AmeriPundit

RE: "Good War Planning" and "Caring for the Troops"

2006-03-13T09:30:00.000-08:00

Perhaps we have become so used to the ineptitude, lies, and theft of both life and loot by this bunch of "leaders" that we will not be moved by the following.

One can only hope that is not so however, the "yawning" when the mention of reducing casualties is made seems like it's expected of us. Hell, why not? We seem to have delivered for these sons of Soprano so far and, yes, it's acceptable to use fictional characters in an opinion when you have fictional leaders.

The following are excerpts from Dash to Baghdad Left Top US Generals Divided:

The war was barely a week old when Gen. Tommy R. Franks threatened to fire the Army's field commander...

In an extraordinary improvisation, Ahmad Chalabi, the Iraqi exile leader who was a Pentagon favorite, was flown to southern Iraq with hundreds of his fighters as General Franks's command sought to put an "Iraqi face" on the invasion; the plan was set in motion without the knowledge of top administration officials, including Secretary of State Colin L. Powell and George J. Tenet, the director of central intelligence...

General Wallace had said to The New York Times and The Washington Post. "We knew they were here, but we did not know how they would fight." Asked whether the fighting increased the chances of a longer war than forecast by some military planners, he responded, "It's beginning to look that way"...

To General Franks, those remarks apparently were tantamount to a vote of no-confidence in his war plan. It relied on speed, and he had told Mr. Rumsfeld that his forces might take Baghdad in just a few weeks. In Washington, General Wallace's comments were seized on by critics as evidence that Mr. Rumsfeld had not sent enough troops. More than a year earlier, he had ridiculed the initial war plan that called for at least 380,000 troops and had pushed the military's Central Command to use fewer soldiers and deploy them more quickly. At a Pentagon news conference, the defense secretary denied that he had any role in shaping the war plan. "It was not my plan," he said. "It was General Franks's plan, and it was a plan that evolved over a sustained period of time"...

One of the most critical moments of the meeting came when General Franks indicated he did not want to be slowed by overly cautious generals concerned about holding casualties to a minimum, though no one had raised the issue of casualties. To dramatize his point, according to one participant, General Franks put his hand to his mouth and made a yawning motion....

After the session, General McKiernan approached Maj. Gen. Albert Whitley, his top British deputy. "That conversation never happened," General McKiernan said, according to military officials who learned of the exchange...

Same Old Tune, Same Old Words

2006-03-10T17:50:00.000-08:00

See Joshua Brown's other works at "Life During Wartime".

Oh, For "FOX'S" Sake!!

2006-03-02T09:17:00.000-08:00

Compare to post below this and go to Media Matters for transcripts and video.

Good Civil Wars

2006-02-26T10:31:00.000-08:00

Once again, the spin machine is on "full cycle". The groundwork is being laid for a discussion wherein the Administration can blame Iraqis for our ill- advised, needless, sophomoric desire to appease those whose interests collided, and produced "Iraqula"- that which is the offspring of geeks (thinktankers) and dollars (corporate, of course).

And, once again, FOX leads the way. Why not? They made up the stories that led the charge into war. They can certainly make up the stories to mask the shame behind the inevitable ignoble retreat that leaves nothing but destruction (and some permanent bases) behind.

Don't pity the dead. They don't have to be subjected to this crap anymore. Actually, just say a prayer or think of them once in a while while solemnly promising never to forget them.

One would think that since "obscenity is in the eye of the beholder" any American, worth his or her salt, would be so outraged that they would, at least, report that broadcast to the FCC on the grounds of "obscenity".

Distress

2006-02-22T09:58:00.000-08:00

Distressing times indeed. For great articles, news, op-ed's, and mulitmedia resources visit Truthout.org.

February 17, 2006 | A Capitol staffer noticed that the Senate was in session at 10 a.m. Friday and that it was flying an upside down US flag - the universal symbol of distress.
(Photo: AP)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. AmeriPundit has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is AmeriPundit endorsed or sponsored by the originator.

Exhaustion

2006-02-14T16:35:00.000-08:00

It's only February and the exhaustion is already setting in. It's becoming more evident with every passing day that 6 year olds are running the country.

Only their toys are bullets and bombs- and their candy is the treasury.

Many things have been written about the various issues confronting us, including the ones on the main AmeriPundit site (link above), but humor seems to be the best medicine for what ails the country (until there is no one left to laugh).

Luckily, our valued contributor, Joshua Brown (link on the right), has shared his views with us (below). So let's review the year (in reverse order) and let's try to have a few laughs- if it's at all possible and while we still can.

February

The real target (U.S. public- in case it's hard to read).

The new "Don't ask me 'cause I won't tell you" policy.

It's mourning in America, indeed!

January

9-11, repeat, repeat, repeat, repeat...

The Nation

2006-02-12T09:38:00.000-08:00

These are dangerous times. The picture below, as well as the one on the right, show what is happening.

Support (not necessarily monetary) should be given to those that fight for every letter in that sacred document. This is being posted by way of supporting "The Nation". This site is not affiliated with The Nation magazine, nor does it have any financial interest in, or with, the magazine. However, this site is a strong supporter of the work it does on behalf of the American people.

The following is from their site and a link is provided both in this post and to the right.

"If the Bill of Rights were written today, would it look like this? With Bush and Cheney chanting their mantras of "executive privilege" and "national security," it just might. Fueled by their Far Right benefactors, they're leading one of the most repressive -- and dangerous -- secrecy campaigns in American history. Help fight it, and them, by becoming a Nation Associate, 22,000 concerned individuals who support The Nation in its commitment to uncovering and printing the truth." The Nation

Pictures are worth more than words...

2006-01-15T19:57:00.000-08:00

There are times that too many words are spoken and written. We are living in such times.

The last 6 years seem to be one of those times. Far too much has been written about nothing and everything and we are now simply at a point where nothing makes sense.

Thanks to Josh Brown, and others like him, we may be able to simply see things straight again.

Thank you- Boxer, Dean, and Josh Brown...

2005-12-19T20:00:00.000-08:00

BOXER ASKS PRESIDENTIAL SCHOLARS ABOUT FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNSEL’S STATEMENT THAT BUSH ADMITTED TO AN ‘IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE’

Washington, D.C.– U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today asked four presidential scholars for their opinion on former White House Counsel John Dean’s statement that President Bush admitted to an “impeachable offense” when he said he authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge.

Boxer said, “I take very seriously Mr. Dean’s comments, as I view him to be an expert on Presidential abuse of power. I am expecting a full airing of this matter by the Senate in the very near future.”

Boxer’s letter is as follows:

On December 16, along with the rest of America, I learned that President Bush authorized the National Security Agency to spy on Americans without getting a warrant from a judge. President Bush underscored his support for this action in his press conference today.

On Sunday, December 18, former White House Counsel John Dean and I participated in a public discussion that covered many issues,including this surveillance. Mr. Dean, who was President Nixon’s counsel at the time of Watergate, said that President Bush is “the first President to admit to an impeachable offense.” Today, Mr. Dean confirmed his statement.

This startling assertion by Mr. Dean is especially poignant because he experienced first hand the executive abuse of power and a presidential scandal arising from the surveillance of American citizens.

Given your constitutional expertise, particularly in the area of presidential impeachment, I am writing to ask for your comments and thoughts on Mr. Dean’s statement.

Unchecked surveillance of American citizens is troubling to both me and many of my constituents. I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter as soon as possible.

Sincerely,
Barbara Boxer
United States Senator

Reprehensible?

2005-11-23T14:39:00.000-08:00

"The president and I cannot prevent certain politicians from losing their memory, or their backbone -- but we're not going to sit by and let them rewrite history..." From Dick Cheney

Key Bush Intelligence Briefing Kept From Hill Panel
By Murray Waas, special to National Journal

"Ten days after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon, President Bush was told in a highly classified briefing that the U.S. intelligence community had no evidence linking the Iraqi regime of Saddam Hussein to the attacks and that there was scant credible evidence that Iraq had any significant collaborative ties with Al Qaeda...

The highly classified CIA assessment was distributed to
President Bush, Vice President Cheney, the president's national security adviser and deputy national security adviser, the secretaries and undersecretaries of State and Defense, and various other senior Bush administration policy makers...

The Senate Intelligence Committee has asked the White House for the CIA assessment, the PDB of September 21, 2001, and dozens of other PDBs as part of the committee's ongoing investigation into whether the Bush administration misrepresented intelligence information in the run-up to war with Iraq. The Bush administration has refused to turn over these documents.

Indeed, the existence of the September 21 PDB was not disclosed to the Intelligence Committee until the summer of 2004... Both Republicans and Democrats requested then that it be turned over. The administration has refused to provide it, even on a classified basis, and won't say anything more about it other than to acknowledge that it exists..."

(If there are problems with the National Journal link, go to truthout which carries a reprint.)

In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes.

The Business of Alito

2005-11-05T14:27:00.000-08:00

While the debate over Samuel Alito revolves, once again, over the issue(?) of abortion (a decision that has been so eviscerated by various state legislatures that it is no longer recognizable) and social conservatives rally to his side on this non-issue- the true breadth of the thievery that he will bring to the Supreme Court goes undiscussed- namely, his love of, and fidelity to, big business to the detriment of individuals.

One need not go far to see the smokescreen that has become so popular with the radical right and the manner in which they deal with their "socially conservative" brethren when the choice becomes one of "Morals" vs. "Money".

The New York Times in "Court Nominee Has Paper Trail Businesses Like" (registration may be required, quotes are contained herein, and additional links to other sources regarding this point are set out below) reports:

Judge Samuel A. Alito Jr. has reliably favored big-business litigants as he has pushed the federal appeals court in Philadelphia in a conservative direction... His extensive paper trail of 15 years of opinions reveals a jurist deeply skeptical of claims against large corporations. A review of dozens of business cases in which Judge Alito has written majority or dissenting opinions or cast the decisive vote shows that, with few exceptions, he has sided with employers over employees in discrimination lawsuits and in favor of corporations over investors in securities fraud cases... The judge's reputation over the last 15 years was such that corporate lawyers relished the prospect of his participation in cases, while plaintiff's lawyers hoped to avoid him...

Backs it up with nice quotes:

"We're always happy to see Judge Alito on the panel," said Robert C. Heim, the head of the litigation department at Dechert, a large law firm based in Philadelphia that represents some of the nation's largest corporations, typically facing accusations of antitrust, securities or corporate law violations..."

And guides the reader to other sources to prove the point:

Officials at the National Association of Manufacturers and the United States Chamber of Commerce said that as they combed through his record, they had been favorably impressed with what they had learned...

The Times also offers the other side of the coin (so to speak):

Lawyers for organizations often on the other end of lawsuits involving businesses are alarmed about Judge Alito's record... "We're concerned, based on his record, about what his appointment would mean for access to the courts by the people we represent," said Glenn Sugameli, senior litigation counsel at Earthjustice, a law firm that represents environmental groups and individuals seeking enforcement of environmental laws. "We're also concerned, based on his record, that his interpretation of the Commerce Clause threatens the enforcement of such laws as the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act."

For all the readers who despise the Times as a "left-leaning, liberal mouthpiece", BusinessWeek Online offers:

But one group is breathing a big sigh of relief: Corporate America. Of the dozen or so names on Bush's rumored short list of high court candidates, Alito ranked near the top for the boardroom set...In the 800-plus opinions he has penned during his 15 years as a federal judge, Alito consistently has come down on the side of limiting corporate liability, limiting employee rights, and limiting federal regulation.

To get a further understanding of the dance between the "conservatives" in Washington, their voting base (social conservatives), and the ultimate winners (big business), "Bankruptcy, Business, and Christians" (AmeriPundit-contains links) offers up a view. One can also link directly to "Business, Christian groups pose dilemma for DeLay" (The Hill), and "Christian lawyers say bill, Bible don't mesh" (the Des Moines Register).

In this time of video over reading, to obtain a better understanding of what is going on, please refer to "Troy" (the DVD can be rented, purchased, and comes with many subscriptions to cable). Have a party and play games as it is being shown. A good game is, "Who Are You?"

Participants only need to identify with the shining city, the wooden horse, or the army contained within the horse. At the end, the only winners are those that haven't died during the party AND have enslaved the survivors of the battle. The King(s) sitting far away from the bloody battles are the ultimate winners and take everything.

The only problem with the game is that we all know that if you're reading this, you're not a King.

Kings have servants for that task.

Senator Boxer Speaks on the CIA leak and Alito nomination

2005-11-01T19:11:00.000-08:00

Statement by Senator Barbara Boxer

The most disturbing part of this White House leak scandal is that it involves a personal, vicious attack on an undercover CIA agent because her husband exposed the lies behind the Bush Administration’s premise for the Iraq war.

This despicable incident brings back echoes of the worst political scandals, when political “enemies” were targeted for personal destruction. This isn’t the first time this Administration has tried to discredit or punish those who disagreed with them or stood up to them on the Iraq war and other Bush priorities.

But, this CIA outing case, where an indictment has been issued against the Vice President’s top man, is particularly egregious because a deep undercover agent’s career was completely destroyed, putting her life and the lives of others in extreme jeopardy.

The first President Bush said, “I have nothing but contempt and anger for those who betray the trust by exposing the name of our sources. They are, in my view, the most insidious, of traitors.”

Now his son should show the same outrage and moral disgust with those who were involved in this treasonous activity. President Bush should act immediately to fire anyone in his Administration who played any role in harming our national security by outing an undercover agent in order to punish her husband.

President George W. Bush said in 2001, “We must always maintain the highest ethical standards. We must always ask ourselves not only what is legal, but what is right.” This case is a matter of right and wrong, and there is no gray area. President Bush needs to apologize for the actions of his Administration and rid his White House of anyone connected to this scandal.

Statement of U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer on the Nomination of Judge Samuel Alito to the Supreme Court

I believe this nomination is aimed at appeasing the most right wing elements of the President's political base, and in so doing the President turns his back on the hopes and dreams, and the rights and freedoms of the majority of the American People.

Judge Alito may be soft spoken but if many of his opinions had prevailed the hard reality of his views would have hurt our families.

Judge Alito has a record which includes opinions that would have undermined the rights of the American People, especially the rights of women, minorities and families.

Had the President simply asked Justice Sandra Day O'Connor to finish this term on the Court, he could have avoided a bruising battle and united the country, instead of once again dividing it.

It is especially ironic that at a time when all of America is honoring Rosa Parks that the President would send us a nominee whose decisions could jeopardize the principle of equality for all Americans.

"Surreality" shows and deadly "Comedies"

2005-10-29T19:15:00.000-07:00

For those too engrossed (during the last week) by the latest hit "surreality" show, "Harriet and Scooter", directed by those entertainment wizards, the Compassionate Conservatives, the following is a listing of some other shows that aired (but went largely unnoticed) during the week obtained from C-SPAN's CapitalNews. It's a partial compilation of the work of the main subsidiary of the Compassionate Conservatives- the Congress, which never fails to produce short shows, generally unseen but with a lasting impact, while the audience is tuned to the "sexy" productions.

Episodes (patial list) produced during the period of 10- 25 and ending with 10- 29:

Senate Majority leader Frist Says Senate Won't Probe CIA Leak
(See also, "Frist says Frist won't investigate self...)

Fmr. FDA Head Held Shares in Regulated Firms as Late as '04
(See Frist...)

Rep. DeLay Admits He Failed to Fully Report Contributions
("The Hammer doth protest too much, methinks"- a comedy...)

Lawmakers Express Concern Over Civil Liberty Curbs in Hong Kong
(A twist on the "Living in Glass Houses" plotline..."

Bush says military action against Syria "last resort"
(A sequel to Iraq I, and Iraq II...)

WHouse seeks to shield CIA from detainee rules
21 Detainees Killed in U.S. Custody in Iraq, Afghanistan
White House List of Disrupted Terror Plots Questioned
U.S. Building New Iraq Prisons to Close Abu Ghraib
Pres. Bush Says Iraq War Will Require "More Sacrifice"
U.S. Might Pull Some Troops From Iraq Within Year
U.S. Troops in Iraq at 161,000, Highest Level Since War's Start
Military Spokesman Says 2,000 Soldiers Killed "Not a Milestone"
Bush Says Progress Is Being Made in Iraq
Sunni Leaders Reject Iraq Charter as "Fraudulent"
(Strong language, nudity, violent content...)

Texas Oilman Pleads Not Guilty in U.N. Oil-for-Food Probe
State Dept Says Oil-For-Food Scam Signals Need for U.N. Reform
(Hilarious...)

Bill Will Punish Lawyers in Frivolous Suit
(Lawyer jokes.... this episode, along with the "Cheeseburger" Bill episode earlier this month, the Bill that barred suits against gun manufacturers- also earlier this month, the class action tort reform- earlier this year, and other tort reform laws under current consideration are sure to bring laughs! Since the average person only had a limited key to the courthouse in the past, watching "Joe Average" and his wife and kids run around a courthouse trying to get in with all of these laws in place is "Priceless"...)

Sup. Ct. Justice Scalia Turns Away TV Reporters at D.C. Event
(A retrospective as one of the stars of "W- the First Four Years" can't find the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th amendment [No State shall...deny to any person...the equal protection of the laws] for detainess [regardless of citizenship] that he and his friends loaned "W" in 2000. Looks to "W" to return it but is talked out of the effort by Cheney during a private hunting trip discussing the Energy Task Force...)

House GOP Leaders: Oil Companies Should Build U.S. Refineries
(Hilarity abounds as, after forcing through two pieces of legislation with significant [around $14.5 billion in taxpayer funds] benefits for the oil industry this year, House Republican leaders call for oil companies to return the favor by building new refineries and taking other steps to increase fuel supply and lower gas prices. Red Cavaney, president of the American Petroleum Institute [with money already in hand, responds] "What we are trying to say is, tell us what you want, not how to make it happen...")

Louisiana's Unemployment Rate Reaches 11.5 Percent
Labor Dept. Reports Hurricane-Related Job Losses Top 500,000
Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff Asks for Floridians' Patience
Miami-Dade Mayor Says FEMA Supplies Dwindling
FEMA to Keep Former Director on Payroll for 30 More Days
(Side-splitting comedy as Homeland Security Sec. Chertoff says, "We don't want to sacrifice the real ability to get a full picture of Mike's experiences; we don't want to sacrifice that ability simply in order to make an image point...")

Republicans Cut Several Programs in Budget
(Comedy that brings tears to the eyes as House Republicans voted to cut student loan subsidies, child support enforcement and aid to firms hurt by unfair trade practices as various committees scrambled to piece together $50 billion in budget cuts. Minority Democrats opposed virtually everything that was done, saying Wednesday's actions are part of a broader GOP budget blueprint that also calls for $106 billion in new tax cuts over the next five years.)

House Panel Passes $11-Billion Medicaid Cuts
House Committee Cuts $844 Million From Food Stamp Program
(Another great comedy as, on a party-line vote, after slashing Medicaid, the Republican-run U.S. House of Representatives committee voted to cut food stamps by $844 million on Friday, just hours after a new government report showed more Americans are struggling to put food on the table.)

Senate Panel Approves $10 Billion Cut in Medicare, Medicaid
Senate Rejects Bid to Boost School Aid by $5 Billion
Senate Votes Against Increased Funding for Home Heating Program
(The Senate, getting in on the hijinks, caps off a sterling performance of taking from the poor as it, for the second time this month, voted against putting more money into a program that helps low-income families meet home heating costs. Citing budget restraints, not mentioning the oil company subsidies nor the tax cuts favoring the top 1% of the population, nor the upcoming attempt to repeal the estate tax...)

Bush, Party Faithful Gather for Fundraiser
(Great "party" scenes as President Bush gathered with his party faithful Tuesday night for a $15,000-a-couple dinner that the Republican National Committee reported raised at least $1 million. The dinner was a 30th anniversary celebration for the Republican Eagles — donors who raise at least $15,000 a year. For their contributions, the 260 attendees dined on seared mignon of beef, received a commemorative paperweight and heard a speech from the commander in chief...)

Oh, and... Rosa Parks died, Lincoln, Roosevelt, Eisenhower, and Kennedy sighed, Martin Luther King and Jesus cried.

Sergeant Benderman: Serving Time for Having a Conscience

2005-10-22T17:29:00.000-07:00

The following e-mails are presented in their original form with the permission of the author, Monica Benderman- wife of Sergeant Kevin Benderman.

The decision to publish them was made because no attempt at a narrative was able to capture the matter-of-fact anger of the first e-mail, nor the frustrated anger of the second.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION

Briefly, Kevin Benderman had served as an army mechanic for 10 years when he developed moral and religious objections to the war in Iraq and, after serving there in 2003, he refused to deploy there again. He filed an application for conscientious objector status on 28 December 2004.

His application was denied and he continued to refuse to serve. Subsequently he was tried and was acquitted of desertion but was convicted of the lesser charge of missing movement, meaning he skipped his Jan. 8 deployment flight. He was sentenced to 15 months' imprisonment, a loss of pay, and dishonorable discharge at the court martial. He is still in prison.

It should be pointed out that the wheels had fallen off the WMD argument by the time of his trial and that Sec. Rumsfeld said in a little covered DOD Press Conference that but for WMD's, there would have been no war, much to the astonishment of a reporter who asked about "all the other reasons" for the war.

To find out more about Sgt. Benderman, His military record, his writing expressing his reasons for not going back to Iraq after serving there, Sec. Rumsfeld's statement, and/or if the reader wishes to help (with even a simple note of support), sites, links, and an e-mail address are provided below.

One should note the discrepancies for violations (note 45 days for a Captain selling body armor on E-Bay vs. 15 months for Sgt. Benderman, etc.) and the conditions of the prisons.

The first e-mail was in response to a query as to the status of some submitted questions for Sgt. Benderman and when the answers could be anticipated. The second e-mail was in response to a query as to the first e-mail being published. Subsequent e-mails clarified the second as an affirmative response.
________________

Monica Benderman's e-mail on status of Kevin Benderman's responses to submitted questions:

To give you some background into the last 2 weeks - because I don't remember if I have already -

Kevin still has not been in contact with any attorneys. He requested contact with the Trial Defense Services here at Ft. Stewart, as they are still responsible for his post trial procedures, but the prison said that he could not contact them, that he would have to wait for someone from their office to contact Kevin. He has been at Ft. Lewis for 2 months, now, and still nothing, and put the initial request in during the first week he was there.

I was to have received official info from Ft. Lewis during his first week there as well. We waited and waited.. I finally complained about that through Amnesty, and appeals were sent to the installation from Sept. 9 - 12th. Interestingly enough - I received a letter 2 days ago, from the Lt. Col. in charge of the correct. facility. The letter was postdated to Aug. 29th, one month after Kevin arrived there, and it said that the letter was to notify me that Kevin was had "safely arrived at Ft. Lewis." Stupid people, they postmarked the letter Sept. 15th, so clearly, the only reason they even sent it was because of the Amnesty appeals. Many of the inmates were amazed to hear that I had gotten a letter. Some of them have been there for 10 months or more, and still their families have received no official notification.

We also had to use Amnesty to appeal for Kevin's right to a civilian chaplain. The warden at the facility called Kevin into his office and told Kevin that he felt that I was pushing for a civilian chaplain, but that he wanted to see if Kevin really wanted one. He told Kevin that he would prefer that Kevin use the prison chaplain. Kevin said he would not. He has been trying since he first got there, to get the prison chaplain to address his concerns over his first CO application and the manner in which it was handled. The prison chaplain told him that he would not help because he didn't agree with Kevin's beliefs -- he said that he believed in war.

The prison is an all male facility, but they use female guards. This is a great concern to the inmates. The block guard desk is positioned right in front of the showers. There are no partitions, no shower curtains.. and the toilets are there in the open as well. The female guards watch the inmates taking showers. Big problem, and against Army regs.

There is no heat at the facility. There are only 2 crisis counselors for 225 inmates. There are exposed water and sewer pipes, and the raw sewage leaks from the pipes onto the hallway floors in the living areas of the inmates.

The DOD regs. require 80 sq. ft of living space per inmate, the inmates at Ft. Lewis are given 40 sq. ft.

The DOD regs require 1 shower for every 8 inmates. In Kevin's unit, there are 2 showers for 20 inmates. There is 1 working sink there for 20 inmates, and 2 working toilets.

There is supposed to be rehabilitation classes. Kevin, of all people, is required to take a class in "The Impact of Crimes on Victims." AMAZING!!!!
There are no rehab classes.. the justification is that the war is expensive and they cannot afford to offer them.

Kevin is eligible for parole on Jan. 27th, but first the Convening Authority here must approve his conviction and the sentence. He has not done this to this date. In order to have a parole board hearing, Kevin must have a confirmed place to stay, comfirmed employment, no counseling statements, and I am soliciting letters of reference from as many people as possible, to be mailed to the parole office at Ft. Lewis by the middle of November, with a copy to me as well, so that the prison cannot say that they did not receive them.

There is so much more -- this is just the beginning.

But - we feel that it is very important that this information find its way to the public from as many directions as possible.

Also -- there was a Cpt. here at Ft. Stewart, in Kevin's unit, Cpt. Schenk, S-1, 2-7th infantry. This Cpt. received 45 days confinement for selling Body Armor on EBAY.. each piece was valued at $2000.00. This man was selling it for $4,000 a piece.

There's more... much more.
________________

Monica Benderman's e-mail responding to request for permission to use her e-mail directly:

Would you like to add that the female guards at Ft. Lewis were operating a prostitution ring? They, and a couple of the male guards, at least one of which was discharged for this, arranged for a separate personal bank account, and gave the number to inquiring inmates. These inmates would then transfer funds from their commissary account to the personal bank account. Once the funds transferred.. the final transaction was arranged.

Would you also like to mention that not all inmates are lucky enough to have someone to leave their personal property with? Some have to leave it in the property room. Many leave debit and credit cards. One inmate was willing to give me his name. He was incarcerated at Ft. Lewis all last month, and his debit card was in the property room. Still, someone managed to use his debit card to charge $270.00 at the Ft. Lewis PX. Several other soldiers have reported amounts even greater being charged to their card. They are not in the position to be able to do anything about this.

_________________

To read more about Sgt. Benderman's plight, a brief outline containing the e-mails, his military record (including awards and medals), one of his articles (reflecting his position), and Sec. Rumsfeld's statement are available at Ameripundit.com. More information is available at Kevin Benderman Timeline.

Notes of support can be sent to monica@bendermantimeline.com or through the Kevin Benderman Timeline site above.

Rotting From the Head Down

2005-10-20T18:07:00.000-07:00

With all due apologies to fellow citizens, but we, the body of America, are starting to smell. By now most who are capable of reading and/or watching television know of the burning of dead Taliban fighter's bodies and the accompanying taunts to other Taliban members by what has been called an American "psychological operations" or "PSYOPS" unit in Afghanistan.

We can place it on the mantle next to the Naked Human Pyramid and the Dog Attacking Naked Prisoner trophies (to name a few).

For those unfamiliar with the story it can be found at ABC NEWS and the story with the accompanying (edited) video can be seen at CNN.

As usual, a more in depth analysis of the problems posed by that act and actual references to International Law and local customs can be found in overseas media such as The Independent, The Scotsman, and The Guardian.

Even if one is not outraged by these actions, a certain sense of bewilderment must exist. After all, this is nothing more than another "Bring 'em On" moment. First, one needs to go back to when pesky issues such as "torture" were attempted to be discussed only to have those that deigned bring them up (Amnesty International in the illustration) be quickly vanquished by the forces of "good" within the Administration- an Administration that has characterized this fight/war as an entirely "new type of war" thereby setting the stage for these "entirely new kinds of methods".

The truth is that war is war, killing is killing, torture is torture, and desecrating bodies is desecrating bodies. The only "new" thing about any of this is that it apparently has been given a wink and a nod by the highest levels of our Government.

Blaming these events on a "few bad apples" or on those who are not "upholding American standards of decency" is a pig that simply doesn't fly anymore. The American spirit and the American sense of decency cannot be hijacked by those who condone these tactics while clutching the flag and the cross in their hands- thereby desecrating both.

More importantly, what this proves is that we are now wallowing not only in the stench of passing the bounds of an oxymoron, namely, "acceptable warfare", we are now trying to wash the smell away with a stupidity shower.

Heeding the Administration's caution against "the bigotry of lowered expectations", why not discuss stupidity? The fact is that this was a "PSYOPS" operation. Presumably, these individuals have some training in psychological warfare. This act could not have possibly been in any valid work on the subject. The chances of "smoking out" other Taliban fighters with this act was close to nill and even if 1 or 2 did, then that would just be a culling of the herd that would probably be welcomed by other Taliban fighters as the "hotheads" would ultimately prove a larger risk to them than our own forces.

If this had anything to do with psychology, then it must have dealt with "projection" with a strong hint of Hollywood influence. Too bad the Taliban don't watch Sylvester Stallone and Chuck Norris movies. If they did, they'd fall right into our trap.

There was, and is, only one outcome to this "event"- many more recruits for either suicide bombers or fighters. The sheer folly of it is an indication of warped leadership in a warped fight that may be the right fight, but has not been characterized and framed properly in the interests of political expediency that is sure to lead to an ultimate defeat.

Far from being a statement for gentility in a fight, this is a plea for the leadership in this country to get their collective heads out of their collective fundraisers and see that we are doing nothing but planting seeds for a field that we will, one day, become too weak to cut back or control from simple exhaustion of both manpower and treasure.

The time has come for this Administration to rise above the pride of making it to the top as "C" students with portfolios consisting of a lack of military service and failed businesses (but for connections). Lives are at stake.

Making Friends...

2005-10-16T15:23:00.000-07:00

George Bush's plans to spread "good" through "bringing democracy" to countries with the use of the "pre-emptive" war tool around the world seem to be working- if one listens to the Administration (Fox, and Clear Channel included).

In fact, to survey the damage, err.., progress, he sent Karen Hughes on a "fact-finding" mission to determine whether or not the plans were working:

She returned looking perplexed but encouraged. Anybody willing to follow in her footsteps without a phalanx of military and "private security" personnel might want to look at the State Department's Current Travel Warnings.

