"You must never confuse faith that you will prevail in the end - which you can never afford to lose - with the discipline to confront the most brutal facts of your current reality, whatever they might be."

- Admiral James Stockdale

The Bush "win" - and his entire Presidency, for that matter - are a like recurring nightmare, with no alarm clock to end it. The rumors of vote tampering, combined with the announcement of Bush’s "mandate" and the escalation of his evangelical agenda promises that the second four years may be even worse than the first - that may not seem possible, but it really, really is.

Worse, rumors and FACTS about a possible fraudulent election are coming out every minute of every day. If they are all true, then our democracy is in grave danger. If they are partly true, we have a chance to do something about it before the next election. If they are untrue, we are where we were on November 3 - a greatly divided and fearful nation run by a megalomaniacal dunderhead with a messiah complex, and a coterie of evil advisors with designs for world domination.

The brutal, unavoidable reality is - WE ARE STUCK WITH THIS GUY AND HIS GANG FOR FOUR MORE YEARS. GET USED TO IT.

The Stockdale Paradox*

You may remember Jim Stockdale best as Ross Perot’s somewhat eccentric running mate from the 1992 election. During the Vice Presidential debate of that year, Admiral Stockdale looked into the camera and infamously asked "who am I, and what am I doing here"?

His performance in that debate was not typical of his life, however.

Stockdale was the highest-ranking United States military officer in the "Hanoi Hilton" prisoner-of-war camp during the height of the Vietnam War.

During his eight-year imprisonment - from the earliest days of Viet Nam in 1965, through its near end in 1973 - Stockdale lived out the war without any prisoner's rights, no release date, and no idea at all as to whether he would live to see America or his family again.

He, alone, took on the burden of command, doing anything and everything to create conditions that would increase the number of prisoners who would survive unbroken, while fighting an internal war against his captors and their attempts to use the prisoners for propaganda. At one point, he beat himself with a stool and cut himself with a razor, deliberately disfiguring himself, so that he could not be put on videotape as an example of a "well-treated prisoner." He exchanged secret intelligence information with his wife through their letters, knowing that discovery would mean more torture and perhaps death. He instituted rules that would help people to deal with torture (no one can resist torture indefinitely, so he created a step-wise system-after x minutes, you can say certain things-that gave the men milestones to survive toward).

He instituted an elaborate internal communications system to reduce the sense of isolation that their captors tried to create, which used a five-by-five matrix of tap codes for alpha characters. At one point, during an imposed silence, the prisoners mopped and swept the central yard using the code, swish-swashing out "We love you" to Stockdale, on the third anniversary of his being shot down.

After his release, Stockdale became the first three-star officer in the history of the navy to wear both aviator wings and the Congressional Medal of Honor.

Knowing that Stockdale made it out, and lived to embarrass himself on national TV in 1992, makes this story easier to take. But imagine - for one second - how it must have been for that brave man to live through that experience and NOT know the end of the happy end of the story.

"I never lost faith in the end of the story. I never doubted not only that I would get out, but also that I would prevail in the end and turn the experience into the defining event of my life, which, in retrospect, I would not trade."

Stockdale survived not because he had hope, but because he looked at the harsh reality of his situation AND believed fervently in his ability to prevail.

When asked who did not make it out of the camps, Stockdale replied "The optimists. The ones who said, ‘We’re going to be out by Christmas.’ And Christmas would come, and Christmas would go. Then they’d say, ‘We’re going to be out by Easter.’ And Easter would come, and Easter would go. And then Thanksgiving, and then it would be Christmas again. And they died of a broken heart."

We cannot remove Bush from office today or tomorrow or next week or even next year - the "mainstream press" and a fearful citizenry have ratified his "mandate". With both houses of congress and a stacked court under his control, there is little we can do to overturn even an extremely flawed election - hell we couldn’t do much to overturn an openly questionable election that he LOST in 2000.

But we CAN slow his agenda. We CAN start working NOW to take back the local, state and national offices that control the local election boards and Statewide Constitutions. It’s a slog - a long, hard, ongoing fight, against very bad odds - but it’s one we cannot avoid.

In 1960, Nixon and the Republicans and "lost" an election that they KNEW they had won. In 1964, Goldwater and his Conservatives lost again - but they started the long, hard slog back to power - strategizing a 30 year plan, working on the school board level and taking NOTHING for granted. They looked at the harsh realities of the world around them and met them head on - yet they never doubted that they would prevail.

They were right. Their takeover - by hook or by crook - is complete.

Now it is our turn. We must face the disgusting realities of life with Bush and his kin. We must address the reeducation of America - block by block, city by city, state by state. We must not shy away from the hard work and we cannot convince ourselves that there is an easy out - but we must also be assured of our ability to prevail, because failure simply is not an option.
Since yesterday, I have received nearly 1,000 emails regarding potential election fraud. Unfortunately, I have received only 2 emails regarding vulnerable conservative incumbents and only 2 more on ideas for young voter mobilization.

I am attempting to assign the most reality-based election rumors to those of you who seem inclined to research. But, we need real help identifying ways to educate new, young and moderate voters and to identify potential local candidates who we can support for congress, Mayor, etc.

I resisted writing about election fraud because I feared we would be distracted. I am glad I wrote what I did last night, because "catching" the fraud will be an excellent tool to slow down the Bush agenda and open the eyes of those in the middle who may have voted "the wrong way". But we cannot afford to take our eye off the ball.

Millions of 16 and 17 year olds will be eligible to vote in 2006, but motivating them and others for a mid-term election is an uphill climb. There are only 726 days left until the mid-term elections and we have yet to establish who is doing what, where, to take down David Dreier, Rick Santorum or Tom DeLay.

While you follow the fraud rumors and factoids - PLEASE also reach out with ideas or offers to help us achieve the long term goals of taking back our congress and our country.

It may seem boring or tedious in comparison. It may seem unthinkable to imagine Bush completing his second term. It may be tempting to shut it all out and take a four-year nap. But if you are so tempted or distracted, just think for one minute about Jim Stockdale - enduring eight years of torture and isolation, while protecting the lives of his men, only to prevail in the end.
Eight years of George Bush might seem like torture - but we must endure, we must face it head on, and we must prevail.

* Borrowed quite liberally from "Good To Great" by Jim Collins

"Exit Polls are almost never wrong. They eliminate the two major potential fallacies in survey research by correctly separating actual voters from those who pretend they will cast ballots but never do and by substituting actual observation for guesswork in judging the relative turnout of different parts of the state."

- Dick Morris, The Hill

Why did the exit polls on November 2 show that Kerry was winning in a landslide, only to be proven wrong later in the day?

Why did Karen Hughes, according to the Associated Press, sit George W. Bush down early in that evening and tell him was going to lose?

Why, in Baker County Florida, with 12,887 registered voters, 69.3% of them Democrats and 24.3% of them Republicans, did the vote go 2,180 for Kerry and 7,738 for Bush?

Why did the Department of Homeland Security instruct officials in Warren County, Ohio to lock down their Administration Building to prevent reporters from watching their vote count?

Why did one county in Ohio record 50,000 more votes for president than the total number of registered voters in that county?Why?

There are countless rumors circulating "the internets" about if Mr. Bush actually won the election last week. I have systematically avoided them - for several reasons:

1. I spent a night in jail during the last election for protesting the vote fraud in Florida, so my objectivity is probably suspect in this area.

2. I did not want to feed into the "tin foil hat" mentality of the blogosphere until there was some kind of substantial and objective evidence of wrongdoing. Not because i dislike conspiracy theories, but because I thought they would distract from the real, important work that needs to be done in taking back this country.

3. It really did seem as if Bush had won.

However… there now seems to be real, growing credence to the idea that something stinks in Ohio.

First, the Cincinnati Enquirer (not the National Enquirer that reports on two-headed bearded ladies, but an the actual, unfortunately-named paper of record for Cincinnati) reported that Tom Ridge ordered the lock down in Warren Ohio.

Then, the vote totals started rolling in from all over the country – including several very democratic-leaning districts in Florida that went overwhelmingly for Bush.

Now, Keith Olbermann – one of the only real pros left in all of TV journalism (he comes from SportsCenter so I guess that’s how he remains untainted), led his broadcast tonight (The Countdown on MSNBC – catch it again at midnight tonight!) with this very story and its many swirling components.

He also posted his opinion – imagine, there’s a journalist left in this country with the balls to actually have an opinion – on his blog, Bloggermann:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6210240

Olbermann has always – always – been a real pro. For having the stones to actually take on this story, when no one else in the “mainstream” press will, he should be rewarded. First, watch his show if you can – it’s damn good and his ratings are in the crapper. Second, send him an email and congratulate him on keeping journalism alive – how many anchors reference Edward R. Murrow and William L. Shirer anymore? He’s an intelligent, thoughtful, professional oasis in a desert of blah, blah, blah.

His email is kolbermann@mnsbc.com.

I really don’t know what to believe, but I do know this: Early in the day, AP had Kerry up very big in Ohio, Florida, New Mexico and Colorado. What happened to those leads? Is it possible that the exit polls were THAT wrong in those four very geographically disparate states but got it right in Pennsylvania, Illinois, and New Hampshire?

Your assignment:

What have you heard? There’s no way that the “mainstream” is going to go near this unless forced to. Olbermann has vowed to stay on it, but who knows how much longer GE will keep him on the air if he does.

Send us what you’ve got. Try and stay away from the wackier stuff, if you can. We only have so many hours in the day. Facts are preferred over theories – for example, any reports of actual anomalies (like democratic counties going overwhelmingly republican, or the number of votes exceeding the number of registered voters) are the most useful.

We’d like to keep feeding these to Olbermann – he deserves to break this story, if he can – since he’s shown the backbone to take it on in the first place.

Peace.

e

Ok.

So the responses have been coming in fast and furious(ly), and I have been working as best I can to keep up. If I haven’t responded directly to your email, please bear with me, I will.

So many of you have written wonderfully articulate letters – speaking to the frustration and raw emotion produced from the election results – while others have offered amazingly insightful theories regarding the Kerry loss and/or strategies for taking back the country.

My favorite came from Amy, who suggested that since Congress seems to consider oral sex the only impeachable offense, perhaps we should find a young intern to volunteer to serve her/his country and service W in the Oval Office. I suggested they would have to shove Rove out of the way first.

Rick, from NJ, offered a number of keen observations, suggesting that those I call stupid, are a combination of sheltered and afraid – kept away from a diverse community, their minds have closed and they fear “others” who are not like them – Gays, Blacks, Jews, etc. In my book, that still adds up to stupid – and I submit this chart of State by State IQs as evidence:

http://chrisevans3d.com/files/iq.htm

But Rick made a great point, by proposing that the “liberal elite” should repackage – abandoning the lefty icons such as Susan Sarandon and Sean Penn, who scare the bejesus out of the Red States. He submits that we create a “Trojan Horse” message or sorts that is more acceptable to the God-fearful Americans and therefore has a shot at opening their minds.

Eric, agreed (somewhat) – stating that the Democratic Party needs to start from scratch. He supports a platform of “Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness”; and a government that stays out of our bedrooms and gun racks, as long as our citizens act responsibly. He also suggested that we create a media that spends less time attempting to be “balanced”, and more time watch-dogging our elected officials. Remember Woodward and Bernstein?

And almost all of you have asked: “What’s the plan”?

First, some facts:

- More people voted for Kerry than did for Ronald Reagan (the father of the Modern Conservative Movement) and Bill Clinton (the father of the Centrist Movement). This suggests that word “liberal” is not as alienating as some might suggest.

- Voters under 30 favored Kerry 54%-44%.

- Major metropolitan cities voted for Kerry 75%-25%. This is an amalgamation of votes in Blue State cities like Philadelphia, Chicago and Detroit, but also Red State cities such as Cleveland, Cincinnati, St. Louis, Atlanta, Miami, New Orleans and Las Vegas.

- According to most analysis, the young vote remained flat with the 2000 election, meaning fewer young people voted than expected.

And herein lies the strategy to take back our country.

Forget the 35+, God-fearful adults who live and vote in Rural Red State America. They are probably lost to us forever, and frankly, who wants them. Anyone who believes that gay marriage endangers their own union, has way too many issues for us to address in any given election cycle.

Our target is the ever growing pool of ethnically mixed people under 35. No offense to those of you 36 and over (including myself, btw), but our real hope lies in the future – future voters AND future leaders. Conservatives understand this, and are hard at work indoctrinating young people, through Hitler Youth Programs nationwide:

http://www.leadershipinstitute.org/index_flash.cfm.

We have to start NOW to educate those voters and citizens whose minds might still be opened. We need to work NOW to encourage those who still might enter public life – to do so! The ultra-Conservative Heritage Foundation offers grants and opportunities to young conservatives nationwide. Progressives have nothing remotely comparable. John Podesta’s Center for America Progress (www.americanprogress.org) has begun the work, but obviously, they have far to go.

