments in history."
The gauzy, upbeat spots, aimed at shoring up Bush's sagging approval numbers, begin airing today on national cable networks and 50 media markets in 17 states that Bush-Cheney strategists consider electoral battlegrounds.
Two ads, including a Spanish version, show fleeting images of the World Trade Center devastation. The 30-second spots include a poignant image of an American flag fluttering defiantly amid the WTC wreckage.
One, titled "Safer, Stronger," also features a one-second shot of firefighters removing the flag-draped remains of a victim from the twisted debris.
Both ads reinforce the Ground Zero imagery with frontal shots of two firefighters. Unlike the paid actors and actresses in most of the footage, they are not ringers, but their red headgear gives them away as non-New Yorkers. The Bush campaign declined to reveal where the burly smoke-eaters actually work.
Bush officials defended the imagery as totally appropriate.
"9/11 was the defining moment of these times," campaign manager Ken Mehlman told reporters. "Because of that day, America is at war and still is."
Charging Democratic rival John Kerry with politicizing the attacks by alleging Bush has turned his back on the city, Mehlman added: "The President's never forgotten. It's a central part of his leadership."
The spots, pegged to the theme of "steady leadership in time of change," do not mention Kerry. Instead, their uplifting message hopes to refurbish Bush's battered image after two months of harsh Democratic attacks and a series of missteps by the normally surefooted White House political apparatus.
"We've been off our game for weeks," a senior Bush strategist conceded. "Thank goodness, there's plenty of time to get well, and plenty of grist to chop Kerry down to size."
With Kenneth R. Bazinet and Michele McPhee
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=694&ncid=716&e=1&u=/ap/20040303/ap_on_el_pr/democrats
Kerry Lays Claim to Democratic Nomination
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination after a decisive round of primary and caucus victories cleared the field for a feisty head-to-head battle against President Bush — a struggle already in motion.
Kerry's New York-to-California victories in the 10-state Super Tuesday series knocked the fight out of his spirited rival, John Edwards. The North Carolina senator, who had been the only one left with the ghost of a chance against Kerry, let the word out that he was quitting even before polls closed in the West and just as Minnesotans gathered in caucuses.
Suddenly, the Democrat-to-Democrat sniping is over, replaced by calls for unity, and Kerry is left with his hard-fought reward — as well as the weight of Democrats' expectations that he can beat Bush in the fall.
"Tonight, the message can now be heard all across our country: Change is coming to America," said Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator whose understated ways disguise a hotly competitive streak. "We will fight to give America back its future and its hope."
There were grace notes in the first blush of his victory: a polite exchange with Bush, who called to congratulate him. But there is to be no grace period in their campaign fight.
The Republican president opens a multimillion-dollar TV ad blitz Thursday to try to win back favor in a time of slipping poll numbers, and has a war chest of more than $100 million to draw from in the months ahead, more than Kerry can muster.
Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Kerry on the airwaves Tuesday as a frequent foe of defense and intelligence budgets, seeking to neutralize Kerry's draw as a decorated Vietnam veteran and his Senate experience in foreign policy.
And the courteous phone call aside, Kerry kept up the drumbeat of recent weeks against Bush, giving him no quarter on the war on terrorism or anything else. "We will renew our alliances and we will build new alliances because they are essential to the final victory and success of a war on terror," he told supporters.
"The Bush administration has run the most inept, reckless, arrogant and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country."
Kerry dominated the six-week Democratic competition from the Iowa caucuses on, once he shook off a torpid start and overcame the fading phenomenon of Howard Dean. He has won 27 of 30 contests, putting him well on his way to winning the nomination formally once he has collected 2,162 delegates.
The Super Tuesday states awarded a mother lode of 1,151 delegates, more than half those needed, and pushed Kerry's total over 1,100.
Kerry had 1,292 delegates to Edwards' 438. Dean had 182, Al Sharpton 24 and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich 18. In a bit of cold comfort, Kucinich won his primary for re-election to the House.
Kerry won nine of the 10 states Tuesday, losing only in Vermont, where voters made Dean, their former governor, the sentimental favorite even though he ended his campaign two weeks ago.