Travel Warnings are issued when the State Department recommends that Americans avoid a certain country. The following is a sample of some of the countries that we've "liberated", are our "friends", are helping in the "war on terror", or just all around "good guys" - in no particular order except importance. (Note the conspicuous absence of Iran and Syria - just to pick a large geographic area at random):

Iraq

The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous. Remnants of the former Baath regime, transnational terrorists, and criminal elements remain active. Attacks against military and civilian targets throughout Iraq continue, including in the International (or "Green") Zone. Targets include hotels, restaurants, police stations, checkpoints, foreign diplomatic missions, and international organizations and other locations with expatriate personnel.

Israel

The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Israel in light of the risks noted below. The Department also urges U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to the West Bank and avoid all travel to Gaza.

Afghanistan

The Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) workers throughout the country. The ability of Afghan authorities to maintain order and ensure the security of citizens and visitors is limited.

Saudi Arabia

Due to concerns about the possibility of additional terrorist activity directed against American citizens and interests, the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Saudi Arabia.

Pakistan

Due to on-going concerns about the possibility of terrorist activity directed against American citizens and interests, the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Pakistan.

Iran

Tensions generated by the current situation in Iraq have increased the potential threat to U.S. citizens and interests abroad posed by those who oppose U.S. policy.

Kuwait

The Department continues to remind all U.S. citizens in Kuwait to exercise caution, maintain a low profile, and avoid areas where westerners are known to congregate.

Egypt

The U.S. Government continues to strongly urge all Americans resident in or traveling to Egypt to exercise caution. Furthermore, Americans should avoid travel to the Sinai.

Indonesia

This Travel Warning is being issued to update security information in Indonesia and to note that the Department of State continues to warn U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to the country.

Lebanon

The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Lebanon in light of the risks noted below.

Yemen

The Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer non-essential travel to Yemen. The security threat to all U.S. citizens in Yemen remains high due to terrorist activities in Yemen.

Anybody packed their bags yet?

Senator Boxer's Statement on "No" vote on Roberts

2005-10-07T13:38:00.000-07:00

BOXER TO VOTE NO ON ROBERTS

Says Nominee Has Not Clearly Committed To Defending the Rights and Freedoms of All Americans

Washington, DC – The following are U.S. Senator Barbara Boxer’s remarks as prepared for delivery on the Senate floor:

When a seat on the Supreme Court opened in July, I made a promise to the people of California. I promised that I would only support a nominee whom I believed would protect their rights and freedoms.

After much thought, I have concluded that I cannot, in good conscience, give my constituents that assurance with the nominee before us, Judge John Roberts.

In fact, I am very worried that, with Judge Roberts on the bench, the rights and freedoms that have made America a light to the rest of the world could be in serious jeopardy.

The question before us as Senators is not whether Judge Roberts is a brilliant lawyer, and not whether he is well-qualified or well spoken, affable or unflappable. He is certainly all of those things.

But examining his credentials is where our analysis should begin, not end. In poll after poll, the American people say that before we vote, it is important for us to know where Judge Roberts stands on key issues that define who we are as Americans, and what kind of country we will leave behind for our children.

The next Chief Justice will have the opportunity to steer a deeply-divided Court and influence our lives for generations.

In recent years, the court has issued 5-4 decisions to protect our air, to safeguard women’s reproductive health and the rights of the disabled, to give HMO patients the right to a second opinion, to allow universities to use affirmative action, and to guarantee government neutrality towards religion.

With so many of our fundamental rights hanging in the balance, it is not good enough to simply roll the dice, hoping a nominee has changed his past views. It’s not good enough to think, “This is the best we can expect from this President.”

And, no, it’s not good enough to say, “Let’s support this nominee because the next one might be worse.”

At least that rationale won’t work for me, as long as the Constitution gives me and my colleagues an equal role in the process.

It fails the bar that I set—the bar that says that I must be able to look into the eyes of my constituents and assure them that I feel confident in this choice.

We must demand far more, because the people we represent deserve no less.

I will vote “no” on this nomination because of what we know and what we don’t know about Judge Roberts.

Long before President Bush made this nomination, we knew that his model judges were Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Now, President Bush isn’t known for changing his mind, so that doesn’t leave us in a good place if we’re hoping for a moderate. Nor does a reading of Judge Roberts’s record while he served in the Reagan Administration 20 years ago.

In fact, some of Judge Roberts’s writings raised serious concerns about whether he understands the ugly history of discrimination and injustice in our country, or the proper role of government in combating them.

Of course, we were told “Don’t pay attention to those memos. They were written long ago when he was just a young and lowly staff attorney.”

But Judge Roberts never backed away from those memos. When given the chance, he just said over and over that they were written for someone else. Well, someone else is not up for the Supreme Court. For me, Judge Roberts needed to do better.

Then we tried to examine Judge Roberts’s tenure years later as a top political appointee under the first President Bush. That was when he worked as Deputy Solicitor General for Ken Starr.

Again and again, Senator Leahy and the Democratic Caucus asked for documents relating to 16 cases that would have shed light on the way Judge Roberts approaches civil rights, reproductive health, the separation of church and state, and environmental protection.

The Democratic women Senators asked too.

But, again and again, the Administration refused to turn over the documents and Judge Roberts refused to help.

The President had access to that information when he nominated Judge Roberts. Why should this Senate—a full partner in choosing the next Justice—have anything less?

I also looked for some assurance in the decisions Judge Roberts wrote during his two years on the DC Court of Appeals. But, again, nothing.

In fact, some cases raised serious concerns about his commitment to protect the environment and his support of an all powerful executive branch.

Judge Roberts had three days to tell the Senate and the American people what he really believes today. He had the chance repeatedly to distance himself from the controversial positions he once advocated. He did not.

Let’s face it: Judge Roberts was specific only when it mattered least and evasive when it mattered most.

Just last year, I ran a commercial in my campaign promising the people of my state that I would do everything in my power to ensure that we never go back to those dark days of back alley abortions when thousands of women died or were rendered infertile.

We know that Judge Roberts signed a brief calling for Roe to be overturned. It was one of the 16 cases that the Administration won’t release. And it concerned one of the many important topics about which Judge Roberts refused to answer questions.

To simply say Roe is a precedent, is stating the obvious and does not give us a real inkling of his views.

We deserved an answer to Senator Feinstein’s questions about privacy: Does the right to privacy extend to the beginning of life and the end of life? We still don’t know what Judge Roberts believes.

We deserved an answer to Senator Biden’s question about gender discrimination: Does Judge Roberts stand by an interpretation of Title IX that would have denied all remedies to a girl who was repeatedly sexually harassed and assaulted by her teacher? We still don’t know.

We deserved an answer to Senator Kennedy’s questions about civil rights? Does Judge Roberts have any concerns about the constitutionality of landmark civil rights laws? We still don’t know.

How could he be silent on those laws? They stand out in history as landmark moments that changed the course of human events in America forever, that finally spoke to all of our citizens and told them that they were equal and the government would make sure that they were safe.

We deserved an answer to Senator Leahy’s questions about Congressional War Powers. If Congress passed a law requiring the withdrawal of troops during wartime, does Judge Roberts believe the President needs to honor the will of Congress? We still don’t know.

Judge Roberts says as a Justice, he will “just” be an umpire calling balls and strikes.

Of course, balls and strikes look a lot different depending upon where you stand. And umpires have a lot of power to decide who wins and who loses.

Who will be the winners if we confirm Judge Roberts next week?

Will it be the families of America?

The children of America?

The victims of violence?

The poor and the powerless?

The environment?

Will it be freedom?

Liberty?

Justice?

Will it be our Constitution?

Or will the winners be those who want to stop the national government from acting to protect and defend our people and their rights and freedoms?

I can’t tell my people that Judge Roberts will continue the steady march of progress that has defined our country’s proud history.

So I will vote “No.”

And because I believe the Senate deserves those 16 cases and answers to our questions, I will vote “No.”

I hope and pray my doubts about Judge Roberts are misplaced and he will join the moderate wing of the court to protect the constitution of this country that I love so much and the deserving people of my great state who will be counting on him to protect their rights and freedoms.

Interview with Dave Ewing (VVAW)

2005-10-05T13:18:00.000-07:00

“It all started in 1967, with six Vietnam veterans marching together in a peace demonstration. Now, thirty-eight years later, VVAW is still going strong-- continuing its fight for peace, justice, and the rights of all veterans.”

That’s how the VVAW site introduces the organization and it seems to be true. The VVAW (Vietnam Veterans Against The War) is still going strong. They are fighting for veteran’s rights, fighting to keep appropriate health care funding for injured, both physically and psychologically, service members, and reaching out to keep vets in touch through support groups. They have not stopped their unsung battles for each of those things, and more, long after the homecoming parades have stopped and the propaganda value of soldiers has lost its appeal to our leaders.

To those only familiar with the group through the prism of Swift Boat Veterans and Republican attacks on John Kerry’s service during the 2004 Presidential election, please refer to the VVAW site where questions about the “Winter Soldiers” are answered with references and to the Pulitzer Prize winning report/series on “Tiger Force” called “Buried Secrets, Brutal Truths” by the Toledo Blade which ran in 2004. That series, relying on previously (and some currently) classified documents as well as interviews, backs up that what the returning soldiers from Vietnam were saying at the time of their return was true, despite all “spin” to the contrary.

The following is an interview VVAW’s Dave Ewing of the Northern California Branch. Links are provided below for VVAW, their upcoming events, and for the IVAW (Iraq Veterans Against the War.

Interview with Mr. David Ewing, VVAW

Could you tell us a little about your organization?

All vets, and those that aren’t vets but are supporters, are welcome to join VVAW. The group was formed in 1967 when Vietnam Vets that had returned from the war met others at a N.Y. City anti-war rally.

How does your organization accommodate service members who are objecting to the current war?

We encourage their resistance. There is an “Iraq Veterans Against the War” (IVAW) that is loosely modeled on our group and we let the veterans know about them so that they can focus their efforts with one group, the other, or both.

Do you coordinate with them?

Yes, we coordinate with IVAW and we do our own draft and military counseling in N.Y. City and Chicago.

Are the Iraq Veterans Against the War a part of your group?

No, IVAW has its own organization. We just help as needed. Because of our coordination and mutual goals, some Iraq vets and active duty soldiers have joined VVAW.

What is the VVAW position on the current Iraq war?

VVAW opposed the Iraq war before it began and continues to oppose it.

What has the organization done in opposition to the war?

We are sponsors, along with many others, of peace coalition demonstrations. We also speak at schools and do anti-militarization organizing.

What is your answer to those who say that questioning the war is undermining our troops?

Questioning the war, and ultimately ending it, will save their lives. That’s how to really support the troops- and that’s the support that they want. Most serving soldiers would come home at once if offered that option.

One often hears how the troops are behind this war 100% and that therefore civilians should be as well. Could you address the issue of how messages from the front are managed by the military?

Some T.V. interviews have been staged- remember George Bush’s surprise Thanksgiving visit with the rubber turkey? But many real messages of protest are getting out via e-mail, letters, and returning soldiers. The anti-war Iraq Veterans group is growing quickly. Public support for the war is below 50%. That reflects, somewhat, the disaffection for the war. Of course, there is no doubt that some serving soldiers strongly support the war. Others support some aspects of the war. But, in general, we think troop support for the war is declining based on the outreach we have seen from the troops.

Do you see any parallels between this conflict and Vietnam? Any differences?

This war is more like Chechnya than Vietnam. The confessional violence gives it a no-quarter dimension that is much nastier than the civil war in Vietnam which was led by a secular communist leadership.

We rarely hear about those refusing to serve or those who are AWOL. Do you have some numbers on this?

We don’t track those kinds of numbers. Having said that, there have been some notable cases recognizing some brave and celebrated resisters recently that have made it to the headlines but, for the most part, they are below the radar and that’s how the military wants to keep them.

How hard have the ‘stop-loss’ orders hit the reserves?

The stop-loss orders hurt morale. That cannot be denied. They’re also used as a means of coercing re-enlistments. Non-re-enlisting personnel are promised frontline jobs. The threat of stop-loss orders taken in conjunction with promises of safer jobs are used to either deceive or force people into signing up again.

What is your view on this administration’s funding of veteran’s needs and benefits?

The costs of treating the injured were unplanned for and higher than the Administration thought. That has a lot to do with how poorly this whole thin was planned out and how little the powers involved know about war. Our military hospitals are filled. When soldiers are discharged, they only get VA care, which is incapable of handling so many new cases. It’s a mess. Care, across the board, is under-funded. There are already reports of homeless Iraqi war vets and a large number of Iraqi PTSD cases are showing up at the VA.

How do you deal with critics who say you are against all war and that you are betraying the country?

Bringing the soldiers home is the only sure way to support them. It’s what they want us to do. As I said, if given a chance, VVAW thinks most of those in Iraq would leave today if given that option. So who really supports what the soldiers want- the Administration, the military, or the VVAW?

One of the biggest critics of the current war has been Scott Ritter. He has been ridiculed and dismissed even though his credentials are impeccable. Is this a common risk to people in your positions? How do you fight this attack?

Mr. Ritter was right. For that he paid, and is paying, a price. Generally, I think people listen to the VVAW. The biggest problem we face is there are so few forums for people to hear us. There is also a certain Vietnam Vet element that opposes us from time to time and runs interference for various Administrations, but they have little public credibility. On the subject, the silence of the VFW and the American legion on the war should not go unnoticed. I think they fear it’s going badly and they want to distance themselves from Bush if he and the Republicans take a fall over the war.

Virtually every news station, cable and regular, has ‘experts” on giving a play by play of the war. The majority of them are employed as consultants by the station and also work for companies that profit from war. Have you tried to bring this to light?

The network news seems to be controlled by their marketing departments whose mission, aside from sales, is never to challenge a public prejudice. Since such challenges are the essence of good reporting, we, the country –that is, are getting bad reporting.

How often have you or your organization been asked to appear on television?

About once a week in different parts of the country.

How do you get your message out?

Demonstrations, speaking engagements, our newspaper, and the occasional good reporting of some brave enough to challenge the status quo.

How do you feel about leadership that started a war having done everything they could to stay out of fighting in Vietnam?

Bush and Rove were smart to stay out of Vietnam. They were protected by class and privilege. They simply used their status, something the working class, which is the cannon fodder for wars, doesn’t have access to. That’s why the VVAW is against any draft. Conscription cannot overcome class and privilege.

What do you think of Dick Cheney’s statement that he had “other priorities” when asked about Vietnam?

It’s just one of the things that class and privilege allows a person to say- and to mean. The Repercussions of the average guy saying the same thing would be quite different. He wouldn’t get away with it and he’d be jailed if he tried.

How clearly is the military’s role defined in the Iraq conflict? Are our troops in a position, through training and otherwise, to oversee and guide the building of a democracy?

The military cannot rebuild Iraq. But I don’t think that Bush is saying that. His most often repeated statement is that the “terrorists” must be defeated first and then we can rebuild the country. Since the resistance to our presence won’t be defeated, there’s no point in talking about rebuilding.

Often one hears that we must stay in Iraq because to leave would mean that those who died did so for nothing. It is characterized as showing disrespect for the dead. How do you respond?

Who, today, would sacrifice their son, daughter, husband, or wife to fight for such a silly principle? The weight of the death and suffering should fall on the bipartisan political leadership that launched the wars.

What is your organization’s position on our dead being flown back in secret, often under the cover of night, and the public not being allowed to see the caskets?

The press, no matter what is said by the Administration, has a responsibility to the country to cover these newsworthy events.

Does the argument of ‘protecting family privacy’ pass muster with you?

I would respect such a sentiment if it came from a military family. But more often than not, it doesn’t. It’s a protection established by the Administration to avoid any coverage, particularly visual, of bad news.

What do you make of the Bush’s non-appearance at any funerals?

Smart move on his part. If he went, grieving relatives would confront him. Nick Berg’s family is not exceptional in its condemnation of the war and of the Administration- there are many more. Unfortunately, aside from Cindy Sheehan, they aren’t covered by the media which is too easily distracted and generally consumed by the sensationalism of a Michael Jackson trial or an occasional shark bite.

What about Rumsfeld’s use of the automatic signature machine for condolence letters?

In my opinion, it was a purely symbolic mistake. A lot worse has been done that people aren’t being held accountable for.

What do you think of recruiters using the “No Child Left Behind Act” and its provisions to target high school youth for recruitment, particularly in poorer neighborhoods?

That’s a perfect example of the opposite side of the class privilege coin. Those in charge prey on us- the working class- to “flesh” out the army.

What plans do you have for future demonstrations of opposition to the war?

We’ll be at the large, coordinated demonstrations this month.

Can anybody join your group?

Yes! If they agree with our principles, they are more than welcome to join.

How can those who don’t have time but want to help you assist you in your efforts?

Please donate to our counseling project via the VVAW website.

Is there anything else you’d like to add?

In 2004, both candidates and both parties supported the war. Despite all kinds of factional infighting against Bush, the Democrats still supported the war. I object to the way this war has been personalized as “George Bush’s War”. There was a wide consensus for this war in the U.S. and the British ruling classes. Take, for instance, Nancy Pelosi, the Congressional leader of the Democrats. She has voted for every war measure for the Patriot Act, and for every war spending bill that’s come up. So where’s the debate? Where’s the opposition? Who should people rally around? The differences between the parties in this matter are so small that it’s hard to tell them apart. Another thing to keep in mind is that, while it may not be popular or politically correct to say this, the liberal Democrats who oppose Bush are unquestioning supporters of all Israeli policy. One cannot understand the conflicts and hatreds in the Middle East if one only looks at one side of the story. Bush, the father, was more circumspect and more adept at reigning in some of the most extremist elements in Israel. Now the pretense of a balanced U.S. policy is disappearing.

What will the lesson of Iraq be?

The lesson of Iraq, for the world, will be that skillful, irregular warfare can defeat the U.S. Super-Power.

What do you think the solution is?

I believe we need a third party to challenge both the Republicans and the Democrats. Both parties are captive to corporate interests that now pretty openly determine tax and social policy. As a result, I voted for the Peace and Freedom Party in the last election.

Suggested Links for further information:

VVAW- Vietnam Veterans Against The War

Upcoming Events- Including the main demonstration at the White House Anti- Middle East Wars Demonstration on September 24, 2005 at 12:00 PM.

IVAW- Iraq Veterans Against The War

The $300 billion kiss

2005-10-01T22:06:00.000-07:00

The Administration's style of concocted crisis management leaves little time for taking stock of policy results. Any attempts to raise concerns are generally met with bumper sticker responses and sound-bites devoid of content.

Luckily, at times, results just speak for themselves. Sometimes, those results are actually recorded and presented to the public. The following excerpt is worth a glance:

BAGHDAD: When Army Brig. Gen. Karl Horst fought during the invasion of Iraq two years ago, he didn't bother to learn the names of Saddam Hussein's Generals.

"I didn't care who they were- we were going to kill them." he said

Last week, during a parade-ground ceremony at the Baghdad airport, Horst kissed the cheek of a whiskered Iraqi general who had once been awarded the country's highest military honor by Hussein.

(Los Angeles Times March 21,2005)

Considering the death, carnage, and $300 billion dollars spent on the Iraq adventure, it would seem that our Generals would have someone other than an Iraqi General who received Iraq's highest military honor by Saddam Hussein to kiss.

What is it that we're winning?

2005-10-01T21:48:00.000-07:00

According to the Administration, 'freedom' is on the march in the Middle East and elections (that have already beeen held or will be held in that area) will usher in a new era of peace.

We have been told that, due to our invasion of Iraq, the citizens and politicians of Libya, Lebanon, Afghanistan, and Iraq are well on their way to establishing democracies and the Israelis and the Palestinians are forging ahead to a peaceful co-existence. Furthermore, according to the Administration, Pakistan and Uzbekistan have been a key allies and friends in our search for stability in that region.

All thanks to George Bush's far- sighted foreign policy, unique vision, and steely resolve.

Before embarking on a vacation to one of those countries, it's a good idea to check newspaper headlines and take a peek at the Department of State, Bureau of Consular Affairs International Travel Sheets.

As for headlines, heavy fighting is reported in Iraq and even Afghanistan. The Uzbeks have just suffered through a riot leaving hundreds, if not thousands, dead. Fighting beween Israel and Hezbollah has reached its highest level in some time. Pakistan has had protests in the streets, a round-up and imprisonment of journalists, fundamentalists have beaten women for taking part in a foot race (traditionally an activity only engaged in by men), and Pakistani fighters have been found in Iraq. Lebanon, and even Indonesia, have held anti-U.S. rallies due to an unfortunate incident between a marine, a secretive prison, an Afghan prisoner, a toilet, and the Koran.

However, these reports are from 'liberal-elite' newspapers (from all around the world), which act, per Administration cautions, as 'filters' for those unhappy with the stunning success of the Bush Doctrine and all other Bush policies.

That's why it's best to go to the State Department for the information. The State Department is currently being run by Secretary Rice, a close friend and confidant of George Bush who will, no doubt, only allow the unvarnished truth on State Department websites.

A quick review shows the following advice offered by the State Department to travelers:

Afghanistan- "The security threat to all American citizens in Afghanistan remains critical...The Department of State strongly warns U.S. citizens against travel to Afghanistan. There is an ongoing threat to kidnap and assassinate U.S. citizens and non- Governmental organization (NGO) workers throughout the country..."

Iraq- "The Department of State continues to strongly warn U.S. citizens against travel to Iraq, which remains very dangerous."

Lebanon- "The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Lebanon in light of the risks noted below...Americans have been the targets of numerous terrorist attacks in Lebanon. The perpetrators of many of these attacks are still present and retain the ability to act."

Libya- "The United States Department of State warns U.S. citizens traveling to Libya to exercise caution...any American citizen who decides to travel to Libya should maintain a strong security posture by being aware of surroundings, avoiding crowds and demonstrations, keeping a low profile, and varying times and routes for all required travel."

Uzbekistan- "The United States Government has received information that terrorist groups may be planning attacks against U.S. interests in Uzbekistan in the near future...The Department of State urges Americans in Uzbekistan to exercise extreme caution, including avoiding large crowds, celebrations, and places where Westerners generally congregate."

Israel, the West Bank, and Gaza- "The Department of State urges U.S. citizens to carefully weigh the necessity of their travel to Israel in light of the risks noted below. The Department also urges U.S. citizens to defer unnecessary travel to the West Bank and avoid all travel to Gaza...Resentment against efforts to promote peace, and ongoing Israeli military operations in the Occupied Territories could incite further violence in Israel and the Occupied Territories."

What is interesting is that the travel advisories say nothing about dangers in Syria or North Korea (but do describe the latter as 'poor') and as for Iran, the warnings are couched in terms of "may" language rather than the explicit danger warnings regarding the "marching" towards 'freedom' countries.

The result is, if one were to believe everyone but the Administration, that the "Axis of Evil" seems pretty safe to travel to while the countries we're taking credit for 'liberating' seem downright deadly.

But that conclusion would require a temporary suspension of belief in the Administration- something a true 'patriotic' American would never do.

Feel free to visit the countries that "need" our presence- but first, make sure your affairs are in order.

2 Moms and a War

2005-10-01T21:23:00.000-07:00

"No mother would ever willingly sacrifice her sons for territorial gain, for economic advantage, for ideology."
Ronald Reagan

One would think that Reagan's remarks left little room for a mother to tolerate the death of her son in a "war of choice". Furthermore, based upon his words, one would think that he would wholeheartedly support the inquiries and protest of the mother of a soldier who died in a war based on malleable and questionable rationales.

One would think so... that is, if one chose to think.

Reprinted with permission.

For Reagan's alleged "conservative" disciples, the opposite seems to be true. Because Cindy Sheehan has not accepted an illusory WMD threat, Bin Laden links, spreading freedom and an emancipation of women (Islamic fundamentalist style on both), or any of the other multiple reasons given her, and the country, for her son's death in Iraq, they seem to feel that she has forfeited her right to speak and/or protest on the matter. It seems to be a clash of values between the "neo- cons" (new cons) and the old cons [Emphasis added by law enforcement's and the street meaning of the word "con"].

In support of their position, today's "conservatives", among other things, have said that she is/has:

"... hurting our troops and endangering our troops; an anti-Semite; hateful; in bed with the radical left; aligned herself with people who hate this country, hate this government; shamed her son by her comments; trying to pull a little bit of a swindle and been totally co-opted by the whole Michael Moore leftist mentality; exploiting death; engaging in Stalinist agitprop outside President Bush's Crawford ranch; supported by hysterical paranoid ideologist[s] who have turned the "Camp Casey" protest into "Camp Fruitbat and Nutbag."

And, as one of FOX's Sans-A-Belt(way) Boys said, she's "a crackpot".

Such are the comments and "keen insight" offered by the most well-known and visible members of modern conservatism who believe in, among other things, "family values", Christianity, Intelligent Design, Pat Robertson, the flag, prayer in schools, privatization of Social Security, Abu Ghraib style "hazing", a $223 million "Bridge to Nowhere" in Alaska funded by the Transportation Bill, Supplemental (offline- therefore not counted in the budget) spending for an ongoing war, and are against, among other things, the obscenity that is a peek at Janet Jackson's breast, the immorality of "Will and Grace", and the "Communism/Socialism/Liberalism" of those that want to implement a living wage and Universal Health Care.

It seems, according to the media and highly paid pundits who know a thing or two about war (having successfully evaded it in their youth), she's the only mother truly questioning the war. Since they insist that her opinion has been proven worthless through the widely accepted methods of demonizing, guilt by association, and rumor, all of which were subsequently verified by relentless repetition, perhaps one should turn to the one mother painted with the "conservative" brush of all that is good about America- Barbara Bush.

She has not only raised one son who occupies the Oval Office, she is married to a man who once occupied the Oval Office himself. She also has another son who is Governor of a large state that helped get her son George into the position he currently occupies and from which the Iraq war was started. Just a "typical" mom. As such, surely her opinion on casualties is worth taking note of when discussing the war her son started and Cindy Sheehan's son died in:

"But why should we hear about body bags, and deaths, and how many, what day it's gonna happen, and how many this or what do you suppose? Or, I mean, it's, it's not relevant. So why should I waste my beautiful mind on something like that?"
- Barbara Bush, Good Morning America - March 18, 2003

So it's the opinion of a "beautiful mind" that it should not be wasted on thoughts about body bags and deaths against the opinion of a tortured mind that answers are required for the body bags and deaths. "What... me worry?" versus "What is the reason?"

Since Cindy Sheehan's voice is in direct competition with a phalanx of paid for professional barkers attempting to drown her out and consign her to irrelevancy, in the interests of fairness, one ahould take a look at what the sons say about the war and its casualties. George Bush's own words on the subject are:

"...I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life... I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy... and part of my being is to be outside exercising."
- George Bush, vacationing in Crawford, Texas - August 13, 2005

Unfortunately, Casey Sheehan could not be reached for comment.

So it's exercise and "getting on with life" against no exercise possible as there is no more life. "What.. me worry?" versus deathly silence.

The Bushes. Caring. Compassionate. "Real" Americans. Just "down home folks" (be it in Crawford, Kennebunkport, Camp David, or some Saudi King's or Prince's grand estate). The type of people worth having a beer with - after undergoing a thorough backgound check and subject to Secret Service approval.

As to the assault on Cindy Sheehan and her right to voice her opinion in any non-violent manner she chooses, the Administration and its backers seem to be attempting to prevail using their tired WWF-like verbal "smackdowns" in order to silence opposition and/or manufacture consent.

It is highly doubtful that either Casey or the "Gipper" would stand for the silencing of anyone's right to voice their opposition to this war. Especially the voice of a mother.

Integrity and White House = WMD and Iraq

2005-10-01T21:20:00.000-07:00

Karl Rove may have been right when he gave his speech about the difference in how conservatives and liberals reacted to 9-11. After all, one would be hard pressed to find a liberal whose immediate reaction would be to "out" a CIA agent, proceed to hide behind the parsing of words for a period of two years, and watch reporters go to jail because they felt honor bound by "super-secret double chocolate nutty crunch topping" promises.

There is much more to be written about this and a micro and macro analysis of it will soon be posted. For now, consider Joshua Brown's (see credits and works below) view of "dignity" being brought back to the White House by the current Administration:

Joshua Brown is a man of many talents and we are honored to have his contributions to AmeriPundit. You can find some of his work online at Life During Wartime and Historians Against The War.

Briefly, for we cannot do him justice here, Joshua Brown is currently:

Executive Director, Center for Media and Learning/American Social History Project, The Graduate Center, The City University of New York.

Professor, Ph.D. Program in History, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

Professor, Certificate Program in Interactive Technology and Pedagogy, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

Co-director, New Media Lab, The Graduate Center, CUNY.

His work in progress includes:

Principal investigator, Young America: Experiences of Youth in U.S. History, a Web site focusing on perspectives and experiences of children and youth to enhance the U.S. history survey (funded by NEH).

Co-principal investigator, The 911 Digital Archive, a Web site devoted to collecting and preserving the history of the September 11, 2001 attacks in New York, Virginia and Pennsylvania and the public responses to them.

Other works, contributions, and recognition:

He has appeared in various print publications, interactive/multimedia publications, has been a contributor to various exhibitions and performances, video, film, television and he has numerous art credits. His work has been recognized through an array of grants and awards.

His professional service includes serving on advisory boards, editorial boards, presenting papers, and participating in panels and presentations. International activities include being a 2004 Member of a delegation of the Association of American Publishers International Freedom to Publish Committee, Istanbul, Turkey. In his capacity, he interviewed publishers, journalists, writers, broadcasters, scholars, and human rights activists about censorship and free expression.

A complete listing of all his qualifications and accomplishments, along with links is available at his primary site.

"Limitless Possibilities..."

2005-10-01T20:58:00.000-07:00

Hurricane Katrina pulled the curtain back to show the nation's long- ignored blacks, whites, single mothers, destitute children, and poor families, among others, who simply didn't have the means to flee danger...

Now...

To allay fears over his nomination to the post of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, the last venue of relief for the ones "left behind", Roberts referred to his youth. He said:

"I think all of us retain from our youth certain enduring images. For me those images are of endless fields of Indiana stretching to the horizon, punctuated only by an isolated silo or barn. And as I grew older, those endless fields came to represent for me the limitless possibilities of our great land..."