First and foremost, the goal must be to TAKE BACK THE MEDIA. The inevitability of Bush’s victory was created by a media filter that bent over backwards to present “both sides”. But what happens when one side is simply wrong? In this climate, what would have Watergate looked like?

“Democrats claim Nixon broke the law, but is breaking and entering really so bad? Up next on Hardball – G. Gordon Liddy shows the upside to crowbar politics!”

But is NEWS really the way to go? With more Americans getting their current events from Jay Leno and Jon Stewart, why even bother attacking the conservatively biased “news” organizations?

Emenem and Green Day entered the Presidential race late – but their work was so much stronger and more powerful than anything produced by the DNC. While Kerry embraced over-the-hill Brice Springsteen, he would have done much better going on the “American Idiot” Tour with Billy Joe. The three million 18-25 year old votes we DIDN’T get, were the difference.

Side note:

If you haven’t yet heard the Green Day album, “American Idiot”, YOU MUST. Even if Punk Rock is not your cup of tea, the CD is a rock opera, concept album in the classic style of The Who and Queen – a therapeutic primal scream that will both ease your pain and give you hope for the future. It uses nine-minute arias to speak about growing up as a disaffected youth in modern suburban America.

It is also an emblematic key to victory in 2006 and beyond. Corporate Media Group-Think doubted that young people would listen to a nine-minute song on the radio. They were wrong.

“Ok, Evan! BUT WHAT IS THE PLAN?”

Three Words: Locate, Educate, Elevate.

Locate: Find and target the Young Blue Americans, no matter where they live – Tulsa, Aberdeen, Atlanta or Boise. No matter how crimson your county, we want you on our side. We want – we need – you to vote. But we also NEED you to RUN! We need to find young leaders and GIVE THEM THE CHANCE TO ENTER PUBLIC LIFE.

Educate: “Did you know…” All politics are local, so it’s important that we identify the local issue most important to the Young Blues, in their home town. In Montana, for example the construction of a Satellite Defense base has unified young people from all over the state. We must convince young people to change their lives, by changing their Representation in Washington.

Elevate: Give Young Blues a voice. How do you think Rick and Eric and Amy feel after reading this tirade? My bet is they feel INCLUDED. THIS is the key. Give young people a voice, and you have a friend for life. Don’t believe me? Tune in to MTV tomorrow at 5 and watch TRL.

Rick spoke of a “Trojan Horse” and it’s a brilliant articulation of the concept. Green Day, Emenem, The Dixie Chicks, Moby, IFC, MTV, Details, Maxim, Rolling Stone, iPods, Friendster – these and many more are our Trojan Horses. Now we need foot soldiers to ride inside.

Progressive Media will encourage writers, artists, filmmakers and musicians to create message-oriented art and then target their work at Young Blues nationwide – especially at New Blues in Red States. Simultaneously, we will create a user-based media, which allows REAL PEOPLE to participate in the media they consume. We elevate our audience, by putting their voice at the center.

Think of it as Total Request Live for Life.

Simultaneously, we will identify action items – causes and issues that can motivate Young Blues, no matter where they live. Job 1 – take back Congress.

Barry and “Stein” did their homework. They identified Conservative Congress Members who lost by small margins:

David Dreier CA Dist 26 54/43
Marilyn Musgrave CO Dist 4 51/44
Bob Beauprez CO Dist 7 55/42
Rob Simmons CT Dist 2 54/46
Christopher Shays CT Dist 4 52/48
Katherine Harris FL Dist 13 55/45
Henry Hyde IL Dist 6 56/44
Chris Chocola IN Dist 2 54/45
John Hostettler IN Dist 8 53/45
Mike Sodrel IN Dist 9 49/49
Jim Nussle IA Dist 1 55/43
Jim Ryun KS Dist 2 56/41
Geoff Davis KY Dist 4 55/44
Mark Kennedy MN Dist 6 54/46
Jeff Fortenberry NE Dist 1 54/43
Heather Wilson NM Dist 1 55/45
Thomas Reynolds NY Dist 26 56/44
John Kuhl NY Dist 29 51/41
Robin Hayes NC Dist 8 55/45
Charles H. Taylor NC Dist 11 55/45
Jim Gerlach PA Dist 6 51/49
Michael Fitzpatrick PA Dist 8 55/43
Ted Poe TX Dist 2 55/43
Tom DeLay TX Dist 22 55/41
Pete Sessions TX Dist 32 54/44
Thelma Drake VA Dist 2 55/45
Dave Reichert WA Dist 8 52/47

Some of these may seem like large margins, but remember the power of incumbency. Any challenger that receives more than 40% of the vote, demonstrates the vulnerability of their opponent. And these are just House races.

There’s this from the Conservative National Review:

“The lesson to be learned from this election is that Senator Rick Santorum is going to be in an extremely tough 2006 race if he faces a Philadelphia area opponent. Former Philly Mayor, Governor Ed Rendell will be up for reelection, meaning the Democrat Philly base will already be energized.

Santorum's recent party-before-principle behavior in the Toomey/Specter primary has alienated some of his conservative base, while his recent controversial remarks have fired up the anti-Santorum left. With gigantic Philly turnout figures in 2000, 2002, and 2004 and Rendell on the ticket, a Philly area candidate could potentially wreck Santorum.”

Rick Santorum IS the problem. Taking him down would be a HUGE blow to the Conservative movement and must be PRIORITY #1 in 2006.

Just 726 days until the mid-term election. Take back the Senate and the House, and the impeachment can begin.

WHAT TO DO:

1. STAY TUNED! Staring with this post, I will migrate our collective to our temporary blog: www.blogtruth.com. For those of you new to this list, you can scan down some of my pre-election-day posts/rants… or not. I will alert you to a new post via email, but assume there will be new one every day.
2. KEEP WRITING! You guys/gals are awesome – if I didn’t include your contributions today, rest assured, I will soon. But rather that writing to me, POST ON THE BLOG. That way everyone will be able to read your stuff!
3. Research, Research, Research. Knowledge is power and we have one of the smartest groups of people I have ever met. Spend fifteen minutes every day looking around the internets (sic) for something – anything – that might give us an edge.
4. What can you do? Let us/me know what you can offer. Many of us work for TV networks or newspapers, others are experts in marketing or direct mail, others still are excellent writers, organizers or speakers. Let’s think tank what we can do, given our assets.
5. KEEP THE FAITH! Through faith, diligence and passion we shall overcome and bring our country back into the light. Believe me – I see the future, and it is one of peace and prosperity for all.

From Erika:

"A little patience, and we shall see the reign of witches pass over, their spells dissolve, and the people, recovering their true sight, restore their government to its true principles. It is true that in the meantime we are suffering deeply in spirit, and incurring the horrors of a war and long oppressions of enormous public debt......

If the game runs sometimes against us at home we must have patience till luck turns, and then we shall have an opportunity of winning back the principles we have lost, for this is a game where principles are at stake."

- Thomas Jefferson, in 1798 after the passage of the Sedition Act

Peace.

e

NOT MY COUNTRY

The majority of Americans who voted yesterday think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Yet they voted to give even more power to the party that’s controlled the government for the past four years.

Explanation: The majority of Americans are stupid.

This is country where smoking tobacco is legal, but smoking pot is not. This is country where any lunatic can buy a gun, but only some people who love each can get married. This is country that hates the war, but votes for the man who they believe lied to them about it.

That is why, after much deliberation, I have decided to secede from the Union. I am now the sovereign state of Common Sense. (I wanted to call us 10,000 Maniacs, but that name was taken).

Join me, won’t you?

- In Common Sense, we have no NEWS, just information. There are no pundits or anchormen, simply journalists. Everyone in Common Sense is a journalist.

- Common Sense has no state bird. I don’t like birds.

- In Common Sense, you are permitted to allocate your taxes to items of your choosing. For example, I would allot 10% of my taxes to teachers’ salaries, 10%
for soldiers’ pay and 0% to pay Senators.

- In Common sense, if you are old enough to drive, you are old enough to vote.

- In Common Sense, if you pay taxes and stay out of trouble, you can marry whoever you please; as long as it’s not your cousin or brother. (Of course, the South is
not a part of Common Sense, so that should cease to be a problem.)

- In Common Sense, if you are a man, you do not get to have an opinion about abortion.

- In Common Sense, you can register to vote on Election Day and you have a paper receipt to take home with you.

- In Common Sense, everyone must read a newspaper - or their website - everyday. Like going into the army in Israel - it is mandatory.

- In Common Sense, we have no State Flowers - just Protected Reserves.

- The Common Sense national anthem is ‘Paradise by the Dashboard Light.’ I just like that song.

- The Flag of Common Sense is an embroidery of the Constitution - the one piece of the United States I am taking with me. After all, America seems finished with it.

e

This is a test...

I am testing to see if I can ACTUALLY publish via email.

If this works, it's so cool! If not, not so much.

e

esshapiro@ifctv.com

FILM SCHOOL
a new docu-series about
making movies @ nyu
tivo-worthy-tv!
fridays @ 10:30 on ifc
ifctv.com/filmschool

BIG BUSH SURPRISE!

"The Bush administration is suppressing a CIA report on 9/11 until after the election, and this one names names."

 

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-scheer19oct19,1,6762967.column?coll=la-util-op-ed

 

"The report is potentially very embarrassing for the administration, because it makes it look like they weren't interested in terrorism before 9/11, or in holding people in the government responsible afterward.

 

According to an intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, release of the report, which represents an exhaustive 17-month investigation, has been 'stalled'.  First by acting CIA Director John McLaughlin and now by Porter J. Goss, the former Republican House member who recently was appointed CIA chief by President Bush."

 

"...Unless the public demands an accounting, the administration and CIA's leadership will have won and the nation will have lost."

 

Call Congress 1-800-839-5276 NOW!  Ask to speak with your Member of Congress, demand the report be released.  Repeat.

 

Go online and reach out to your Representative or Senator.  Demand that the report come out.

 

http://congress.org/congressorg/dbq/officials/directory/directory.dbq?command=congdir

 

Repeat.

 

e

THE TRUTH

Farnaz Fassihi is the Wall Street Journal's Middle East correspondent, reporting from Baghdad. The Journal's reports from Iraq have been frank and clear. Fassihi's reportage is no exception.

Over the course of her assignment in Iraq, however, the 31-year-old Iranian-born, American-educated correspondent has sending home monthly e-mails to friends — about things there, how she was managing, etc. Recently one of the recipients of those emails decided to forward it to others. It has spread like wild fire.

"Insurgents now attack Americans 87 times a day. The insurgency, we are told, is rampant with no signs of calming down. If any thing, it is growing stronger, organized and more sophisticated every day. The various elements within it-baathists, criminals, nationalists and Al Qaeda-are cooperating and coordinating. One could argue that Iraq is already lost beyond salvation.

For those of us on the ground it's hard to imagine what if any thing could salvage it from its violent downward spiral. The genie of terrorism, chaos and mayhem has been unleashed onto this country as a result of American mistakes and it can't be put back into a bottle.

I asked a 28-year-old engineer if he and his family would participate in the Iraqi elections since it was the first time Iraqis could to some degree elect a leadership. His response summed it all: 'Go and vote and risk being blown into pieces or followed by the insurgents and murdered for cooperating with the Americans? For what? To practice democracy? Are you joking?'"

The whole email is here: http://www.onpointradio.org/shows/2004/10/fassihiemail.htm

Fassihi's email is personal, and so are her thoughts. The conversational tone of the letter is jarring, because the events she describes are so horrifically unreal. The email has been passed along literally hundreds of thousands of times - something about it demands to be read.

Since it got out, her editors at the Wall Street Journal have put Fassihi on leave from her assignment and have told the rest of the media she will not be reporting until after the US Presidential election.

http://www.latimes.com/news/custom/showcase/cl-et-rutten2oct02.column

In a moment of personal honesty, a journalist tells us what is really going on in George Bush's Iraq. For that, she is silenced.This much is clear: The "mainstream media" is not doing its job.

Do yours.

Spread her email to anyone and everyone you know. Send the link onto editors and journalists, reporters and webmasters.It is now the job of everyday citizens to keep our government, and our media, honest. Circumnavigate the conglomerate-minded "news organizations" and give the truth to a friend.

Bush LOVES to bash Kerry on the $87 Billion appropriations bill. He loves to claim that Kerry’s vote against the bill was a vote against the troops.

Hopefully we all know by now that Kerry wanted the bill to pass, he (like Edwards) simply wanted to know HOW BUSH WAS GOING TO PAY FOR IT, and HOW BUSH WAS GOING TO SPEND IT.

But that’s not my point here. Most telling, is what that $87 Billion for Iraq says about Bush’s take on Homeland Security.

Confused? Don’t be.

In the first debate, in response to Kerry’s plan to x-ray cargo holds on airplanes and inspect all containers coming into our ports, Mr. Bush said this:

“My administration has tripled the amount of money we're spending on homeland security to $30 billion a year.”

Wait… $87 Billion for Iraq… $30 Billion for America’s Homeland Security…? Hold on, I must have just read the transcript wrong. Let me check the second debate…

“We've tripled the homeland security budget from $10 billion to $30 billion.”