In all regions and among practically all groups, voters interviewed about their choice spoke of making the same political calculation — they picked Kerry because they thought he could defeat the president.
That imperative helped him win Tuesday in states such as Ohio, Minnesota and Georgia, even though Kerry — unlike Edwards — backed trade agreements that voters blamed for costing their communities jobs.
"I really want to win," Angie Kline, a St. Paul, Minn., caucus-goer, said in explaining her vote for Kerry. "Kerry has the breadth of experience. He's had umpteen years in the Senate working on both domestic and foreign policy issues."
Although relentlessly upbeat and dogged, Edwards knew he had to quit, and aides tipped his hand on that plan on the eve of his formal departure.
"We have been the little engine that could," the North Carolina senator told supporters. Edwards proved an animated campaigner and sharp debater, but won only in his native South Carolina and posted several strong second place finishes.
He immediately started closing ranks with his rival, calling Kerry an "extraordinary advocate for jobs, better health care, a safer world," and declaring: "These are the causes of our party, these are the causes of our country, and these are the causes we will prevail on come November."
Kerry responded in kind, calling Edwards "a compelling voice to our party" who holds "great promise for leadership for the years to come." Edwards' name will stay in play as a possible choice for running mate, although Kerry has given no hint of his pick for the ticket.
Kerry ordered his staff to prepare a process to review potential vice presidential candidates, senior advisers said. They said it was possible, but not likely, that Kerry would choose a nominee well before the Democratic nominating convention in his hometown of Boston in July.
Kucinich finished in single digits in most of the night's contests, lagging in his own state, and Al Sharpton was weighing whether to keep his quixotic campaign going after finishing in single digits on his New York home turf.
Altogether, Kerry won in California, Rhode Island, Ohio, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Georgia.
For the opening of his general election campaign Wednesday, Kerry picked Florida, site of the historic 2000 recount election that gave Bush the presidency.
Kerry said several of his former rivals had offered to help raise money and he was confident he could put together the necessary war chest, though it won't be easy. As well, Democratic interest groups, required to act independently of the Kerry camp, plan to start ads soon critical of Bush.
"The president has an enormous lead," Kerry told The Associated Press. "He has extraordinary sums of money ... and we're going to have to fight hard to raise money and compete."
And he told supporters to expect a rough battle.
"Before us lie long months of effort and of challenge, and we understand that," he said. "We have no illusions about the Republican attack machine and what our opponents have done in the past and what they may try to do in the future. But I know that together we are equal to this task. I am a fighter."
Kerry Lays Claim to Democratic Nomination
By CALVIN WOODWARD, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - John Kerry (news - web sites) laid claim to the Democratic presidential nomination after a decisive round of primary and caucus victories cleared the field for a feisty head-to-head battle against President Bush — a struggle already in motion.
Kerry's New York-to-California victories in the 10-state Super Tuesday series knocked the fight out of his spirited rival, John Edwards. The North Carolina senator, who had been the only one left with the ghost of a chance against Kerry, let the word out that he was quitting even before polls closed in the West and just as Minnesotans gathered in caucuses.
Suddenly, the Democrat-to-Democrat sniping is over, replaced by calls for unity, and Kerry is left with his hard-fought reward — as well as the weight of Democrats' expectations that he can beat Bush in the fall.
"Tonight, the message can now be heard all across our country: Change is coming to America," said Kerry, 60, a four-term Massachusetts senator whose understated ways disguise a hotly competitive streak. "We will fight to give America back its future and its hope."
There were grace notes in the first blush of his victory: a polite exchange with Bush, who called to congratulate him. But there is to be no grace period in their campaign fight.
The Republican president opens a multimillion-dollar TV ad blitz Thursday to try to win back favor in a time of slipping poll numbers, and has a war chest of more than $100 million to draw from in the months ahead, more than Kerry can muster.
Vice President Dick Cheney criticized Kerry on the airwaves Tuesday as a frequent foe of defense and intelligence budgets, seeking to neutralize Kerry's draw as a decorated Vietnam veteran and his Senate experience in foreign policy.