Inner city minorities must be breathing a sigh of relief. After all, they also have "enduring images" and therefore, something in common. Certainly, the substance of the images might be different. The "endless fields of Indiana puctuated only by an isolated silo or barn" might not be "endless nights of fear and hunger" nor might they be "endless days of attending run-down schools". They may not even be the same as "endless harassment by authorities".

Furthermore, the images minorities have might not translate into "the limitless possibilities of our great land" and are more than likely to be the awareness of the "limitless possibility of incarceration", guilty or not, that inner city youth face.

But, at least they both have "endless" and "limitless" in common.

Poor women must also be somewhat assured. After all, they too share "endless" and "limitless" images. For those old enough, it is the image of a back alley abortion. For most women, it is the "endless" and "limitless" assault on their right to choose by detached white men who spout the name of God as they loot the Treasury while using pictures of embryos as a distraction.

The recent history of poor blacks and hispanics is also replete with images of "endless fields"... of cotton, grapes, lettuce, strawberries. These images are "punctuated only" by an occasional hard fought for right that the detached white men immediately attack as being "anti-American" and "anti-commerce" and then work feverishly to set aside.

Maybe the soon-to-be Chief Justice Roberts can further soothe all of their fears by regaling them with additional stories of "endless fields" and "limitless possibilities" that he has embedded images of.

However, that would have to wait until after he considers the Voting Rights Act, Roe v. Wade, heck, maybe even Brown v. Board of Education. Certainly after he sets the country straight by returning inconvenient rights back to the states- especially progressive rights to those states now run by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, and their ilk, and to the "right to work states" so ably run by selected corporations.

Social Security and Half-Truths

2005-10-01T20:44:00.000-07:00

The natural reaction to anyone basing a sale on an outright lie is to dismiss them and not make the purchase. That's why the best salesmen selling a defective product rely on half-truths.

They make representations that allow the listener to draw parallels and to convince themselves of the value of a product without the salesman having to face repercussions when the product ultimately fails to perform properly.

One such half-truth is contained in the current debate over what to do with Social Security. The statement that's been made to convince the general public is that federal employees have a privatized program therefore, one should be made available to the general public.

That statement exploits the disdain the public has been fed for federal employees by the "anti-big government" crowd and also strikes at the concept of fundamental fairness.

The only problem is that the two examples, the federal employees plan and the plan to privatize Social Security, are as different as apples and oranges held together only by the commonality that they are a fruit- hence the half-truth.

The federal employees have a program under the Federal Employees Retirement System (FERS) that simply allows them to participate in the Thrift Savings Plan (TSP) which is on top of Social Security and is much like a 401(k) that an individual can open. Nothing is taken from the social security part of the federal employees contributions.

The Thrift Savings Plan is funded through any extra savings the employees have at the end of the contribution cycle.

Furthermore, if one sets aside that false argument, extending a plan like the Thrift Savings Plan to Social Security is fraught with problems as pointed out by Francis X. Cavanaugh who served as the first executive director of the TSP from 1986 to 1994.

Finally, the privatization of Social Security is nothing more than the continuation of a policy of fundamental unfairness towards the working poor. There are many minor adjustments that could be made to ensure Social Security's soundness (e.g. ending the withdrawl of benefits for the wealthy and/or lifting the prohibition of collecting social security contributions after they pass a certain amount of income).

There is truth to the fact that Social Security does face some danger. A truthful analysis would show that the danger is not with the system but rather the unsustainable debt incurred as a result of the Administration's fiscal policies.

It's "Your Money"

2005-10-01T20:39:00.000-07:00

The numbers for how the average Americans' tax dollars were spent in 2004 have been released. Since it's often referred to as "your money" by the Administration, perhaps a review of how "your money" is being spent is in order.

The average household paid $6,296 in taxes. The funds (rounded off) were distributed as follows:

Military and Defense- $1,887
Health- $1,276
Interest on Military Debt- $555
Interest on non-Military Debt- $616
Income Security- $414
Education- $231
Veteran's Benefits- $216
Nutrition- $169
Housing- $135
Natural Resources- $109
Job Training- $ 25
Other- $662

That means that the average household paid $6,296 in taxes of which $2,342 was directly related to military expenditures leaving only $3,954 for everything else. If the health costs are taken out (which exist despite, or because of, 40 million + individuals uninsured or underinsured), that means that the entire rest of the government was funded by the average person by an amount of approximately $2,678.

That means job training, education, housing, nutrition programs, veteran's benefits, income security, maintaining our natural resources, etc. combined barely equals our expenditures on the military (particularly under this "finding monsters abroad" loving Administration).

Then again, safety first. That's what George Bush ran on. That's why we had commercials with wolves in forests. That's why Dick Cheney and other Administration spokespeople floated the cloud of imminent attack were anybody but George Bush elected.

So, how safe are we with all this money being spent on defense and with this Administration in charge?

Aside from what a couple of lost pilots forcing the evacuation of Congress, The White House, and the Supreme Court proved, the General Accounting Office (GAO), a non-partisan government investigative arm of Congress found:

"...inefficiencies and inadequate transparency and accountability across DOD's major business areas, resulting in billions of dollars of wasted resources. Senior leaders have shown commitment to business transformation through individual initiatives in acquisition reform, business modernization, and financial management, among others, but little tangible evidence of actual improvement has been seen in DOD's business operations to date"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (2005-High Risk Series).

Or, if not too distracted by the fancy threats beamed at the television audience nationwide, one might look at how the Administration has ignored threats that, if carried out, would make 9-11 look like amateur hour in terms of cost to human life. It should be noted that the following GAO report comes on the heels of dozens, if not hundreds of other reports given to the Administration calling for action to secure the sites in question.

The GAO report found:

"...experts agree that the nation's chemical facilities are attractive targets for terrorists. The theft or release of certain chemicals could disrupt the local economy, impact other critical infrastructures that rely on chemicals, or impact the health and safety of millions of Americans"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (Homeland Security April 27, 2005).

If Chemical plants aren't that much of a bother, consider what the GAO found the Administration WASN'T doing when it came to our Nuclear plants:

"...first, with respect to its security mission, GAO found that NRC needs to improve security measures for sealed sources of radioactive materials---radioactive material encapsulated in stainless steel or other metal used in medicine, industry, and research--which could be used to make a "dirty bomb'"...read full Abstract/Summary or PDF file (Nuclear Regulatory Commission May, 26, 2005).

In sum, the Administration sent a very large chunk of "your money" to the military- which was found to be wasting a lot of it and the Administration has done nothing to ensure improved performance. The Administration has left millions of Americans exposed to the hazards of chemical plants that have security even more lax than was present on the airlines prior to 9-11, and if those two items weren't enough, the Administration has refused to impose standards on facilities that have material that could be used for a "dirty bomb".

It's probably a pretty good bet that a junior high school hall monitor could budget and enforce security better than this.

Did someone say "Last Throes"?

2005-10-01T20:28:00.000-07:00

So how does the speech start now?

Here's a suggestion: "We're fighting them in Iraq, where they weren't but are now, and watching Madrid and London burn, which weren't but are now, so that we don't have to fight them in Des Moines."

...and more...

The not-so-"subliminable" meaning behind the speech at Fort Bragg, N.C.:

Integrity and White House = WMD and Iraq:

Bankruptcy, Business, and "Christians"

2005-10-01T20:12:00.000-07:00

How a Bill becomes a Law- Current Congressional Version

Step 1: Business lobby vs. Christian Fundamentalist lobby:

see "DeLay’s newer allegiance to business lobbyists has led to a rupture with old friends in the evangelical Christian community, allies who had a major impact on DeLay’s career when few on K Street even knew his name...more...

Step 2: Christian Attorneys vs. Christian Fundamentalist lobby and Business lobby:

see "The lawyers say the legislation runs contrary to the forgiveness of debt and charity required by the Bible. The lawyers note that in the Old Testament, God did not outlaw borrowing and lending, but provided that loans would become discharged every seven years."

'I can't listen to Christian lawyers because I would be imposing the Bible on a diverse population,' [Republican Senator] Grassley said. 'I'll bet those lawyers wouldn't want us to impose the principles of forgiving debt every seven years. If that were the law, nobody would loan them money.'

Grassley contends frivolous bankruptcy filings hurt the economy.The attorneys said objective studies have shown that families file for bankruptcy because they have been driven to do so...more..."

Step 3: Victory Press Release from Christian Coalition as Christian Coalition and Business Lobby win:

see "[The]Christian Coalition commends both the House and Senate for their bipartisan efforts in stopping any pro-abortion amendments from being attached to the bankruptcy reform bill. There should never be compromises when it comes to protecting the life of the unborn. We look forward to advancing the Culture of Life in America with the passage of more pro-life legislation this year in Congress...more..."

Republican leadership, Credit Card and Banking Industry leaders, and the Christian Coalition meet behind closed doors and,.... The Bankruptcy Reform Bill becomes Law!

Step 3 and 1/2: Any unused parts (regular middle class or poor Americans) can be squeezed dry, discarded and/or used for kindling.

Finally, anybody wondering why the Christian Coalition is so adamant about making it harder for the middle class and poor to declare bankruptcy and be financially "born again" should remember that the Lord works in mysterious ways.

Numbers Game

2005-10-01T20:03:00.000-07:00

Over 1,609 dead. Over 11,500 wounded. More than 300 billion dollars spent.

There seems to be no point in "keeping tabs". The numbers keep changing daily...by the hour... by the minute. For those that still haven't been able to fully grasp what the Iraq "adventure" is costing the nation, there are a some websites worth visiting to assist in the calculation.

They come in handy when playing the "Numbers Game".

They are sites that, if cross- referenced, show a far different picture than the one shown on television news. A picture that bears no resemblance to the Administration's favorite description when pressed on the status of the conflict- the "We're making progress" response.

Some sites provide names, specialty, and whether unhappy ends were met on some sandy dune in Iraq or in some mountainous territory in Afghanistan. They also offer maps of the U.S. showing where the deceased lived prior to being sent off to fight by those that did everything they could to avoid fighting when, in their youth, the country called upon them to pick up arms.

These internet resources allow a person to navigate through the results of battle from the comfort of their own homes and, while sipping a latte or guzzling a beer, see the names of our dead, their ages, where they came from, and how they died. It's a task easily accomplished while, at the same time, patting oneself on the back for having the patriotism to slap an "I support the Troops" bumper sticker on the SUV parked in the driveway next to the other SUV. Most sites contain links to other sources that can be easily accessed and reviewed if skipping a few favorite T.V. programs isn't too much of a sacrifice.

Some function just like the "find a high school classmate" sites where, with a few keystrokes, one can spell out a name (perhaps a few more details if available- but not necessary) and upon hitting "enter", data banks will search to see if the "name" was killed. As mentioned, it's like looking up a high school buddy only very, very different.

Others provide the cost (in lives) to Iraqi civilians as a result of our military intervention. This service is provided because our officials deemed it unnecessary to count dead Iraqi civilians resulting from the conflict. Nobody seems to have a problem with sacrificing our young and our treasure for Iraqi civilians yet pretending that those very same civilians don't really exist when it comes to counting the dead among them as a result of our actions. The methodology used by this site is provided in detail so as to show that the numbers of dead Iraqis is not conjecture but rather, based on empirical evidence. The incidents are described and the dates of the deaths are provided as well.

The National Priorities Project has a ticker showing how many dollars are being spent (per second) on the war. The site also provides numerous calculations as to how else the money could have been spent. The site provides a "trade-off" calculator. The calculator allows the visitor to choose from a variety of important domestic programs (health, education, police, etc.) and shows how much the money spent on the Iraq "adventure" would affect each program the visitor chooses were the funds applied towards it rather than to Iraq.

Two of the "fun facts" that the calculator, when combined with the fatality numbers provided by other sites, shows is just how much more of a cost, in both dollars and dead soldiers, the "Godless and Unpatriotic Blue" states of California, New York, and New Jersey, individually, have borne when compared to most of the "Heartland" or "Red" states individually.

For instance, it has, so far, cost California 22 Billion dollars for the Iraq ride that a majority of Californians did not want to go on. New York and New Jersey have contributed 14 Billion and 8 Billion dollars, respectively. While not exactly in the "Heartland", Wyoming, a true "Red state" and home of Dick Cheney (which has left it with the motto of "Show me the Deferment State") has contributed a not-so-whopping 312 Million dollars. To be fair, it has also contributed 2 Senators to the Senate effectively cancelling out California's or New York's or New Jersey's votes therein.

Also, when it comes to fatalities, Alabama, Alaska, Arkansas, Georgia, Idaho, Kansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, South Dakota, North Dakota, and Utah, combined, have not lost as many citizens as "La-La Liberal Hollywood Elite California". Even if one throws in Wyoming's 6 fatalities, all 12 of those firmly "traditional family values with a patriotism chaser Red states" still haven't had as many sons and daughters die as California. As a side-note, Wyoming actually has two mottos. The second, aside from the one mentioned above is, "Live Free or have some left- wing liberal elite Blue-stater die for your right to live free" (also a Cheney legacy to his home state).

* Texas is the closest to California in terms of sacrifice (much more so in terms of blood than treasure). As of this writing, California has lost 181 of its citizens while Texas has lost 151. California has contributed approximately 22 billion dollars while Texas has contributed approximately 13 billion.

None of this should be taken as a slight on the sacrifice that each dead young man or woman, and their respective families made. It is in fact the opposite. It is a slap in the face of anyone who dares denigrate the sacrifices of any individual soldier by painting them with a broad brush of "blue" or "liberal" or deigns to imply that segments of the country are unpatriotic. The finger-pointing and questioning of allegiances done by some about so-called liberal states is simply not supported by the facts. The numbers speak for themselves. The coffins prove the point.

If anyone still walks away after reading this and thinks that it's simply a diatribe against Red states or conservatives- they are sorely mistaken. Were that to be the case, then it would also be pointed out that abortions and divorce are much more prevalent in Red states than in Massachusettes (the mother of Blue states). It would be pointed out that welfare, in the form of a combination of social services and agricultural subsidies for Red states dwarfs traditional social service demands in Blue states. Finally, it would be pointed out that Blue states get back from the federal government far less than what they send in while Red states have a habit of taking from the federal government more than they send in (effectively leaving the Blue states as subsidy (welfare) providers for Red states).

The point attempted to be reached here has nothing to do with those divisions except to say that our internal dissension better stop. If we (red and blue, brown, black, white, red, and yellow, gay or straight, male or female) fail to comprehend that we are all standing in quicksand that we were led to by inept leadership then none of our self-designations, clans, or cliques will matter. We will, as we are already starting to see, lose our sense of being "Americans".

There are those that don't know what being an "American" really means but are old enough to read this. For them perhaps the age of being able to comprehend the term "American" has already passed. The rest cannot let that failure of understanding our cultural and historical roots to be passed on to another generation. Our search for what exactly our dead and wounded sacrificed for in the hell that is Iraq will not be found in purple fingers but rather in our own freedoms that are quickly being curtailed by a cauldron of prejudice, intolerance, ignorance, and avarice.

For further clarification on the point of division within the country fostered by the media, exploited by politicians, and acquiesced to by the weak- minded, one can simply look up the number of reported fatalities in Iraq on any given day and determine where the deceased came from (Red state of Blue state). If the reader feels that "they" are "winning" because their (red or blue) states have more in the fatality column than the "other" states, they are not only incapable of understanding what it means to be an American, they fail to grasp what it means to be human.

A word of caution for those that insist on celebrating if their side is "winning" in the fatality count. The numbers change often. Not surprisingly, they are relatively consistently split pretty evenly between the states that voted for Bush and the states that voted for Kerry. A few well-placed IED's ripping through poorly armored transport vehicles or mortar fire on a mess hall could kill a number of soldiers from the "other" (red or blue) states and the lead one thought their side had could prove short-lived.

Anyone who has a problem with engaging in the "Numbers Game" because they are mired in the bumper sticker ideology of the Administration, still believes that our presence in Iraq is necessary to fight terrorism, and holds to the fiction that our forces provide stability to that region might consider the following quotes and descriptions surrounding the recent wave of bombing attacks in Iraq as provided by ABC News:

"It's all because you're here," a policeman shouted in Arabic at a group of US soldiers after the latest in a bloody wave of attacks that have rocked Baghdad this month.

"Get out of our country and there will be no more explosions," he told the uncomprehending Americans staring at the smouldering wreck of a car bomb.

Not enough to shake the bumper-sticker belief?

Perhaps the utterances of a man who survived one of the bombings will shed a different light than the one portrayed by the Administration of the average Iraqi's perception of our presence:

"Since Americans invaded our country they have brought nothing but evil."

Maybe a combination of the "Numbers Game" and the voice of this Iraqi civilian, standing next to a smoldering wreck far from a safe "town hall" adorned with flags and filled by handpicked supporters, serves to highlight the problem of engaging in an ill-defined "war against evil". It's probably a safe bet that both "Red" and "Blue" American soldiers can see, hear, and smell it.

Click Here for Full Post

Afghanistan: "Democracy - Lite"

2005-10-01T19:57:00.000-07:00

Afghanistan is learning about the magic of democracy as understood and seen through the eyes of our Administration. As the Afghans are finding out, democracy can not only be "messy", it can be "illusory" and, at times, it is best just to pay "freedom" lip service rather than to practice it.

Consider:

"We're helping Afghanistan's elected government solidify these democratic gains and deliver real change," Bush said. "A nation that once knew only the terror of the Taliban is now seeing a rebirth of freedom, and we will help them succeed."

That was said immediately after Afghan President Hamid Karzai said he was shocked by a U.S. Army report on abuse of detainees in Afghanistan, saying his government wanted custody of all Afghan prisoners and control over U.S. military operations.

President Hamid Karzai also insisted the Kabul government will veto US military operations after a week of hugely destructive anti-American rioting left Afghan cities and towns in flames and hospitals overflowing with casualties.

Furthermore, Karzai was upset over the fact that the punishment meted out for the death of one of his citizens by a U.S. military policeman who pled guilty to assault and two counts of making a false statement in the 2002 beating death of a prisoner in Afghanistan was a sentence of three months in prison.

On top of that, he was attacked by U.S. officials who warned this month in an internal memo "that an American-financed poppy eradication program aimed at curtailing Afghanistan's huge heroin trade had been ineffective, in part because President Hamid Karzai 'has been unwilling to assert strong leadership.'"

Still reeling over riots and the killings of his citizens, Karzai fired off a response that his government has worked hard to eradicate poppy fields. He blamed Western countries for a lack of support. Karzai said the criticism was part of an effort to shift blame from the United States, Britain and others that have failed to deliver economic aid.

Karzai tried a different approach to relations with his great new democratic friend. He tried the path of reconstruction of his country- something woefully missing in our new best buddy. He must have been speaking in his native language because his request fell on deaf ears.

He then tried again to get a handle on U.S. (foreign troops) in his country but was rebuffed. The Washington Post reported that all he could get was an endorsement of an agreement allowing the United States to continue its policy of simply informing Afghan officials before launching raids in Afghanistan.

Karzai did get to see "lip-service" paid to freedom.

In his weekly radio address, Bush said Afghanistan’s new constitution, elected president and upcoming elections all since the 2001 U.S. invasion that ousted the Taliban represent remarkable progress. "A nation that once knew only the terror of the Taliban is now seeing a rebirth of freedom, and we will help them succeed", Bush added.

No control over foreign troops, minimal punishment for those who admit to killing Afghans in their own country, accusations of not cooperating in the U.S. war on drugs, and scant attention paid to reconstruction of a badly scarred country we'd used as a base for fighting the Soviets and have recently bombed even further back into oblivion than it already was. That's what Karzai got to take back home with him.

One can only wonder what particular odors this type of democracy and freedom have for Karzai and the Afghans.

Social Security bedtime stories...

2005-10-01T19:52:00.000-07:00

For those that don't see a difference between Social Security Insurance and the stock market (or any market for that matter), the following headlines may prove eye-opening. They certainly don't make good bedtime stories to read to the elderly, the disabled, or anyone else who may depend on an SSI check for their very existence.

The headlines were obtained from an Alta Vista search using the keywords "wall street". They are a representative sampling of the headlines over a 6 day period. Some of the headlines, particularly those that contradict one another, came from the same day.

Headlines:

Fresh retreat on Wall Street; gains hold for week

Roller-coaster week leaves Wall Street higher, but uneasy

Stocks fall as worries mount on Wall Street

Wall Street takes a breather

Wall Street reverses slump

Stocks fall as worries mount on Wall Street

When Wall Street Frets, It's a Good Time to Buy

Wall Street choppy amid strong earnings, fresh inflation jitters

Wall Street ends volatile week with a sell-off

US open: Earnings brighten mood on Wall Street

Market Overview: Plunge on Wall Street worries

Up and down with the Dow

Hardball on Wall Street

Wall St. up sharply on earnings news

Europe down on Wall Street lows

US close: Brighter earnings and data cheer Wall Street

New worries Grip Wall Street

Markets slide on Wall Street Decline

Stocks fall as worries mount on Wall Street

Stocks seek calm after rocky week

Wall Street struggles to mixed finish

Wall Street Slide Expected to Continue

Wall Street roars back, in best rally since 2003

NEW YORK: US stocks soared in the best single-day rally in nearly two years, as stronger-than-expected regional manufacturing and strong corporate earnings eased fears of an exonomic slowdown

Dollar fades as Data-Inspired Rally Fades: The dollar gave up some of the previous day's gains against the euro and slipped to a one month low against the yen on Friday as enthusiasm sparked by strong U.S. data and a Wall Street rally began to fade

Oil surge sends Wall Street down

Mixed day on Wall Street

It's not exactly a prescription for peace of mind. But the headlines and their accompanying roller-coaster ride into well... something or the other, may have an upside. Investing Social Security funds into something so volatile could actually free the government of obligations for not just Social Security but other programs like Medi-Care, Veteran's benefits, etc. That's because anybody with a heart problem, high blood pressure, or severe anxiety problems would probably drop dead from worrying about their retirement.

It may be a "whole new post 9-11 world", and maybe "the terrorists will have won" if we don't make Social Security subject to the whims of what's proven to be both a tumultuous and, often corrupt market but perhaps, as a society, we can suck it up, tweak the system a ltlle bit, and allow the least among us just enough to buy some food or medicine. That's really not asking much.

"Talking Heads"

2005-10-01T19:50:00.000-07:00

Television’s “talking heads” share a symbiotic relationship much more important, to them at least, than politics and/or ideology. This relationship can properly be described as an airborne disease attacking healthy debate within the body politic.

Consider the following names and try to determine what they have in common: Al Franken, Brit Hume, Ann Coulter, Bob Woodward, Dan Rather, Ed Meese, Dick Morris, Eleanor Clift, Governor George Pataki, Henry Kissinger, Fred Barnes, George McGovern, James Baker, Jesse Jackson, Jesse Ventura, Laura Ingraham, Leslie Stahl, Leon Panetta, Mikhail Gorbachev, Morton Kondracke, Newt Gingrich, President Clinton, Tom Brokaw, and Sean Hannity.

The answer has nothing to do with politics or ideology. They have something much more important in common- their opinions are for rent. To rub elbows with the above-mentioned pundits, and too many others to list here, one need only pay a visit to The Allen Agency, Inc. and have a checkbook at the ready.

The Washington Speaker's Bureau is another "promoter" that boasts many of the same speakers- and more. It offers speaker and/or subject choices. It even has a section that highlights speakers that can be rented for $10,000 or under.

The problem is that none of the above would command even a fraction of the fees they receive if there were no conflict. That's why even the most sane and rational solution to any problem must be debated (yelled) about in a "pro" and "con" manner when no such distinction exists.

The constant need to create or perpetuate controversy is best evidenced by the simplistic red/blue distinction on television's political maps without examining the differences in a methodical manner that could go a long way to healing any perceived rifts in our society which, in turn, would eliminate the need for television screaming or, at least, lessening its proliferation.

The desire for divisiveness in the country rests with more than just the television personalities. Many groups make comfortable incomes in perpetuating and exacerbating differences. It is when both the groups and personalities join forces and are fed to the public on a daily basis through television that the danger of a false reality can begin to take hold of the national psyche.

The mere fact that money is exchanged for speeches and/or appearances should not necessarily lead to a dismissal of the individual speaking. However, it should highlight the need to look at television's designated "experts" with a healthy dose of skepticism.

After all, if appearances are determined by fees, then it's not a huge leap to wonder if fees can also determine what is said by speakers at these agenda informercials masked as serious discussions and intended for a much larger audience than the one attending (e.g., AEI's effort to monopolize C-Span's coverage of "Think Tank" discussions).

Leave No Upper Middle Class Child Behind

2005-10-01T19:31:00.000-07:00

The NY Times is currently running a series entitled, "Class Matters" that is a must read for anyone concerned about the state of our society. A very simple and minimally intrusive registration is required to access the NY Times online and, for this series alone, is well worth it.

The series takes a look at class and its relationship to Health, Marriage, Religion, and Education. It is a refreshing, albeit critical, look at the role that money and status plays in the things that matter most to individuals. It challenges the arguments postulated by certain elements of our society who repeat the fairy tale that if one tries hard enough, there is no limit to what they can achieve.

Sadly, it also sheds a light on the large part of our society (increasingly resembling ourselves, our families, and our neighbors) who are fighting a losing fight and are cast aside as statistics on a page.

The reader is offered charts (sourced), studies, and personal stories that must be looked at if we are to set this ship of state on its proper course again.

The following are excerpts from stories in the Education section of the series:

The College Dropout Boom
by: David Leonhardt

"He became a college dropout, though nongraduate may be the more precise term. Many people like him plan to return to get their degrees, even if few actually do. Almost one in three Americans in their mid-20's now fall into this group, up from one in five in the late 1960's, when the Census Bureau began keeping such data. Most come from poor and working-class families...

And at institutions where nearly everyone graduates - small colleges like Colgate, major state institutions like the University of Colorado and elite private universities like Stanford - more students today come from the top of the nation's income ladder than they did two decades ago...

Only 41 percent of low-income students entering a four-year college managed to graduate within five years, the Department of Education found in a study last year, but 66 percent of high-income students did. That gap had grown over recent years. That loss of ground is all the more significant because a college education matters much more now than it once did. A bachelor's degree, not a year or two of courses, tends to determine a person's place in today's globalized, computerized economy.

College graduates have received steady pay increases over the past two decades, while the pay of everyone else has risen little more than the rate of inflation. As a result, despite one of the great education explosions in modern history, economic mobility - moving from one income group to another over the course of a lifetime - has stopped rising, researchers say. Some recent studies suggest that it has declined over the last generation.

Across the country, the upper middle class so dominates elite universities that high-income students, on average, actually get slightly more financial aid from colleges than low-income students do. These elite colleges are so expensive that even many high-income students receive large grants. In the early 1990's, by contrast, poorer students got 50 percent more aid on average than the wealthier ones, according to the College Board, the organization that runs the SAT entrance exams."

No Degree, and No Way Back to the Middle
by: TIMOTHY EGAN

"Since high school, Caleb has had six jobs, none very promising. Now 28, he may never reach the middle class, he said. But for his father and others of a generation that could count on a comfortable life without a degree, the fall out of the middle class has come as a shock. They had been frozen in another age, a time when Kaiser factory workers could buy new cars, take decent vacations and enjoy full health care benefits.

They have seen factory gates close and not reopen. They have taken retraining classes for jobs that pay half their old wages. And as they hustle around for work, they have been constantly reminded of the one thing that stands out on their résumés: the education that ended with a high school diploma.

It is not just that the American economy has shed six million manufacturing jobs over the last three decades; it is that the market value of those put out of work, people like Jeff Martinelli, has declined considerably over their lifetimes, opening a gap that has left millions of blue-collar workers at the margins of the middle class."

The Pill and the Pharmacist, the Degree and Divorce

2005-10-01T19:22:00.000-07:00

Barefoot and pregnant (is best).

That seems to be the message being sent to women throughout the land by various conservative groups backing the right of pharmacists not to dispense the "morning after" pill.

Their argument is loosely framed around a ''freedom of choice'' right which would allow pharmacists to protect "their moral, religious, ethical ideas". This is a very slippery slope and easily extends that morality to the "pill" which is intended to prevent pregnancy altogether.

22 states have introduced "refusal laws," which allow pharmacists to refuse filling prescriptions because of personal beliefs. The states are: Arizona, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia and Wisconsin.

Arkansas, Mississippi and South Dakota have already have passed refusal laws and Georgia has adopted a regulation allowing pharmacists to refuse to fill prescriptions.

The effects of such laws, particularly in areas where pharmacies are scarce, places the religious beliefs of the pharmacist over a woman's legal rights. This could result in unwanted pregnancies that end in abortion, unwanted marriages that end in divorce, or single mother's having to essentially drop out of productive society because of the necessity to provide for a child on their own.

Setting aside the hypocrisy of Medicare and private insurance covering Viagra, one should consider this argument within the "big picture": the sanctity of the family unit and the interest that society has in keeping marriages together rather than encouraging "shotgun marriages" that can result from an unplanned pregnancy.

The statistic most often used in news media reports and campaign speeches is that 1 out of 2 marriages ends in divorce. However, recent research shows that the underlying formula used in the calculations is flawed because the people who are divorcing in any given year are not the same as those who are marrying.

Social scientists have looked at available data and used a different method to determine the divorce rate. They calculated how many people who have ever married subsequently divorced. That calculation indicates that the overall divorce rate has a high-end level of approximately 41 percent.

Furthermore, regardless of the method used, researchers say that the large majority of the drop in the overall divorce rate is caused by a much deeper decline in rates among college graduates. Dr. Steven P. Martin, an assistant professor of sociology at the University of Maryland, calls that a "divorce divide" between those with and without college degrees.

The numbers indicate that divorce among women without undergraduate degrees has remained steady. Their risk of divorce or separation within the first 10 years of marriage is approximately 35 percent. Women holding college degrees are much less likely to divorce. Their divorce rate in the first 10 years of marriage has dropped to 16 percent of those married between 1990 and 1994 from 27 percent of those married between 1975 and 1979.

It is difficult to argue with those numbers. It is even more difficult to say that women, given the freedom to pursue a higher education do not contribute mightily to the stability so sought for in continuing marriages (without divorce) preached so often by the right.

What is not difficult to say is that a young woman, denied the right or access to contraception, may quickly find herself dropping out of school, heading into a marriage likely to end in divorce, and ending up as second in line as a creditor (behind credit card companies thanks to the Bankruptcy Reform Act) once her "ex" files for bankruptcy and no longer pays child support.