Nope, there’s that darn figure again.

Ok, so: $87 Billion for Iraq, and $30 Billion for American Security? Ok, so now I get it. According to Mr. Bush, Iraq is THREE TIMES as important as American Security. Right?

Right.

The dirty little secret of Bush Administration is that Homeland Security is like the orphan child of the War on Terror. While Mr. Bush and his buddy Dick are off waging war (and making military contractors rich in the process), our own shipyards, nuclear plants, water filtration centers and Post Offices are SITTING DUCKS. This administration talks tough, and then orphans YOUR SECURITY.

Don’t believe it? Here is a comparison of what is needed for certain security projects and what the Bush administration has allocated (thanks in part to researchers at Mother Jones Magazine):

Needed for security upgrades in subway/commuter trains in large cities:
$6 BILLION
American Public Transportation Assoc.

Bush allocation for train security:
$100 MILLION (1.7%)
-----------------------------------------

Needed to equip U.S. airports machines to screen baggage for explosives:
$3 BILLION
Government Accountability Office

Bush allocation for baggage-screening machines:
$400 MILLION (13%)
------------------------------------------

Needed for security upgrades at 361 U.S. ports:
$1.1 BILLION
American Association of Port Authorities

Bush allocation for port security:
$210 MILLION (19%)
-------------------------------------------

Needed for radiation portals @ U.S. ports to detect dirty bombs in cargo:
$290 MILLION
(balance of needs, based on figures from House Committee on Appropriations)

Bush allocation for radiation portals:
$43 MILLION (15%)
--------------------------------------------

Needed prepare firefighters for terrorist attacks:
$36.8 BILLION
Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Underprepared

Bush allocation for firefighter grants:
$500 MILLION (1.4%)
---------------------------------------------

Needed to prepare emergency medical crews for terrorist atttacks:
$1.4 BILLION
Emergency Responders: Drastically Underfunded, Dangerously Underprepared

Bush allocation for emergency medical training grants prior to eliminating program altogether:
$50 MILLION (3.6%)
----------------------------------------------

Pardon my French, but... huh?!?

YOUR ASSIGNMENT: MAKE THIS POINT:

Write all of the editors, websites and commentators you can get your hot little hands on, and ask them: “Why does Mr. Bush value Iraqi Security THREE TIMES as much as American Security?”

And the throw out these numbers!!!! Why is Bush giving firefighters only 1.4% of what they need to keep us safe, when he’s sending $87 Billion to Iraq? Why is this administration calling Kerry weak on terror, when he’s left us all less secure and let bin Laden stay free?

Why?

These are important questions – questions that need to get into the last debate! Make sure you send your letters and questions to the debate moderator:

Bob Schieffer
c/o Face the Nation
Face the Nation
(202) 457-4481

Now, take one second to read Bush's lips again:

“We've tripled the homeland security budget from $10 billion to $30 billion.”

After 9/11, the most horrific attack on American soil in the history of our nation, Mr. Bush added just $20 Billion to our budget for Homeland Security, and then spent $135 billion-plus invading Iraq.

And which guy is going to keep us more safe?

e

Read a great piece about the orphaned Department of Homeland Security @:
motherjones
(you have to subscribe, but it’s so worth it!)

Zogby Predicts Kerry...

Pollster John Zogby thinks John Kerry will probably edge past President Bush in the race for the White House.

Zogby Picks Kerry

But Kerry will then need to equal Thomas Jefferson.


e

Why FOR Kerry?

Compare the Candidates:

KERRY:
Kerry's War on Terror
Kerry's view of the world.
You made need to register, but it's worth it.


BUSH:
Carlson on Bush
Bush's real response to terror by
PBS & CNN's Tucker Carlson.
No Registration!

e

Dick Cheney at last night's VP Debate:

“In my capacity as vice president, I am the president of Senate, the presiding officer. I'm up in the Senate most Tuesdays when they're in session. Yet the first time I ever met you was when you walked on the stage tonight."

In fact, Cheney and Edwards have met at least THREE times before last night. Below is a link to a picture from C-Span of the two of them together:

picture of edwards and cheney together

True, that was not in the Senate. Perhaps that's because Cheney is not honest about his OWN attendance either. Over the past four years, Cheney has served as presided over the Senate a grand total of TWO TIMES. Two times, out of one hundred and twenty-eight Tuesdays. Here is a list of every presiding officer of every Tuesday Senate session for the past four years:

2001:
1/30 - Enzi
2/6 - Chafee
2/13 - Chafee
2/27 - Allen
3/6 - Burns
3/13 - Reid
3/20 - DeWine
3/27 - Chafee
4/3 - Smith
4/24 - Chafee
5/1 - Chafee
5/8 - Chafee
5/15 - Frist
5/22 - Chafee
6/5 - Enzi
6/12 - Byrd
6/19 - Carper
6/26 - Bayh
7/10 - Nelson
7/17 - Clinton
7/24 - Byrd
7/31 - Stabenaw
9/25 - Wellstone (rip)
10/2 - Clinton
10/9 - Clinton
10/16 - Edwards!!!!!
10/23- Byrd
10/30 - Bingaman
11/13 - Murray
11/27 - Jeffords
12/4 - Stabenaw
12/11 - Carnahan
12/18 - Nelson

2002:
1/29 - Nelson
2/5 - Kohl
2/12 - Stabenow
2/26 - Landrieu
3/5 - Edwards
3/12 - Landrieu
3/19 - Miller
4/9 - Cleland
4/16 - Reed
4/23 - Wellstone
4/30 - Nelson
5/7 – Zig Zag Miller
5/14 - Cleland
5/21 - Nelson
6/4 - Durbin
6/11 - Corzine
6/18 - Dayton
6/25 - Landrieu
7/9 - Reed
7/16 - Corzine
7/23 - Reed
7/30 - Clinton
9/3 - Reed
9/10 - Corzine
9/17 - Reid
9/24 - Stabenow
10/1 - Zig Zag Miller
10/8 - Zig Zag Miller
10/15 - Reid
11/12 - CHENEY! -- WE HAVE A WINNER!
11/19 - Barkley

2003:
1/7 - !Cheney! That’s 2!!!
1/14 - Stevens
1/22 - Stevens
1/28 - Stevens
2/4 - Stevens
2/11 - Stevens
2/25 - Stevens
3/4 - Stevens
3/11 - Stevens
3/18 - Stevens
3/25 - Stevens (who is this cat, Stevens?)
4/1 - Stevens
4/8 - Stevens
4/29 - Stevens
5/6 - Talent
5/13 - Ensign
5/20 - Alexander
6/3 - Stevens
6/10 - Stevens
6/18 - Murkowski
6/24 - Coleman
7/8 - Stevens
7/15 - Stevens
7/22 - Chaffee
7/29 - Stevens
9/2 - Stevens
9/9 - Stevens
9/16 - Stevens
9/23 - Stevens
9/30 - Sununu
10/21 - Stevens
10/28 - Stevens
11/4 - Stevens
11/11 - Warner
11/18 - Stevens
12/9 - Stevens

2004:
1/20 - Stevens
1/27 - Enzi
2/3 - Stevens
2/10 - Stevens
3/2 - Stevens
3/9 - Hagel
3/16 - Sununu
3/23 - Stevens
3/30 - Ensign
4/6 - Cornyn
4/20 - Stevens
4/27 - Chambliss
5/4 - Stevens
5/11 - Stevens
5/18 - Stevens
6/1 - Stevens
6/8 - Hutchinson
6/15 - Stevens
6/22 - Allard
7/6 - Burns
7/13 - Stevens
7/20 - Enzi
9/7 - Stevens
9/14 - Chafee
9/21 - Enzi
9/28 - Stevensh
10/05 - Stevens

Please spread this evidence of Cheney's pathology. I would hate for this information to gather dust.

e

Kerry wins, but Bush still wins

LA Times Poll:
Kerry – 49
Bush – 47

Newsweek:
Kerry – 49
Bush – 46

Gallup:
Kerry – 49
Bush – 49

Dead heat. Good news, right? Wrong.

The bad news is that if Kerry wins by five points or less, it will leave the door open to countless illegal voter disenfranchisement and suppression tactics, which have already begun across the country.

Jimmy Carter wrote in the Washington Post last week that “Florida lacks 1) a trusted, nonpartisan official in charge of conducting the voting process and 2) uniformity in voting procedures.”

What does he mean? Well, in 2000, Florida’s Secretary of State, Katherine Harris helped decide the election in George Bush’s favor. Now, say what you will – she worked for the winner’s brother, she was the chairperson of the Bush Florida election Committee, she ignored state election laws – at least Harris was ELECTED by the people of Florida.

Her replacement Glenda Hood, however, is the first Secretary of State in the history of Florida to be appointed by the Governor – Governor Jeb Bush, that is. Hood has already been hard at work, attempting to suppress and disenfranchise votes in the state. She encouraged the southern (democratic leaning) counties to utilize touch screen ballots, and then declared recounts of touch screen ballots… (wait for it) illegal.

This, despite the fact that these SAME touch screens failed to register thousands of votes on the 2002 Gubernatorial election. Where did these malfunctioning machines come from? The state was sold these machines by Sandra Mortham – the Republican former Secretary of State, now working as a lobbyist for Election Systems & Software.

Seriously, I’m not making this up.

In Ohio, J. Kenneth Blackwell, the Republican Secretary of State, has ALSO attempted to make recounts of electronic touch screens illegal. Ten days ago, he also decided to change election law – two weeks before the registration deadline – mandating that voter-registration forms must be printed on "white, uncoated paper of not less than 80-pound text weight”. This, despite the fact that tens of thousands of registrations had already been delivered on regular weight paper. He was forced to backtrack when democrats threatened legal action.

In Minnesota, Mary Kiffmeyer, the Republican Secretary of State, has come under fire because her office has supposedly “run out of voter-registration cards” and refused to replace them. Luckily the state’s Supreme Court got wind and has forced her to maintain a healthy supply through the registration deadline.

In 2000, 1 in 14 African American votes were not counted - nearly one million uncounted votes, among a group that Gore won 80-20%. That translates into nearly one million disregarded votes – nearly 8,000 in Florida alone – a state that Bush won by 537 votes.

As recently as August 31, 2004, Florida State Troopers stationed themselves at polling places in Dade County during the state’s primary election. Contrary to state law, they positioned themselves near the voting venues, with lights flashing, checking ID’s of black voters. Worse, duly appointed poll workers turned away black voters who did not bring ID’s as proof of citizenship. This is against Florida election law.

The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has reported countless other instances of this type of voter suppression, nationwide.

In Baltimore in 2002, they reported signs at polling places – entirely in capital letters:

COME OUT TO VOTE ON NOVEMBER 6th!
BEFORE YOU COME TO VOTE MAKE SURE YOU PAY YOUR

- PARKING TICKETS
- MOTOR VEHICLE TICKETS
- OVERDUE RENT

Right, I forgot that part of the Constitution – one man, one rent, one vote!

As many as 8 million newly registered voters will take part in this year’s election. Republicans know that high turnout favors their opponents, so they have spent more money suppressing the vote than getting out their base. They have spent MILLIONS getting Ralph Nader on the ballot in Florida and other states. In short, they are planning a 2000 Redux.

The good news:

Election monitors from around the world are heeding President Carter’s call and coming to America on November 2. People for The American Way, Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, The Coalition on Black Civic Participation and the NAACP National Voter Fund have banded together into the Election Protection Coalition. They will send 25,000 volunteers and 6,000 election law experts to swing states where disenfranchisement is most prevalent.

DON'T LET IT HAPPEN AGAIN!

1. Vote by absentee ballot and volunteer for Election Protection in a swing state near you. Go to www.electionprotection.org and sign up today. I’m going to Pennsylvania – c’mon along!!!!

2. Make sure you understand the election laws in your state, and spread them around to friends, family, coworkers and strangers!

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=state+election+laws

3. Most of all, make this election a blowout. The good guys are winning, but they need your help – watch the debates, and then help get out the base. Forward this link to friends. Better yet – send everyone you know to www.dailykos.com and join a HUGE crowd of bloggers dedicated to truth and justice.

What seemed un-winnable is now within reach – but it is going to take each and every one of us to ensure the truth gets out and the votes are all counted.

If you think what happened in 2000 was ok, sit there and do nothing. If you think a second Bush term will be harmless, go on with your day. If not, take five minutes now and DO SOMETHING.

They can’t steal it if it’s not close. They can’t take it away, if we don’t let them.

e

His Lips Are Moving...

“Alan received orders to report for "involuntary" duty on Sept. 12. In Iraq. For a year and a half: 545 days to be exact, with two possible extensions.

Under a Sept. 14, 2001, executive order signed by President Bush, the Pentagon can deploy former National Guardsmen, like Alan, who have not been associated or trained with a unit in years.”

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/opinion/25sat3.html

This is one of hundreds – if not thousands – of similar stories being played out across the country. No need to question if there will be a draft in the second Bush term – the draft is already here.