And the courteous phone call aside, Kerry kept up the drumbeat of recent weeks against Bush, giving him no quarter on the war on terrorism or anything else. "We will renew our alliances and we will build new alliances because they are essential to the final victory and success of a war on terror," he told supporters.
"The Bush administration has run the most inept, reckless, arrogant and ideological foreign policy in the modern history of our country."
Kerry dominated the six-week Democratic competition from the Iowa caucuses on, once he shook off a torpid start and overcame the fading phenomenon of Howard Dean. He has won 27 of 30 contests, putting him well on his way to winning the nomination formally once he has collected 2,162 delegates.
The Super Tuesday states awarded a mother lode of 1,151 delegates, more than half those needed, and pushed Kerry's total over 1,100.
Kerry had 1,292 delegates to Edwards' 438. Dean had 182, Al Sharpton 24 and Ohio Rep. Dennis Kucinich 18. In a bit of cold comfort, Kucinich won his primary for re-election to the House.
Kerry won nine of the 10 states Tuesday, losing only in Vermont, where voters made Dean, their former governor, the sentimental favorite even though he ended his campaign two weeks ago.
In all regions and among practically all groups, voters interviewed about their choice spoke of making the same political calculation — they picked Kerry because they thought he could defeat the president.
That imperative helped him win Tuesday in states such as Ohio, Minnesota and Georgia, even though Kerry — unlike Edwards — backed trade agreements that voters blamed for costing their communities jobs.
"I really want to win," Angie Kline, a St. Paul, Minn., caucus-goer, said in explaining her vote for Kerry. "Kerry has the breadth of experience. He's had umpteen years in the Senate working on both domestic and foreign policy issues."
Although relentlessly upbeat and dogged, Edwards knew he had to quit, and aides tipped his hand on that plan on the eve of his formal departure.
"We have been the little engine that could," the North Carolina senator told supporters. Edwards proved an animated campaigner and sharp debater, but won only in his native South Carolina and posted several strong second place finishes.
He immediately started closing ranks with his rival, calling Kerry an "extraordinary advocate for jobs, better health care, a safer world," and declaring: "These are the causes of our party, these are the causes of our country, and these are the causes we will prevail on come November."
Kerry responded in kind, calling Edwards "a compelling voice to our party" who holds "great promise for leadership for the years to come." Edwards' name will stay in play as a possible choice for running mate, although Kerry has given no hint of his pick for the ticket.
Kerry ordered his staff to prepare a process to review potential vice presidential candidates, senior advisers said. They said it was possible, but not likely, that Kerry would choose a nominee well before the Democratic nominating convention in his hometown of Boston in July.
Kucinich finished in single digits in most of the night's contests, lagging in his own state, and Al Sharpton was weighing whether to keep his quixotic campaign going after finishing in single digits on his New York home turf.
Altogether, Kerry won in California, Rhode Island, Ohio, New York, Minnesota, Massachusetts, Connecticut, Maryland and Georgia.
For the opening of his general election campaign Wednesday, Kerry picked Florida, site of the historic 2000 recount election that gave Bush the presidency.
Kerry said several of his former rivals had offered to help raise money and he was confident he could put together the necessary war chest, though it won't be easy. As well, Democratic interest groups, required to act independently of the Kerry camp, plan to start ads soon critical of Bush.
"The president has an enormous lead," Kerry told The Associated Press. "He has extraordinary sums of money ... and we're going to have to fight hard to raise money and compete."
And he told supporters to expect a rough battle.
"Before us lie long months of effort and of challenge, and we understand that," he said. "We have no illusions about the Republican attack machine and what our opponents have done in the past and what they may try to do in the future. But I know that together we are equal to this task. I am a fighter."
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040301/pl_nm/campaign_dc_8
Super Tuesday Push
Mon Mar 1, 5:29 PM ET
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry and rival John Edwards made their final pitches for support on Monday on the eve of a potentially decisive coast-to-coast Super Tuesday showdown in 10 states.
Kerry, hoping to deal a final blow to Edwards' candidacy on Tuesday during the campaign's biggest single day of voting, hopscotched across Maryland, Ohio and Georgia and turned up his attacks on President Bush ahead of their likely November match-up.
Edwards hunted for votes in Ohio and Georgia, two of his best shots at upset victories that could keep his underdog White House bid alive.