A Memo from Across the Pond

2005-10-01T19:14:00.000-07:00

The following memo by Matthew Rycroft, a Downing Street foreign policy aide, should put to rest, once and for all, the question of whether the country (U.S.), and the world, was lied to by the Bush Administration regarding the Iraq war.

A good exercise to perform as one reads the memo is to divide the number of words into the billions spent on the Iraq "Adventure" and/or the number of lives lost per word. The truly industrious could do a calculation of the budgetary costs to the nation as programs are cut back or cut out altogether to pay for this highly questionable "adventure".

It has been said that Colin Powell once had to remind Madeleine Albright (Clinton Administration) that the soldiers she wanted to use on what he thought of as her whims were not "toy soldiers", they were real, (real families, real blood). It's too bad he, or someone else, couldn't have done the same in this instance.

With the word "hero" being bandied about so freely these days, so much so that it's lost all meaning, an act such as that would have solidified the person who blew this whistle prior to the first bloodied body as a true hero, an American Patriot recognized as such for deeds rather than how many flags are placed behind them in a carnival show of patriotism and heroism.

As we witness the daily carnage in Iraq post-invasion, attention should be paid to the fact that the memo says, "There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action". Also of particular note is the section that reads, "It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran".

Please note the difficulties posed by the rationales being dreamed up in "undisclosed locations" in Washington that the memo deals with, most particularly, "The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult."

And lastly, note that the thin reed of WMD (which we now know to be non-existent) was stretched to its limits from the beginning as a justification by the observation that, "Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD."

To send the memo to anyone interested simply direct them to the The Sunday Times so they could look it up themselves or forward a copy of this Post as it contains the memo, the link, and further links to accompanying documents.

Furthermore, any number of British and international publications,as well as websites, have written on it and referred to it in whole or in part.

As an aside, it has become painfully clear that American media is now officially simply a mouthpiece, bought and paid for, by special interests. A document of this importance could not be overlooked were that not the case. Both the Big 3 stations and their cable counterparts have shown no interest in it whatsoever. Then again, why should anyone be surprised since the networks' damning admission to self-censorship of critical pieces on the Administration in the weeks leading up to our elections.

Even after the release and the commentary on this memo by the British press, the American press has had little to say and has posed no real questions to the Administration regarding the contents of the memo.

To that one can only say that, "the terrorists may have already won". Or more precisely, "Those who are taking advatage of the terrorists' actions have already won." The result is that the once vaunted American "spirit" has been replaced with an automaton-like reflex response to adolescent stimuli so eagerly and ably provided by this Administration.

While it's unfortunate that the media in the U.S. does not seem overly concerned about its role as a public watchdog over the government, it is fortunate for Americans that we have access to other countries' mainstream media (who still do an admirable job of reporting) and fine online writers and researchers who also show a great deal of skill and care in their product as well as an allegiance to truth.

In recognition of them, the following is the memo from The Sunday Times, a link to the Global Policy Forum for further elaboration and a copy of the memo, a link to The Hutton Inquiry which contains related documents in a well-laid out form and provides the option of both PDF and HTML conversion for easy downloading and/or reading, and a link to the JNV website which contains many features worth reviewing but for the purposes of this Post, contains the British Attorney General's Memorandum to Tony Blair on the legality of the war in both its Summary form and the Full 9 page legal opinion.

While reviewing the British Attorney General's Memorandum/Opinion please note:

27. "In these circumstances, I remain of the opinion that the safest legal course would be to secure the adoption of a further resolution to authorise the use of force."; and further, in the conclusion

"...regime change cannot be the objective of military action. This should be borne in mind in considering the list of military targets and in making public statements about any campaign."

The following is the memo by Matthew Rycroft as reported by the Sunday Times. It should be seared into every thinking American's soul. Above all, it should be remembered that all that is being done by the Administration is being done in each of our names.
_________

SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL - UK EYES ONLY

DAVID MANNING
From: Matthew Rycroft
Date: 23 July 2002
S 195 /02

cc: Defence Secretary, Foreign Secretary, Attorney-General, Sir Richard Wilson, John Scarlett, Francis Richards, CDS, C, Jonathan Powell, Sally Morgan, Alastair Campbell

IRAQ: PRIME MINISTER'S MEETING, 23 JULY

Copy addressees and you met the Prime Minister on 23 July to discuss Iraq.

This record is extremely sensitive. No further copies should be made. It should be shown only to those with a genuine need to know its contents.

John Scarlett summarised the intelligence and latest JIC assessment. Saddam's regime was tough and based on extreme fear. The only way to overthrow it was likely to be by massive military action. Saddam was worried and expected an attack, probably by air and land, but he was not convinced that it would be immediate or overwhelming. His regime expected their neighbours to line up with the US. Saddam knew that regular army morale was poor. Real support for Saddam among the public was probably narrowly based.

C reported on his recent talks in Washington. There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy. The NSC had no patience with the UN route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

CDS said that military planners would brief CENTCOM on 1-2 August, Rumsfeld on 3 August and Bush on 4 August.

The two broad US options were:

(a) Generated Start. A slow build-up of 250,000 US troops, a short (72 hour) air campaign, then a move up to Baghdad from the south. Lead time of 90 days (30 days preparation plus 60 days deployment to Kuwait).

(b) Running Start. Use forces already in theatre (3 x 6,000), continuous air campaign, initiated by an Iraqi casus belli. Total lead time of 60 days with the air campaign beginning even earlier. A hazardous option.

The US saw the UK (and Kuwait) as essential, with basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus critical for either option. Turkey and other Gulf states were also important, but less vital. The three main options for UK involvement were:

(i) Basing in Diego Garcia and Cyprus, plus three SF squadrons.

(ii) As above, with maritime and air assets in addition.

(iii) As above, plus a land contribution of up to 40,000, perhaps with a discrete role in Northern Iraq entering from Turkey, tying down two Iraqi divisions.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

The Foreign Secretary said he would discuss this with Colin Powell this week. It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran. We should work up a plan for an ultimatum to Saddam to allow back in the UN weapons inspectors. This would also help with the legal justification for the use of force.

The Attorney-General said that the desire for regime change was not a legal base for military action. There were three possible legal bases: self-defence, humanitarian intervention, or UNSC authorisation. The first and second could not be the base in this case. Relying on UNSCR 1205 of three years ago would be difficult. The situation might of course change.

The Prime Minister said that it would make a big difference politically and legally if Saddam refused to allow in the UN inspectors. Regime change and WMD were linked in the sense that it was the regime that was producing the WMD. There were different strategies for dealing with Libya and Iran. If the political context were right, people would support regime change. The two key issues were whether the military plan worked and whether we had the political strategy to give the military plan the space to work.

On the first, CDS said that we did not know yet if the US battleplan was workable. The military were continuing to ask lots of questions.

For instance, what were the consequences, if Saddam used WMD on day one, or if Baghdad did not collapse and urban warfighting began? You said that Saddam could also use his WMD on Kuwait. Or on Israel, added the Defence Secretary.

The Foreign Secretary thought the US would not go ahead with a military plan unless convinced that it was a winning strategy. On this, US and UK interests converged. But on the political strategy, there could be US/UK differences. Despite US resistance, we should explore discreetly the ultimatum. Saddam would continue to play hard-ball with the UN.

John Scarlett assessed that Saddam would allow the inspectors back in only when he thought the threat of military action was real.

The Defence Secretary said that if the Prime Minister wanted UK military involvement, he would need to decide this early. He cautioned that many in the US did not think it worth going down the ultimatum route. It would be important for the Prime Minister to set out the political context to Bush.

Conclusions:

(a) We should work on the assumption that the UK would take part in any military action. But we needed a fuller picture of US planning before we could take any firm decisions. CDS should tell the US military that we were considering a range of options.

(b) The Prime Minister would revert on the question of whether funds could be spent in preparation for this operation.

(c) CDS would send the Prime Minister full details of the proposed military campaign and possible UK contributions by the end of the week.

(d) The Foreign Secretary would send the Prime Minister the background on the UN inspectors, and discreetly work up the ultimatum to Saddam.

He would also send the Prime Minister advice on the positions of countries in the region especially Turkey, and of the key EU member states.

(e) John Scarlett would send the Prime Minister a full intelligence update.

(f) We must not ignore the legal issues: the Attorney-General would consider legal advice with FCO/MOD legal advisers.

(I have written separately to commission this follow-up work.)

MATTHEW RYCROFT

(Rycroft was a Downing Street foreign policy aide)

Copyright 2005 Times Newspapers Ltd.

[FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. AmeriPundit distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. It is our understanding and belief that this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. Any person and/or entity wishing to use the copyrighted material from this site for purposes of their/its own that go beyond fair use, MUST obtain permission from the copyright owner. AmeriPundit has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is AmeriPundit endorsed or sponsored by the originator.]

Click Here for Full Post

"Supporting The Troops"- GOP Version

2005-10-01T19:02:00.000-07:00

GOP Rejects Added VA Hospital Funds...and the "compassion" goes on...

The L. A. Times reports that Republicans "defeated a Democratic effort to provide almost $2 billion in additional healthcare funding for veterans, rejecting claims that Veterans Affairs hospitals were in crisis".

The funds were to come from the $80.6 billion emergency spending bill for Iraq and Afghanistan. Republicans claimed that the Bush Administration said that additional funding for the VA (taken from already appropriated money) wasn't necessary.

The math is simple: COMPASSION = $80.6 billion extra (in addition to normal DOD funding) to send troops abroad - $0 extra for when they come home and need medical treatment.

Perhaps all of the "I support our troops" bumper stickers, particularly the ones displayed proudly next to "Bush Country" and/or "Bush/Cheney 2004" bumper stickers, should be modified. Maybe they should read, "I support our troops on the way to, or in, combat. Those coming back injured, as well as those injured in previous wars I supported from afar, are on their own."

Granted, those bumper stickers would be too long to fit on a cramped hybrid or fuel-efficient economy car, but they'd fit perfectly on an SUV purchased with a down payment from a tax cut and whose monthly payments are deductible due to IRS credits (subsidies).

No News is Good News... For a While

2005-10-01T18:34:00.000-07:00

As far as news goes, the following story should barely register at this point. After all, it is approximately 6 days old. But, due to the complete breakdown of our media, T.V. and print, it may very well be news to quite a few people. So, as the Administration goes on yet another P.R. campaign to convince Americans why we have to stay in Iraq (e.g. 99% of the people want us there; we're helping the new Iraqi government because it needs our help, etc.) one might wish to continue reading.

The failure of large media outlets in reporting on the story is particularly offensive because it diminishes those that are calling for a full debate on our presence there and it mocks parents who may be wavering on allowing and/or encouraging their precious children to fight, and get maimed or killed in, a pointless exercise.

On the 22nd, Congressman Jim McDermott(D), Washington, took to the floor and stated, among other things:

"...82 Iraqi Parliamentarians have sent a letter to their Speaker of the House demanding that the U.S. withdraw its troops from Iraq. Those are not wild-eyed people in the United States who are calling for the withdrawal of American troops. This is 82 members of the Iraq Parliament who were elected. I mean, we say they have a democracy over there. Some of these leaders come from the United Iraqi Alliance, which is a collection or a coalition of religious Shiite parties that has a majority of the 275 seats..."

Again, the letter, and the comments, were ignored by the Press in the U.S. Unfortunately, the rest of the world does not live in the "Altered State(s)" that we currently find ourselves in. The rest of the world, most particularly the Arab world, received the story of the letter as it was widely covered there. For the sake of our soldiers (whom those gorging themselves on defense contracts claim to care for), the reader should take a moment and see how the letter was treated in the Arab Press.

One could start off with a relatively straightforward report by Islam Online and go from there to a slightly different version (with a strong underlying message) in the Journal of Turkish Weekly which added that 6 in 10 Americans want at least a partial pullout and then, in a stand-alone sentence proclaimed (accurately, but again not common knowledge among Americans) "US and British dailies reported last month that the US army in Iraq was planning to set up four permanent bases in Iraq."

One has to wonder if the last tidbit about the permanent bases will quell the ranks of foreign insurgents heading for Iraq. Better yet, one has to wonder if any of this is even mentioned in the upcoming pep-rally on spreading Democracy designed to "update the American public on our achievements in Iraq".

Bush Unfiltered

2005-10-01T18:15:00.000-07:00

George Bush's abuse of the language has prompted quite a few laughs.

However, there is a line of Bush quotes (and thoughts) rarely discussed. Unfortunately, these are the ones that may best indicate where we, as a society, are headed under his stewardship.

As the conflict in Iraq continues, as our forces are being exhausted, as our deficit is exploding, as he continues to press for tax cuts, and as he tackles "the Social Security crisis", the public would be wise to consider the following:

1) "people are poor because they are lazy."

2) "the Federal Trade Commission, and the Securities Exchange Commission were unnecessary hindrances to "free market competition."

3) Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism."

4) Opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection, Public Schools, and Labor Unions

Harvard Business School- to instructor(s).

5) “You know I could run for governor but I’m basically a media creation. I’ve never done anything. I’ve worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that’s not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office.”

To long time friend from Yale and business partner Roland Betts; then goes on to run as oil tycoon and Vietnam War fighter pilot.

6) “I hope I’m not here to have to deal with it.”

On the 2000 election campaign trail responding to reports from Texas about uncertainties in the state budget and deficiencies in state services that took a backseat to Bush’s $1.7 billion tax cut.

7) "I don't understand how poor people think..."

Post 2000 election to the Reverend Jim Wallis, leader of Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty.

8) "You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on."

Gridiron Club dinner

Obviously, his contempt for any safety net or public and/or private (unions) entities that benefit those in the middle or lower strata of the economy survived from his "youth" at Harvard. Certainly his disdain for the poor survived his “pre” and “post” religious conversion.

Interestingly, his recognition of himself as "never having done anything" and being a "media creation" served him well in both his gubernatorial and presidential races. He simply ignored those facts, inflated his resume, and pocketed his "get out of Dodge" passes before the damage was fully realized in each case.

Indecency and Obscenity: In the eyes of the beholder

2005-10-01T18:13:00.000-07:00

The "Hunt for WMD's" was a bust and the "Hunt for Osama" seems to have stalled. It's only natural then that legislators would declare war on "Indecency and Obscenity" on television programming. The latter should prove much more productive as there is no agreed upon definition of the target making it relatively easy or difficult depending on the agenda)to claim victory.

The leaders of the effort to eliminate "Indecency and Obscenity" are Sen. Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) and Rep. James Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.). Stevens has suggested extending indecency regulations to cable and Sensenbrenner has proposed jailing "purveyors of obscene or indecent material". He is quoted as saying, “People who are in flagrant disregard should face a criminal process rather than a regulatory process...”

Although Stevens was shown that the cable industry is working to prevent access to certain programs which may be deemed age sensitive, he remained unconvinced. He pointed out that the blocking technology does not work for customers who are on analog systems and do not have set-top boxes. When informed that cable companies offer free blocking technology for those individuals, he dismissed the effort by pointing out that to get the blocking service, customers are required to make a phone call and a wait for the cable installer (thereby assuring himself of making inroads into the 'extremely lazy and instant gratification' constituency).

Stevens and Sensenbrenner have temporarily left their head scout, Federal Communications Commission Chairman Kevin Martin, in charge of the day-to-day hunt, corralling, and killing off of "Obscenity and Indecency" in television due to calender conflicts.

Senator Stevens, who struggled financially for years, but has run into some good fortune recently, is tending to his newfound expertise in the "business of government".

He became rich by investing with real estate developer John Rubini, who turned Stevens' $50,000 investment in 1997 into an asset worth at least $750,000. Interestingly, other investors in JL Properties, the Anchorage real estate venture Stevens invested in, were required to contribute more capital if needed and to personally guarantee the partnership's debts. Stevens, though, refused to, and didn't have to, take on that risk. He simply requested to be left off of any financial obligation for the investment because he was still suffering from a "bad experience in a crab boat venture" from the 80's in which he lost money.

It should be noted that Stevens did, in fact, personally contribute in other ways. He is reported as helping Rubini secure a $450 million Defense Department contract to build and own housing on Elmendorf Air Force Base.

Stevens' even got his family into his new "business" ventures. His wife made at least $47,000 by buying bargain shares of Alaska Communications Systems stock and then selling them a year later. Stevens, as a senior member of the Commerce Committee, has influenced communications policy that has benefited ACS.

Ted Stevens' , received more than $750,000 over the past three years from part-time consulting work. The interests that paid Ben Stevens included Cook Inlet Region Inc., the oil field services firm Veco, and Bering Sea fish processors -- all of whom have benefited from provisions the senior Stevens has added to federal legislation.

Stevens also added $9.6 million to a federal bill to pay off a Hyundai subsidiary's loans for constructing a coal-loading facility in Seward. Bill Bittner, Stevens' brother-in-law, represented Hyundai Merchant Marine, a South Korean shipping company.

Stevens is expected back on the trail of "Indecency and Obscenity" immediately after checking in on the holdings he accumulated while in pulbic service as listed above.

Sensenbrenner, on the other hand, is busy appealing to a certain voting bloc by availing himself of the Terri Schiavo matter and using her memory in self-promoting speeches wherein he proclaims, "In our deeds and public actions, we must build a culture of life that welcomes and defends all human life. The compassionate traditions and highest values of our country command us to action".

Between celebrating the culture of life, welcoming and defending all human life, and extolling compassionate traditions, Sensenbrenner also embarked on a crusade against illegal immigrants to keep them out of the country and/or at least deny them driver's licenses and managed to cast a vote decreasing the waiting period for the purchase of a gun by lowering the time for a background check from 72 hours to 24 hours.

Analysts are unclear how Sensenbrenner's efforts, when combined, will affect illegal immigrants but the best guess thus far is that they will not be able to get driver's licenses or watch "indecent or obscene" television shows if they make it across the border, but they will be able to purchase weapons.

Sensenbrenner is expected to fully concentrate on the hunt for "Indecency and Obscenity" immediately after he comes up with an explanation as to why he does not consider illegal immigrants as a part of his definition of " all human life". Also, he's working on an explanation of how the "culture of life" is promoted by a 24 hour waiting period for a background check rather than a 72 hour wait.

Indecency and Obscenity should be worried. Gluttony, Greed, and Hypocrisy are saddling up.

April 15th, Taxes, and Education (well, kind of...)

2005-10-01T17:59:00.000-07:00

Anybody griping over their taxes, this year in particular, should pause and reflect on how much good is being done with the tax money the Federal government collects.

One need look no further than education. Under the current Administration, billions upon billions have gone into educational projects...in Iraq...and not for schools or books.

Last week the State Department issued a report that pointed out the $18.4 billion Iraq reconstruction effort was in disarray. It, along with other reports, calls for a major redesign of funding for the program. That would be the third funding change in the program from its inception.

Problems cited, among others, were the hiring of foreign companies rather than Iraqi companies resulting in high unemployment which, in turn, continued to fuel the insurgency; performance and overcharging problems from Halliburton and its subsidiary KBR (formerly-Kellogg, Brown, and Root) that led to an issuance of a possible termination of contract letter and a freezing of some funds while matters were sorted out; irregularities like having to pay contractors even when they don't work for security reasons; contractor delays; and the overall lack of a coherent plan to implement a reconstruction effort.

But anyone who thinks that this is gross mismanagement on the part of the U.S. and/or American contractors or, worse, a cloak of gross mismanagement to hide a looting of the treasury by well-connected corporations looking for returns on their campaign contributions, should listen closely to Mark Oviatt. He oversees water projects for USAID and his assessment is that the "reconstruction process" hasn't "been a waste of money so much as an expensive lesson learned for all parties involved."

As should be clear then, part of the taxes everybody has to pay goes towards lessons. "Lessons" are part of the educational process. Using the approved "Logic Guide" published by the Heritage and AEI tanked-thinkers, it then goes without saying that taxpayer funds are improving the country's knowledge base and will prove invaluable in future unprovoked wars. All of this is clearly spelled out in the Administration's, "Leave No Wartime Contractor Behind" program.

Sleep well. You're contributing to the enlightenment of asset rich but, self-admittedly, knowledge poor leaders in business and government.

Bush/Lay and "Tort Reform"

2005-10-01T17:42:00.000-07:00

It's curious how the same names keep surfacing with every step the current Administration takes.

One of the latest examples is the "Tort Reform" that George Bush crisis(ed) through Congress and immediately signed into law upon passage. One needn't look far for the template of how this was done. The same sense of urgency, the same language, and the same arguments were used for Texas' version of "Tort Reform" that then-Governor Bush crisis(ed) through the Texas legislature.

That effort was spearheaded by none other than Ken Lay (see letters): A B C D E F G

During this period Enron had approximately 18 personal injury lawsuits filed against it ranging from age and sex discrimination to hearing losses suffered as a result of the explosion of an Enron methanol plant. Furthermore, Enron was camping out in courthouses as plaintiff in dozens of contract claims.

Also, while he was seeking to curtail other people's rights to sue, Lay sued a motorist who rear-ended his daughter's vehicle. The demand was for $6,025 for car damages and $4,000 for "pain and suffering" and "mental anguish". When questioned, it was discovered that the Lay's vehicle had been repaired by his own insurance company for half the amount demanded and that his daughter had not sought medical treatment for a week after the accident.

Apparently, with this crowd, having access to the courthouse for damages suffered is only good for the fatted geese and their armies of attorneys, not the lowly ganders without attorneys on staff.

Exactly who is it that needs reforming?

2005-10-01T17:03:00.000-07:00

Even without the new Bankruptcy laws credit card companies acted with relative impunity. Take a look at the following, compare it to the fine (miniscule) print on your credit card agreements, and pause for a moment to reflect on what they'll do now that the shield of Bankruptcy protection has been stripped from debtors.

Does your card contain any of the following:

A universal default penalty: Credit card issuers regularly check their customers' credit reports for late payments on any of their bills. That's ANY. Any late payment can trigger an interest rate hike, even if you have never made a late payment to the card issuer.

The "grace period": Historically, these were 30 days. Now, they go from an average of 23 days, some at 20 days, and some with no grace period at all.

Two-cycle billing: Normally, card issuers use the one-month method to calculate interest charges, but some use a method that calculates interest on two previous months' balances.

Inactivity charges: Not using your card can cost money. Sometimes as much as $15. The inactivity length varies.

Late payment fees: A recent study by Vertis, a marketing company that does credit card research, found that 2% of all credit card holders occasionally miss their payment date. The national average for the infraction is $29. According to Consumer Action, MBNA, Bank of America and Providian customers pay $39. Consumer Action also found that just one or two late payments will trigger a higher interest rate.

Over-limit fees: Exceeding a credit limit by even one cent will result in over-limit fees of $25 to $39. At that point the $39 late fee, itself, can trigger a $39 over-limit fee.

These are but a few of the practices used by credit card companies. An easy-to-read, more complete list (includes the above and more) can be found on the MSNBC MoneyCentral website.

It's also worth, to the tune of thousands of dollars, to understand that credit card companies can have a huge impact on being able to afford to purchase a home, or by tacking thousands of dollars on your home payment. The results of a study by the Federal Reserve Board show that some credit card companies fail to report your credit limit to the credit bureaus that maintain your credit history and credit score. This omission can lead to your being declined a mortgage or, alternatively, paying a higher rate on the mortgage you do receive.

Luckily, the Administration and Congress saw the problem and acted immediately-- against debtors.

Cell Phone Tele-marketing? Could Happen...

2005-10-01T16:34:00.000-07:00

All cell-phone users should be interested in the following legislation. Those that don't use cell- phones but are concerned about the continuing erosion of privacy in the lives of American citizens should look beyond the fact that the underlying issue does not affect them directly and support the legislation.

Washington, D.C. – U.S. Senators Arlen Specter (R-PA) and Barbara Boxer (D-CA) today reintroduced legislation to protect wireless telephone customers from having their cellular phone numbers listed in a national directory without their consent.

Approximately 150 million Americans subscribe to wireless telephone service. The wireless phone industry is planning to list customers in a wireless phone directory starting as early as this year.

Boxer said, "As a cellular phone user myself, I know that people value the privacy of their cell phone number and rely on their phones to keep in touch with their families, work, and in cases of emergency. It should be the consumer’s decision to list their number in a directory, and they shouldn’t be charged a fee to keep that number unlisted."

The Specter-Boxer Wireless Privacy Act would protect consumers by providing them with the right not to have their cell-phone number listed in the directory and the right not to be charged a fee for being unlisted.

Specter said, "The wireless industry is on the verge of introducing a ‘wireless white pages’ service, and though this step could have positive benefits, it raises concerns about how consumers’ expectation of privacy will be protected. This legislation strikes an important balance-enabling those consumers who want to be reached to be accessible, while providing privacy protections that are important to consumers."

To show support for the legislation please contact Senator Barbara Boxer (D-CA) and/or Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA). This is not a partisan issue as evidenced by the co-sponsors. It is a common- sense approach to a problem that everybody, regardless of Party, will have to tangle with if the legislation does not pass.

Taxes really are for "Little People"

2005-10-01T14:52:00.000-07:00

For those middle-class and poor Americans who are still buying the argument that taxes are entirely too high on the wealthy and any increase in their taxes threatens "our way of life", the following NY Times article from the July 3, 2005 titled, "In 2002, More Wealthy People Paid No Tax" by DAVID CAY JOHNSTON, may act as an eye-opener.

At the very least, it should make Leona Helmsely's statement that taxes are only for "little people" much more palatable since she seems to have been uttering the truth.

So, if you're poor or middle-class, go ahead and hitch a ride on the "Taxes Are Too High", "Estate (Death) Tax Repeal", "Reinvestment (into the Caymans)" and "The Rich Make the Economy Grow" train. There's no place for you to sit but you can stand and, you're invited because, after all, someone has to pay for the budget deficit fueling this ride. The smart money is on you. Read on and perhaps, just perhaps, bumper sticker politics will have met its match in the form of a little thought before voting against your interests.

Click here for full article (registration required):

The number of affluent individuals and married couples who paid no federal income taxes jumped more than 15 percent in 2002, to 5,650, government data released last week showed.

The chances of having a large income but not paying taxes on any of it are growing, according to the data, issued in the Internal Revenue Service's annual report to Congress on well-to-do Americans who live tax free.

About one in every 436 high-income Americans paid no taxes in 2002, up from one in 531 in 2001 and one in 1,010 in 2000.

Among that high-income group, however, almost 83,000, or one in 33, paid less than a dime in taxes for every dollar of income. An additional 79,000 paid less than 15 cents. The average for all Americans was 13 cents.

Congress taxes Americans on their worldwide income. Of the 5,650 individuals and couples who paid no income taxes to the United States, only 728 paid any to a foreign government, while 4,922 lived completely free of income tax.

The I.R.S. measured income in two ways.

One was by adjusted gross income, the last line on the front page of the Form 1040 tax return. By this measure, 2,959 affluent individuals and married couples paid no federal income tax, down from 3,385 in 2001, but up from 2,328 in 2000. There were 60 such examples in 1977, when a dollar was worth three times as much as in 2002.

On a worldwide basis, 2,551 such individuals and couples paid no tax in 2002, down from 2,875 in 2001, but up from 2,022 in 2000. There were 37 such examples in 1977, the first year the agency disclosed such data.

The second measure, giving a fuller picture, was expanded income, which also includes money from sources like tax-exempt interest and untaxed Social Security benefits. By this measure, 5,650 well-to-do individuals and married couples paid no federal income tax in 2002, up from 4,910 in 2001 and 2,766 in 2000. There were 85 such examples in 1977.

Worldwide on this basis, there were 4,922 individuals and couples who lived tax free in 2002, up from 4,119 in 2001 and 2,320 in 2000. There were 64 such examples in 1977.

________________

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. AmeriPundit believes this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

A dinner in honor of Obscenity

2005-10-01T14:50:00.000-07:00

If the obscenity police can take a break from "milking" Janet Jackson's breast as the pretense for the muzzling of dissenting opinions, curtailment of individual rights, and the imposition of one party, one media, one opinion, and one estate-tax abolishing, social-safety net hating, gun loving "Christian" God on the rest of the country, they may want to look into the following:

The New York Times reported that on May 17th, the Republican Party raised more than $15 million from about 1,500 people who dished out at least $1,500 each (in a non-election year) to hear George Bush at the "G.O.P. Freedom Tour Presidential Gala." Some attendees are reported to have given considerably more than the minimum entrance requirement.

The attendees, including Republican lawmakers and party leaders, dined (if that's the apt description) on margarita shrimp, crab claws, roast beef, and desserts slathered in chocolate from tiered fountains. No doubt they were discussing "traditional family values" while reaching for the crab claws and reminiscing about their "heartland" hometown public square fountains as they gazed at the tiered fountains oozing chocolate on desserts.

During his speech before the group, George Bush "vowed to fight for... changes to Social Security, revisions in the tax code and an energy plan."

Sounds like a good time was had by all. Well, maybe not "all".

In directly related news, The Iraq Coalition Casualty Count reported that as of the 17th, 1624 American soldiers died in Iraq.

Other sites show that the official count of those wounded in Iraq as of the 17th was 12,350 but that unofficial estimates placed the number at 15,000- 38,000.

Iraqi civilian deaths, as of the 17th, the Iraq Body Count are reported (sourcing methods detailed) as 21,705- 24,628 as a direct result of U.S. military activity.

What all these reports have in common is one thing- taxpayer money.

Those at the dinner have either directly profited from the war or indirectly profited from generous tax breaks and government contracts (unrelated to the war effort) given while the country's attention was diverted from Washington excess to the war. Notwithstanding that, the money spent by attendees for the decadent dinner will, no doubt, be taken as an expense (A.K.A. cost of doing business) and subtracted from their tax burden shifting more of the burden to those who weren't invited (middle-class, poor, and soldiers).

In other words, every dollar spent on the dinner can, more likely than not, be traced back to the public Treasury.

The ones attending that were on the non-businessman roster have benefitted their careers tremendously by shamelessly pounding on patriotism drums while on the government payroll and received campaign contributions from the others who have benefitted from the politicians actions (again- to be written off bottom lines on tax forms by donors).