“Yes, it's getting worse.” [Secretary of State Colin Powell, 9/26/04]

Even worse, Bush has dropped all pretense of honesty, and has taken to flat out lies about the progress (aka disaster) in Iraq. Almost EVERYTHING Bush and Alawii said last week, during their little Goodwill Tour, is turning out to be false.

Key Bush Assertions About Iraq in Dispute
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=6334619&src=rss/topNews&section=news

WARNING: Just as Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld manipulated the pre-war intelligence to sell America on this war, they are manipulating current intelligence to sell America on a second Bush term.

I know we’ve been through this already, but bear with me. They told us about WMDs – false. They warned us of a nuclear cloud from an Iraqi bomb – false. They warned us of an Iraq-al Qaeda connection – false. They promised a “cakewalk”, with Iraqis greeting us with flowers and hailing us as liberators – false. They promised us it would only take 100,000 troops to win the war – false.

You are being lied to – again.

Everything that Bush and Cheney say over the next few weeks – and especially at the debates – will be lies. They will be lies that will be hard to detect, lies that may not be detected until it’s too late. But, make no mistake, they will be lies all the same.

The good thing is, Bush has a tell. I have watched HOURS of his speeches and briefings and interviews – it’s hard to see, but mark my words, it’s there. Just before he’s about to lie… he opens his mouth.

YOUR ASSIGNMENT: Host or go to a Debate Party. Bone up on your facts first.

When Bush says: “Right now, there are 100,000 fully trained and equipped Iraqi soldiers, police officers and other security personnel at work, and 125,000 troops by the end of this year.”

You Shout: “LIE!” In reality there are fewer than 9,000 fully trained Iraqi troops. In fact a Senior General of the Iraqi National Guard was arrested yesterday for working with the insurgency.

When Bush says: “More than $9 billion will be spent on reconstruction contracts in Iraq over the next several months, in preparation for elections in January.”

You Shout: “LIE!” Less than $7 million has even been received by “election commission”.

When Bush says: “Given another chance, I would absolutely put on a flight suit, go back on that carrier, and declare ‘MISSION ACCOMPLISHED’”.

[Bush: Would Give 'Mission Accomplished' Speech Again:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&u=/nm/20040926/pl_nm/campaign_bush_mission_dc]

You Shout: “WHAT?” 1,000 US Soldiers have died since he declared Mission Accomplished. Nearly 27,000 US Soldiers have been sent home for injuries, mental health or combat stress.

When Bush says: “There will not be a draft in my second term.”

You SHOUT: “LIES!” There already is a draft in this country - ask anyone “involuntarily” serving in Iraq right now.

GOT MORE LIES?

In preparation for the debates, we are collecting potential Bush lies, so we can identify and refute them as they happen. If you’ve got some great Bush lies, please post them in the comments below! Try to stay on foreign affairs this week, in keeping with the theme of the first debate.

e

P.S. Hey, all of you marketing gurus, look @ the post below - it's about rebranding Kerry's plan for the War on Terror. Got any better wise ideas - POST 'EM!

On MyDD, Chris Bowers rightly points out that Kerry CANNOT use War on Terror when talking about his plan to fight terrorism.

http://www.mydd.com/story/2004/9/25/195952/517#1

That phrase is OWNED by the Bush Camp, period. Every time Kerry utters it, he loses a vote.
so... the new name for Kerry's War on Terror:

The Fight for Freedom
(a return to the Four Freedoms of FDR...)

Freedom of Speech and Expression -- everywhere in the world.

Freedom of Religion -- freedom for every religion from persecution and for all people from extremism.

Freedom from Want -- economic freedom for everyone in America, and around the world.

finally, and most importantly...

Freedom from Fear -- a fight to the ends of the earth against those who would keep us afraid. This includes you, Mr. Bush.

PLEASE email this to the Kerry Campaign @ info@johnkerry.com or to James Carville @ james@carville.info, along with any other suggested names you might have!

e

In 2003 and 2004, The New York Times spent a great deal of time covering the war in Iraq. Their star reporter and expert on the Iraqi intel during that time was Judith Miller.

In the preamble to the war, Miller showed an uncanny ability to be in front of the emerging story - especially in the build up to war and with regard to Iraqi "defectors" and their information on Iraq's weapons programs.

Miller's main source - whom the paper never vetted - was Ahmed Chalabi. Chalabi put Miller in touch with his "defectors" (including the infamous "Curveball"), Miller lapped up their stories and The Times rushed them into print - rarely, if ever, seeking corroborating sources.

Bad mojo.

After the invasion and "Mission Accomplished", it became clear that Chalabi was a liar, his neo-con buddies were easily duped and that the defectors were all frauds. The Times retracted or apologized for their lack of diligence in checking their stories and relying on information from only one source.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/26/international/middleeast/26FTE_NOTE.html?ex=1096084800&en=524e4e210be3d2d1&ei=5070&8dpc

The Times' coverage was a key element in selling the war in Iraq, and Miller's access to "Curveball" was a clever ploy by Richard Perle, Scooter Libby and Dick Cheney to enlist the left-leaning New York Times into selling the invasion of Iraq to the American people.

The height of the disaster came in the President’s State of the Union speech, where he claimed Iraq had purchased the makings of a nuclear bomb from Niger. Joseph Wilson – the man who investigated that claim for the White House – heard Bush’s assertion, and knew it was false. He said so in a scorching editorial in the Times a few days later.

As retribution, someone in the White House or Pentagon leaked to Robert Novak that Wilson’s wife was a CIA operative – blowing her cover and breaking the law.

Now, US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald has subpoenaed Judith Miller to determine if she knows who leaked the information. Miller has said she is willing to go to jail to keep from testifying.

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000640336

Judith Miller knows who leaked the information, but that is woefully beside the point. Miller knows, because Chalabi knows. But they know much, much more – and THAT’S the point.

Chalabi is suspected of passing US national security secrets to Iran – information he is rumored to have gotten from a pentagon official and close ally who was “drunk at the time.”

http://www.cnn.com/2004/US/06/02/chalabi.iran/

After all of her spotty work and loose ethics, Miller invoking journalistic integrity to protect her source is like… (insert your own Dan Rather joke here).

Miller knows more about the way the invasion was sold to America than anyone outside of the Bush administration. She knows how the Niger documents found their way into the President’s speech. She knows who in the administration asked Chalabi to find defectors, “no matter what”. She knows who in the White House ignored intelligence from the CIA and State Department that showed Chalabi’s information was false. And she knows who leaked the story to Novak.

New York Times’ readers and all Americans have a right to know more about Miller’s interactions with Chalabi and how they affected our presence in Iraq. Miller is the link to Chalabi, and Chalabi is the treasure chest of information about the way we were misled into war. If Fitzgerald can question him, we’ll be blogging about a lot more than the Novak leak.

Please, PLEASE write Judith Miller c/o The New York Times and demand the truth – YOUR truth – be told.

letters@nytimes.com
editorial@nytimes.com

e

FIVE QUESTIONS:

“To many experts, the conflict in Iraq has entered a new phase that resembles a classic guerrilla war with US forces now involved in counterinsurgency. And despite the lack of ideological cohesion among insurgent groups, history suggests that it could take as long as a decade to defeat them.”

[The Christian Science Monitor, 9/19/04]

There are approximately 100,000 Regular Armed Forces and 50,000 National Guard and Army Reservists in, or on their way, to Iraq. For months, most of them have been warning their families and friends at home that the war is not going as the Bush Administration says it is.

Many are posting their thoughts and fears online. The best clearinghouse for these voices is Operation Truth, a non-profit, non-partisan Veterans' organization that seeks to amplify the soldiers' voice in the American public dialogue.

OpTruth’s Vet of the Week is SPC Richard Murphy from Sciota, PA. Murphy was stationed in Iraq for 15 months, including several months as an MP at Abu Ghraib Prison. PLEASE read his story:

“When my company landed in theatre in May, I was one of the few soldiers equipped with body armor effective at stopping powerful AK-47 ammunition. My mother, an elementary school art teacher, shipped the bullet-proof ceramic plates to me from the States. Other soldiers weren’t so lucky, having to raid buildings and patrol dangerous streets while wearing inferior Vietnam-era flak jackets.”

Read it all@: http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=hear&htmlId=1125

A growing number of our troops do NOT feel supported by their civilian leadership. Please read “A Plea for Help”, by a soldier now stationed in Iraq:

“KBR (Kellog, Brown, and Root), a daughter company of Halliburton, is operating on every US base in Iraq. KBR is now requesting, and the army is allowing, US soldiers to ride "shot gun" in KBR convoys hauling KBR goods all over Iraq. KBR is afraid to be out on the roads alone and want our US soldiers to risk their lives riding shot gun for their missions.

KBR drivers are making roughly 5 -8 times our wages and get paid whether the freight arrives or not. KBR is requesting that US soldiers risk their lives at the hands of inexperienced and improperly trained individuals to provide them with security.

The only ones who have the power to force the military to honor the wishes of the people are the lawmakers and politicians. So please take a moment and send a letter or email to one of your senators or congressman and ask or demand that they inquire into this matter and demand that it cease.”

Read it all @: http://www.optruth.org/main.cfm?actionId=globalShowStaticContent&screenKey=hear&htmlId=1042


This war is NOT going the way Bush says it is. Much like Nixon and Johnson during Viet Nam, Bush is hiding facts to maintain support for his war. Now, it has come out that he and Rumsfeld are planning a massive mobilization of members of the Ready Reserve – AFTER THE ELECTION ON NOVEMBER 2.

http://washingtontimes.com/upi-breaking/20040917-084613-2053r.htm

The Individual Ready Reserve is comprised of soldiers who have completed their commitment to the Guard, and have been retired for as many as 10 years. Calling up more Reservists, at a time when Bush’s own National Guard service is being questioned, could be politically damaging. So Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld deny the plan and downplay the disaster. But now even John McCain has begun questioning Bush’s forthrightness and strategy:

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/19/iraq.senators/index.html

And to avoid calling Reservists up before the election, the Pentagon is forcing soldiers to reenlist in the service, or face front line assignments:

"They said if you refuse to re-enlist, we'll send to Iraq for a year."
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html

Bush and his civilian leadership in the Pentagon have lost the trust and respect of their Military leaders. The soldiers on the ground in Iraq are beginning to question their mission. Some retired Reservists are suing for their rights and their lives, while others are forced to leave families and jobs, even though their commitments have long been met.

Since July, the President has known that Iraq is on the brink of civil war. Yet Bush keeps saying he pleased he is with our progress there. Meanwhile, our troops guard Halliburton employees and its no bid, billion-dollar contracts. Halliburton overcharges the Army hundreds of millions that could be used to protect our troops.

And to this day, Dick Cheney collects a million-dollar Halliburton pension.

Why are we in Iraq? Why is the President pleased with a quagmire? Why are our under-armed troops risking their lives protecting overpaid Halliburton truck drivers? Why didn’t we send the proper number of troops in the first place? Follow the money. And then blame Bush.

TODAY’S ASSIGNMENT
(Should you choose to accept it)

It is time to hold Bush responsible for his “miscalculations” – in Iraq and in Afghanistan. Please copy the following five questions:

1. EXACTLY HOW IS IT GOING IN IRAQ?
2. HOW LONG UNTIL WE SECURE THE PEACE?
3. HOW LONG WILL OUR TROOPS BE THERE?
4. EXACTLY WHO WILL BE CALLED ON TO SERVE?
5. WHERE IS OSAMA bin LADEN?

PLEASE email these 5 Questions to everyone listed below. It should take no more than ten minutes. These questions need to be asked – repeatedly..

Force our media to do their constitutional duty - email our 5 Questions today:

New Hampshire Union Leader
writeus@theunionleader.com

Concord Monitor
letters@cmonitor.com

Philadelphia Inquirer
inquirer.letters@phillynews.com

Pittsburgh Post-Gazette
http://www.post-gazette.com/contact/comments_form.asp?ID=40

Denver Post
http://www.denverpost.com/Stories/0,1413,36%257E29077%257E,00.html or…
openforum@denverpost.com

Las Vegas Review-Journal
letters@reviewjournal.com

Las Vegas Sun
Brian Greenspun, Editor
brian@lasvegassun.com

Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel
http://www.jsonline.com/news/editorials/submit.asp#submit

Minneapolis Star Tribune
http://www.startribune.com/dynamic/feedback/form.php?opinion=1

Twin Cities Pioneer-Press
mailto:letters@pioneerpress.com

Bergen Record
letterstotheeditor@northjersey.com

Cincinnati Enquirer
http://www.enquirer.com/editor/letters.html

Cleveland Plain Dealer
http://www.cleveland.com/weblogs/dougclifton/?/weblogs/dougclifton/email_author.html

USA Today
http://www.usatoday.com/marketing/feedback/feedback-online.aspx?type=18

Chris Matthews
hardball@msnbc.com

Newsweek
Letters@newsweek.com

Tim Russert
MTP@NBC.com

Forward this to friends – and enemies. These 5 Questions are non-partisan. It’s imperative that both candidates answer them – now and during the debates.