Up for grabs on Tuesday are big states like New York, California and Ohio with a total of 1,151 delegates to July's nominating convention -- more than half of the 2,152 delegates needed to win the nomination and the campaign's biggest one-day haul.
Kerry, the Massachusetts senator who has won 18 of the first 20 contests, stepped up his criticism of Bush over the war in Iraq and promised to directly confront the president for his handling of the economy and national security.
If you will trust me with this nomination, I will go right at George W. Bush," Kerry told a packed rally at Ohio State University. "This isn't going to be some kind of ... wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, you can't tell the difference deal."
Earlier, at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland, Kerry said, "There is a better way to make America safe than this president has chosen. This president has, in fact, created terrorists where they did not exist."
Edwards, who has put his plans to create more opportunities for American workers and stem the flow of U.S. jobs to foreign countries at the centerpiece of his campaign, held three rallies in Ohio before finishing the day in Georgia, two of the states he has targeted on Tuesday along with Minnesota.
In Toledo, Ohio, the senator from North Carolina laid out his job-creation message and plans to lift millions of Americans out of poverty, telling voters "you give me a chance at George Bush and I'll get you back the White House."
Kerry is hoping another in his long string of dominating performances will knock Edwards out of the race. While a coast-to-coast sweep would not give Kerry enough delegates to clinch the nomination, it could eliminate the last flickers of hope for Edwards.
NOT TAKING VICTORY FOR GRANTED
But Kerry said he would not take victory for granted.
"This is a contested race, so I'm fighting in every state and I'm campaigning hard and after Super Tuesday, we'll see where we are," he said.
Edwards has turned his attention elsewhere after early campaign appearances in New York and California as he hunts for fertile ground against Kerry. He has focused on Ohio because of the state's heavy job losses under Bush and Georgia because of his Southern roots.
He shrugged off repeated questions about the future of his campaign.
"I think we'll do well tomorrow," he said. "We have always been going up and surging at the end. We'll have to wait and see what happens."
"At some point I've got to get more delegates or I'm not going to be the nominee," conceded Edwards, who trails Kerry by more than 3-to-1 in the current delegate count. The bottom line, he said, was to "compete well" and win "substantial delegates."
Edwards said he expects to do well in places where he has had time to campaign and meet people.
"My responsibility is to get this message through to voters," he told reporters. "There's no question that national momentum has an impact on these races. But as long as people hear this message of hope and optimism and real change from outside Washington, it works."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, won the endorsement of the Baltimore Sun newspaper in Maryland and the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio, which said his "obvious understanding of the world's complexities and their effects on America," made him the best candidate to face Bush.
Super Tuesday Push
Mon Mar 1, 5:29 PM ET
By John Whitesides, Political Correspondent
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Democratic presidential front-runner John Kerry and rival John Edwards made their final pitches for support on Monday on the eve of a potentially decisive coast-to-coast Super Tuesday showdown in 10 states.
Kerry, hoping to deal a final blow to Edwards' candidacy on Tuesday during the campaign's biggest single day of voting, hopscotched across Maryland, Ohio and Georgia and turned up his attacks on President Bush ahead of their likely November match-up.
Edwards hunted for votes in Ohio and Georgia, two of his best shots at upset victories that could keep his underdog White House bid alive.
Up for grabs on Tuesday are big states like New York, California and Ohio with a total of 1,151 delegates to July's nominating convention -- more than half of the 2,152 delegates needed to win the nomination and the campaign's biggest one-day haul.
Kerry, the Massachusetts senator who has won 18 of the first 20 contests, stepped up his criticism of Bush over the war in Iraq and promised to directly confront the president for his handling of the economy and national security.
If you will trust me with this nomination, I will go right at George W. Bush," Kerry told a packed rally at Ohio State University. "This isn't going to be some kind of ... wishy-washy, mealy-mouthed, you can't tell the difference deal."
Earlier, at Morgan State University in Baltimore, Maryland, Kerry said, "There is a better way to make America safe than this president has chosen. This president has, in fact, created terrorists where they did not exist."