Those that have died or are wounded were shipped to their deaths or maimings using taxpayer money and are, or will be, buried or treated at taxpayer expense. Aside from bearing their share of the monetary costs, the non-monetary cost will be exclusively borne by their families and comrades-in-arms with only lip service paid to the families by those who attended the dinner.

A nice gesture would have been for the event holders to have reserved a chair and left it empty for, at least, those that died in the pursuit of "margarita shrimp, crab claws, roast beef and desserts slathered in chocolate from tiered fountains" for a select few.

Unfortunately that would have taken more than all of the 1,500 seats occupied by "captains of industry and politics". Moving it to another venue would solve the problem but then it would only be appropriate to keep an empty chair for each Iraqi civilian killed and to allow each of the military wounded to attend.

That would have taken 35,679 seats (on the low end of the reports) either kept empty (for the dead) or occupied by a wounded soldier before even 1 of the above-mantioned attendees at the dinner could be seated.

Some of the individuals who attended the gala might have objected to such an arrangement. However, if the public wanted that seating arrangement in place, the objections would be without standing. After all, any way that it's looked at, the taxpayer foots that entire bill and should have a right to say who attends.

Yes indeed, one would hope that the indecency and obscenity police (the "I know it when I see it" crowd) will speak out against this hedonistic "invitation-only" dinner unknowingly underwritten by taxpayers. However, that's highly unlikely. Rumor has it that their leadership was seen at the event chomping on margarita shrimp and covered in chocolate while frolicking in the tiered fountains.

Faulty Intelligence, Congress, and Steroids

2005-10-01T14:41:00.000-07:00

The recent presidential Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction found that the country went into Iraq on intelligence that was "dead wrong" and was still "often unable to gather intelligence on the very things we care about".

The relatively neutered investigation did not delve into how the policy makers (Bush Administration) affected the gathering of intelligence. Despite the findings and the limited inquiry, there is no evidence that Congress will act to look into the matter.

Missouri's senior Senator Kit Bond (R), a member of the Select Committee on Intelligence, has already filled in the gap left by the commission on Administration responsibility. He placed much of the blame for the failures on the Clinton Administration. This despite, the Commission's finding that, "Across the board, the intelligence community knows disturbingly little about the nuclear programs of many of the world's most dangerous actors... In some cases, it knows less now than it did five or 10 years ago."

If Senator Bond's poor reading of the report (it says the intelligence community now-under the current Administration- "knows disturbingly little" and states again that in some cases "knows less now") doesn't prove that no Congressional action will be taken then surely the actions of the Republican-led House of Representatives will.

On Thursday, rather than dealing with intelligence shortfalls, the House expanded its inquiry into performance enhancing drugs from just baseball to football, hockey, track and field, soccer and college athletics thereby assuring months of hearings. The House committee looking into the matter cited a concern that young people may be influenced to use the drugs in an effort to emulate sports heroes.

Unmentioned by the committee was the fact that its hearings on steroid use in baseball drew gavel to gavel television coverage piggy-backing on the popularity of stars like Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Curt Schilling, among others. For politicians "shilling" for face- space on television this is a gift wrapped up in an American flag and sent from God via Values Express.

Unfortunately for the athletes, Mark McGwire's "I'm not here to discuss the past" entreaty is solely the property of politicians with skeletons in the closet and any reproduction, retransmission, or rebroadcast of that statement without the expressed written consent of politicians is strictly prohibited.

Bush, Pakistan, and the "War on Common Sense"

2005-10-01T14:33:00.000-07:00

The Administration is, once again, doing its best to win the "What the...?" award.

Although extensively covered in print press, the March 26th L.A. Times coverage of current U.S./Pakistan relations deserves notable mention. If for no other reason than because its placement of the stories (in close proximity to one another) brought humor, intended or not, into a move by the Administration that could prove unhealthy for every multiple cell organism on earth.

Dig out the duct tape and stock up on disaster doughnuts while considering the following headlines and snippets of the stories that all broke on the same day:

Illegal Nuclear Deals Alleged- Investigators say Pakistan has secretly bought high-tech components for its weapons program from U.S. companies.

...Pakistan made clandestine purchases of U.S. high-technology components for its use in its nuclear weapons program in defiance of American law.
...authorities say that the highly specialized equipment passed through the hands of Humayun Khan, an Islamabad businessman who they say has ties to Islamic militants.
...Khan said, "You don't know where these things are landing. They come through and they vanish."
...when the Commerce and Homeland Security departments asked the State Department to clear the investigators' trip, they did not get permission.
...The impasse is part of a larger tug-of-war between federal agencies that enforce U.S. non-proliferation laws and policymakers who consider Pakistan too important to embarrass.

Islamists Rally Against Pakistani President

...More than 10,000 protestors rallied here to demand that president Pervez Musharraf step down. The supporters of a coalition of radical Islamic groups chanted, "God is great" and 'Pakistan will not be allowed to become a U.S. colony."
..."Gen. Musharaff is not accepted by us neither as president nor as the army chief."

Citing Alliance, U.S. OKs F-16s to Pakistan

...the sale of 24 of the fighters in a package of aircraft and maintenance services worth $1.5 billion.
...The U.S. government has offered a package of $3 billion in foreign aid over the next five years to the government of Musharaff, who seized power in a coup.
...A State Department spokesman said the green light reflected U.S. gratitude for Pakistan's "invaluable support".

President CNNMSNBCFOX

2005-10-01T13:55:00.001-07:00

Media coverage of the ongoing Bush/Sheehan matter is worth following, not for its substance - that is sorely lacking - but rather, for the audacity the media is showing by giving its favorite child a public spanking.

"Media" refers to the conglomerates that currently pose as the fourth estate and, in effect, lull the public into thinking it still has someone or something looking out for it by checking government excess and/or abuse of power.

In the current Bush vacation/war/Cindy script, the media is attacking its own valuable creation. After all, Bush is pro-business, anti- regulation, and has done wonders for media conglomerates with his version of the FCC. As for being a media creation, even Bush has recognized his true Creator for some time now. This is evidenced by his quote while mulling his first run for Governor of Texas:

"You know I could run for governor but I'm basically a media creation. I've never done anything. I've worked for my dad. I worked in the oil business. But that's not the kind of profile you have to have to get elected to public office."

He was re-cast as a successful businessman and a brave fighter pilot and the rest is history.

Currently, the media is defending the attack on its own valuable asset by grumbling that August is a "slow news" period (a recurring excuse) and the reporter's outside of the ranch in Crawford have nothing else to do. On its face, that statement is untrue as anyone who ventures outside of what the American media defines as news can attest to.

The actual answer is simple. The media has proven that it can easily destroy its opponents. The attack on Bush is just a method of keeping its minions in line. Knowing that George Bush is wont to believe the unbelievable, it is reminding him of his quote as he was weighing running for Governor of Texas lest he let his self-described "earned capital" go to his head. It is also a reminder that the "earned capital" is rightfully "media loaned currency" made available to him by his true Creator.

In order to avoid real damage to its favorite politician as it flexes its muscles, the media has also set both guns blazing against Cindy Sheehan. That way, should any signs of serious damage to Bush emerge, the healing process can begin by the media pointing to the "source" who, as its pundits are fond of saying, is a "crackpot", a "traitor", and is "betraying her son's sacrifice". Competing moms, scripted appearances, and references to 9-11 can be trotted out and the whole issue of Iraq will, once again, magically disappear.

The 2004 election coverage left no such outs for Howard Dean and John Kerry. Dean was left with- "I'm not crazy... really, I'm not." Kerry was left with accusations that he was too slow to respond to the question of, "When did you stop beating your Swift Boat?"

Most people are under the impression that Howard Dean's campaign was sunk by the "Dean Scream" in Iowa. That, by itself, ignores the forces behind the altering of a non-event into a monumental meltdown.

According to the National Journal's Hotline, cable and network news aired "the scream" 633 times in the 4 days after it was made. This count did not include local news affiliates or talk shows.

ABC's Diane Sawyer reported on the ramifications as well as the reactions from some who were behind the scenes at cable and the networks.

She stated that it sounded very different in the actual room. The difference was because Dean was holding a handheld microphone that filtered out background noise and isolated his voice. She collected other tapes from that night that had crowd noise on them. She concluded that the "so-called scream couldn't really be heard at all." She also collected some sound bites from top executives at CBS News, ABC News, Fox News and CNN, all of whom acknowledged that the media overplayed the scream.

To understand why Dean took this beating (in January, 2004), one should refer to an interview Dean did with Chris Mathews on Hardball in the previous month.

The following are 3 Dean quotes from the interview:

"What I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of the political spectrum, not just one…

Yes, we're going to break up giant media enterprises…

You have got to say that there has to be a limit as to how-- if the state has an interest, which it does, in preserving democracy, then there has to be a limitation on how deeply the media companies can penetrate every single community. To the extent of even having two or three or four outlets in a single community, that kind of information control is not compatible with democracy."

Lastly, if the 633 replays of a doctored tape proved insufficient to derail the Dean threat to their continued consolidation, the Center for Media and Public Affairs reported that only 39 percent of Dean's coverage on the network evening news was positive during the week after Iowa. By contrast, rival John Edwards' coverage was 86 percent positive during the same period, and John Kerry's was 71 percent positive.

That is not to say that Dean would have won. It does show that he stood little chance of winning after his comments on Hardball.

As the Democratic field winnowed and John Kerry was selected to run against George Bush, cable catapulted the Swift Boat Veterans onto the world stage.

It should be kept in mind that immediately after the Democratic convention Kerry had a comfortable 3-5 point lead. So comfortable, in fact, that he signaled that he might take another look at media regulation and the effects of consolidation.

At the beginning of August, the infamous "slow news" period, "liberal" TIME (August 3-5) and "conservative" FOX News (August 3-4) conducted polls asking which issues were most important in the 2004 presidential election.

The public chose the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care or Medicare, moral value issues, education, and taxes.

Cable news offered viewers, "Kerry and Vietnam- Liar, Traitor, or Both?" Network news, in an apparent effort to hang on to some sense of decorum and perspective, stepped aside preferring to let cable news carry the smear burden.

A sampling of programs from August 5th - 26th revealed that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX provided more than 283,593 words and over 34 showings of an otherwise sparsely seen attack ad(s) on the smear for free within the body of "news" stories.

Again, these numbers are but a sampling and are not the complete count (in other words the total numbers would be even higher). Furthermore, the FOX word count was limited to 1/3 of the total so that no claim could be made that FOX coverage skewed the results. The results showed very little difference in intensity and type of coverage regardless of outlet.

Publishing industry standards place 283,593 words beyond a regular novel and into the realm of a 1,134 page "epic" novel or a trilogy.

Anticipating criticism, cable used the "provocatively dressed" defense. Cable pundits stated that by referencing his service in Vietnam, Kerry "opened the door" and "asked for it". "It" being a torrent of - "Kerry has not been honest. He's- lying, lied, no war hero, betrayed, dishonored, lacks the capacity to lead, can't be trusted".

9 repetitions of all 18 prime time Republican Convention speeches skewering Kerry on character, trustworthiness, and strength would be required to approach cable's effort.

As for coverage, among many other absurdities, viewers were treated to:

A "purple star" discussion (as introduced by Heidi Collins- apparently a 'Barney' fan);

After 37,162 words and 17 showings of the first attack ad, Sean Hannity asking, "… why are 'they' trying to silence you? Why won't 'they' let this ad run…?";

A second attack ad (not even aired at the time) eagerly teased by Andrea Mitchell, "Let's take a look at it…the new ad… they have not bought time yet…. Take a look."; and

Campaign "advice" from Chris Mathews, "…the only way he (Kerry) is going to change this story is to say he's gay".

Some, apparently fed up with the coverage, openly disagreed with the "opened the door" rationale.

Jeff Greenfield admitted that fault rested with cable news, which he described as, "…an endless mob that has to be fed…". As for the non-starter story, he said, "…it was given a kind of fuel by this very media".

As Kerry's poll numbers dropped, cable began fingerprint removal by relentlessly repeating, "people don't know where he stands", and attributing credit to "Bush's convention bounce".

On September 14th, analyst and poll aficionado Bill Schneider finally pointed out the obvious, "…By late August, the number who said Kerry's military record made them more likely to vote for him had dropped by half. Kerry's advantage was neutralized by the controversy".

He added, "In early August…Kerry had the edge over Bush as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. In late August just before the Republican convention, the advantage had tilted to Bush".

Schneider's "cause and effect" observations were widely… unreported.

Party affiliation, "likeability", and a "man of the people" matter little if the candidate shows contempt for media conglomerates (Dean) or even ambivalence towards them (Kerry). They will be defeated. Even if one is aware of their Creator (Bush) and pays the proper homage, that individual will be taken to the woodshed on occasion just as a reminder of where the real power resides.

True Republicans and real Democrats alike should be aware that if they play the current media game they will allow our democratic process to be hijacked in a way only imagined by William Randolph Hearst.

Unaccountable...

2005-10-01T13:55:00.000-07:00

From "Bush At War" by Bob Woodward:

"I'm the commander in chief, see, I don't need to explain, I do not need to explain why I say things. That's the interesting part about being president. Maybe somebody needs to explain to me why they say something, but I don't feel like I owe anybody an explanation."

Due to P.R. problems with the appearance of not caring an attempt was made to say the right things the following day:

"And I think it's important for me to be thoughtful and sensitive to those who have got something to say."

Good start...

"But... I think it's also important for me to go on with my life, to keep a balanced life."

Ouch... there's more?

"I think the people want the president to be in a position to make good, crisp decisions and to stay healthy... and part of my being is to be outside exercising."

Hmmmm... what does the daily schedule book say?

Two-hour bike ride;
Lunch meeting with Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice;
A nap;
Fishing;
Evening Little League Baseball playoff game; and,
"Some" reading.

Retreat! Assume Defensive Position!!

'Nuff said, 'nuff seen.

Click on images for more.

Throwing Caution to a Very Ill Wind

2005-10-01T13:46:00.000-07:00

"Idon't think anybody could have predicted that these people would... try to use an airplane as a missile..." Condoleezza Rice, 2002 Press Briefing

"... that was always one of the considerations in the planning. And resources were actually designated to deal with that particular threat." Former FBI Louis Freeh Director (1993-2001), Testimony to 9/11 Commission 2004

"... I do not remember any reports to us, a kind of strategic warning, that planes might be used as weapons." Condoleezza Rice, Testimony to 9/11 Commission 2004

So it was well-known in the intelligence community that one of the potential areas or devices to be used by terrorists, which they had discussed, according to our intelligence information, was the use of airplanes, either packed with explosives or otherwise, in suicide missions? 9/11 Commissioner Ben-Veniste

"... that's correct." Director Freeh

Good comedy. Too bad it had to be set against the backdrop of a tragedy.

So what was learned from 9/11? Not much it seems. George Bush and Ms. Rice, whose aspirations were/are to become commissioners of baseball and the NFL, respectively, seem to have forgotten the old adage that a strong offense may be showy and a crowd pleaser but championships are won with a good, solid defense backing up the "show".

That's particularly puzzling since George Bush is fond of saying, "The most solemn duty of the American President is to protect the American people". He also likes to point out that he "wake(s) up every morning, thinking about how to better protect our country."

If Ms. Rice's 9/11 testimony that, "To inflict devastation on a massive scale, the terrorists only have to succeed once, and we know they are trying every day" is added to the mix then one may have hoped that the "thinking" process involved listening to threat scenarios from different sources, all of which agree that we are vulnerable, and then "protecting the American people" by doing something about it. Unfortunately, the Administration's track record proves that hope misguided.

Immediately after 9/11, a number of Congressional committees, the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), the GAO (Government Accountability Office), and private think- tanks initiated a series of reviews on the status of safety at chemical plants. That effort resulted in their issuing warnings about the dangers inherent in lacking a specific set of guidelines to deal with terrorist threats. The GAO saw so many gaps in the way the government dealt with the issue of safety and terrorism that it reported, "To date, no one has comprehensively assessed the security of chemical facilities against terrorist attack."

Attempting to identify potential targets, the EPA listed 123 (since revised to 110) chemical plants that, if subject to terrorist attack, could release gasses that can kill or injure over 1,000,000 people. Another 700 plants were identified where the human toll would be more than 100,000. 3,000 facilities were found that threaten 10,000 people each, and the Army Surgeon General determined that as many as "2.4 million people could be killed or injured in an attack on a toxic chemical plant in a densely populated area."

A sufficiently alarmed Senate Committee, approximately 2 months after 9/11, passed a bill that required chemical plants to take pro-active steps to ensure that the public was protected in the event of terrorist attack(s).

So, how has the Administration responded to the warnings from security experts, the Senate committee's bill, and various, ominous reports by the EPA and the GAO over the course of time since 9/11?

The Administration, and its allies in Congress, opposed the Senate bill which, as a result, ended up falling by the wayside. It opposed other efforts at securing the plants through government regulation. It also administered a death-blow to regulation by removing the EPA from enforcement and "replacing" it with Homeland Security.

"Replacing" is in italics for a reason. The EPA was the only federal agency with expertise in, and some enforcement powers over, chemical plant safety. Homeland Security didn't, and still doesn't, have any of the enforcement powers of the EPA nor does it have any additional authority to require the chemical industry to adopt strict(er) security measures.

The result is that the Administration essentially took pro-active steps that actually weakened security. Since that seems to defy common sense, one might be inclined to question the rationale behind such moves.

A glimpse into the Administration's thinking can be gleaned from the following statement by then-Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's top aide, Mr. Al Martinez-Fonts, a former executive of JPMorgan Chase:

"I was in the private sector all my life... did I like it when the government came in and stepped in and told [us] to do certain things? The answer's no... I think we're trying to avoid that."

He didn't "like" government intrusion so "We're trying to avoid that"? One can only wonder why people such as this- those who abhor government stepping in and telling them "certain things"- didn't raise their voices against the Patriot Act, random searches, body searches at airports, and the scaling back of our Constitutional rights.

But the Administration has little interest in the Constitution or, for that matter, with safety. Its interests rest with business. The laissez-faire attitude expressed above was, and is, symptomatic of some of the ideologues in charge of our safety. However, ideology rarely ensures large campaign contributions which is why it's just a small part of the answer as to why the Administration hasn't taken the necessary steps to secure chemical facilities.

When the Administration made its EPA/Homeland Security decision, despite objections from experts in the field, it pointed to the fact that the chemical industry volunteered to monitor itself and to set up its own safety programs. It also ignored criticisms that it was acting at the behest of the chemical industry which had complained about the cost of federally mandated guidelines to determine compliance.

A closer look at the relationship between the chemical industry and the Administration and its allies shows just how much value is placed on industry dollars as opposed to safety. It might also point out that George Bush's statement regarding what he thinks about every morning should be changed to, "I wake up every morning, get a briefing from our top contributors, and begin thinking about how to better protect our country as long as whatever steps we take don't interfere with the profits of those contributors."

The chemical industry used its clout and contributions, dating back to 1998, wisely as it spread $22 million dollars to certain "players" in Congress and George Bush. That amount obviously spoke loudly. At least much more loudly than a typical American family, town or city ever could.

The American Chemistry Council (ACC), a lobbying organization that works on behalf of the chemical industry, spent $4.3 million in 2002 (House election year)and 2003 on in-house lobbyists, ensuring that its message opposing strong, mandatory chemical security regulations was clearly heard on Capitol Hill as well as within the Administration.

Then- EPA administrator Christie Whitman, who resigned from her position in 2003, noted in a book she wrote that chemical industry lobbyists and some Republican lawmakers blocked her and former Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge's efforts to obtain new and effective regulatory authority to secure chemical plants.

To understand why private self-regulation has no place in dealing with public safety, one must understand the implications of the industry's own Conference Board statement that, "The perceived need to upgrade corporate security has clashed with the perceived need to control expenses...".

The GAO looked into the voluntary security plans and concluded that, indeed, the industry was using a profit analysis when it came to safety evaluation and implementation.

Sal DePasquale, who helped draw up the ACC's voluntary security plan said, "Refusing to issue prescriptive standards essentially means the industry association is simply creating a smoke-and-mirrors exercise to make it appear that it is issuing bona fide standards. It is not."

A few of the results of industry self-regulation are a lack of requirements for background checks on guards, no efforts to minimize the dangerous chemicals stored on site, and no efforts to repair holes in fences at the facilities. To ensure that the industry is not held to account for its failures, each facility gets to choose the person who verifies that it has actually carried out a security plan.

It now appears that certain members of Congress have had enough. One example of a slight flexing of Congressional muscle was evidenced by a Senate hearing held on April 27, 2005 where testimony was given before the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.

Richard Falkenrath, who resigned from his position as Homeland Security adviser to George Bush in May 2004, speaking on chemical facility safety told the Committee, "I am aware of no other category of potential terrorist targets that presents as great a danger as TIH industrial chemicals." He went on to say, "... there [has] been no significant reduction in the inherent vulnerability of the most dangerous... chemical facilities and conveyances to terrorist attack since September 11, 2001."

He, now free from the Administration, is urging Congress to require, among many other security related actions, the Homeland Security Department to maintain an inventory of chemical plants, to develop safety standards, to verify that plants have met those requirements and to impose civil and criminal penalties on those that don't.

He was joined in his testimony by Carolyn Merritt, Chairwoman and CEO of the Chemical Safety and Hazard Investigation Board- a unit that probes deadly accidents. She stated that there are "... serious gaps in the preparations for major chemical releases by companies, emergency responders, government authorities and the public."

A number of Democrats, led by Jon Corzine, D-N.J. have been pushing for strong, government mandated security regulations. They have been joined by responsible members of the GOP who are unwilling to hide their heads in the sand as the vulnerability remains unattended.

Senate Homeland Security Committee Chairwoman Susan Collins, R-Maine, has spoken on this subject at many forums. In one instance she pointed out that many plants are in heavily-populated urban areas and:

"... have little more to secure them than a fence around the perimeter... Chemical facilities are attractive both as a source of chemicals that could be stolen to build bombs, and for the release of toxic fumes into the surrounding communities..."

She has also directly addressed a slight shift in the Administration's position opposing federal legislation. Senator Collins noted, "For the first time the Administration is stating clearly before Congress that current laws are not adequate to the task of improving security of chemical plants. Federal legislation is needed." However, she still seemed to maintain a bit of skepticism as to the Administration's recent "conversion" by highlighting the fact that the Administration did not provide details on what new authority is needed, and she warned that "...the devil truly will be in the details."

It should be noted that the slight shift in position by the Administration did not take place in a vacuum or because of a sudden interest in public safety. It is more a reflection of a shift in the position of the chemical industry.

For that, one can thank individual states. As it became clear that federal action was not forthcoming, some states began to plan for their own chemical plant security laws. That approach would create an expensive, uncoordinated web of regulations and, as a result, the chemical industry has become more open to listening to proposals for one uniform set of federal regulations.

Those who prefer comedy to serious discussion about the proper role of government in ensuring citizen safety should relax. The Administration has that base covered. Consider the response Mr. Al "laissez-faire" Martinez-Fonts gave when he was asked in March 2004 (three years after 9/11 and with all the chemical plant warnings documented) about why the government had not acted on regulating security at chemical plants:

"... It was not chemical plants that were blown up..." (on 9/11).

Condoleezza Rice better watch out. There are plenty of comedians ready to replace her in this Administration.

Being There

2005-10-01T13:43:00.000-07:00

George W. Bush attended the Pope's funeral. He spoke about the experience with reporters while returning from Rome to his home in Texas on Air Force One. He "had this to say about that":

"a clear legacy of peace, compassion, and a strong legacy of setting a clear moral tone." He amended the phrase a few minutes later, "A clear and excellent legacy, if you don't mind adding the word 'excellent'...I wanted to make sure there was a proper adjective to the legacy I thought he left behind. It was more than just 'clear'."

"This will be one of the highlights of my presidency, to have been at this great ceremony."

"I felt--I'm trying to think of the right word--'alone' isn't the right word because I was aware of people--but felt much more in touch with a spirit. I really did. I was very much, felt at peace there, and was prayerful."

"I knew the ceremony today would be majestic, but I didn't realize how moved I would be by the service itself, by the beautiful music."

"There is no doubt in my mind there is a living God...And no doubt in my mind that the Lord Christ was sent by the Almighty. No doubt in my mind about that." He added, " Got it? Everybody got it correct? " He ended the statement with, "All right."

When asked about the traveling with his father and Bill Clinton, he said, "It's fun. Oh, it's great." He added, "We share war stories, you know, a lot of talking, a lot of interesting experiences about different world leaders that we may all have met."

A legacy that mirrors the White House's own description of its current Oval Office's occupant punctuated by "Got it? Everybody got it correct? All right." "Highlights" with plenty of "I's" and "my's" topped with "fun" and "great".

'Nuff said about that.

Vacation, Uninterrupted

2005-10-01T13:42:00.000-07:00

Afive week vacation. A recent survey by the travel site Expedia.com shows that's a lot of vacation time. The survey shows that most Americans get about 12 vacation days a year but only use 9 of those days. As for "working" vacations, technology "forces" most people to work on their vacation rendering claims of George Bush actually working during that time meaningless as a distinction.

The survey also found that Bush's vacation time is much more in line with citizens of France. The French, who we're supposed to dislike for not supporting the Administration's "Adventure in Iraq" and who, we are often told, are crushing their economy through liberal social policies (like long paid vacations), get 39 days off each year.

His staff, after the "working vacation" canard, often states that the vacations allow him get in touch with the "average American". Unfortunately, no sightings of "average Americans" at the Camp David retreat, his family compound in Kennebunkport, Maine, or his 1,600-acre ranch in Crawford, Texas have been documented to back up that assertion (hired help and photo-ops excluded).

To be fair, he does occasionally leave the ranch grounds for visits with "average" neighbors while vacationing there. During this vacation he visited the Broken Spoke Ranch, owned by Stan and Kathy Hickey of Crawford. They hosted a fundraiser in his honor which, according to the Republican National Committee, raised about $2 million in political contributions. Just an average visit to an average family for an average fundraiser that raised an average amount of $2 million.

On the way to the fundraiser, Bush's motorcade left his Prairie Chapel (sounds "quaint" - just like the Geneva Convention[s]) Ranch and passed directly by Camp Casey. It's highly unlikely that the camp could, or would, raise anywhere near the $2 million raised at the Broken Spoke Ranch. Then again, raising money doesn't seem to be the purpose of the camp. Raising questions does.

One of the individuals at Camp Casey is Cindy Sheehan. She's a mom whose son- Casey, after whom the camp is named, was killed in Iraq. She's described as an activist and, according to certain Administration - backing pundits, a "crackpot" prone to making "crazy accusations" whose "behavior borders on treasonous", is part of a group that "hates this government, hates their country", and is shaming her son's "sacrifice" (AKA, death).

Generally, an expression of concern (whatever non-violent form it takes) for a child by a mother is not denigrated publicly. That's because our culture respects the bond between a mother and her children (t. v. commercials touting "instant" food and politicians mouthing "family values" tell us so) and such attacks can carry with them the risk of triggering a swift verbal or even physical response from the offspring in question. But not in this case. Since Casey is dead, he doesn't have the option of responding to those attacking his mother. That option, as well as his chance to enjoy an extended Bush/Frenchman's vacation or the truncated American version of a vacation, were taken away in Iraq.

Since the beginning of August and the vacation (14 days), 54 more Americans (3.86 per day) have joined an expanding list containing 1,853 names that served in Iraq and who have lost their opportunity for a 9, 12, 39 day or 5 week vacation. The numbers are not static. They are like sand in an hourglass. As time passes, more names will be added to the list. The 54 for August, thus far, are:

("Killed" means by IED attack, car bomb, suicide car bomb, or sniper unless otherwise designated.)

Killed- Aug. 1
Sergeant James R. Graham III
Lance Corporal Roger D. Castleberry Jr.
Sergeant David J. Coullard
Lance Corporal Daniel Nathan Deyarmin Jr.
Corporal Jeffrey A. Boskovitch
Lance Corporal Brian P. Montgomery
Sergeant Nathaniel S. Rock

Killed- Aug. 2
Petty Officer 1st Class Thomas C. Hull (unspecified cause)
Staff Sergeant James D. McNaughton

Killed- Aug. 3
Lance Corporal Adam J. Strain
Specialist Mathew V. Gibbs
Sergeant 1st Class Charles Houghton Warren
Specialist Jerry Lewis Ganey Jr.
Lance Corporal Nicholas William B. Bloem
Corporal David S. Stewart
Sergeant Bradley J. Harper
Lance Corporal Kevin G. Waruinge
Lance Corporal Grant B. Fraser
Sergeant Justin F. Hoffman
Lance Corporal Eric J. Bernholtz
Lance Corporal Aaron H. Reed
Corporal David Kenneth J. Kreuter
Lance Corporal William Brett Wightman
Lance Corporal Christopher Jenkins Dyer
Lance Corporal Michael J. Cifuentes
Lance Corporal Timothy Michael Bell Jr.
Lance Corporal Edward August Schroeder II

Killed- Aug. 4
Private 1st Class Nils George Thompson
Staff Sergeant Chad J. Simon

Killed- Aug. 5
Sergeant 1st Class Brett Eugene Walden (vehicle accident)
Gunnery Sergeant Terry W. Ball Jr.
Sergeant 1st Class Robert V. Derenda (vehicle accident)

Killed- Aug. 6
Lance Corporal Chase Johnson Cromley
Sergeant Brahim J. Jeffcoat
Specialist Kurt E. Krout

Killed- Aug. 7
Private 1st Class Seferino J. Reyna

Killed- Aug.8
Private 1st Class Hernando Rios
Specialist Anthony N. Kalladeen
Staff Sergeant Ramon E. Gonzales Cordova

Killed- Aug. 9
Staff Sergeant Ryan S. Ostrom
Sergeant Francis J. Straub Jr.
Private 1st Class Nathaniel E. "Nate" Detample
Specialist John Kulick
Specialist Gennaro Pellegrini Jr.
Specialist Miguel Carrasquillo

Killed- Aug. 10
Lance Corporal Evenor C. Herrera
Sergeant 1st Class Michael A. Benson

Killed- Aug. 12
name unreleased
name unreleased
name unreleased
name unreleased
name unreleased

Killed- Aug. 13
name unreleased

Killed- Aug. 14 (as of a.m.- U.S. time)
name unreleased

There is a certain consistency in the fact that George Bush's motorcade rushed past the tents on his way to a $2 million dollar fundraiser. During the Vietnam War (police action, etc.) tents, canopies, and whatever else they could find often sheltered American troops doing the fighting overseas. "Somehow" he managed to metaphorically rush by those tents as well. All the while "supporting" the war with false bravado, empty rhetoric, and a barely used, although in his case- aptly named, "flight" suit.