Bush bet his presidency on Iraq. For the next six weeks, these 5 Questions ARE the debate. Get these 5 questions asked – and maybe, just maybe, we can get them answered.

e

Kerry and Bush HEAD TO HEAD Part 3. Today, Iraq.


Bush on Iraq:

After 9/11, President Bush enjoyed the complete support of the America and the world.

He directed an invasion of Afghanistan, designed to root out the Qaeda terrorists and the Taliban government that harbored them. Just as that campaign showed modest success, though, he abandoned it. Bush used faulty intelligence to scare the country into a war that diverted our military resources AWAY from the war on terror.

Worse, in his determination to sell an “easy war” to the American people, Bush ignored the advice of his most senior General, and tried to win the war on the cheap.

In February of 2003, Gen. Eric K. Shinseki, told the Senate and the Administration that a military occupying force for a postwar Iraq should total several hundred thousand soldiers.

"Iraq is a piece of geography that's fairly significant, any postwar occupying force would have to be big enough to maintain safety in a country with ethnic tensions that could lead to other problems. I would say something on the order of several hundred thousand soldiers. Assistance from friends and allies would be helpful."

http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/iraq/2003-02-25-iraq-us_x.htm

Rumsfeld, Cheney and Bush sent just 100,000 troops. They used the SAME faulty intelligence that predicted WMDs, to convince the world that we would “be treated as liberators” in Iraq, and that the whole effort would be a “cakewalk”.

Without regard for the lives of the VOLUNTEER American soldiers he sent into battle, Bush sent half as many as needed. Then he declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED.

DOES ANYONE ELSE REMEMBER THIS?

Since the invasion, 1029 US soldiers have died in Iraq – 856 since MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. More than 7,032 US Soldiers have been severely wounded – losing limbs, eyesight, mobility and livelihoods.

Worse, the Taliban is still alive and kicking in Afghanistan – terrorizing the entire nation and firing missiles at its President/Puppet. Even worse, Osama bin Laden is still at large and likely laughing his ass off. And worst of all, Iraq – the country we were supposed to liberate – is about to fall into civil war.

Six weeks ago, the President received a report – THAT HE ORDERED – that gave detailed projections for Iraq through 2005. The National Intelligence Estimate says AT BEST Iraq will be unstable and uncontrolled; and, at worst, predicts anarchy and civil war.

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/191155_secured.html

This report was delivered to the president and his war room IN JULY. JULY, 2004.

Did anyone hear a hint of this report during the convention, or during Bush’s speech in front of the National Guard? If the administration has known since July that we could very well expect civil war in Iraq, should they not be warning us?

Republican Senator Chuck Hagel (Nebraska), Foreign Relations Committee, 9/16/04:

“The worst thing we can do is hold ourselves hostage to some grand illusion that we're winning. Right now we're not winning, things are getting worse. Measure that by any measurement you want - more casualties, more deaths, oil pipeline sabotage - you pick the measurement standard and it's worse than where it was six months ago or 12 months ago.”

This administration has lost its leash on Iraq.

“It’s Worse than You Think”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5973272/site/newsweek/
[Newsweek, 9/12/04]

Now, they threaten our own troops.

"They said if you refuse to re-enlist, we'll send to Iraq for a year."
http://rockymountainnews.com/drmn/state/article/0,1299,DRMN_21_3185596,00.html

And arrest the mothers of dead soldiers.

“President Bush, You Killed My Son. Why don't your children serve?”
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/17/politics/campaign/17polbriefs.html

No WMDs. No flowers in the streets. No Cakewalk.

Our troop level is still far below the 200,000 – 300,000 General Shinseki said it would take to win the peace. Two Americans were taken hostage in Iraq just today. Our forces have ceded control of huge regions of the country. Iraq is about to explode into civil war.

The truth is, Iraq is far worse today than it was a year ago and Bush wants us to stay the course.

When faced with the war on terror, Bush sold us on different war and then failed to plan for it. When faced with bad news in Iraq – SIX WEEKS AGO – Bush decided to mislead us AGAIN. How many more Soldiers have to die for Bush’s “Miscalculations”?


Kerry on Iraq

For all of the hoopla over John Kerry’s position on Iraq, you would think it was he who got us into the mess we’re in over there. Just a reminder: He did not.

If Kerry’s position on Iraq has been confusing to you, it’s understandable – it has been edited by bloggers and filtered by the media and spun by Republicans. It is far easier to understand if you don’t rely on pundits to explain and filter it first.

He voted to authorize the president to use force against Iraq. The vote required that the President make the case for war, go to the UN, allow the UN Weapons Inspectors to DO THEIR JOB and then decide on the use of preemptive force.

When Bush failed to secure the backing of the United Nations, NATO or almost any American allies; when Bush refused to plan to win the peace; when Bush misappropriated funds dedicated for Afghanistan for Iraq; when Bush ignored the advice of his Generals on troop levels – Kerry rescinded his support.

Yes, he changed his mind – not on the war, but on whether Bush could win it.

Faced with the worst military intelligence since the Bay of Pigs, and a failed civilian-designed military campaign, Kerry refused to endorse Bush’s request for $87 Billion – unless Bush showed congress how it was to be spent.

At no point was the funding for the troops ever NOT going to happen. Everyone knew that. Kerry was trying – and is trying still – to hold Bush to his word. Kerry, who was running to replace the man who created the mess in Iraq – refused to give Bush carte blanche. Why is this so hard to grasp?

“The president promised he would go to war as a matter of last resort. He didn’t. The president promised he would build a coalition and work through the United Nations. He didn’t. We’re paying the price for the reckless way in which this president approached this. It’s a failure of diplomacy, and today it’s a failure of leadership.”

[John Kerry, September 14, 2003]

Kerry supported Hussein’s removal. He is, by far, the Candidate most empathetic with the American Soldier. He plans to win the war in Iraq, and will certainly have an easier time finding support from allies than Bush in a second term.

Kerry has changed his position – from supporting his President, to criticizing an inept military manager, to calling for Bush’s removal in favor of an honest leader and a real plan to win the peace.


The choice is very simple: Inept and stubborn leadership – even in the face of American deaths vs. An experienced perspective, based in REALITY.

At least John Kerry MIGHT be able win in Iraq. We know, now, Bush cannot.

e

RECALL BUSH! Bush owes us two years of National Guard service. Email me now at esshapiro@ifctv.com and sign the virtual petition to recall Bush to active duty!

Mr. President why didn't YOU serve?

Crack Dealers For Bush!

This is the second post in a series of five, designed to contrast the records of Bush and Kerry at times of war. Today, we look at the War on Drugs.

Kerry on the Drug War

“In early 1986, people like North were deathly afraid of what Kerry was after. There was this pervasive sense of the potential of turning over too many rocks. Worms and insects kept crawling out."

[Tom Blanton, the executive director of the National Security Archive]

As a freshman Senator, with no support from his own party, John Kerry took on the Reagan administration to investigate covert CIA operations to illegally provide aid to rebel Nicaraguan Contra armies, which were attempting to overthrow the government of that Central American nation.

His unauthorized investigation led him to Ollie North, who was overseeing the illegal support of the Contras, including arms deals with foreign nations and CIA-endorsed drug smuggling in and out of the United States. North feared Kerry and warned the Reagan Administration that the Senator was closing in on damaging secrets about CIA assassinations and covert drug and arms deals.

In order to take his investigation to the next level, Kerry forged unique alliances with members of the opposing party, including Jesse Helms and Richard Lugar.

"I will tell you what I do not support, and John Kerry and I have talked about this: anybody sending drugs into this country. I do not care whose side they are on."

[Senator Jesse Helms, R-North Carolina, 1986]

At Kerry’s urging, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee formed an official investigation into the Iran-Contra scandal. Then Secretary of State George Schulz called Kerry and his investigation “silly”, and claimed that he was “being used by the Communists”.

Despite Kerry’s investigation, Ollie North's covert drugs for arms enterprise continued to expand. Then, on Oct. 5, 1986, a C-123 aircraft was shot down in Nicaragua. Documents found connected the plane to a CIA proprietary airline, Southern Air Transport. A surviving crew member, Eugene Hasenfus, said he was involved in an effort to arm the contras.

In early November 1986, a Lebanese newspaper broke the story of US arms sales to Iran. A few weeks later, the White House disclosed that funds from the sale had been diverted to supply the contras.

Suddenly, Kerry’s efforts didn’t seem so silly.

As a result of Kerry’s investigations, Ollie North and many others were outed and the illegal activity of the Reagan Administration was exposed – though almost all parties were later pardoned by George Bush Sr.

Kerry’s efforts came at great political and personal costs. His relentless quest kept him away from home most of the time. His marriage suffered, resulting in divorce and this left the young Senator practically homeless – sleeping on the couches of friends and colleagues. His firebrand image and his dogged pursuit of the truth made him a “hot potato” within his own party and an outright enemy of Ollie North, the Reagan Administration and especially George HW Bush, who went on to Pardon many of those caught in Kerry’s inquiry.

The recent attacks on Kerry’s Viet Nam service partly stem partly from this period. The “Swift Boat”, organization has very close ties with Ollie North, who has maintained an obsession with Kerry since Iran Contra.

Kerry’s Iran/Contra investigation was an historic example of stringent Congressional oversight of America’s Intelligence Community – something that has all but disappeared under Republican leadership.

His Iran-Contra work led him in 1987 to discover illegal money laundering at BCCI – the bank of Saddam Hussein, Ossama bin Laden, the Columbia Drug Cartel and… George W. Bush. Kerry took down BCCI and cut off an important mechanism in the world’s drug and terrorism trade.


Bush on the Drug War

Congress banned assault weapons in 1994 with the support of every major law enforcement organization in the nation. Presidents Ford, Carter and Reagan also supported the ban, and Bill Clinton signed into law. Since 1994, the percentage of crime-gun traces involving assault weapons has dropped dramatically.

Yesterday, George W. Bush caved to the powerful gun lobby and allowed the Assault Weapons Ban to lapse. The ban kept AK-47s and Uzis out of gun shops, off the streets and away from drug dealers, gang members and terrorists.

Thanks to George w. Bush, that safety valve is now gone.

The gun lobby argued that the ban is “feel good” piece of legislation and that its effect is basically cosmetic. But rather than attempt to fix the legislation to make it tougher on automatic assault weapons, Republicans in Congress tried to tie the ban to a bill to remove ANY liability from gun manufacturers.

Asked repeatedly whether Mr. Bush had made any calls to Congress or any attempts to save the ban, Scott McClellan, the White House press secretary, said “the President does not set the legislative timetable".

Republicans control both houses of congress and the White House. George W. Bush DOES control the legislative timetable and agenda. And, when faced with the opportunity to stand up for Americans, and keep Automatic Assault Weapons off the streets, he chose to do NOTHING.

"When it came time to fight, when it came time to lead, when it came time to stand up and ask America to do what was right, George Bush's powerful friends in the gun lobby asked him to look the other way. And he couldn't resist and he said sure."

And so tomorrow, for the first time in 10 years, when a killer walks into a gun shop, when a terrorist goes to a gun show somewhere in America, when they want to purchase an AK-47 or some other military assault weapon, they're going to hear one word: Sure!"

[John Kerry, 9/13/04]

Bush is the NRAs President, and has spent three years making guns easier to get and impossible to trace. Attorney General John Ashcroft (an NRA Member) has refused to allow law enforcement officials to check the federal list of firearm purchasers for suspected terrorists – arguing that it would violate the privacy rights of gun owners.

Seriously.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/09/10/EDGAG8LODG1.DTL

Yesterday, George W. Bush joined the War on Drugs – on the wrong side. He provided crack dealers and gang members an unequalled election year gift – easy access to automatic assault weapons and no way to trace their sale.


Two Different Drug War Agendas

It’s time to compare and contrast the way these two men approach the IMPORTANT issues. When confronted with the challenge of worldwide drug trafficking, each took a distinctly different tact – Kerry stared down his own party and the Reagan Administration to stop the CIA from participating in the illegal drug trade; Bush put the most dangerous guns we have back in the hands of the dealers and terrorists. A stark choice indeed.


If you think Bush made the wrong choice – DO SOMETHING!

Beginning next week, MoveOn.org is sending 500 of the country’s best grass roots organizers into the field 500 talented organizers in battleground to "Leave No Voter Behind". The effort is designed to spread the truth about Bush’s policies and “miscalculations” – including his do-nothing policy on assault weapons.

However, MoveOn needs to raise $2.4 Million, THIS WEEK to get it done. Please – PLEASE – consider giving to this important program and get the message out to voters everywhere. You can contribute quickly and securely, by credit card or check, at:

https://www.moveonpac.org/donate/leavenovoterbehind.html

If you think AK-47s don’t belong on the streets, now is your chance to do something about it.

e

John Kerry and George Bush have very contrasting records at times of war. This is the first in a series of five posts, designed to highlight the different ways each man faces challenging times.