Edwards, who has put his plans to create more opportunities for American workers and stem the flow of U.S. jobs to foreign countries at the centerpiece of his campaign, held three rallies in Ohio before finishing the day in Georgia, two of the states he has targeted on Tuesday along with Minnesota.
In Toledo, Ohio, the senator from North Carolina laid out his job-creation message and plans to lift millions of Americans out of poverty, telling voters "you give me a chance at George Bush and I'll get you back the White House."
Kerry is hoping another in his long string of dominating performances will knock Edwards out of the race. While a coast-to-coast sweep would not give Kerry enough delegates to clinch the nomination, it could eliminate the last flickers of hope for Edwards.
NOT TAKING VICTORY FOR GRANTED
But Kerry said he would not take victory for granted.
"This is a contested race, so I'm fighting in every state and I'm campaigning hard and after Super Tuesday, we'll see where we are," he said.
Edwards has turned his attention elsewhere after early campaign appearances in New York and California as he hunts for fertile ground against Kerry. He has focused on Ohio because of the state's heavy job losses under Bush and Georgia because of his Southern roots.
He shrugged off repeated questions about the future of his campaign.
"I think we'll do well tomorrow," he said. "We have always been going up and surging at the end. We'll have to wait and see what happens."
"At some point I've got to get more delegates or I'm not going to be the nominee," conceded Edwards, who trails Kerry by more than 3-to-1 in the current delegate count. The bottom line, he said, was to "compete well" and win "substantial delegates."
Edwards said he expects to do well in places where he has had time to campaign and meet people.
"My responsibility is to get this message through to voters," he told reporters. "There's no question that national momentum has an impact on these races. But as long as people hear this message of hope and optimism and real change from outside Washington, it works."
Kerry, a decorated Vietnam War veteran, won the endorsement of the Baltimore Sun newspaper in Maryland and the Plain Dealer in Cleveland, Ohio, which said his "obvious understanding of the world's complexities and their effects on America," made him the best candidate to face Bush.
Monday, March 01, 2004
I'm laughing so hard! It's the best!
________________________
Chavez calls Bush 'asshole' as foes fight troops
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_US&storyID=4463411
By Patrick Markey
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called U.S. President George W. Bush an "asshole" on Sunday for meddling, and vowed never to quit office like his Haitian counterpart as troops battled with opposition protesters demanding a recall referendum against him.
Chavez, who often says the U.S. is backing opposition efforts to topple his leftist government, accused Bush of heeding advice from "imperialist" aides to support a brief 2002 coup against him.
"He was an asshole to believe them," Chavez roared at a huge rally of supporters in Caracas.
The Venezuelan leader's comments came as fresh violence broke out on the streets of the capital, where National Guard troops clashed with opposition protesters pressing for a vote to end his five-year rule.
Military helicopters roared in low runs overhead as soldiers fired tear gas and plastic bullets to repel several hundred opposition demonstrators who threw stones and set up burning barricades in eastern Caracas late into the night.
Troops and opposition activists also skirmished in other cities.
"We call on the country to continue with peaceful resistence," opposition leader Enrique Mendoza said. "This fight will last as long as necessary."
A soldier and a cameraman were shot and injured during the clashes and an opposition protester was wounded in the head by gunmen firing from motorbikes, witnesses and officials said.
Electoral authorities, citing the need to preserve peace in the country, said they were postponing until Monday the preliminary results of their verification of the opposition's petition for a recall vote.
One demonstrator carried a banner reading: "Bye bye Aristide, Chavez you're next," referring to Haiti's leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who fled into exile on Sunday in the face of an armed rebellion.
TENSIONS AHEAD OF POLL RULING
But the firebrand populist vowed to defeat any attempt to unseat him and threatened to cut off oil supplies to the United States from the world's No. 5 crude oil exporter should Washington try an invasion or trade sanctions.
"Venezuela is not Haiti and Chavez is not Aristide," he said.
Tens of thousands of Chavez supporters marched earlier on Sunday to protest what they condemned as U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs. The U.S. State Department routinely dismisses the president's accusations.
The referendum campaign is the latest political fight for Chavez, who survived the short-lived 2002 coup and a strike last year by opponents who fear his self-styled "revolution" is slowly turning Venezuela into a Cuban-style communist state.