He escaped that conflict without a scratch and, apparently, no guilt in supporting something for which he wouldn't risk his most precious asset- his own life.

Only time will tell if George Bush will be as capable of continuing to rush past the current tents and avoid the newly identified enemies of "our [his] way of life"- namely, a few grieving and angry moms and their supporters.

Talk Loudly and Carry a Big 'Shtick'

2005-10-01T13:40:00.000-07:00

Recently, after a North Korean missile test, Secretary Rice warned, "I don't think anyone is confused about the ability of the United States to deter -- both on behalf of itself and on behalf of its allies -- North Korean nuclear ambitions or gains on the peninsula."

This statement was quickly followed up in a Bolton-like fashion by George Bush who described Kim Jong-Il as a "tyrant" and a "dangerous person" who starved his people and ran "huge concentration camps." That bit of 'diplomacy' was, in turn, followed up by a response from North Korea in which Bush was described as a “cowboy” and “hooligan” among other tidbits.

More importantly, it was followed up by both North Korea and Iran going full speed ahead with their nuclear programs.

The statements by Rice and the provocation by Bush seem to overlook the report by General Myers, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, that although the U.S. would likely prevail in a future conflict, the stress placed upon the military ensured that any such engagement “may result in longer campaigns, higher casualties and greater collateral damage.”

Secretary Rice and George Bush also seem to have missed the reports of the military missing its recruitment goals by a wide margin ensuring further shortfalls in manpower.

As a matter of fact, things seem to have gone so badly for recruiters that they are resorting to taking recruits fresh from commitments in psychiatric wards, hiding police records and medical histories of potential recruits, falsifying documents, and giving wallet-size cheat sheets to applicants for the military's aptitude test.

Also, the statements seem to reflect a belief that the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are either over or contained. Perhaps a review of the hundreds of headlines (from Western sources) devoted exclusively to the death and carnage continuing in both Iraq and Afghanistan might cause Ms. Rice a momentary pause to reflect on finishing the conflicts already started before committing to another one with an already depleted force. There are (with all due apologies to Tom DeLay) internet sources that keep track of that sort of thing and organize the information in an easy to access fashion.

Subsequent to her review, and assuming she can catch George Bush on one of his rare days in Washington rather than at Crawford, Camp David or Kennebunkport, she can fill him in on her findings since he's proudly proclaimed that he doesn’t read newspapers.

She may have to track him down or, more probably than not, wait until he's done with his bicycle ride to fill him in on any new developments she may glean from reading the news (much like the entire government/country waited for him during the Cessna scare over the Capitol with is potential shootdown of lost but innocent pilots, the evacuation of Congress, the White House, and the Supreme Court, and the scattering of D.C. occupants/workers).

Perhaps after briefing him they can get together with the Joint Chiefs of Staff and figure out exactly what military obligation checks they can still cash. While they're at it, they may want to see if there's anything left in the "diplomacy" acount- although that's highly doubtful given the last four years and with the nomination of Bolton as head accountant and bookkeeper of that account.

"Reform's" Bitter Aftertaste

2005-10-01T13:39:00.001-07:00

The word "reform" is used quite often these days. However, it has practically lost all connection to its original meaning depending on who is using it.

For instance, trying to understand the positive sounding "Bankruptcy Reform Bill" would be incomplete without keeping in mind the Administration's mantra of an "ownership society". The ownership society is framed as an overall goal and a "good thing". It would stand to reason then that Bankruptcy Reform would be a constructive part of that broader picture.

It is not.

James Flanagan of the L.A. Times, in an article dated April 10, offers a good explanation of how the concepts of "Bankruptcy Reform" and "ownership society" are at odds with each other. Mr. Flanagan states, "under current law it is possible for an entrepreneur to take a chance and fail, then have the debts discharged and move on to a fresh start with new financing. But under this bill, an entrepreneur who fails would have those debts hanging over him or her for years, limiting opportunities to raise new capital. And wages could be garnished at any job the entrepreneur might take".

He also points out that, "the problem for small companies is that 20% — or 320,000 — of those individual bankruptcies are actually small, unincorporated companies, financed by credit cards, home equity loans and borrowings from friends. The reality of small business, as White points out, is that an unincorporated company's debts are personal liabilities of the firm's owner".

Some people urge incorporation when starting a small business, but more often than not, that is a pointless exercise because most banks or other lending institutions will require that those incorporating personally co-sign for any loans incurred by the corporation.

There are some that postulate that, incorporated or not, a capable businessperson simply won't face a bankruptcy problem. But the quote contained in the article from Lloyd Chapman, a veteran Silicon Valley entrepreneur and founder of the American Small Business League puts a damper on the I.Q. factor. Mr. Chapman states, "90% of all new companies fail within 48 months".

Mr. Flanagan goes on to point out that both Henry Ford and Ray Kroc walked through the bankruptcy doors before becoming as business-smart as some of the "reform's" proponents would have them be and building the Ford Motor Company and McDonald's, respectively.

However, he leaves the most delicious irony for last. After explaining the long term chilling effect this bill will have in exchange for the short term profit margin of an exclusive group of campaign contributors, Mr Flanagan observes, "The great danger in this bankruptcy bill is that it would change American risk-taking culture to something closer to the European model, where entrepreneurs are suspect and a single business failure pretty much rules out any second chances".

The "Oprah" Congress

2005-10-01T13:39:00.000-07:00

In just the last few weeks we've witnessed what currently passes itself off as a Congress:

revive an effort to re-introduce a Constitutional ban on "Gay Marriage";
hold hearings on steroids in baseball;
pass legislation on the Schiavo matter; and
tackle the problem of remote control malfunctions by introducing legislation to bypass the need for them through regulation of programming (regular and cable).

Gay marriage, Schiavo, steroids, and decency. This is not the stuff of a great Congress. This is a line-up of shows for Oprah.

In sum, we've had crocodile tears for the sanctity of marriage rather than real tears at the attempt to exclude a group through a Constitutional Amendment- a process historically used only to include groups and provide them with the rights contained in that precious document.

We've had to watch the tears of Mark McGwire rather than the tears that flow from laughing so hard at the feigned outrage and concern over baseball and our children. The latter of which are facing an uncertain future due to draconian cuts in public education (due to unfunded No Child Left Behind legislation) and who may be forced into steroid use and sports as a way out of poverty because they didn't have the necessary educational tools to compete with their more affluent peers in private schools.

We've been forced to watch the tears of a family through the intrusive and glaring eyes of television because of grandstanding by our "leadership" and not been allowed to weep the tears that should be shed as Congress, in its zeal for a camera and a sound -bite seems, once again, to have little respect for the Constitution or care for the concept of Federalism or separation of powers.

And after our legislators engage in this orgy of shameless self-promotion with the attendant costs to individuals, the Constitution, and long-held American concepts of government, we are told they will be the ones who define decency for us, our families, and our communities.

It should be noted that due to their "busy-body" schedules, our leaders found no time to hold hearings on war profiteering in Iraq, the CPA's "misplacing" of approximately $10 billion of Iraqi money, torture by the U.S. (and/or our surrogates), the allegations against Tom DeLay, or a serious discussion of how we're going to deal with our unsustainable deficit.

At least with Oprah, if you get lucky and come on the right day, you can win a car. With Congress, unless you're a fat donor looking for the "gift that keeps on giving" (A.K.A. tax breaks or favorable legislation starting with the word "reform"), you're out of luck and could end up on the wrong end of the "Reformed Bankruptcy Bill" in which case you may end up losing the car Oprah gave you if you get sick or injured and end up in a hospital.

Update on the "War on 'Errorism'"

2005-10-01T13:35:00.000-07:00

This could, and probably should, be entitled, "Don't pee (PG-13 approved) on my leg and tell me we're winning the War on Terror".

On March 8, we were told by our lead "terrorist hunter" that, "Terrorists are less likely to endanger our security if they're worried about their own security. When terrorists spend their day struggling to avoid death or capture they are less capable of arming and training to commit new attacks. We will keep the terrorists on the run until they have nowhere left to hide."

In the middle of April we learned that the State Department will no longer compile and release the data showing the number of terrorist attacks perpetrated per year and that this responsibility, held for 37 years, will be passed on to a new, unnamed, undescribed federal office for counter-terrorism. Some, including Larry Johnson, a former CIA and State Department counter-terrorism official speculate that the move was intended to keep the numbers away from the pesky prying eyes of the public. As quoted by the L.A. Times on April 19th, he posed the hypothetical question, "If terrorist incidents had dropped 50 percent, do you think they'd be eliminating the department?"

Apparently his tongue-in-cheek remark was intended to address the issue of the State Department compiling a report that indicated that terrorist attacks were up substantially since the War on Terror was declared. Sec. Rice immediately quashed the report and sent it into an "undisclosed location". It has resurfaced as will be seen below.

Another problem with the figures is how they are classified. For instance, 191 incidents were cited for Iraq however, that does not include incidents involving only Iraqis or attacks on the U.S. military. Apparently both, but particularly the latter, are considered to be attacks during wartime (which classification leaves a hole large enough to drive a trainload full of "enemy combatants" through on their way home from Guantanomo-the subject of an upcoming post).

The haste in which the current numbers were hidden by Sec. Rice so as not to embarass the "terrorist-hunter in chief" must be behind the Administration's overlooking of the indefatigable Rep. Henry Waxman(D) of California. Apparently feeling that the public has a "right to know", Rep. Waxman released the subject data given to congressional aides by federal officials. The data shows that terrorist attacks more than tripled last year than the previous years averages-650 last year compared to 175 in 2003. Rep.Waxman also pointed out that many incidents that most Americans would regard as terrorist incidents were not even included in the report.

It stands to reason to conclude that the March 8th speech by the "terror-hunter" himself may have been off by "just a tad" because the facts seem to show:

That the terrorists aren't too worried about their own security (a fact that could've been induced, deduced, or figured out while wearing a dunce cap by virtue of them blowing themselves up);

They either have plenty of time to train to carry out attacks or it doesn't require much training at all; and

We've either got the wrong terrorists on the run or running is an efficient way of increasing terrorism by at least 300 percent.
~ Full Post ~

Making the Grade?

2005-10-01T13:34:00.000-07:00

Since we're subjecting our children to the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001, it seems only fair to do periodic grading of the Administration in order to prevent it from falling victim to the "soft bigotry of lowered expectations".

In order to assure fairness in grading, one must look to the original charter (or mission) the Administration set for itself. There are a number of factors involved in the grading process. If, for instance, pure, unadulterated greed and the plundering of the Treasury were its open and stated goal, then it could receive a grade for just that and no other factor would require a grade.

If however, the Administration couched the greed under some "ideology", then it would have to receive a goal for the greed and one for how it governed (and how the nation fared) under the new ideology.

Lastly, if the Administration simply applied the ideology and did not have greed in mind, then it would again receive only one grade- that of how the nation fared under the stated goals of the applied ideology.

The Administration, by all accounts, is using what is now commonly referred to as the "neo-con" ideology. That set of beliefs on how to govern is memorialized in a letter dated June 3, 1997 and made public by The Weekly Standard which is published and edited by Bill Kristol (not to be confused with Billy Crystal as the former specializes in black comedy and the latter specializes in comedy which does not involve empire building, social safety-net deconstructing, and/or war). Bill Kristol's Weekly Standard is financed by Rupert Murdoch for whom Mr. Kristol appears often on FOX as an "expert" (on whatever an expert is needed for). He served in the first Bush (Poppa) Administration and was nicknamed "Dan Quayle's brain" by The New Republic upon being appointed the Vice President's chief of staff.
__________

The letter in The Weekly Standard is signed by some of the main architects of our current "governing" style and reads, in part, as follows:

Project For The New American Century- Statement of Principles

June 3, 1997

American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration. They have also resisted isolationist impulses from within their own ranks. But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy. They have allowed differences over tactics to obscure potential agreement on strategic objectives. And they have not fought for a defense budget that would maintain American security and advance American interests in the new century.

We aim to change this. We aim to make the case and rally support for American global leadership.

As the 20th century draws to a close, the United States stands as the world's preeminent power. Having led the West to victory in the Cold War, America faces an opportunity and a challenge: Does the United States have the vision to build upon the achievements of past decades? Does the United States have the resolve to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests?

We are in danger of squandering the opportunity and failing the challenge. We are living off the capital -- both the military investments and the foreign policy achievements -- built up by past administrations. Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world. And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations. As a consequence, we are jeopardizing the nation's ability to meet present threats and to deal with potentially greater challenges that lie ahead.

Elliott Abrams, Gary Bauer, William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Eliot A. Cohen, Midge Decter, Paula Dobriansky, Steve Forbes, Aaron Friedberg, Francis Fukuyama, Frank Gaffney, Fred C. Ikle, Donald Kagan, Zalmay Khalilzad, I. Lewis Libby, Norman Podhoretz, Dan Quayle, Peter W. Rodman, Stephen P. Rosen, Henry S. Rowen, Donald Rumsfeld, Vin Weber, George Weigel, Paul Wolfowitz

The letter also castigates the country for forgetting "the essential elements of the Reagan Administration's success" and concludes with, "Such a Reaganite policy of military strength and moral clarity may not be fashionable today. But it is necessary if the United States is to build on the successes of this past century and to ensure our security and our greatness in the next."

The Reagan nostalgia is an apparent reference to the overpowering U.S. military defeat of Grenada (in Operation Urgent Fury- aptly named as Reagan's poll numbers were down prior to the mission) and the fall of the Berlin Wall (without attribution to Lech Walesa, Solidarity, John Paul II, The International Labor Organization- the first specialized agency of the U.N., and Mikhail Gorbachev, who was unwilling to use military power to keep communist parties in satellite states in power).

As an aside, the letter also calls upon American domination of the world. Apparently, the domination part is to be overseen by Bill Kristol (Dan Quayle's brain) as the Chairman of The New American Century.

The best way to grade the performance of the Administration is to look at individual portions of the letter, make some judgements as to performance, and then determine an overall grade.
__________

1) "American foreign and defense policy is adrift. Conservatives have criticized the incoherent policies of the Clinton Administration."

The Administration's reasons for invading Iraq have been: WMD's, Terrorism links, Torture and Rape Rooms, Freedom (to Iraqis), Freedom for the world, etc. There is also the matter of being part of the "Axis of Evil" and just plain old vanilla "evil". Whether this is coherent or not depends on the partisan baggage one brings to the table. One thing not at issue is the sheer number of reasons given for a policy far outnumber that given by any Administration for a policy failure at any time in our history. This may be seen favorably (i.e. "A" for effort) or it may be deemed evasive "i.e. my dog ate my, no, it was your dog that ate my , no, come to think of it, the neighbor's dog ate my homework".
__________

2) "But conservatives have not confidently advanced a strategic vision of America's role in the world. They have not set forth guiding principles for American foreign policy."

The Administration and its cadre of neo-cons weren't just upset with the Clinton Administration- they were upset with traditional conservatives as well.

Since taking the helm of our ship of state and banishing Clintonites and traditional conservatives from power, the Administration's (and neo-con's) "strategic vision" and "guiding principles for American foreign policy" have resulted in:

U.S. Killed - 1,702

U.S. Wounded - 12,855

Iraqi Civilians Killed (that could be accounted for) - Minimum: 22,248 Maximum 25,229

One can add to those "strategic vision" numbers what the Arab world thinks of U.S. "guiding principles" under the neo-cons and the Administration. This is best seen through opinion polls and summarized in the following report from the Washington Post on polling in the Arab world:

"Arab views of the United States, shaped largely by the Iraq war and a post-Sept. 11 climate of fear, have worsened in the past two years to such an extent that in Egypt -- an important ally in the region -- nearly 100 percent of the population now holds an unfavorable opinion of the country, according to two polls due out today.

Both surveys were conducted in June by Zogby International and polled Arab men and women in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, Lebanon, Morocco and the United Arab Emirates.

The findings reflect the concerns raised in the Sept. 11 commission report released yesterday, which emphasized a losing battle for public opinion. 'Support for the United States has plummeted,' the commissioners wrote.

'What we're seeing now is a disturbing sympathy with al Qaeda coupled with resentment toward the United States, and we ought to be extremely troubled by that,' said Shibley Telhami, a University of Maryland professor who commissioned one of the surveys.

The other survey, titled 'Impressions of America,' charts a dramatic overall decline in positive views by comparing current attitudes with those sampled in April 2002.

'In 2002, the single policy issue that drove opinion was the Palestinians; now it's Iraq and America's treatment, here and abroad, of Arabs and Muslims,' said James Zogby, who commissioned the report with the Arab American Institute."

Polling results from the rest of the world post- 2003 regarding the U.S. foreign policy vision and leadership as seen through the prism of the Iraq invasion weren't much better.
__________

3) "Cuts in foreign affairs and defense spending, inattention to the tools of statecraft, and inconstant leadership are making it increasingly difficult to sustain American influence around the world."

Through their actions, the Administration and the neo-cons seem to consider foreign affairs and the military as being one and the same. If that is so, they have certainly increased funding in this category (according to the defense bill and supplemental requests). Appointing John Bolton as the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. seems to be their solution to America's statecraft problem and goes along quite well with the "pre-emption" doctrine and the huge expenditures on the military. Lastly, the problem Of "INCONSTANT" rather than "inconsistent" leadership seems to have been remedied by Bill Kristol's (the black comedy guy and Dan Quayle's brain) elevation to Chairman of the New American Century- that's 100 years of CONSTANT leadership.
__________

4) "And the promise of short-term commercial benefits threatens to override strategic considerations."

There's plenty of evidence that this Administration is not letting any commercial benefits (on behalf of middle class and poor Americans) get in the way of its' vision. In fact, there are volumes of studies that contain information such as the following to prove that fact:

Study Documents Negative Impact of U.S. Trade Deficit with China

Job losses hit all states, high-tech industry, U.S.-China commission says:
A new study has found that the United States' growing trade deficit with China has had an increasingly negative impact on the U.S. economy, causing job losses that reach into the most technologically advanced industries in the manufacturing sector and affect every state, according to a January 11 press release by the U.S.-China Economic and Security Review Commission (USCC).

The Administration has gone to some lengths to downplay the "commercial benefits" part of the equation. One of the Administration's top economists, N. Gregory Mankiw, stated, "Outsourcing American jobs overseas is good for the U.S. economy in the long run." Apparently, this was said to pre-empt the famous quote of noted economist John Maynard Keynes who said, "In the long run, we'll all be dead." All of us except for Bill Kristol, who will still be Chairman of the Project For The New American Century until the year 2099.

For those who still didn't get that this Administration was intent on leadership and those pesky commercial issues like jobs can't stand in the way, Susan Sheybani, assistant to Bush campaign spokesman Terry Holt, had a message (also reported by Reuters, July 29, 2004) for dislocated workers in very clear terms, "Why don't they get new jobs if they're unhappy--or go on Prozac?"
__________

That's enough for now, although there is so much more. Assign a grade at your own peril. After all, the Administration has repeatedly said that people (Americans) need to watch what they say.

Osama and Peter

2005-10-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

Americans can breathe a little sigh of relief and maybe even open a window or two- after the duct tape seal has been broken. The Administration has released the name of its latest catch in the "War on Terror".

His name is Peter Daniel Young.

His "terrorist activity" consists of belonging to a group made up of animal rights activists who conducted a series of break-ins at Midwestern mink farms 7 years ago, during which thousands of animals were released to the wild. He faces federal charges of Animal Enterprise Terrorism and unlawful interference with state commerce.

For his crime, Mr. Young faces 82 years (April 4th archive) in prison. Details are unclear as to the capture of the rest of the members of the "cell". It is known that one accomplice went as far as to hide in Belgium. Authorities tracked him down and gained the Belgian government’s compliance presumably due to the Administration's edict that any country that harbors terrorists will be considered as being a terrorist state.

In other terror-related news, Osama is still on the loose. It's probably best to keep the house duct-taped. Not because of Osama. Rather, because a bunch of mink are running around loose.

Rumsfeld goes off-script

2005-10-01T13:10:00.000-07:00

The Administration has given many reasons for its decision to invade Iraq. The current re-writing of history has changed the rationale from one of WMD's (threat) to purple fingers (Iraqi freedom) and freedom, in general, marching across the mideast.

This is presented, by both the Administration and certain pundits, as though these reasons were voiced prior to the fighting and were a major driving force behind our policies.

Unfortunately, ending suffering, shutting down "rape-rooms", and stopping torture by Saddam, among other things, are nothing more than talking points as evidenced by the following February 10, 2004 DOD News Briefing with Sec. Rumsfeld and Gen. Myers:

Q: Mr. Secretary, you said in your opening remarks, sir -- you described it as two paths that nations can take, and you noted that Saddam Hussein, had he opened up his country to the U.N. resolutions, there would have been no war.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm.

Q: And it intrigues me because about a year ago you said the same thing, he had the choice between war and peace and he had chosen war. If I follow your thought correctly -- and I'm sure you'll tell me if I'm not -- (Laughter.) -- in his case, if he would have opened up the country, let the U.N. come in, the United States come in, whoever, to search for the weapons of mass destruction, he would have still been in power today, correct? Okay. And that would be an acceptable position -- or you chose the word of the "position" -- vis-à-vis no war, Saddam Hussein still in power, with a whole year of us hearing about all the other reasons why it was important to remove him.

Rumsfeld: Mm-hmm. In my view it is -- the world is fortunate, the Iraqi people are fortunate, and the region is fortunate, that he's not there. And I think anyone who has looked at the mass graves and the torture rooms and heard the stories of what took place in that country has to feel the same way. Was what I said today correct? Yes. There would not have been a war. I mean, that's just a fact...

Considering the fact that it was the U.S. that told the inspectors to leave, only one conclusion can be drawn from this fiasco: the Administration was going to war regardless of the reasons given.

Those that are still believers and blame it on "intelligence failures" need look no further than George "Presidential Medal of Honor" Tenet to see that the Administration cannot possibly agree.

Furthermore, those that have Saddam Hussein hopelessly intertwined with Osama Bin Laden should note that when Hussein was shaved after his "beard inspection" he bore no resemblance to Bin Laden- he's still out there somewhere- making videos and recruiting from the families of those that we consider collateral damage.

One is left to wonder about the state of our collective psyche after the web of shifting rationales woven by the Administration breaks under the weight of all the American and Iraqi coffins, casualties, and treasure (in the form of deficits passed on to our children) being dumped on it.

The Administration's hidden teenage graveyard

2005-10-01T12:55:00.000-07:00

"Partially capable." That's just one of the somber conclusions reached by the DOD in its most recent assessment of Iraqi troop development. The report, given reluctantly and most of which is still classified, was forced by increased pressure by a handful of Democrats who seem to have discovered that they are actually a political party with a constituency and a responsibility to the country.

A July 22nd Washington Post article titled, "Pentagon Report Says Iraqi Forces Are Not Yet Able to Defend Country" by Josh White describes the report, in part, as follows:

The broad outline of Iraqi readiness was provided in an unclassified statement to Congress by Gen. Peter Pace, vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He said that only a "small number of Iraqi security forces are taking on the insurgents and terrorists by themselves," and he estimated that one-third of the Iraqi army's battalions are capable of counterinsurgency operations with coalition support and two-thirds are "partially capable"...

...the "threshold condition" for success is developing Iraqi security forces to a level where they can take over primary responsibility for their security. Pentagon officials said getting troops to that level could take some time...

Gone are the wildly optimistic numbers of Iraqi troop strength bandied about with such reckless abandon by civilian and military leaders alike. At any rate, the numbers mean little if those that are counted can't, or won't, fight.

It gets worse. Sec. Rumsfeld, once maintaining that he'd be surprised if the conflict went on for 6 months, now seems surprised when people are shocked when he says that it may take 12 years (a little off on the "metrics").

The many rationales for going and staying in Iraq have basically boiled down to, "We'll stay until the Iraqis are ready to fight for themselves." This is generally followed by, "Training is going to take a while..." which, in turn, is punctuated by, "Our troops are fighting for a noble cause- to bring freedom to the Iraqi's".

These 3 phrases, taken together, mean that our troops must continue to fight and die until the Iraqi's are trained well enough to fight for their own precious freedom which would translate into the "threshold condition" for withdrawl as described above.

Superimposing those statements over, "We have the best trained troops in the world..." is intended to shut down any line of inquiry by implying that a questioning of the policy is a questioning of our troops' abilities and their commitment to freedom.

It's enough to make most turn their heads from the carnage and hope for the best. But for those willing to take a look at some basic facts, the "talking points" should mean nothing. The following clearly shows that something is awfully and terribly wrong with the current policy in Iraq:

Currently, 1774 American soldiers (all age groups) are reported as being killed in Iraq.

19 of them were only 18 years old; and
107 of them were 19 years old.

The ages of those American troops speak volumes as to the validity of the official rationales/arguments given and show just how disingenuous our leadership can be.

Perhaps there is some good explanation why a presumed irresponsible American boy or girl can be trained to be a part of "the best fighting force in the world" when adult Iraqi men can't even approach "readiness" ability in over 2 years. The "presumed irresponsible" wording is not an editorial comment. It is a reflection of the fact that our society has deemed, with a blanket application, our 18 and 19 year olds as too irresponsible to drink alcohol until they reach the age of 21.

It certainly seems that either someone is lying about the training our young soldiers are receiving and, due to troop strength shortages, they're being thrust onto the battlefield unprepared, or someone is lying about the training the Iraqi's are receiving. Furthermore, how can anyone expect American 18 year olds to be better fighters for freedom in a land that most of them couldn't even find on the map (according to a National Geographic study) prior to their deployment than the people whose roots there date back thousands of years?

Is it that the Iraqi's are unfamiliar with the concept of freedom? Has our worldview been so thoroughly corrupted that we believe that our 18 year olds, whose last big decision may very well have been deciding on who to take to the prom, understand the concept of freedom better than a 30 year old Iraqi who has lived under a one-man despotic rule and a subsequent occupation by a foreign army?

Other numbers that shed an unflattering light on our willingness to sacrifice our young to prove think tank arm-chair warriors correct and to salvage poll numbers for politicians are found in an "age-group" comparison of those killed in Iraq between the U.S. and the U.K. The fact that the U.S. has lost many more soldiers overall is addressed below.

U.S. and U.K. deaths in age-groups

U.S.- The hardest hit in terms of deaths were between 21 and 30 at 59.8% of the total. The second highest rate was 18-20 which came in at 18.2%.

U.K.- British troops suffered their highest losses among the 21-30 year olds at 48.4%. However, their second highest rate was among the 31-40 year olds at 35.5%. Their 18-20 year olds came in at 9.7%.

If one does take into account that the British have far fewer troops in Iraq than the U.S., the resulting observation clearly shows that their armed forces aren't as taxed as ours and therefore backs up the theory proposed above, namely, we're tossing our young into a conflict they have no business being in and may not be ready to fight. The larger number of U.S. troops (in total of both troops present and troops killed) has no impact on the statistical analysis but does have an impact on overall commitment and the underlying difficulty of fulfilling that commitment with willing bodies.

The fighting them "there rather than fighting them here" mantra has no bearing on who we are sending to fight or on the concept of a true threat to our freedom. If there were an obvious threat to our freedoms from an external source, the American public should be given more credit as there would certainly be lines forming in front of recruiting stations by men and women of all ages. Also, the bombings in Madrid, and now twice in London are quickly exposing that line of reasoning as a cheap applause line.

Furthermore, the fact (oft-repeated lately) that Iraqi troops are getting killed should hold no sway in this discussion. After all, it is their country. They should be willing to kill for it and to die for it.

While we certainly owe Iraq, why is our leadership so blind and unimaginative, so absolutely lacking in planning and diplomatic skills that the debt we owe is being partially paid back with the blood of our 18 and 19 year olds?

If, in fact, the Administration is hell-bent on "staying the course" and continues the current Iraqi policy regardless of consequences, it could simultaneously work on lowering the drinking age to 18. That way, returning young soldiers won't be ticketed and/or hauled off to jail while toasting their fellow "teenage" fallen comrades- in-arms.

Gratuitous violence and indecency...

2005-10-01T12:38:00.000-07:00

Fret not America. The Federal Communications Commission and Congress are hard at work to relieve you of your community, family, and parenting responsibilities so you have more time to spend trying to find and fight over the last minimum-wage job that hasn't been outsourced.

Lawmakers and the new F.C.C. leadership are proposing to expand indecency rules yet again. Their plans include increases in fines and a brand new assault on broadcasts they don't feel are appropriate for you or your child by adopting new procedures that could jeopardize the licenses of stations that repeatedly violate the rules (as defined by Congress- naturally).

Sen. Stevens has raised the ante by proposing to regulate cable (to save you from yourself since you have a choice as to whether you receive it and validate that choice on a continuing basis by paying the monthly bill). Not to be "outmoralized", Sen Hutchinson and Sen. Rockefeller chiseled out a bi-partisan bill that would raise fines to $500,000 and allow for doubling them in certain circumstances. Dismissing concerns that a fine of this size could pose a threat to the existence of small community-oriented stations, Sen. Rockefeller voiced what, it seems, is the thinking among our legislators:

"I would welcome voluntary actions by the industry to address both indecency and gratuitous violence, but they aren't stepping up to the plate, and that's why Congress cannot wait any longer to protect our communities and our families... if the industry won't protect our children from gratuitous violence and indecency, then we must act."

Yes indeed, Congress is stepping in to prevent another Janet Jackson "mushroom cloud" from being beamed to our innocent, unsuspecting eyes. Some have suggested that individuals not wanting to experience this simply monitor the stations watched in their homes or, as America haters have suggested, take the drastic step of turning off the television. This is no solution. After all, how else are we supposed to see the latest Administation propoganda tapes on the local news or find out about the latest erectile dysfunction cure (call your doctor if the "thing" doesn't recede in four hours- titillated yet?).