Terrorism seems to be Bush's greatest strength at present, so today, we focus on one of the earliest skirmishes in the War on Terror - where the two played distinctly different roles.

As I did not write this, I can call it unbelievably fascinating and not be self-serving. Please read it - it really is very exciting and useful.


Follow the Money:
How John Kerry busted the terrorists' favorite bank
By David Sirota and Jonathan Baskin
From the September Issue of Washington Monthly
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2004/0409.sirota.html

Two decades ago, the Bank of Credit and Commerce International (BCCI) was a highly respected financial titan. In 1987, when its subsidiary helped finance a deal involving Texas oilman George W. Bush, the bank appeared to be a reputable institution, with attractive branch offices, a traveler's check business, and a solid reputation for financing international trade. It had high-powered allies in Washington and boasted relationships with respected figures around the world.

All that changed in early 1988, when John Kerry, then a young senator from Massachusetts, decided to probe the finances of Latin American drug cartels. Over the next three years, Kerry fought against intense opposition from vested interests at home and abroad, from senior members of his own party; and from the Reagan and Bush administrations, none of whom were eager to see him succeed.

By the end, Kerry had helped dismantle a massive criminal enterprise and exposed the infrastructure of BCCI and its affiliated institutions, a web that law enforcement officials today acknowledge would become a model for international terrorist financing. As Kerry's investigation revealed in the late 1980s and early 1990s, BCCI was interested in more than just enriching its clients--it had a fundamentally anti-Western mission. Among the stated goals of its Pakistani founder were to "fight the evil influence of the West," and finance Muslim terrorist organizations. In retrospect, Kerry's investigation had uncovered an institution at the fulcrum of America's first great post-Cold War security challenge.

More than a decade later, Kerry is his party's nominee for president, and terrorist financing is anything but a back-burner issue. The Bush campaign has settled on a new strategy for attacking Kerry: Portray him as a do-nothing senator who's weak on fighting terrorism. "After 19 years in the Senate, he's had thousands of votes, but few signature achievements," President Bush charged recently at a campaign rally in Pittsburgh; spin that's been echoed by Bush's surrogates, conservative pundits, and mainstream reporters alike, and by a steady barrage of campaign ads suggesting that the one thing Kerry did do in Congress was prove he knew nothing about terrorism. Ridiculing the senator for not mentioning al Qaeda in his 1997 book on terrorism, one ad asks: "How can John Kerry win a war [on terror] if he doesn't know the enemy?"

If that line of attack has been effective, it's partly because Kerry does not have a record like the chamber's dealmakers such as Sens. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) or Orrin Hatch (R-Utah). Though Kerry has been a key backer of bills on housing reform, immigration, and the environment, there are indeed few pieces of landmark legislation that owe their passage to Kerry.

But legislation is only one facet of a senator's record. As the BCCI investigation shows, Kerry developed a very different record of accomplishment--one often as vital, if not more so, than passage of bills. Kerry's probe didn't create any popular new governmental programs, reform the tax code, or eliminate bureaucratic waste and fraud. Instead, he shrewdly used the Senate's oversight powers to address the threat of terrorism well before it was in vogue, and dismantled a key terrorist weapon. In the process, observers saw a senator with tremendous fortitude, and a willingness to put the public good ahead of his own career. Those qualities might be hard to communicate to voters via one-line sound bites, but they would surely aid Kerry as president in his attempts to battle the threat of terrorism.

From drug lords to lobbyists

Despite having helmed the initial probe which led to the Iran-Contra investigation, Kerry was left off the elite Iran-Contra committee in 1987. As a consolation prize, the Democratic leadership in Congress made Kerry the chairman of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Narcotics, and International Operations and told him to dig into the Contra-drug connection. Kerry turned to BCCI early in the second year of the probe when his investigators learned that Panamanian strongman Manuel Noriega was laundering drug profits through the bank on behalf of the Medellin cartel.

By March 1988, Kerry's subcommittee had obtained permission from the Foreign Relations Committee to seek subpoenas for both BCCI and individuals at the bank involved in handling Noriega's assets, as well as those handling the accounts of others in Panama and Colombia. Very quickly, though, Kerry faced a roadblock. Citing concerns that the senator's requests would interfere with an ongoing sting operation in Tampa, the Justice Department delayed the subpoenas until 1988, at which point the subcommittee's mandate was running out.

BCCI, meanwhile, had its own connections. Prominent figures with ties to the bank included former president Jimmy Carter's budget director, Bert Lance, and a bevy of powerful Washington lobbyists with close ties to President George H.W. Bush, a web of influence that may have helped the bank evade previous investigations. In 1985 and 1986, for instance, the Reagan administration launched no investigation even after the CIA had sent reports to the Treasury, Commerce, and State Departments bluntly describing the bank's role in drug-money laundering and other illegal activities.

In the spring of 1989, Kerry hit another obstacle. Foreign Relations Committee chairman Claiborne Pell (D-R.I.), under pressure from both parties, formally asked Kerry to end his probe. Worried the information he had collected would languish, Kerry quickly dispatched investigator Jack Blum to present the information his committee had found about BCCI's money-laundering operations to the Justice Department. But according to Blum, the Justice Department (under George Bush Sr. and Dick Thornburgh) failed to follow up.

The young senator faced a difficult choice. Kerry could play ball with the establishment and back away from BCCI, or he could stay focused on the public interest and gamble his political reputation by pushing forward.

BCCI and the bluebloods

Kerry opted in 1989 to take the same information that had been coldly received at the Justice Department and bring it to New York District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, who agreed to begin a criminal investigation of BCCI, based on Kerry's leads. Kerry also continued to keep up the public pressure. In 1990, when the Bush administration gave the bank a minor slap on the wrist for its money laundering practices, Kerry went on national television to slam the decision.

"We send drug people to jail for the rest of their life," he said, "and these guys who are bankers in the corporate world seem to just walk away, and it's business as usual…When banks engage knowingly in the laundering of money, they should be shut down. It's that simple, it really is."

He would soon have a chance to turn his declarations into action. In early 1991, the Justice Department concluded its Tampa probe with a plea deal allowing BCCI officials to stay out of court. At the same time, news reports indicated that Washington elder statesman Clark Clifford might be indicted for defrauding bank regulators and helping BCCI maintain a shell in the United States.

Kerry pounced, demanding (and winning) authorization from the Foreign Relations Committee to open a broad investigation into the bank in May 1991. Almost immediately, the senator faced a new round of pressure to relent. Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis and Democratic doyenne Pamela Harriman personally called Kerry to object, as did his fellow senators. "What are you doing to my friend Clark Clifford?," staffers recalled them asking, according to The Washington Post. BCCI itself hired an army of lawyers, PR specialists, and lobbyists, including former members of Congress, to thwart the investigation.

But Kerry refused to back off, and his hearings began to expose the ways in which international terrorism was financed. As Kerry's subcommittee discovered, BCCI catered to many of the most notorious tyrants and thugs of the late 20th century, including Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein, the heads of the Medellin cocaine cartel, and Abu Nidal, the notorious Palestinian terrorist. According to the CIA, it also did business with those who went on to lead al Qaeda.

And BCCI went beyond merely offering financial assistance to dictators and terrorists: According to Time, the operation itself was an elaborate fraud, replete with a "global intelligence operation and a Mafia-like enforcement squad."

By July 1991, Kerry's work paid off. That month, British and U.S. regulators finally responded to the evidence provided by Kerry, Morgenthau, and a concurrent investigation by the Federal Reserve. BCCI was shut down in seven countries, restricted in dozens more, and served indictments for grand larceny, bribery, and money laundering. The actions effectively put it out of business what Morgenthau called, "one of the biggest criminal enterprises in world history."

Bin Laden's bankers

Kerry's record in the BCCI affair, of course, contrasts sharply with Bush's. The current president's career as an oilman was always marked by the kind of insider cronyism that Kerry resisted. Even more startling, as a director of Texas-based Harken Energy, Bush himself did business with BCCI-connected institutions almost at the same time Kerry was fighting the bank. As The Wall Street Journal reported in 1991, there was a "mosaic of BCCI connections surrounding [Harken] since George W. Bush came on board." In 1987, Bush secured a critical $25 million-loan from a bank the Kerry Commission would later reveal to be a BCCI joint venture. Certainly, Bush did not suspect BCCI had such questionable connections at the time. But still, the president's history suggests his attacks on Kerry's national-security credentials come from a position of little authority.

As the presidential campaign enters its final stretch, Kerry's BCCI experience is important for two reasons. First, it reveals Kerry's foresight in fighting terrorism that is critical for any president in this age of asymmetrical threats. As The Washington Post noted, "years before money laundering became a centerpiece of antiterrorist efforts...Kerry crusaded for controls on global money laundering in the name of national security."

Make no mistake about it, BCCI would have been a player. A decade after Kerry helped shut the bank down, the CIA discovered Osama bin Laden was among those with accounts at the bank. A French intelligence report obtained by The Washington Post in 2002 identified dozens of companies and individuals who were involved with BCCI and were found to be dealing with bin Laden after the bank collapsed, and that the financial network operated by bin Laden today "is similar to the network put in place in the 1980s by BCCI." As one senior U.S. investigator said in 2002, "BCCI was the mother and father of terrorist financing operations."

Second, the BCCI affair showed Kerry to be a politician driven by a sense of mission, rather than expediency - even when it meant ruffling feathers. Perhaps Sen. Hank Brown, the ranking Republican on Kerry's subcommittee, put it best.

"John Kerry was willing to spearhead this difficult investigation," Brown said. "Because many important members of his own party were involved in this scandal, it was a distasteful subject for other committee and subcommittee chairmen to investigate. They did not. John Kerry did."

Tomorrow : Kerry & Bush @ War #2

"The terrorists of tomorrow will be better armed and organized. It will take only one megaterrorist event in any of the great cities of the world to change the world in a single day." [The New War, by John Kerry, 1997]


RECALL BUSH:

The President still owes America two years of National Guard, Ready Reserve service. 5600 Ready Reservists have been involuntarily recalled after years in retirement, and are training right now, in Florida, before heading off for Iraq and Afghanistan. George Bush likes Florida and he loves war. Send him back to basic training and to the front lines he's never seen.

Sign the virtual petition to RECALL BUSH. Please e-mail recallbush@hotmail.com with your name (and address, if you can) and the subject line RECALL BUSH.

We've gotten emails from 35 states - with Texas leading all states and Florida close behind... so far. Please pass this on to friends - and enemies. Spread the word and send along any stories or information you think is cool.

Thanks!

e

Bush's Backdoor Draft

George Bush is relying on the National Guard to fight his war in Iraq in a historically unprecedented way.

This year, the Bush Administration used a technicality to recall into active duty more than 5600 “Ready Reservists”. These men and women have already fulfilled four years of service to the country and have been retired for as much as ten years.

Here are just two stories from Bush’s Backdoor Draft…

“As of this Tuesday, only 186 of the 309 members of the Individual Ready Reserve ordered to report to the Columbia base had arrived, said Lt. Col. Burton L. Masters, spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command.

Those who have not reported or applied for a delay or exemption will be considered deserters if they do not show up within seven days. Lt. Col. Burton L. Masters, spokesman for the Army's Human Resources Command said: “If they don't report, the Army will track them down".”

http://www.heraldtribune.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040910/APN/409100688


“In 1993, the Army told Sergeant First Class Rolando Rivera, a soldier for 15 years who was serving a pleasant tour in Germany, that his services were no longer needed.

Then this past May, the 44-year-old Rivera received a letter from the Army telling him he would be serving in uniform once again, this time in desolate and dangerous Afghanistan.

‘I think after 15 years of service, I've already met my obligation to my country.’”

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2004/08/29/11_years_later_army_recalls_md_reservist/


If Bush had a plan to win the peace in Iraq, or a plan AT ALL in Afghanistan, perhaps he would not have to resort to recalling retired Reservists and Guardsmen. But he does not have a plan.