Since his first election in 1998, the president has vowed to improve the lives of the impoverished who see little of the country's oil wealth. But his opponents say he has failed and has instead pushed the country into economic ruin.
Political tensions have flared again recently as setbacks delayed a ruling by the National Electoral Council on whether to allow the recall referendum to go forward. Two protesters were shot and killed on Friday during an opposition march.
The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center, which are observing the referendum process, appealed for calm on Sunday ahead of the council decision.
Electoral authorities said they would make a preliminary ruling Monday on whether the opposition collected the minimum 2.4 million valid signatures required for a vote. The opposition says it handed over 3.4 million signatures.
Opposition leaders accuse pro-government officials in the electoral council of trying to block the poll by disqualifying many valid signatures. Chavez says his opponents' petition is riddled with forgeries.
(Additional reporting by Pascal Fletcher, Magdelena Morales)
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
________________________
Chavez calls Bush 'asshole' as foes fight troops
http://www.reuters.com/locales/newsArticle.jsp?type=worldNews&locale=en_US&storyID=4463411
By Patrick Markey
CARACAS, Venezuela (Reuters) - Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez called U.S. President George W. Bush an "asshole" on Sunday for meddling, and vowed never to quit office like his Haitian counterpart as troops battled with opposition protesters demanding a recall referendum against him.
Chavez, who often says the U.S. is backing opposition efforts to topple his leftist government, accused Bush of heeding advice from "imperialist" aides to support a brief 2002 coup against him.
"He was an asshole to believe them," Chavez roared at a huge rally of supporters in Caracas.
The Venezuelan leader's comments came as fresh violence broke out on the streets of the capital, where National Guard troops clashed with opposition protesters pressing for a vote to end his five-year rule.
Military helicopters roared in low runs overhead as soldiers fired tear gas and plastic bullets to repel several hundred opposition demonstrators who threw stones and set up burning barricades in eastern Caracas late into the night.
Troops and opposition activists also skirmished in other cities.
"We call on the country to continue with peaceful resistence," opposition leader Enrique Mendoza said. "This fight will last as long as necessary."
A soldier and a cameraman were shot and injured during the clashes and an opposition protester was wounded in the head by gunmen firing from motorbikes, witnesses and officials said.
Electoral authorities, citing the need to preserve peace in the country, said they were postponing until Monday the preliminary results of their verification of the opposition's petition for a recall vote.
One demonstrator carried a banner reading: "Bye bye Aristide, Chavez you're next," referring to Haiti's leader Jean-Bertrand Aristide, who fled into exile on Sunday in the face of an armed rebellion.
TENSIONS AHEAD OF POLL RULING
But the firebrand populist vowed to defeat any attempt to unseat him and threatened to cut off oil supplies to the United States from the world's No. 5 crude oil exporter should Washington try an invasion or trade sanctions.
"Venezuela is not Haiti and Chavez is not Aristide," he said.
Tens of thousands of Chavez supporters marched earlier on Sunday to protest what they condemned as U.S. meddling in Venezuelan affairs. The U.S. State Department routinely dismisses the president's accusations.
The referendum campaign is the latest political fight for Chavez, who survived the short-lived 2002 coup and a strike last year by opponents who fear his self-styled "revolution" is slowly turning Venezuela into a Cuban-style communist state.
Since his first election in 1998, the president has vowed to improve the lives of the impoverished who see little of the country's oil wealth. But his opponents say he has failed and has instead pushed the country into economic ruin.
Political tensions have flared again recently as setbacks delayed a ruling by the National Electoral Council on whether to allow the recall referendum to go forward. Two protesters were shot and killed on Friday during an opposition march.
The Organization of American States (OAS) and the Carter Center, which are observing the referendum process, appealed for calm on Sunday ahead of the council decision.
Electoral authorities said they would make a preliminary ruling Monday on whether the opposition collected the minimum 2.4 million valid signatures required for a vote. The opposition says it handed over 3.4 million signatures.
Opposition leaders accuse pro-government officials in the electoral council of trying to block the poll by disqualifying many valid signatures. Chavez says his opponents' petition is riddled with forgeries.