Obviously, gratuitous violence and indecency seems to have struck a chord with Congress. It does give one pause, though. Since the argument rests on the conditional term "gratuitous", then if it were "paid for" violence and indecency- would it be covered by the law? It seems unlikely. One would have a hard time outlawing war.

It's much easier to outlaw indecency as defined by insulated men and women in insulated environments who have no actual connection to the world the rest of us must toil in (breasts, profanity, and the indecency of a lack of basic health care).

Accountability and "a few bad apples"

2005-10-01T12:30:00.000-07:00

Pentagon records show that the Abu Ghraib abuse matter led to 7 prison guards pleading guilty or being convicted. None of them were ranked above staff sergeant - the sixth lowest rank in the Army. Charges against 2 others are still outstanding. In the unrelated detainee death cases, 21 soldiers have been charged and 16 others are being investigated.

Newly released documents, whose disclosure was forced by a lawsuit brought by the ACLU, show that the lack of accountability described by both private and public critics of the handling ot the investigation(s) is shared by soldiers as well. The documents include:

A letter by 3 reservist prison supervisors to Lt. Gen Thomas F. Metz, who was the commander of operations in Iraq at the time of the Abu Ghraib abuse, wherein they stated that the scandal had ruined their Army careers but left commanders such as Metz and Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez untouched. The soldiers said they were not trained for the duty given, that Red Cross reports detailing abuse were kept from them, and that Sanchez and others in charge never informed them of any problems despite repeated visits to the prison.

One junior officer whose name was redacted in the documents stated, "I accept full responsibility for the actions of the soldiers of the 372nd (the unit involved)...I fully agree that I should have done a better job at supervising them." He added, "Unlike the general officer appointed above me (referencing Mentz) I take responsibility for what my soldiers did...It's amazing that the entire chain of command could be so incompetent."

Another junior officer (again, name redacted) said that, "The unit had less than 2 weeks to prepare for the prison operation." He also pointed out that an evaluation done by Army Provost Marshal Donald Ryder was never shared with the military units at Abu Ghraib.

The Army refused to comment on the newly disclosed documents but Lt. Col Jeremy Martin, an Army spokesman said, "We'll continue to hold people appropriately accountable, and we'll go to wherever the truth leads for as long as it takes."

Considering that Abu Ghraib led to 7 convictions of some of the lowest ranked members of the Army and that no Pentagon report has of yet even come close to implicating top military commanders or civilian Pentagon officials in the Abu Ghraib abuse or other misconduct incidents, it's probably fair to say that the search for "accountability" and "truth" will be confined to the ranks of junior officer and those below.

Iraq- Better off now?

2005-10-01T12:25:00.000-07:00

One of the favorite "straw man" questions posed by the current Administration, their minions, and their media mouthpieces is a derivative of the question, "Aren't you glad Saddam's not in power?" This has a tendency of freezing even those most opposed to our 'adventure' in Iraq in their tracks for fear of seeming to side with a 'tyrant'.

Notwithstanding the broader implications of removing anyone distasteful (at the moment) from power and the accompanying costs in blood and treasure, the question seems better posed to Iraqi's (not expatriates) that lived under him and who now live under American occupation rather than some P.R. hack posing as a journalist, pundit, or 'expert' in an air-conditioned studio.

Be that as it may and, just for 'fun', it's worth taking a look at Administration claims placed against the backdrop of the above-mentioned question, and compare them to just a few of the realities on the ground.

Statements (2002-2005) relating to America's vision for the Middle East (Afghanistan and Iraq as starters) and the beginnings of Iraqi appreciation of our efforts:

"We believe every child should have a chance to realize his or her dreams. We believe in peace." George Bush- 2002

"I believe we're making really good progress in Iraq, because the Iraqi people are beginning to see the benefits of a free society." George Bush- 2005

Reality (2005): From- The Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN)- a humanitarian news agency covering sub-Saharan Africa, eight countries in central Asia and Iraq.

IRAQ: Campaign for blood donation launched- During Saddam Hussein's regime the blood requirements were related to diseases and never to poor security issues, according to medical staff, who explained that even under international sanctions supplies were much better than today.

IRAQ: Living conditions still poor, survey says- Living conditions in Iraq suffered after the fall of Saddam Hussein, according to a survey conducted by the government, which highlighted problems in health, education and basic supplies....The survey showed that nearly a quarter of children aged between six months and five years were malnourished.

IRAQ: Focus on child labour- Eleven-year-old Mahmoud al-Obaidi walks seven km every morning to get to work at a carpentry factory in Baghdad so he can save his bus fares...On average he spends nearly 10 hours a day in the factory earning a living...nearly 1,300,000 children, aged between eight and 16 were[are] working. This represents 6.1 percent of the country's population...In addition, the survey revealed long working hours, with 27 percent of children working for more than eight hours daily...Working children were already researched and documented in northern Iraq and were seen in southern and central Iraq before the war, but the socio/economic circumstances of Iraq following the war in 2003 are seen to have pushed more children to the streets and worksites, the UNICEF official said...Many children also make a living through drugs and prostitution, perceived to be easier ways of earning money, according to the Iraqi Red Crescent Society (IRCS).

IRAQ: Shortage of drugs for epileptic children- Iraqi doctors have reported a shortage of medicine for children suffering from epilepsy because of the high cost of purchasing the drugs needed to treat the condition....In a country where the economy is still reeling from war and years of sanctions, the price is too high for most Iraqis. Most pharmacies don’t even stock such expensive drugs because of the low demand....During Saddam Hussein’s regime, many medicines were provided under the now defunct Oil-for-Food Programme (OFFP).

IRAQ: Doctors warn of increasing deformities in newborn babies..."In my experiments we have found some cases where the mother or father were suffering from pollution from weapons used in the south and we believe that it is affecting newborn babies in the country," Dr Ibraheem al-Jabouri, a scientist at Baghdad University, told IRIN...According to Dr Nawar Ali, at the University of Baghdad, who works in the newborn babies research department, a significant number of cases of deformed babies had been reported since 2003...There have been 650 cases in total since August 2003 reported in government hospitals - that is a 20 percent increase from the previous regime. Private hospitals were not included in the study, so "the number could be higher,” Ali warned...The type of deformities found in newborn babies are characterised by multiple fingers, unusually large heads, unilateral lips or no arms or legs..."Our children have started to suffer the effect of years of war and disasters inside Iraq. The wars happened but no one cared about the result it was going to have and today innocent lives are being lost due to pollution and poor information," Firdous al-Abadi, a spokeswomen for the IRCS, told IRIN.

It seems that no matter what color lipstick is put on this pig of a neo-con 'adventure', it's still a pig. The experts who say otherwise are too far away from the depleted uranium, the shortages of blood, the scarcity of medicine, the malnourishment, and the child labor and prositution to see that fact.

White House denies responsibility...(ho-hum)

2005-10-01T12:21:00.000-07:00

A report by the Education Department's inspector general found that the White House was informed of a questionable contract with "African-American" conservative commentator Armstrong Williams.

It should be noted that, normally, this writer does not refer to people by color but, in this case, it turns out to be an important factor as it seems the primary factor taken into consideration as the Administration touted its "No Child Left Behind" initiative in a marketing plan for the targeted community. In this instance, "Affirmative Action" seemed to be fine for the goose, not the rest of the ganders who serve no purpose to the Administration.

As to color, Mr. Williams behavior towards the African American community, fellow journalists, and the community of information consumers, has bestowed upon him the more proper moniker of "green" or "show me the money" conservative (or liberal- it may depend on who pays) commentator.

The inspector general's findings fly in the face of initial White House denials of knowledge of the contracts and remarks made during a presidential press conference wherein Bush, upon being questioned on the matter, stated, "We didn't know about this in the White House, and there needs to be a nice, independant relationship between the White House and the press."

A separate investigation is being conducted on whether the contract was a violation of law relating to the use of taxpayer funds to "covertly distribute propaganda."

Current Secretary of Education, Margaret Spellings informed reporters that she did not know about the contract before it was renewed. She couldn't recall when, in fact, she did learn about it. She also refused to be interviewed by the inspector's general and cited White house protocol in response to Democratic complaints about the lack of cooperation. When asked if former Secretary Paige should be held responsible, she resorted to another White House protocol and blamed in on lower rung, unspecified individuals. She offered, "I don't think Secretary Paige was well-served by people around him..."

Perhaps the most damning part of the report came in one of its conclusions. The report held, in part, that, "The Department paid for work that most likely did not reach its targeted audience and paid for deliverables that were never received...The advertisements that were produced under the work requests appear to be of poor quality and the Department has no assurance that the ads received the airtime for which it paid."

Translation, the taxpayers were swindled. Again. From the reconstruction in Iraq with billions of dollars in wasted funds involved to the attempted propaganda on our own population in the hundreds of thousands to millions (overall), the taxpayers are not getting their money's worth. The people in charge don't even know how to "propogandize" us properly.

Oh, and as to the legality, accountability, and propriety of any of this- somebody, somewhere is surely looking into this...maybe. Nobody in charge is really talking about it...per White House protocol.

Checking in on Government

2005-10-01T12:15:00.000-07:00

The lack of any serious media coverage of what is truly happening in Washington can be frustrating for citizens who consider governing a serious matter. Aside from the agreed upon talking points put out by the Administration, little, if any, coverage is devoted to the issues a properly functioning government should address.

This leaves the individual with a wide array of sources to look through to put the puzzle together and find out what is happening in their name and with their tax dollars. That task proves too burdensome for many resulting in a resignation to what is happening and simply waiting for better days ahead.

This does not have to be so. There are still legislators in Washington who are doing a good job in monitoring what is going on and reporting back to their constituents. Party affiliation has little to do with good efforts at such things as accountability, exposing records, and ensuring that transparency in government allows the citizenry to be active participants.

To that end, periodic checks will be made on the offices of such legislators to determine what they are seeing up close and what actions they are taking or deem worth taking to preserve our democratic republic. The following is the result of checking in with Rep. Henry Waxman's (D-CA) office. Long a government watchdog, regardless of the party in power, he has been a beacon of light in the foggy pronouncements so prized by Washington. A review of his site shows some of the things which interest him and cause him alarm, but none, at this point, seems as timely and as important as bringing back transparency to government.

Rep. Waxman is currently sponsoring the following:

Summary of THE RESTORE OPEN GOVERNMENT ACT OF 2005 (H.R. 2331):

Restoring the Presumption of Public Disclosure of Information: The bill overturns the “Ashcroft Memo,” which restricts release of information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), and the “Card Memo,” which urges agencies to stretch FOIA exemptions to withhold any “sensitive” information. The bill restores the policy that agencies should release requested information absent some finding of harm.

Eliminating Unnecessary Pseudo-Classification Designations: The bill calls on the Archivist of the United States to report on the use of pseudo-classification designations, such as “sensitive but unclassified” and “for official use only.” Unnecessary pseudo-classification designations are banned, and the use of other information control designations is restricted.

Restoring Public Access to Presidential Records: The bill repeals President Bush’s executive order on presidential records, which severely curtailed release of these important historical documents, and restores President Reagan’s executive order on presidential records.

Prohibiting Secret Advisory Committees: The bill prevents the White House from establishing advisory committees of government employees that meet secretly with industry groups, as did the Vice President’s energy task force. Under the bill, these advisory committees must reveal their meetings and communications with private parties.

Promoting Timely Declassification of Government Documents: The bill promotes public access to information and helps prioritize declassification by funding the Public Interest Declassification Board. The bill calls on the Archivist of the United States to levy a fee on agencies to pay for the operations of the Board.

Improving the Operations of the Freedom of Information Act: The bill restores the integrity of FOIA by limiting the broad FOIA exemption for critical infrastructure information created in the Homeland Security Act of 2002. The bill further creates transparency in agency compliance with FOIA and makes it more feasible for citizen groups to challenge the improper withholding of government information.

An effort such as the above-mentioned one surely transcends any partisanship and should be embraced by everyone who feels that this country is theirs. By extension, the country's leaders, the executive and legislative bodies, and their actions should be open to examination for all to see unless a threat to national security can be clearly shown and agreed to on a bi-partisan basis.

Coming up- a review of Chris Shays (R-CT) and his concerns/legislative agenda.

11 out of 10 (it's true!) "Heartlanders" prefer Meth over Pot

2005-10-01T11:19:00.000-07:00

Certain realities fly in the face of public relations myths so violently that all that's left after the collision is a collective "WHAT?!!" That's because, inevitably, reality bites even those who believe the words they're fed to stoke their egos and deem what they see in plain sight a product of their own lying eyes.

Debates about values are one such matter. The "heartland" (whatever that means) has been pounded into America's collective psyche as a place on a map that holds all that is pure, fair, hard-working, law-abiding, faithful and patriotic. The coastal states are portrayed as being occupied by unpatriotic, lazy intellectuals whose drug induced lack of awareness of all that is good allows homosexuality to thrive and God to be defied.

These are not even good caricatures. They define, by defying, the innate individuality of every single American. These simplistic definitions might fit on a bumper sticker but have no business being placed on one's forehead. The tapestry of life that exists within this country must be taken in through eyes which see, not eyes that are told what they're supposed to be seeing.

Since the word "tolerance" has taken such a beating by certain segments of the truly spiteful, the phrase "co-existence" should be used. After all, it's a much better description for what we, as Americans, are- a group of people who by birth, by chance, and by choice have been thrown together in the hopes of forming a more perfect Union.

Any rejection of that central theme runs the very dire risk of burying our collective heads in the sand and allowing problems to fester until they are out of control. To illustrate, consider 'values', the 'heartland', and abiding by the law and compare it to the following article which appeared on the BBC NEWS, but can also be found in a myriad of American publications such as USA Today and other news venues:

Rural US gripped by meth epidemic

Methamphetamine has overtaken cocaine as the biggest drug problem in rural and small towns in the US, according to a crime survey of 45 states. A survey of 500 county law enforcement agencies found meth-related arrests had gone up over the past three years.

More than half of the police, sheriff departments and other agencies polled said the highly addictive substance was their biggest drug problem. Less than 20% singled out cocaine and fewer still pointed to marijuana.

Highly addictive

Methamphetamine is a chemical variant of amphetamine with much more powerful effects.

METHAMPHETAMINE
Sold as powder, tablets or crystals
Can be snorted, smoked, injected or swallowed
Can alter personality; increase blood pressure and damage brain
Abuse is particularly bad in rural areas

It is easy to produce using chemicals found on farms, and the homemade labs which produce it are less easy to detect in the countryside. The findings are based on figures collated from rural and suburban areas and do not include most of the country's largest cities.

Half of the counties surveyed said 20% of people in their jails were there because of meth-related crimes. In some places it accounts for more than 50% of people detained, and law enforcement officials say burglaries, domestic violence and assaults have increased because of it.

The problem started in the northwestern US, but it is moving east - and it is now having what the Washington-based National Association of Counties (Naco) calls a "devastating" effect on communities nationwide. "Methamphetamine abuse is mainly a rural and suburban problem but it is slowly moving to the cities," Naco research director Jacqueline Byers told the BBC news website.

Children also suffer from neglect and abuse of addicted parents or carers, and from the side effects of the drug being produced in their homes.

_________

FAIR USE NOTICE: This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in an effort to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. AmeriPundit believes this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

Death-ifintions of War

2005-10-01T10:53:00.000-07:00

The acts of defecation and fornication haven't had as many word or phrase "stand-ins" as war and its companions- maiming and killing. However, the War (misadventure) in Iraq has super-sized the language of war due, in part, to its past and present mismanagement and ever-changing rationales.

Consider just a few highlights springing from the dictionaries and thesauruses of those currently at the helm of the Ship of State:

"Military operations other than war; dead-enders; Baathist holdouts; former regime loyalists (changed to regime elements when it was determined that "loyalist" was too human); guerrila and militant (used sparingly and mostly replaced by suicide bombers, terrorists, and homicide bombers); slog; search and destroy; shock and awe; IED's; and WMD's".

We also have the "crazy language uncle" locked up in the attic who goes by the name of "Torture". For Iraq, "Torture" has actually convinced some people that notions of keeping him locked up are "quaint".

This abuse of the language is simply due to the fact that, in Iraq, our gunsights are unclearly trained on ill-defined, "military and paramilitary operations conducted in enemy-held or hostile territory by irregular, predominately indigenous forces" rather than on a clearly identifiable enemy.

Perhaps the lack of clarity is the result of the country being led to war by unexceptional men with less than acceptable vision sitting on unremarkable resumes padded with unlimited contributions. Men who, despite their easy access to dictionaries and thesauruses, cannot find the meanings of the words "responsibility", "accountability" and "consequences".

Protecting credit card issuers from deadbeat debtors...

2005-10-01T10:29:00.000-07:00

The words were surprisingly clear. As the ink was drying, the proclamation was made: "The act of Congress I sign today will protect those who legitimately need help, stop those who try to commit fraud, and bring greater stability and fairness to our financial system." The speaker is well known.

The effects of his pushing for and signing into law the new Bankruptcy "reforms" will soon be even better known. Harvard University completed a study finding that more than 95 percent of the personal bankruptcies in the United States arise from one of three causes: overwhelming medical bills, family breakup, and the loss of a job. One has to suppose that people falling into these categories are what is meant by those that are trying to "commit fraud" since they're the ones targeted by the changes in the law.

The federal law now also extends-countrywide- the protections offered by a number of states to those who "legitimatly need help". The states which have recognized this group of individuals have permitted the use of Asset Protection Trusts. These protect any assets placed into them from seizure by creditors. Stocks and bonds, second and third homes, and jewlry are but a few examples of the "necessities" that can be protected. Naturally, these trusts aren't for everyone. They are expensive to set up. It's unlikely that any of the people mentioned above (who fall in the "commit fraud" category) would have sufficient funds available to hire an attorney, financial planner, and an accountant for assistance in obtaining one. That's why it's a protection extended to only those who "legitimately need help". It's intended to allow the "legitimately needy" to live in any state they wish to.

The third goal of the Administration and this Congress was to "bring stability and fairness to our financial system". The class, or groups, protected under the new law under this section is the banking and credit card industries (auto financiers deserve a special mention as well).

These entities, they claim, have long been victimized by the terminally ill, family breakups, and the unemployed. A quick peek at their earnings reports (prior to the "reform") shows that there is some merit to their argument. They could have made a lot more money than they did were the "reforms" already in place.

JP Morgan Chase reported a 2005 first quarter profit climb of 17 percent which was highlighted by its profit growth in the credit card business. Chase reported earning of $2.26 billion compared to $1.93 billion in the first quarter of 2004.

Bank of America reported profits of $4.7 billion which is an increase over $2.7 billion a year ago.

Smaller banks (lenders) also could have done better had the "reform" been in place earlier. As it is, they were only able to show the following: Sun Trust Banks Inc. of Atlanta reported 2005 first quarter earnings rising 36 percent while First Charter had an increased fee revenue and fewer loan problem loans showing a $10.3 million profit or 11.6 percent increase over 2004. Finally, First Trust Bank showed profits increasing 31 percent.

It's worth repeating. These numbers are pre-"reform". They seem to indicate that contrary to popular belief, Americans, absent devastating circumstances, tend to pay back their loans despite being subject to economic ill-winds with hardly any safety net beneath them. But then there is the "stability argument". Perhaps the lenders want a nice, stable return defined within the parameters of "no ceiling for profits, protection if profits aren't high enough". That's quite a business plan, not to mention a unique economic model.

Anybody who thinks that none of this affects them negatively must live in one of the two protected worlds described above. The rest are more likely than not to fall into the vulnerability of the first group (vulnerable) described above. To prove that point consider: There are 657 million bank credit card holders, 228 million debit card holders, and 550 million store credit card holders who, combined contributed $14.8 billion in PENALTY fees in 2004. With that much at stake (financially) in collecting penalties, it would be foolish for issuers of the cards not to come up with new and inventive ways to push a debtor into a default (late, etc) mode.

The next post contains some of the identified these methods. They add a new twist to the question, "What's in your wallet?"

"No child left behind" draft

2005-10-01T10:08:00.000-07:00

Some things need no comment. Consider the following description of the "Culture of Life" Administration implementing the "No Child Left Behind" program:

The following are excerpts from an L.A. Times article dated April 5, 2005. The article was written by Erika Hayasaki, Times Staff Writer

Marine Sgt. Rick Carloss is as familiar to students as some teachers at Downey High School. He does push-ups with students during PE classes and plays in faculty basketball games. During lunch, he hands out key chains, T-shirts and posters that proclaim: " Think of Me As Your New Guidance Counselor."

…Inside the attendance office, Carloss kissed two secretaries on their foreheads

"I need you to summon a young man out of class for me," he told one.

"OK," she replied. "What's his name?"

… the Marines missed their monthly recruiting goals in January through March for the first time in a decade, and the Army and the National Guard also fell short of their needs. This year, the Army and the Marines plan not only to increase the number of recruiters, but also to penetrate high schools more deeply, especially those least likely to send graduates to college.

For Carloss and other recruiters, part of the way has been cleared by the No Child Left Behind education law of 2002…

… The booklet states: "Be so helpful and so much a part of the school scene that you are in constant demand."

It advises recruiters to get to know young leaders because "some influential students such as the student president or the captain of the football team may not enlist; however, they can and will provide you with referrals who will enlist."

Sitting in the lunch room, Carloss told both young men that with money he earned in the military, he bought a motorcycle and a house, in addition to his Mercedes.

His cell-phone rang. It played a 50 Cent rap tune.

The sergeant took off his Rolex watch and handed it to Tovar. Tovar examined it and smiled: "That could be me one day.”

Inside the office, a white board on the wall lists 25 "target" high schools.

For each campus, recruiters had listed the number of male students, visits to the campus and total signed contracts for 2005.

Dave Griesmer, a spokesman for the Marine Corps Recruiting Command, said the military seeks diverse candidates, regardless of income level.

But he added: "You're not going to waste your resources if you're in sales in a market that is not going to produce.

"We certainly don't discount any school," he said. "But if 95% of kids in that area go on to college, a recruiter is going to decide where the best market is. Recruiters need to prioritize."

Carloss asked them to fill out cards with their name, address, phone number, age and grade. Students must be at least 17 to enlist. Those younger than 18 need parental consent.

"Are you scared?" Carloss said jokingly to one boy.

Carloss waved down a girl: "Go to one of these boys over here who you think is cute and tell him to do it."

"Who?" she replied.

"I don't care," Carloss said, "as long as he's 17."

Worthless I.O.U's and "BOO!"

2005-10-01T10:05:00.000-07:00

"There is no trust fund, just IOU's that I saw firsthand, that future generations will have to pay."

Translation: "BOO!!"

That's the latest mantra heard on the Administration's "Social Security Sideshow Road-Trip". On its face, the Administration is saying that the "full faith and credit" of the U.S. is no longer (perhaps never was) a standard and that the IOU's are worthless.

Curiously, there is no mention of the unprecedented raiding of the Social Security Trust Fund over the last 5 years to pay for, among other things, tax cuts for the wealthy (who don't depend on Social Security for things like food and/or medicine).

Perhaps the attack on the sanctity of the 'full faith and credit" standard is why the Social Security Administration, despite being used as a pawn in the Administration's game, felt the need to issue the following statement: "Far from being worthless IOU's, the investments held by the trust funds are backed by the full faith and credit of the U.S. govenment. The Government has always repaid Social Security, with interest." The agency went on to say, "The special-issue securities are, therefore, just as safe as U.S. Savings Bonds or other financial instruments of the federal government."

But that's a boring inter-family squabble.

The following would be exciting: If priority creditors (Americans) are holding "worthless IOU's", then what exactly are the creditors below holding?

A recent Treasury Department report shows that $1.96 trillion of the $4.43 trillion in U.S. debt was publicly traded. According to the Treasury Department, the countries with the largest holdings are:

Japan: $701.6 billion
China: $194.5 billion
U.K.: $163 billion
Caribbean banking centers including the Bahamas and Bermuda: $92.5 billion
South Korea: $$67.7 billion
OPEC: $64.7 billion
Taiwan: $59.2 billion
Germany: $57.1 billion
Hong Kong: $52.9 billion
Switzerland: $50 billion
Canada: $43.4 billion
Mexico: $41.1 billion
Luxembourg: $29.3 billion
Singapore: $27.6 Billion
Ireland: $21 billion

It makes one pause and wonder- when will the Administration sit down with the governments and business leaders listed above and tell them that they invested in "worthless IOU's". The smart money is on "never". That's because foreign creditors don't react well to scary "BOO" sounds emanating from the bushes.

The Buck Stops...Where?

2005-10-01T10:02:00.000-07:00

Much as been made of the Fort Bragg, N.C. speech intended to clarify(?) the Administration's position on the "Iraq Adventure". What is surprising is that observers feel the need to discuss the fact that the Osama/Saddam and 911 cards were played again. What is even more surprising is that the underlying message delivered was lost on so many.

Joshua Brown got it. For those who missed it, he explains the not-so "subliminable" message delivered that day in the following illustration. *May require clicking "refresh" to shorten the length of this post.

The "Nothing to Hide" Equation

2005-10-01T09:54:00.000-07:00

Those concerned about Constitutional rights not just being chipped away, but rather, being slashed are often met with the argument that "if you have nothing to hide then why worry?"

For a moment, let's assume that the "nothing to hide" straw man argument has a right to set foot on the stage of this debate and let's see if it applies across the board.

For those who have memories that go back to the time known as the "pre-2000 election" period, the memory of privacy rights might look a little like the following: An individual = privacy rights / The government = transparency in the carrying out of its functions.

Today, that equation has been set on its head. Individuals are subject to "sneaks and peeks", subject to arrest without the benefits of representation, suspects are "rendered" to countries we place on our list of human rights abusers, etc. The government, on the other hand, operates in extreme secrecy with an unprecedented number of documents being deemed classified, the invocation of executive privilege is a mantra to be said with morning breakfast, lunch, and evening meals, and all requests for information are routinely rebuffed.

Consider for a moment the following press release from People For the American Way describing yet another example in which the government is keeping secrets from its citizens:

People For the American Way Foundation (PFAWF) President Ralph G. Neas said today that a Justice Department demand for nearly $400,000 in fees for a FOIA request regarding the decision to seal the records of immigrants detained in the wake of the 9-11 terrorist attacks is outrageous, and another in a series of strategies to deny access to public information.

"Apparently, they’ve taken the ‘free’ out of ‘Freedom of Information.’ If you want to learn about secret trials carried out by your government with your money, you’re going to need deep pockets", said Neas.

"It’s clear that this is just the latest tactic in the Justice Department’s ongoing effort to hide information from the American public, particularly about ‘secret’ legal proceedings for immigrants held for months and sometimes years in the wake of the terrorist attacks", said Neas. "In decades of public advocacy, we’ve never been asked to provide fees of this magnitude. They’re clearly setting up new barriers to the release of information that ought to be made public immediately. It begs the question: What are they hiding?"

PFAWF first made the FOIA request November 25, 2003. It was denied by the Justice Department on the grounds of privacy in December, 2003. PFAWF contested the decision in a lawsuit filed in August, 2004. Only after the lawsuit was filed did Justice Department officials decide to ask for the records from U.S. Attorneys’ offices around the country. The department then concocted an estimate of $372,999 for the request, and asked for advance payment in a letter sent January 11, 2005. PFAWF has until February 10 to respond.

"The Freedom of Information Act was intended to give American citizens and the news media access to records that will help them protect their rights and see how the tremendous power of the government is being used. It’s especially important under one-party rule", said Neas. "We’re going to fight this outrageous demand."

Used with the permission of People For the American Way Foundation.

In light of the experience of People For the American Way and other groups and individuals attempting to find out what our "democracy" is up to, the question stands out like a sore thumb- What do they have to hide?

Better yet, since we're still hanging on to the slim reed of a democratic republic where our representatives ostensibly reflect our wills, the question should be, "What do we have to hide from ourselves?"

"Spin" versus Reality

2005-10-01T09:53:00.000-07:00

The Administration has proven itself to be able to sell failure as success from a political perspective. Joshua Brown leaves it to observers to see if this will be allowed to continue.

Platitudes from an airplane:

Victory for women (freedom for females):

The "Good Ol' Boy" smile:

Reality:

...no more platitudes, lies and smiles ...please...

Cable News, Terri Schiavo, War Protesters, and Swift Boats

2005-10-01T09:37:00.000-07:00

Polls consistently show that 70-85% of Americans think that the President and Congress should not interfere in the Teri Schiavo matter. The sentiment is that it's a private matter between family members and best handled by the courts.

Naturally, cable news offers us not only a complete shredding of any privacy concerns, it also demeans the process by which gut-wrenching decisions are made and, to top it off, reads the 70-85% response as "A Nation Divided".

No doubt that the media will convene yet another forum at which the sorry state of journalism is decried by its own members who, while shedding crocodile tears, will again proclaim, "We only give the public what it wants!"

To expose that falsehood, to see how the amount of coverage bears no resemblance to the impact of a story from a national and/or international level, and to show how this skewed coverage has ramifications one need only look back to the Iraqi War protestors and the 2004 election. In those two instances, a complete disregard for substantive discussion, investigative journalism, and a "damn the torpedoes" approach to consequences is clearly evidenced.

First, the hundred or so (according to reports) people physically present outside of the hospice housing Teri Schiavo pale, in number at least, to the unprecedented hundreds of thousands physically protesting the war in this country and the millions throughout the world. If one were to view the importance of the story from a cable coverage point of view, the Schiavo story makes the war protests seem like they were completely unremarkable in size, scope, and intensity.

As for not giving the public what it wants and the consequences thereof, the coverage of the 2004 election is telling. In August an informal study was undertaken to see how cable news would perform in informing the public on the issues as the campaign began to come to a head.

The basis for the study were two polls. One each was taken by 'liberal' TIME (August 3-5) and ‘conservative’ FOX News (August 3-4). Both asked which issues were most important in the presidential election.

In both polls, the public chose the economy, Iraq, terrorism, health care or Medicare, moral value issues, education, and taxes. The answers were used as benchmarks to gauge cable’s responsiveness to addressing the public's concerns.

A sampling of programs from August 5th - 26th revealed that cable news provided more than 283,593 words and over 34 showings of an attack ad(s) on Kerry and his Vietnam service. Publishing industry standards place 283,593 words beyond the reach of regular novels and into the realm of a 1,134 page “epic” novel or a trilogy (requests for a copy of the full story- sources, quotes, etc.- are available upon request).