Need proof? Here are the names of US Soldiers killed in Iraq - just in August:

Marine Cpl. Roberto Abad
Marine Cpl. Nicanor Alvarez
Marine Lance Cpl. Alexander ArredondoMarine Cpl. Christopher Belchik
Army Spc. Joshua Bunch
Marine Sgt. Juan Calderon Jr.
Marine Lance Cpl. Jonathan Collins
Marine Sgt. Jason Cook
Army Pfc. Kevin Cuming
Army Staff Sgt. Donald Davis
Army Spc. Anthony Dixon
Army Pfc. Raymond Faulstich Jr.
Marine Lance Cpl. Dustin Fitzgerald
Marine Gunnery Sgt. Elia Fontecchio
Marine Lance Cpl. Kane Funke
Army Sgt. Tommy Gray
Marine Pfc. Fernando Hannon
Army Sgt. David Heath
Army Spc. Armando Hernandez
Army Capt. Andrew Houghton
Marine Lance Cpl. Seth Huston
Army 2nd Lt. James Michael Goins
Marine Staff Sgt. John Howard
Marine Sgt. Richard Lord
Marine Lance Cpl. Jacob Lugo
Army Pfc. Ryan Martin
Army Spc. Jacob Martir
Marine Cpl. Brad McCormick
Army Spc. Donald McCune II
Marine Lance Cpl. Nicholas Morrison
Army Spc. Charles Neeley
Marine Lance Cpl. Joseph Nice
Marine Sgt. Harvey Parkerson III
Marine Pfc. Geoffrey Perez
Army Pfc. David Potter
Marine Lance Cpl. Caleb Powers
Marine Cpl. Dean Pratt
Marine Sgt. Yadir Reynoso
Army Pfc. Henry Risner
Marine Gunnery Sgt. Edward Reeder
Marine Sgt. Moses Daniel Rocha
Army 1st Lt. Neil Anthony Santoriello
Army Pfc. Brandon Sapp
Army Sgt. Daniel Michael Shepherd
Army Pfc. Harry Shondee Jr.
Army 2nd Lt. Matthew Stovall
Army Capt. Michael Yury Tarlavsky
Army Staff Sgt. Robert Thornton Jr.
Army Spc. Brandon Titus
Marine Pfc. Nachez Washalanta
Marine Lance Cpl. Larry Wells
Army 1st Lt. Charles Wilkins III
Army Spc. Mark Anthony Zapata

They were aged 18-59. According to the Associated Press, they came disproportionately from poorer communities. 1 in 5 were Reservists called into active duty. None of them will ever get to be President.

And then there’s the man who put them there…

“Two members of the Air National Guard unit that President George W. Bush allegedly served with as a young Guard flyer in 1972 had been told to expect him late in that year and were on the lookout for him. He never showed, however; of that both Bob Mintz and Paul Bishop are certain.”

http://www.memphisflyer.com/content.asp?ID=3005&onthefly=1


“The disputed documents represent just a fraction of what is known about Bush's Guard duty. The most voluminous information about the issue comes from Bush's own Texas Guard file, none of which has been called into question. And in fact, the veracity of the contents of the Killian memos remains undisputed.

For instance, one memo dated May 4, 1972, ordered Bush to obtain a physical exam. There has been no controversy whatsoever about the fact that Bush was required to take a physical that year and failed to do so.”

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/10/forgery/


George Bush lied about his Texas Guard service. The National Guard in Denver overturned his honorable discharge and only his family connections kept him out of Viet Nam. Today he orders RETIRED RESERVISTS to their death in the quagmire he has created in Iraq.

Recall Bush. Sign a virtual petition to re-call George Bush into active service in Iraq - to make up for the 755 days he missed in the National Guard and Ready Reserve. Email esshapiro@ifctv.com with the subject line: RECALL BUSH.

The reaction to this virtual petition been really overwhelming, with emails coming from all over the country – including a big contingent in TEXAS!!! But our goal is 100,000 virtual signatures by October 1 and we have a way to go.

Please forward this to friends – and enemies – and ask them to sign up. And please forward me stories about Ready Reservists facing involuntary service through Bush’s Back Door Draft!

Thanks.

e

On Guard

The importance of the National Guard at time of war...

“Part-time soldiers, the guardsmen and reservists who once expected to tend to floods and hurricanes, were called to Iraq on a scale not seen through five decades of war. Increasingly, Iraq is becoming their conflict, and in growing numbers this spring and early summer, these part-time soldiers died there. Ten times as many of them died from April to July of this year as had in the war's first two months.”

Read it @: http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0909SoldiersTimes09-ON.html [9/9/04]


“Eight years ago, when Jim Dillinger resigned his captain's commission in the Ohio National Guard after almost 17 years of service, he thought his turn as a citizen-soldier had come to an end. Dillinger was wrong.”

Read it @: http://www.enquirer.com/editions/2004/09/07/loc_loc1asold.html [9/7/09]

"A former Army lieutenant is fighting reactivation orders from the Department of Defense because he said he had completed his obligation to the Army before he was recalled to active duty.

The Army argued that because Parrish was an officer, he was obligated to notify the Army at the end of the eight-year period that he no longer wanted be part of the Individual Ready Reserve. Since he didn't, he is still under the command of the Army, officials said. "

Read it @: http://www.newsobserver.com/news/nation_world/iraq/story/1592325p-7793018c.html [9/2/04]

This, in the face of mounting evidence that George Bush skipped out on his last two years of service to the Texas National Guard. THE MOST DAMNING OF THAT EVIDENCE COMES DIRECTLY FROM THE WHITE HOUSE:

“The White House insists Bush made up drills and earned enough annual credits for an honorable discharge. In fact, according to research, between half and two-thirds of the points credited to Bush for substitute training were fraudulent.

The fraudulent points are key, because without them Bush should have been transferred to active duty for 24 months and made eligible for service in Vietnam. According to official military documents, released by the White House, the Air Force, acting retroactively, overturned Bush's honorable discharge effective Sept. 15, 1973.”

Read it @: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/09/09/bush_guard_duty/index1.html

The last story is based in large part on the research of ONE MAN, Paul Lukasiak.

Last February, the White house data-dumped 400 pages of documents from Bush's Guard file. Lukasiak took those documents – REALEASED BY THE WHITE HOUSE – and went through them with a fine-toothed comb. This intrepid guy also spent that time analyzing U.S. statutory law, Department of Defense regulations, and Air Force policies and procedures of the 1960s and 1970s.

Amid the sea of pages, Lukasiak found a wealth of knowledge, that the Administration had no idea existed. His fornesic exploration through the records of George Bush is updated daily at:

http://www.glcq.com/fraud_text.htm


George Bush spent his youth running from service. He is running again. How can Mr. Bush send today’s RETIRED RESERVISTS to the front lines, when he did anything possible to avoid going himself?

George Bush owes America two years of service – and since he was fraudulently awarded service points - military law demands that he make-good that service with active duty.

5600 soldiers from the “Ready Reserve” are training RIGHT NOW for deployment in Iraq. Though they have all performed four or more years of service, and have been retired for as much as TEN YEARS, they are being forced into the “volunteer army” to fight Bush’s war.

Bush should join them.

Recall George Bush. Sign a virtual petition to recall the President to active military duty in Iraq by emailing @ esshapiro@ifctv.com with the subject line RECALL BUSH. Our goal is 100,000 emails by October 1.

The response so far has been AMAZING, but we are a long way from our goal. Please email today and/or forward this to friends!

e

Why?

Pundits are asking if Bush's service in Viet Nam is really relevant. It is SIMPLE to explain why it is:

About nine weeks ago, the Army called back into active duty 5,600 Army Reserve officers who had either "retired or were discharged after previous service." Despite the fact that all 5600 had COMPLETED their service to the Army and to our country, they were INVOLUNTARILY recalled to service and will be deployed on the front lines in Afghanistan or Iraq - some of them as much as eight years after ending their service.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040629_1169.html

The president authorized this INVOLUNTARY recall to active duty, using a little known technicality: Since the officers had never officially resigned their commissions, they were eligible for recall.

Worse, many Reservists who finished their duty years ago, are being forced back into service, to the detriment of their families and careers.

Sgt. Katherine Harper is a great example. After finishing her service ten years ago, she suddenly finds herself in Iraq.

"I don't like this place at all. Any day we don't get mortared is a good day, but we get mortared almost every day."

When Harper, a 32-year-old mother of two from Benton, Ark., finished three years on active duty in the Army, she joined the Army Reserve to continue serving her country in a way that allowed her to raise kids and stay home with them.

Ten years later, she and hundreds of other reservists are stationed at Log Base Seitz, a logistical camp near Baghdad International Airport that comes under regular mortar fire from insurgents living in nearby Abu Ghraib town. She has been here six months, with six more months to go.

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,FL_reserves_072304,00.html

If this president can "game the system" to get out of fulfilling his commitment to the National Guard, is it fair that he "game the system" again to pull these men and women into service - AFTER THEY HONORED THEIR COMMITMENT AND COMPLETED THEIR SERVICE?
That in and of itself makes Bush's non-service in Viet Nam a relevant issue to this campaign.

And NO ONE - NO ONE - is making this point.

How do the National Reservists being recalled back to active duty on the front lines feel about Bush's incomplete service to the Texas National Guard? I don't know, but I bet America would like to.

I am starting a petition to get George Bush to complete his National Guard service. I plan to collect 100,000 signatures from Americans nationwide to demand our monney's worth from the $1 million we spent to train him to fly planes.

If he can pull thousands of men and women - INVOLUNTARILY - back into service, after they had finished their commitment, should he not be forced to honor his?

If you would like to recall George W. Bush to complete his Guard service, please email me with your name and email and the phrase: RECALL BUSH @ esshapiro@ifctv.com.

Please forward this to friends - the goal is 100,000 email signatures by October 1. This is relevant and, if done right, newsworthy too.

1005 US Soldiers have died because George Bush failed to plan for the peace in Iraq. How many more Reservists will die involuntarily if he gets back in office?

e

Good for the Gander

Last night, 60 Minutes revealed - in unbelievable detail - how George Bush Sr. pressured the Texas National Guard to accept George Jr. into the "Champaign Unit" of the Guard and out of service in Viet Nam. They also showed ample documentation proving that Bush disobeyed direct orders and failed to meet National Guard standards.

Yesterday, the Boston Globe did them much better - providing detailed documentation of how Bush failed to complete his obligation to the Guard, lied about it, and used his family whitewash it.

Here is the Globe piece in full:


Bush fell short on duty at Guard
Reported by the Globe Spotlight Team -- reporters Stephen Kurkjian, Francie Latour, Sacha Pfeiffer, and Michael Rezendes, and editor Walter V. Robinson. It was written by Robinson.

In February, when the White House made public hundreds of pages of President Bush's military records, White House officials repeatedly insisted that the records prove that Bush fulfilled his military commitment in the Texas Air National Guard during the Vietnam War.

But Bush fell well short of meeting his military obligation, a Globe reexamination of the records shows: Twice during his Guard service -- first when he joined in May 1968, and again before he transferred out of his unit in mid-1973 to attend Harvard Business School -- Bush signed documents pledging to meet training commitments or face a punitive call-up to active duty.

He didn't meet the commitments, or face the punishment, the records show. The 1973 document has been overlooked in news media accounts. The 1968 document has received scant notice.

On July 30, 1973, shortly before he moved from Houston to Cambridge, Bush signed a document that declared, "It is my responsibility to locate and be assigned to another Reserve forces unit or mobilization augmentation position. If I fail to do so, I am subject to involuntary order to active duty for up to 24 months. . . " Under Guard regulations, Bush had 60 days to locate a new unit.

But Bush never signed up with a Boston-area unit. In 1999, Bush spokesman Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that Bush finished his six-year commitment at a Boston area Air Force Reserve unit after he left Houston. Not so, Bartlett now concedes. ''I must have misspoke," Bartlett, who is now the White House communications director, said in a recent interview.

And early in his Guard service, on May 27, 1968, Bush signed a "statement of understanding" pledging to achieve ''satisfactory participation" that included attendance at 24 days of annual weekend duty -- usually involving two weekend days each month -- and 15 days of annual active duty. "I understand that I may be ordered to active duty for a period not to exceed 24 months for unsatisfactory participation," the statement reads.

Yet Bush, a fighter-interceptor pilot, performed no service for one six-month period in 1972 and for another period of almost three months in 1973, the records show.

The reexamination of Bush's records by the Globe, along with interviews with military specialists who have reviewed regulations from that era, show that Bush's attendance at required training drills was so irregular that his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active duty in 1972, 1973, or 1974. But they did neither. In fact, Bush's unit certified in late 1973 that his service had been "satisfactory" -- just four months after Bush's commanding officer wrote that Bush had not been seen at his unit for the previous 12 months.

Bartlett, in a statement to the Globe last night, sidestepped questions about Bush's record. In the statement, Bartlett asserted again that Bush would not have been honorably discharged if he had not "met all his requirements." In a follow-up e-mail, Bartlett declared: "And if he hadn't met his requirements you point to, they would have called him up for active duty for up to two years."

That assertion by the White House spokesman infuriates retired Army Colonel Gerald A. Lechliter, one of a number of retired military officers who have studied Bush's records and old National Guard regulations, and reached different conclusions.

"He broke his contract with the United States government -- without any adverse consequences. And the Texas Air National Guard was complicit in allowing this to happen," Lechliter said in an interview yesterday. "He was a pilot. It cost the government a million dollars to train him to fly. So he should have been held to an even higher standard."

Even retired Lieutenant Colonel Albert C. Lloyd Jr., a former Texas Air National Guard personnel chief who vouched for Bush at the White House's request in February, agreed that Bush walked away from his obligation to join a reserve unit in the Boston area when he moved to Cambridge in September 1973. By not joining a unit in Massachusetts, Lloyd said in an interview last month, Bush "took a chance that he could be called up for active duty. But the war was winding down, and he probably knew that the Air Force was not enforcing the penalty."