(Additional reporting by Pascal Fletcher, Magdelena Morales)
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
http://www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10026
Code Red
Arianna Huffington is a syndicated columnist and author of Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America (Random House, 2003).
If he’s smart enough to use it, the Democratic nominee may have just been handed the perfect cudgel with which to pummel President Bush—and cripple Karl Rove’s attempts to position his man as America’s go-to guy on national security.
The weapon in question is a new report on the grave and gathering threat posed by global climate change—and the potentially cataclysmic consequences of the Bush administration’s obstinately ignorant approach to global warming.
And the thing that makes the report so frightening—and the prospective bludgeon so crushing—is that it wasn’t authored by some crunchy granola think tank or a band of tree-hugging EarthFirsters, but by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That’s right, the Pentagon—Rummy’s playpen. In fact, the report, which was slipped to the press earlier this month after being kept under wraps by the White House for four months, was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, a legendary DOD figure, nicknamed "Yoda" for his sagacity. As head of the Pentagon’s secretive Office of Net Assessment, Marshall has offered national security assessments to every president since Richard Nixon.
And this latest assessment pegs climate change as a far greater danger than even the scourge of international terrorism.
Dryly entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report reads like the plot summary of the upcoming Dennis Quaid doomsday flick, The Day After Tomorrow, in which global warming pushes the planet to the edge of anarchy and annihilation.
But this scenario is not science fiction. According to the Pentagon study, the question is not if abrupt climate change will happen, but when. It could be, according to the report’s authors, as soon as the next three years, with the most devastating fallout potentially occurring between 2010 and 2020.
At that point, we could find ourselves in the midst of a new ice age in which mega-droughts devastate the world’s food supply, drinkable water becomes a luxury worth going nuclear over, 400 million people are forced to migrate from uninhabitable areas, and riots and wars for survival become commonplace.
I believe that would qualify as a Red Alert in Tom Ridge’s color-coded book.
But the Bush White House remains unwilling to address—or even acknowledge—this looming peril. Instead, the oiligarchs in the administration continue to fiddle while the atmosphere starts to burn, routinely ignoring scientific evidence and international consensus, and casting a questioning eye on the very idea, let alone the fact, of global warming. It’s a stance that has warmed the hearts—globally, no doubt—of the Bush Pioneers and Rangers in the oil and energy industry, making them feel very generous indeed.
As last week’s release of a scathing letter signed by 60 prominent scientists—including 20 Nobel laureates and former science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations—makes clear, the Bush administration has made an art out of ignoring science. Particularly when it comes to the issue of global warming.
Who can forget the president’s famous CO2 flip-flop, or the way the White House tried to force so many changes to a section of an EPA report dealing with climate change that Christie Todd Whitman finally threw up her hands and decided to eliminate the section on global warming altogether?
But blinding the voters with pseudo-science may no longer be an option now that the Pentagon report threatens to put the issue front and center—and reframe it as a key component of our national security debate.
This is particularly good news for John Kerry, should he prevail, given his long history of leading the charge in the Senate to cut down on greenhouse gases by raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The president, of course, has done just the opposite, giving Kyoto the kiss-off, and pushing through unconscionable loopholes that reward gas-guzzling monster SUVs and allow carmakers to effectively reduce fuel economy for millions of the vehicles they sell.
One of the defining traits of leadership is the ability to see not just the crisis right in front of you, but the one lurking around the next corner. Bush’s steadfast refusal to act upon the potential desolation that awaits us if we do nothing to confront global warming makes him a major national security liability.
Everyone in the Bush administration acted shocked and surprised when 9/11 happened—even though there had been red flags aplenty warning of Al Qaeda’s evil intentions. Well, let there be no surprise this time. We have all been warned.
While the Pentagon is sounding the alarm on an environmental Armageddon, the president is covering his eyes, crossing his fingers, and whistling about the "national importance" of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Democratic nominee needs to remind the White House—and the American people: It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
Code Red
Arianna Huffington is a syndicated columnist and author of Pigs at the Trough: How Corporate Greed and Political Corruption are Undermining America (Random House, 2003).