Kerry led in the polls after the Democratic Convention. When the Swift Boat orgy fully kicked in, his numbers began to drop and at the end of the 3 week period he was behind. When his his poll numbers dropped below that of Bush, pundits began fingerprint removal by relentlessly repeating, “people don’t know where he stands”, and attributing credit to “Bush’s convention bounce”.

On September 14th, analyst and poll aficionado Bill Schneider broke ranks and pointed out, “…Then came weeks of attacks. By late August, the number who said Kerry's military record made them more likely to vote for him had dropped by half. Kerry's advantage was neutralized by the controversy”.

He added, “In early August Kerry had the edge over Bush as the more honest and trustworthy candidate. In late August just before the Republican convention, the advantage had tilted to Bush”.

None of this is to say that had cable news covered the war protests as much as they have the Schiavo story the war would have been prevented and that thousands upon thousands of lives (American and Iraqi), as well as $300 billion tax dollars for the war, would have been spared. It is to say that the protests deserved a serious look which may have, in turn, caused a reconsideration of the conflict by certain elected members of our leadership. As it was, the coverage did nothing to show the fact that, on this issue, the country was truly "A Nation Divided".

As for the 2004 election, the coverage may or may not be blamed or credited with the outcome. That may or may not matter to the reader depending on the outcome desired. One thing is not open for discussion. The Time and Fox polls taken asking the public what was important to it was an exercise in futility. The facts show that determining what's important to the public is apparently best left to cable news.

Televangelists and Telepoliticos

2005-10-01T09:31:00.000-07:00

Those who missed televangelist and founder of the Christian Coalition, Pat Robertson, on ABC's This Week (5/1/05) missed quite an unmasking.

Gone was the garb of the preacher. On went the suit of a campaign advisor. Anyone who caught the appearance and is still laughing at his blasphemous use of God and the Bible in pursuit of a larger political agenda should stop laughing and focus on how symbiotic our T.V. politicians and our Televangelists (T.V. angels) have become.

A review of some of the soundbites he offered seems to show a man mired in inconsistencies. A man who can't possibly be taken seriously when talking about religion. Perhaps. But religion is not what he's talking about. Religion is the sword and the shield he employs to cut and to keep from getting cut.

Some of the quotes jumped on by the media were the following:

That the judiciary, as it is currently composed, is a greater threat to this nation than Al Qaeda is and the Nazis, the Japanese, and the Civil War were; and

That in his coversations with God, God had predicted the passage of George Bush's Social Security Reform, Tax Reform, and a conservative court being appointed by George Bush.

It is important to note that the judiciary, the only branch of government that interprets and determines the constitutionality of laws, was seen as the greatest threat to the country sice its inception. Equally notable is that all of God's predictions had to do with political measures and undertakings which reflected the agenda (in the form of laws) of the current Administration.

When pressed about how come God took such an interest in "our" personal affairs but did not do anything about the devastating Tsunami that cost over a hundred thousand of "their" lives, he broke into a completely scientific explanation over earth movements, plate shifting and flatly stated that God does not interfere with the ways of nature.

In other words, even as he is chasing science out of the classroom, he employed science to exonerate a God apparently too busy privatizing Social Security to worry about a catastrophic event resulting in a tremendous tragedy. That's a prime example of Robertson "watching God's back". He knows that God, by lending his name to the Robertson empire, will return the favor tenfold by helping him achieve and/or maintain his own personal, narrow agenda.

He continues stretching God (and Catholicism) into something that fits only within a political calculation. When asked about Republican presidential contenders in 2008 he mentions Brownback of Kansas and Allen of Virginia as two particularly fine men. That is to be expected. Their lips have been super-glued to the posterior of the conservative Christian movement for a long time. He still needs them to think he'll marry them someday as they proceed to fall all over themselves in an effort to please him as they carry his water.

But despite his kind words, his true love rests with the image (and popularity) of another.

Twice divorced and with a liberal view towards gay rights and abortion, at first blush, Giuliani does not seem to fit in very well with the platitudes about sin that Robertson offers on his T.V. show and on appearances throughout the country. And yet, he fits in perfectly.

Despite his transgressions against Catholicism, Robertson calls Giuliani a "dedicated Catholic" who'd make "a good president". There's only one explanation for this obvious convenience of marriage- Giuliani is palatable to the mainstream of the American public.

This is mandatory in the upcoming election because the writing is already on the wall. Whoever the nominee is in 2008 for the Republicans, he will face "Bush Fatigue" and an extremely depleted country both at home and abroad. That's why the candidate for the Republicans will need to appeal to and exploit every constituency- not just conservative Christians. Robertson knows he can deliver a good chunk of them to the table regardless of the candidate's standing in "the" church if he obtains the appropriate reciprocal promises from the candidate.

In the realpolitik that is Robertson's religion, God throws softballs to the electable. Giuliani, likeable because he's a moderate on social issues and wearing the hero hat (deserved or not) after 9-11 can ride the 9-11 horse even after Bush beats it close to death and rides off into history.

Senator Frist can't. That's why Robertson tosses him aside like a cheap suit. To Robertson, God has already thrown two fastballs and a change-up by the Senator. His cadaverous appearance on television, his awkwardness while giving speeches, and a warmth factor that makes Tom DeLay seem like fun-loving, kindly uncle Tommy, makes him a disaster for the pro-business God that Robertson knows so well.

What many saw in that interview was a buffoon of a preacher. What they were looking at is a man very interested in protecting his various business holdings and not shy in jettisoning some pesky Bible passages in the name of cultivating his private and lucrative earthly interests.

Click Here for Full Post

Intelligence, Wars, and Cake

2005-10-01T09:08:00.000-07:00

Apparently, some people can have their cake and eat it too. The people who were the policy makers in charge during the lead-up and invasion of Iraq fall into that category.

Consider the recent report (see post: Faulty intelligence, Congress, and Steroids) by the Commission on Intelligence Capabilities. The commission, appointed by what should have been one of the targets of its investigation (policy makers), sliced and diced the intelligence community but did not look into the Administration's potential influence on the outcome of the report by those very same communities.

On 3/31, Charles Robb and co-chairman Laurence Silberman, gave a briefing (C-Span video) on the report. To their momentary credit, reporters briefly focused on the glaring omission of any investigation into the Administration. After much side-stepping, the co-chairs flatly stated that their mandate did not call for them to investigate the policy makers (Administration).

That, in and of itself, is quite a story. After all, one must consider the following:

1) The commission was appointed by a potential target of the investigation;

2) The potential target issued orders for it to be left out of the investigation;

3) The potential target then instructed the commissioners to present the report as a full investigation.

In their defense, the commissioners stated that they couldn't find anyone who claimed undue influence was exerted by the Administration over them. They must not have looked far because a stone's throw away, approximately one year ago, Rep. Conyers(D) held unofficial hearings (since the Republican leadership refused to hold any hearings on the subject) that clearly indicated that there was a lot of pressure emanating from the Administration. The influence included, but was not limited to, "sleep-overs" by Powell and constant trips by Cheney to the CIA as well as the alleged creation of a special intelligence office in the Pentagon designed for providing intelligence information on Iraq.

Despite the lack of any investigation into the Administration's role, despite questions of who said what to whom (Tenet, now beyond the hand that fed him, recently repudiated the report), despite the FBI's questioning of the report, despite the background from insiders that the Iraq invasion was going to occur regardless of intelligence results (see Powell, Clarke, Woodward, Wolfowitz, etc.), many of the morning papers and newscasts simply presented the story with a derivative of the conclusionary statment that faulty intelligence was relied upon by (the powers that be) and that the reports, therefore, were responsible for the invasion of Iraq.

The point is moot. Those who, according to the report, failed miserably (intelligence community) had their cake and are still eating it. Tenet received was given a Presidential Medal of Honor and the FBI leadership has been left unscathed. In fact, FBI leadership has received high praise from the Administration. Policy makers involved either kept their jobs or received promotions.

The blame was squarely placed on easy targets- organizations and reports. Both are faceless and nobody can empathize with either. Nobody, that is, except for the non-leadership people who work in the buildings (and in the field) risking their lives to generate reports that, depending on the whims of policy makers, can be so badly disfigured that they are unrecognizable by the authors.

That is not so easily dismissed with, "poor intelligence led to the invasion of Iraq".

Audio/Visual Resources

2005-10-01T07:56:00.000-07:00

Media Matters on Will-AM

MIT World

The Weekend Interview Show with Scott Horton

CounterSpin

NewsHour

Washington Week

Frontline

PublicRadioFan (personalize)

Background Briefing

Democracy Now

Your Call

WGBH Forum

Princeton University Event Streaming

C-Span

- -

Armed Forces of "The One and Only"

2005-10-01T07:50:00.000-07:00

It seems that the armed forces may be changing their motto slightly. The cry may be changing from, "An Army of One" to "Soldiers in the Army of the One and Only".

Those who have forgotten about the evangelical splash made on the military world by Lt. Gen. Boykin may want to read an excellent primer on the role of evangelicals in our armed forces as they try to understand how the following story, as reported by the LA Times on April 29, 2005 and entitled "Group Details Air Force Academy Religious Bias", affects the U.S. in a much more fundamental way than the conservative Christian movement to take-over any or all of the three branches of government.

The Times reports that Americans United for the Separation of Church and State has found what it calls a "religious intolerance" that is both "systemic and pervasive at the U.S. Air Force Academy". Spokespeople for the Academy declined to comment on the allegations.

While not commenting, the Academy has acknowledged some instances in which certain individuals have gone "too far in pushing their faith". Apparently that recognition was in response to 55 complaints over the last 4 years filed by cadets who felt that evangelical Christians dominated the Academy. Some minor directives were also handed out to teachers and cadets by the Academy about respecting religious diversity.

However, Americans United found that the problems "stretched to the very highest levels of the Academy". Their report found that cadets who refused to attend chapel after dinner were "marched back to their dorms in a ritual called 'heathen flight'"; an instructor was found to have ordered students to pray before a final exam; and a Christmas greeting in the base newspaper held Jesus as the only hope for the world. This greeting was signed by 300 people including 16 heads or department heads of academic departments, 9 professors, the dean of faculty and the football coach.

The report by Americans United also found that Brig. Gen. Johnny Weida, commander of cadets and self-described "born-again Christian", shared a code with which he spoke to other evangelicals including one that was a masked reference to a parable about one's faith.

Even Yale Divinity Students were surprised at the proselytizing going on at the Academy. They reported that cadets were encouraged to preach to others and to remind those that weren't part of the "born again" group that they risked being burned "in the fires of hell" because of their particular belief or lack of a "born again" belief.

The department of the Air Force in Washington only said that their commanders encourage self-improvement "in all areas" and included "religious accomodation" as one of those areas.

One would think that a much more serious investigation into the Colorado Springs Air Force Academy would take place.

Perhaps the investigators of that facility are a bit tired. They just finished a series of rape and sexual assault scandals that first emerged 2 years ago at the very same facility.

Click Here for Full Post

Schiavo, the Pope, and "moral obligations"

2005-10-01T07:46:00.000-07:00

"I should like particularly to underline how the administration of water and food, even when provided by artificial means, always represents a natural means of preserving life, not a medical act. Its use, furthermore, should be considered, in principle, ordinary and proportionate, and as such morally obligatory."

The words of John Paul last year to an international conference on treatments for patients described as being in a persistent vegetative state. He was clarifying a 1980 Vatican document that distinguishes between "proportionate" and "disproportionate" means of prolonging life. The Pope allowed for the cessation of some forms of aggressive medical intervention for terminally ill patients but the Church and the Pope maintain that "normal care" must not be interrupted.

In the Schiavo case, the Vatican newspaper L'Osservatore Romano compared the removal of the feeding tube to capital punishment and said of her, "But Terri has committed no crimes, if not that of being `useless' to the eyes of a society incapable of appreciating and defending the gift of life".

That seems to be pretty clear. Too bad the Church isn't as clear on unprovoked war (did the civilians or "collateral damage" in Iraq commit any crimes?), and too bad the Pope hasn't been as clear on the Administration's budgetary policies that call for social safety net cuts affecting the young, the poor, and the old. What crimes have they committed?

What about the homeless or those thrown onto the streets with severe psychological problems who are left to fend for themselves? Where is their "feeding tube" that would be considered a "natural means of preserving life". What crimes have they committed other than of being "useless" to the eyes of society?

His voice, the authority of the Church, and the insightful commentary of L'Osservatore Romano would be of great assistance for all those in this country trying to carry out the work of the one for whom all three of them (Pope, Church, and its newspaper) claim to work for.

The "Leave All Incriminating Memos Behind" Act of 2005

2005-10-01T07:39:00.000-07:00

It's getting harder and harder to find an official branch of government or even an unofficial, but recognized (the press or fourth estate), guardian of our Republic that can claim it is acting in the best interests of the average American. The "coverage" and "investigations" of the Downing Street Memo(s) clearly show that we are, in fact, a people without an accountable government or a responsible press.

The merits of the Memo(s) notwithstanding, the attempts at shutting down discussion of them, the downplaying of their importance, and the treating of them as old news is the result of a public taken for granted and taken advantage of in many ways.

The excuses given for not grilling the Administration on the contents of the Memo(s) and the Administration's obfuscation are best evidenced by the repetition of an alleged language barrier between the Queen's English and American English that is apparently so deep as to make understanding of each other impossible. If nothing else, then this should lead "inquiring minds" to question how, in light of this impregnable language barrier, Blair and Bush could communicate. One would hope that on matters of importance- like starting wars- they would have, at least, used interpreters so as not to lead to any misunderstandings. After all, many lives would, could, and have been affected and extinguished as a result of their conversations.

The alleged language barrier revolves primarily around the phrase "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy" contained in the first Memo.

To that, suffice it to say that a pig by any other name is still a swine leaving the dissembling of the plain meaning of the phrase "being fixed" with the unbearable stench that often accompanies the burying of truth. In order to clarify for our politicians and journalists alike the meaning of "fixed" within the memo and the importance of the memo itself, one need only look at the concerns expressed by Mr. Micheal Smith- the British journalist who first discovered and published the memo.

He apparently felt so bad for the American public that he felt the need to publish a commentary in the June 23, 2005 Los Angeles Times. In the interests of accomodating those who do not wish to register in order to gain access to the Times, Mr. Smith wrote:

COMMENTARY
The Real News in the Downing Street Memos
By Michael Smith
Michael Smith writes on defense issues for the Sunday Times of London.

June 23, 2005

It is now nine months since I obtained the first of the "Downing Street memos," thrust into my hand by someone who asked me to meet him in a quiet watering hole in London for what I imagined would just be a friendly drink.

At the time, I was defense correspondent of the London Daily Telegraph, and a staunch supporter of the decision to oust Saddam Hussein. The source was a friend. He'd given me a few stories before but nothing nearly as interesting as this.

The six leaked documents I took away with me that night were to change completely my opinion of the decision to go to war and the honesty of Prime Minister Tony Blair and President Bush.

They focused on the period leading up to the Crawford, Texas, summit between Blair and Bush in early April 2002, and were most striking for the way in which British officials warned the prime minister, with remarkable prescience, what a mess post-war Iraq would become. Even by the cynical standards of realpolitik, the decision to overrule this expert advice seemed to be criminal.

The second batch of leaks arrived in the middle of this year's British general election, by which time I was writing for a different newspaper, the Sunday Times. These documents, which came from a different source, related to a crucial meeting of Blair's war Cabinet on July 23, 2002. The timing of the leak was significant, with Blair clearly in electoral difficulties because of an unpopular war.

I did not then regard the now-infamous memo — the one that includes the minutes of the July 23 meeting — as the most important. My main article focused on the separate briefing paper for those taking part, prepared beforehand by Cabinet Office experts.

It said that Blair agreed at Crawford that "the UK would support military action to bring about regime change." Because this was illegal, the officials noted, it was "necessary to create the conditions in which we could legally support military action."

But Downing Street had a "clever" plan that it hoped would trap Hussein into giving the allies the excuse they needed to go to war. It would persuade the U.N. Security Council to give the Iraqi leader an ultimatum to let in the weapons inspectors.

Although Blair and Bush still insist the decision to go to the U.N. was about averting war, one memo states that it was, in fact, about "wrong-footing" Hussein into giving them a legal justification for war.

British officials hoped the ultimatum could be framed in words that would be so unacceptable to Hussein that he would reject it outright. But they were far from certain this would work, so there was also a Plan B.

American media coverage of the Downing Street memo has largely focused on the assertion by Sir Richard Dearlove, head of British foreign intelligence, that war was seen as inevitable in Washington, where "the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

But another part of the memo is arguably more important. It quotes British Defense Secretary Geoff Hoon as saying that "the U.S. had already begun 'spikes of activity' to put pressure on the regime." This we now realize was Plan B.

Put simply, U.S. aircraft patrolling the southern no-fly zone were dropping a lot more bombs in the hope of provoking a reaction that would give the allies an excuse to carry out a full-scale bombing campaign, an air war, the first stage of the conflict.

British government figures for the number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq in 2002 show that although virtually none were used in March and April, an average of 10 tons a month were dropped between May and August.

But these initial "spikes of activity" didn't have the desired effect. The Iraqis didn't retaliate. They didn't provide the excuse Bush and Blair needed. So at the end of August, the allies dramatically intensified the bombing into what was effectively the initial air war.

The number of bombs dropped on southern Iraq by allied aircraft shot up to 54.6 tons in September alone, with the increased rates continuing into 2003.

In other words, Bush and Blair began their war not in March 2003, as everyone believed, but at the end of August 2002, six weeks before Congress approved military action against Iraq.

The way in which the intelligence was "fixed" to justify war is old news.

The real news is the shady April 2002 deal to go to war, the cynical use of the U.N. to provide an excuse, and the secret, illegal air war without the backing of Congress.

Copyright 2005 Los Angeles Times

Fair Use Notice:

This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available in our efforts to advance understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic, democracy, scientific, and social justice issues, etc. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.

'Searching for Social Security in all the Wrong Places'- and other Bush hits!

2005-10-01T07:11:00.001-07:00

George Bush is, yet again, slapping on a different shade of lipstick on his Social Security "reform" plan and hoping that it will make his latest version of "K" Street pork an easier sell to the public.

This time he's presented a form of "means testing" which, when one looks behind the curtain, is another way of ensuring that Social Security will eventually be viewed as a welfare entitlement rather than what it is- a proven, effective social contract.

Privatization proponents are gambling that, in the long run, Social Security is seen as a premium or tax which productive members of society pay and non-productive members receive. This, they hope, will result in opening it up to further revisions of catastrophic proportions through a simple divide and conquer campaign by demagogues carrying out the goal of freeing the wealthy from paying back what they've borrowed from the fund.

One need not dig too deeply to see why being the poster boy for this campaign comes naturally for George Bush. For those that didn't read the "Bush Unfiltered" post (3/23/05) now contained in the archives, the following are a few memorable quotes directly relating to Social Security and other 'safety net' programs from Bush during various stages of his life. Consider them while watching him feign concern and shed crocodile tears for those who rely on Social Security:

"People are poor because they're lazy."

Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal was "socialism".

Opposed to Social Security, Medicare, Environmental Protection, Public Schools, and Labor Unions.

Those quotes and ideas were presented to his Harvard Business School instructor(s).

"I hope I'm not here to have to deal with it".

Quoted on the 2000 campaign trail responding to reports from Texas about uncertainties in the state budget and deficiencies in state services that took a backseat to Bush's $1.7 billion tax cut.

"I don't understand how poor people think..."

Post 2000 election comment to Reverand Jim Wallis, leader of the Call to Renewal, a network of churches that fight poverty.

"You can fool some of the people all of the time and those are the ones you want to concentrate on".

Part of his presentation at the Gridiron Club Dinner.

While the last quote has been used by others, rarely has it been so fully embraced as by the current Administration.

As mentioned in the original post, his contempt for a social safety net dates back to his days at Harvard and continues to this day. Furthermore, his disconnect with the poor and middle class (public schools, unions, EPA, Social Security, Medicare) certainly seems to have survived his religious conversion fully intact despite the teachings of the Bible he professes to adhere to.

Those who remain unconvinced by the man's own words as an indicator of how he feels about the subject need look no further to see the underlying lies behind the faux concern over Social Security than Michael Hiltzik's April 7th column in the L.A. Times entitled, "The Rich Are Behind Trust Fund Myth" (simple registration may be required).

Hiltzik's argument is not to be confused with a gratuitous attack on Bush. Rather, his article is directed against the flippant, cavalier, and adolescent manner with which extremely important issues are dealt with on today's political stage.

In the case of Social Security, Bush happens to be caught in the crossfire as he is the star of this particular and peculiar show with an invisible supporting cast of many located in various think tanks that are backed by the deep pockets of wealthy benefactors.

Hiltzik pens a masterpiece of understated rage at the sham currently being touted as a "debate" over the future of Social Security. He begins by observing that, "One can reliably conclude that a political policy is failing when the stage business used to promote it gets more elaborate".

To illustrate his point Hiltzik highlights Bush's recent visit to a Parkersburg facility which houses the Social Security Trust Fund Bond Certificates and his use of a filing cabinet in a "show and tell" exercise that would not be worthy of a remedial first grade classroom (if such a designation existed).

The point of the exercise, apparently, was for Bush to show the public that the only thing the file cabinet contained were certificates and that, therefore, meant that the trust fund did not exist. The logic applied, translated into a simple mathematical fomula, apparently produces: file cabinet + certificates = IOU (with IOU having a value of "0" when used in conjuction with "Social Security Trust Fund").

For anyone still unclear on the concept used by proponents of privatization, Bush later clarified his statement by describing the Trust Fund Bond Certificates as "worthless IOU's"- a description which raised more than a few eyebrows in worldwide financial institutions.

Hiltzik dismisses Bush's stage play by applying Bush's logic to the Bush family's own finances. He states, "I suspect that the brokerage statements, oil leases and government securities that represent the Bush dynasty's wealth are stored in file cabinets very much like this one".

From there Hiltzik lays out a clear history of Social Security funding, points to the surplus that's been collected and shows how the wealthy have maintained a low tax rate or enjoyed tax cuts through successive presidential terms by a non-stop looting of the trust fund to make up for general fund revenue shortages. In effect, what has transpired over a lengthy period of time is a subsidy given to the rich by the government from the pockets of the poor and middle- class.

Hiltzik's analysis correctly shows that the looting or "borrowing" from the trust fund by the wealthy is unsustainable. The time frame for this fact to surface is, not coincidentally, the same as the one defined by Bush as when the system will be "bankrupt". At that point additional revenue will have to be raised to replace the funds which were appropriated due to artificial "surpluses" created by the inclusion of social security revenue into the general fund. Not surprisingly, any correction to the tax code, more likely than not would and should, be directed at those who have benefitted most from the raiding of the trust fund, namely, the wealthy.

That is why they and their minions in the Administration and in Congress are so quick to yell that there is no trust fund (therefore no debt owed to it by them) and to audaciously accuse anyone who disagrees of being incapable of performing simple math or of engaging in "class warfare". It's also why their solution rests primarily with calling for a reduction in benefits or a privatization of the system. Those particular remedies cut the outstanding debt of the wealthy to the trust fund substantially- if not altogether. Hiltzik describes the proposed scheme as one that "really boils down to a refusal by the rich to pay decades of loans from the middle and lower classes."

For those interested, Hiltzik's article also provides a useful template for the evaluation of other Administration "reform" measures. Caution should be exercised as the evaluation may lead to a mind-numbing consistency in results.

For instance, just taking 2 of the "reforms", Tort and Bankruptcy, simply replacing "Social Security" with either of them before the word "reform", and plugging in the applicable, verifiable facts surrounding the issue chosen invariably leads to the same conclusion: only one definable group consistently benefits- the wealthy few (individual and/or corporate).

Full Post

Feeding tubes and abortion

2005-10-01T07:11:00.000-07:00

The pro-choice forces might as well prepare themselves for the next round of attacks on abortion rights sure to follow as a result of the Schiavo case.

According to the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist, a feeding tube was, like other procedures, an extraordinary medical intervention. Pro-life forces, post-Schiavo, are sure to take up this issue and, using the sympathy garnered as a result of the Teri Schiavo reality show, attempt to ram legislation through states that modifies this ruling and takes feeding tubes off the list of medical interventions. This will not be framed within the abortion debate but, rather, under the guise of clarifying "life support".

This would be the first step in the next salvo against a woman's right to choose as it takes no great imagination to formulate an argument that an umbilical cord is nothing more than a feeding tube and that, therefore, fetuses would be covered as well. This would render an abortion (the physical act of removing the fetus from the umbilical cord and/or vice versa) a prohibited act. It would truly be a "wolf" bill in "sheeps'" legislative clothing.

It will be interesting to see who has the courage (in state legislatures) to stand up against this type of shameless exploitation of this sad case.

Don't Say He (Rep. Waxman) Didn't Tell You So...

2005-10-01T06:23:00.000-07:00

Legislators who take their jobs seriously and represent the interests of their constituents and our society at large are few and far between. Rep. Henry Waxman is one of the few.

To illustrate, consider the recent announcement by the Justice Department regarding the tobacco industry lawsuit brought by the government. The government was on the verge of a tremendous victory on behalf of the public as the industry was about to be forced to disgorge illicit profits arrived at through fraudulent practices causing undue death, misery, and a huge bill to taxpayers in the form of healthcare costs.

The Justice Department abruptly slammed on the brakes and drastically reduced the demand for damages from $130 billion to $10 billion for a stop-smoking program. As the country was feeling the whiplash effect of the decision, Rep. Waxman was back at work, arguing against the change in amount and demanding answers from the Administration.

Perhaps he wasn't quite as surprised as the rest of us. A quick visit to his website shows that he has been tireless in his efforts at making the tobacco companies compensate the country for what they have inflicted upon our citizenry. For a review of his efforts simply visit his site and review 32 separate citations of specific concerns and/or actions regarding the tobacco industry.

Some stand out for their prescience in light of what has just happened. The first dates back to a letter sent by Rep. Waxman in 2001. In this particular letter, he raises concerns about the Administration's special dispensations given to the tobacco industry. The outline of the letter sent to the Administration reads:

Thursday, August 02, 2001
Administration Seeks to Weaken Global Tobacco Accord

Rep. Waxman wrote a letter to President Bush protesting the actions of the U.S. delegation at the most recent negotiating session of the international Framework Convention on Tobacco Control. The letter, which is based on previously unreleased minutes of the meetings, reveals how the United States has tried to weaken or eliminate key provisions of the treaty related to tobacco labeling, advertising, exports, and other issues.

*Many documents and letters are in pdf format. Readers can download a free "Adobe Reader" on the left hand side of this page.

The second prescient document emanating from Rep. Waxman's office appeared in the New England Journal of Medicine (March 21, 2002 edition) and in it he stated unequivocally:

"We know more about the harm of tobacco consumption and effective ways to reduce this harm than about perhaps any other major cause of human suffering. That knowledge -- not political influence or campaign contributions -- should guide U.S. actions in these crucial public health negotiations."

The latter is listed under "Administration Holding Weak Positions on Tobacco Treaty" on his website and deals with the "deficiencies in U.S. negotiating positions on the global tobacco treaty, including weak positions on tobacco taxes, advertising and promotion, labeling, trade, and passive smoking restrictions." The article is not available online but, suffice it to say, the synopsis is sufficient to show that 3 years ago, alarm bells were going off about how this Administration and its Justice Department were veering off the path of concerns for the health, safety, and welfare of the public and were replacing that responsibility with the health, safety, and welfare of tobacco company pocketbooks.

Nonetheless, still seeking common ground, Rep. Waxman tried again to reach out to the Administration when Alberto Gonzales replaced John Ashcroft as Attorney General. Early this year, on February 22, Rep. Waxman and Rep. Meehan wrote to Alberto Gonzalez to, according to the description of the letter on the website, "express their support for the Justice Department's aggressive pursuit of the landmark case against the tobacco industry." No doubt this was done so that the new Attorney General would realize that this was an important issue and was still being monitored.

It's worth noting that Rep. Waxman went this extra mile despite evidence that the Administration could not care less about the public-at-large on a wide variety of issues and has consistently sided with well-funded special interest campaign contributors. The inexplicable reduction of the amount sought as compensation by the government should convince even the most ardent Administration supporters who do not have a vested interest in tobacco industry stock that the Administration's talk does not match its actions.

Those still unconvinced need only remember that the Administration's reduction in the damages sought is a tax on the public-whether the individual is a smoker or not. After all, every dollar that the tobacco companies don't have to pay is another dollar out of taxpayers pockets in the form of healthcare and other societal costs associated with smoking.

Finally, if there is any doubt left as to who really runs the government and to whose benefit it is currently operating consider the report on the lawsuit from the the LA Times Business Section, June 8, 2005, under the headline,"U.S. Eases Demands on Tobacco Companies" which reads, in pertinent part, that:

A person familiar with the situation, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the change was "forced on the tobacco team by higher-level, politically appointed officials of the Justice Department," including Associate Atty. Gen. Robert McCallum, who oversees the civil division.

Before his appointment in the Justice Department in 2001, McCallum had been a partner at Alston & Bird, an Atlanta-based firm that has done trademark and patent work for R.J. Reynolds Tobacco. In 2002, McCallum signed a friend-of-the-court brief by the administration urging the Supreme Court not to consider an appeal by the government of Canada to reinstate a cigarette smuggling case against R.J. Reynolds that had been dismissed. The department's ethics office had cleared McCallum to take part in that case.

In response to the Administration's actions, Rep.'s Waxman and Meehan immediately called for an independant investigation by the Inspector General's office to get to the botttom of how the decision to reduce the demand was arrived at.

The letter is on Rep. Waxman's site for public view. It is dated Wednesday, June 08, 2005 and the outline reads:

IG Asked to Investigate DOJ Tobacco Reversal

Reps. Waxman and Meehan asked the Justice Department Inspector General to investigate whether improper political interference contributed to the Department's surprise decision to slash its request in the litigation against the tobacco industry.

One is tempted to applaud Rep. Waxman. Perhaps a more productive approach would be to support, through letters, e-mails, etc., Rep. Waxman and Rep. Meehan, as well as Sen. Kennedy and others who are moving quickly to stop this outrage before it comes to fruition.