If he’s smart enough to use it, the Democratic nominee may have just been handed the perfect cudgel with which to pummel President Bush—and cripple Karl Rove’s attempts to position his man as America’s go-to guy on national security.
The weapon in question is a new report on the grave and gathering threat posed by global climate change—and the potentially cataclysmic consequences of the Bush administration’s obstinately ignorant approach to global warming.
And the thing that makes the report so frightening—and the prospective bludgeon so crushing—is that it wasn’t authored by some crunchy granola think tank or a band of tree-hugging EarthFirsters, but by the U.S. Department of Defense.
That’s right, the Pentagon—Rummy’s playpen. In fact, the report, which was slipped to the press earlier this month after being kept under wraps by the White House for four months, was commissioned by Andrew Marshall, a legendary DOD figure, nicknamed "Yoda" for his sagacity. As head of the Pentagon’s secretive Office of Net Assessment, Marshall has offered national security assessments to every president since Richard Nixon.
And this latest assessment pegs climate change as a far greater danger than even the scourge of international terrorism.
Dryly entitled "An Abrupt Climate Change Scenario and Its Implications for United States National Security," the report reads like the plot summary of the upcoming Dennis Quaid doomsday flick, The Day After Tomorrow, in which global warming pushes the planet to the edge of anarchy and annihilation.
But this scenario is not science fiction. According to the Pentagon study, the question is not if abrupt climate change will happen, but when. It could be, according to the report’s authors, as soon as the next three years, with the most devastating fallout potentially occurring between 2010 and 2020.
At that point, we could find ourselves in the midst of a new ice age in which mega-droughts devastate the world’s food supply, drinkable water becomes a luxury worth going nuclear over, 400 million people are forced to migrate from uninhabitable areas, and riots and wars for survival become commonplace.
I believe that would qualify as a Red Alert in Tom Ridge’s color-coded book.
But the Bush White House remains unwilling to address—or even acknowledge—this looming peril. Instead, the oiligarchs in the administration continue to fiddle while the atmosphere starts to burn, routinely ignoring scientific evidence and international consensus, and casting a questioning eye on the very idea, let alone the fact, of global warming. It’s a stance that has warmed the hearts—globally, no doubt—of the Bush Pioneers and Rangers in the oil and energy industry, making them feel very generous indeed.
As last week’s release of a scathing letter signed by 60 prominent scientists—including 20 Nobel laureates and former science advisers to both Republican and Democratic administrations—makes clear, the Bush administration has made an art out of ignoring science. Particularly when it comes to the issue of global warming.
Who can forget the president’s famous CO2 flip-flop, or the way the White House tried to force so many changes to a section of an EPA report dealing with climate change that Christie Todd Whitman finally threw up her hands and decided to eliminate the section on global warming altogether?
But blinding the voters with pseudo-science may no longer be an option now that the Pentagon report threatens to put the issue front and center—and reframe it as a key component of our national security debate.
This is particularly good news for John Kerry, should he prevail, given his long history of leading the charge in the Senate to cut down on greenhouse gases by raising fuel efficiency standards for cars and trucks. The president, of course, has done just the opposite, giving Kyoto the kiss-off, and pushing through unconscionable loopholes that reward gas-guzzling monster SUVs and allow carmakers to effectively reduce fuel economy for millions of the vehicles they sell.
One of the defining traits of leadership is the ability to see not just the crisis right in front of you, but the one lurking around the next corner. Bush’s steadfast refusal to act upon the potential desolation that awaits us if we do nothing to confront global warming makes him a major national security liability.
Everyone in the Bush administration acted shocked and surprised when 9/11 happened—even though there had been red flags aplenty warning of Al Qaeda’s evil intentions. Well, let there be no surprise this time. We have all been warned.
While the Pentagon is sounding the alarm on an environmental Armageddon, the president is covering his eyes, crossing his fingers, and whistling about the "national importance" of a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage.
The Democratic nominee needs to remind the White House—and the American people: It’s not nice to fool with Mother Nature.
Claudia D. Dikinis
http://starcats.com
Political & Personal Astrology for a New Millennium
"To plunder, to slaughter, to steal, these things they misname empire; and where they make a wilderness, they call it peace." - Tacitus
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)