But Lloyd said that singling out Bush for criticism is unfair. "There were hundreds of guys like him who did the same thing," he said.

Lawrence J. Korb, an assistant secretary of defense for manpower and reserve affairs in the Reagan administration, said after studying many of the documents that it is clear to him that Bush "gamed the system." And he agreed with Lloyd that Bush was not alone in doing so. ''If I cheat on my income tax and don't get caught, I'm still cheating on my income tax," Korb said.

After his own review, Korb said Bush could have been ordered to active duty for missing more than 10 percent of his required drills in any given year. Bush, according to the records, fell shy of that obligation in two successive fiscal years.

Korb said Bush also made a commitment to complete his six-year obligation when he moved to Cambridge, a transfer the Guard often allowed to accommodate Guardsmen who had to move elsewhere. ''He had a responsibility to find a unit in Boston and attend drills," said Korb, who is now affiliated with a liberal Washington think tank. "I see no evidence or indication in the documents that he was given permission to forgo training before the end of his obligation. If he signed that document, he should have fulfilled his obligation."

The documents Bush signed only add to evidence that the future president -- then the son of Houston's congressman -- received favorable treatment when he joined the Guard after graduating from Yale in 1968. Ben Barnes, who was speaker of the Texas House of Representatives in 1968, said in a deposition in 2000 that he placed a call to get young Bush a coveted slot in the Guard at the request of a Bush family friend.

Bush was given an automatic commission as a second lieutenant, and dispatched to flight school in Georgia for 13 months. In June 1970, after five additional months of specialized training in F-102 fighter-interceptor, Bush began what should have been a four-year assignment with the 111th Fighter-Interceptor Squadron.

In May 1972, Bush was given permission to move to Alabama temporarily to work on a US Senate campaign, with the provision that he do equivalent training with a unit in Montgomery. But Bush's service records do not show him logging any service in Alabama until October of that year.

And even that service is in doubt. Since the Globe first reported Bush's spotty attendance record in May 2000, no one has come forward with any credible recollection of having witnessed Bush performing guard service in Alabama or after he returned to Houston in 1973. While Bush was in Alabama, he was removed from flight status for failing to take his annual flight physical in July 1972. On May 1, 1973, Bush's superior officers wrote that they could not complete his annual performance review because he had not been observed at the Houston base during the prior 12 months.

Although the records of Bush's service in 1973 are contradictory, some of them suggest that he did a flurry of drills in 1973 in Houston -- a weekend in April and then 38 days of training crammed into May, June, and July. But Lechliter, the retired colonel, concluded after reviewing National Guard regulations that Bush should not have received credit -- or pay -- for many of those days either. The regulations, Lechliter and others said, required that any scheduled drills that Bush missed be made up either within 15 days before or 30 days after the date of the drill.

Lechliter said the records push him to conclude that Bush had little interest in fulfilling his obligation, and his superiors preferred to look the other way. Others agree. "It appears that no one wanted to hold him accountable," said retired Major General Paul A. Weaver Jr., who retired in 2002 as the Pentagon's director of the Air National Guard.


Not yet, anyway.

e

1,000 Dead

"As American military deaths in Iraq operations surpassed the 1,000 mark, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said Tuesday that insurgents controlled important parts of central Iraq and that it was unclear when American and Iraqi forces would be able to secure those areas".

- Associated Press, 9/6/04

"It's absolutely essential that eight weeks from today, on Nov. 2, we make the right choice, because if we make the wrong choice then the danger is that we'll get hit again and we'll be hit in a way that will be devastating from the standpoint of the United States".

- Dick Cheney, 9/6/04

On September 6, 2004, the 1000th US Soldier died in Iraq. So did the 1001st, 1002nd and 1003rd.

The Vice President commemorated by threatening Americans and President George W. Bush said... nothing.

1,000 dead. No solace, no compassion, no apologies.

e

The Republican Pledge of Allegiance:

I pledge allegiance to George Bush, of the Royal Family of America
And to the Republicans for which he stands, because he was chosen by God,
Unassailable, indisputable and incontestable, with no voice for dissent at all.

Amen.

The Republicans had an enormously successful convention. I admire the stagecraft and think Bush gave a great speech – especially when he managed to fake that tear in his eye. It was an effective and well-managed convention, and one of the scariest things I’ve ever watched.

Last week, the Republican party managed to convince America that dissent was not only unpatriotic, but dangerous.

"Our nation is being made weaker because of the Democrats’ manic obsession to bring down our Commander in Chief."

Miller, Giuliani, McCain, Pataki, Schwarzenegger and Cheney told us that Democrats were unpatriotic because we dared to question this President at a time of war. But this was not the emotional hate-filled tirade that you might think. It was a calculated and well-crafted political strategy by George Bush and Karl Rove to tie protest about the Iraq War to John Kerry’s protest about the Viet Nam war.

Circulating in the Republican viral messaging currents this week, is a section of the Constitution about providing aid and comfort to the enemy:

“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President… having previously taken an oath ... to support the Constitution of the United States, [who has] engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof."

I first got this emailed to me by a professed “independent.” He was questioning my commitment to Kerry because he claims it’s clear that Kerry provided “aid and comfort to the enemy”, testifying before the Senate against the Viet Nam War, and traveling to Paris to try and broker a prisoner release. He argued - very articulately - not only is Kerry not a patriot, but that it’s also illegal for him to hold, or run, for office.

At first, I thought: "Wow, this guy’s done his research. He’s nuts, but at least he’s well read".

Then, I heard that EXACT SAME PHRASE from a caller to C-Span, the next day - again, a "professed independent", questioning Kerry’s patriotism, but this time using that specific Ammendment to condemn ANYONE who speaks out about the war in IRAQ.

I googled. I began to see the strategy take shape.

New Swift Boat ads started running last week, specifically targeting Kerry’s testimony before Congress, about the atrocities perpetrated by American Soldiers in Viet Nam. Then Republicans derided the patriotism of all Democrats – except Zell Miller, of course – in questioning the execution of Bush’s war in Iraq. Then, as if by magic, the right wing bloggers begin using the Constitution itself to question Kerry’s right to free speech during Viet Nam, and to paint ANY dissent against the President at times of War as unpatriotic and illegal.

Google "Kerry aid and comfort". Cool, huh?

Did John Kerry speak out about the Viet Nam War? Yes. Did he travel to Paris to try and broker a prisoner release from the Vietnamese? Yes. Did this amount to aid and comfort to the enemy? No. And don’t let anyone tell you differently. Kerry was asked to testify by the Senate, where he simply told the truth, and in Paris, he was trying to bring home POWs. Damn him!

Those who tell us that Kerry provided aid and comfort to the Viet Cong are the same people trying to change the subject AWAY from Iraq, and away from how Mr. Bush, his neo-cons and his "miscalculations" are responsible for every dead soldier in Iraq. They use Kerry’s dissent in 1972 to try and keep us all quiet now.

I asked the admitted conservatives (and those in independent sheeps' clothing), this question: Which is a better example of "aid and comfort to our enemy" – Kerry’s attempts to end the Viet Nam war and save thousands of American lives; or Bush and Cheney’s refusal to listen to General Shinseki – Chief of Staff of the Army – when he told them we needed 200,000 troops to win the peace in Iraq?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/issues/iraq/attack/consequences/2003/0228pentagoncontra.htm

In 1972, John Kerry - home from the war - testified before the Senate about the criminal acts he saw in Viet Nam and went to Paris in a failed attempt to free prisoners of war. In 2003, for political reasons only, Bush and Cheney decided to ignore the advice of their most senior military analyst and send half as many American Soldiers as were truly needed. Since then, 6,497 US Soldiers have been serioulsy wounded and 998 have been killed.

I keep bringing up that point, and have yet to get a proper answer from "professed independents” or any Republican, for that matter. The best they offer is Bush’s admission of “miscalculations” in his pre-war strategy. Pardon me, but “miscalculations” makes it sound like they forgot to pack sun tan lotion. This was a POLITICAL decision NOT to put an additional 100,000 troops on the ground – a decision that has killed nearly 1,000 American Soldiers. If that's a Bush "miscalculation", what does a full-on mistake look like - a nuclear winter?

America was built on dissent – The Pilgrims, the Minutemen, the Suffragettes, the Civil Rights movement. It is the very ability TO dissent that makes us a Democracy. But the Terminator, Zig Zag Zell Miller, right wing bloggers, my “independent” friend and others, who throw around the Constitution when it serves them, seem to think differently.

Republicans tell America – and even those within their own party – that dissent is unpatriotic. This is a brilliant political move: Quiet your opposition by showing a pattern of dissent and calling dissent “aid and comfort to the enemy”. It really is an inspired strategy. And, worse, it seems to be working.

REAL swing voters – who are not as tuned into politics as the “true believers” – see a Swift Boat ad with a long-haired Kerry giving “aid and comfort,” then hear "talk-show" radio calling democrats unpatriotic, then hear country music screaming “USA – Love it or Leave it”, and suddenly they begin to think a vote against Bush is a vote against America. So much for the media's liberal bias, I guess.

There’s a reason Republicans have won six out of the last nine Presidential elections – they play hardball – see: Watergate, Willie Horton and Swift Boats.

But I keep thinking, what would Ronald Reagan have thought about all of this? Reagan didn’t need cheap parlor tricks to get Americans to vote for him, he simply offered them hope. He would have never – ever – called his opponents unpatriotic, because he just wasn’t capable of that type of hatred. That’s what made him so frustrating for Democrats – you wanted him to be an evil motherfcuker – but he simply refused.

However, this President and his band of thugs have decided that fear and hate are their best tools for winning this election. And they may be right.

It’s electoral Stop-Loss: Force even your faintest supporters to vote for you, by convincing them it’s unpatriotic NOT to. It’s akin to the military Stop-Loss that keeps National Reservists in Iraq, even though their voluntary commitments have expired.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2004-01-05-army-troops_x.htm

The result? Bush takes a lead into Labor Day – despite 1,100 wounded and 66 killed US Soldiers in Iraq, just in August. He gets a big bounce, while eight US Marines were killed in Fallujah this weekend. Dubbya cruises into swing states, while 860 US Soldiers have been killed since Bush declared “Mission Accomplished”, and 998 have been killed since he decided to invade with only 100,000 troops.

http://news.google.com/news?q=seven+marines+dead+fallujah&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab=nn

Listen, perhaps we are wrong – we Democrats who oppose Mr. Bush and his totalitarian plans to hold onto power. Maybe he is the right person to lead this country after all. Maybe he has a plan in Iraq and for the economy that we simply do not understand.

Does that mean it’s unpatriotic to disagree? Geez, I hope not.

When Republicans question the patriotism of democrats for opposing Mr. Bush or of John Kerry for opposing Viet Nam and the execution of the war in Iraq, they prove they are truly the party of Nixon – whom they mentioned in reverence several times during the their convention. Can’t you just picture Bush’s “enemies list”? Bush IS Nixon – only with better packaging.

Dissent is Democracy. The “vision” that cannot stand the test of dissent, is just more snake oil in a pretty bottle. The angrier Republicans get about Kerry’s dissent in 1972, the more nervous they are about Iraq in 2004. They realize that Bush’s behavior before the invasion cannot stand up to harsh questions, so they turn the campaign into a referendum on the questioners.

Was it treason for Woodward and Bernstein to investigate Nixon? Was it wrong for the Senate to investigate Iran-Contra? Was it unpatriotic for Sgt. Joseph Darby to report his fellow soldiers for abuses at Abu Ghraib? Geez, I hope not.

Kerry was right about Viet Nam. He is right about Iraq. And the Republicans know it. Rather than answer the questions about how Dick Cheney helped prolong Viet Nam, or about how he and Bush ignored the advice of their generals in Iraq, they question the patriotism of those who ask the questions.

When Republicans say Kerry was unpatriotic, ask them how many more of his friends should have died, before he was “allowed” to speak out. When Republicans (or pretend “independents”) try to accuse Kerry of treason, ask them if sending too few troops to Iraq isn’t a far worse example of "aid and comfort". And if you get these attacks from "independents", ask if they are looking as hard at Bush's past - and present - for anything that would disqualify him for the Presidency.

When they demur, ask them how they think the families of those 998 soldiers feel about Bush’s “miscalculations”.

If we let them question our patriotism, they win. If we MAKE THEM ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, we win. It’s that friggin’ simple.

“Dissent is the highest form of Patriotism.”
[President Thomas Jefferson]

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president, or that we are to stand by the president, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public."
[President Theodore Roosevelt, Republican]

e

[The Gallup poll has a seven point lead in likely voters and a dead heat @ 49-47 in registered voters. The largest and most recently updated tracking poll, Rasmussen, has the race still at a dead heat: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/Presidential_Tracking_Poll.htm]

Why Viet Nam Matters

We seem to be rehashing things that happened 33 years ago, rather than the issues of 2004. Why? Most Republicans would say how John Kerry carried himself in 1972 speaks volumes about how he will be as President.

Ok, then.

As he spoke before Congress about the atrocities of the Viet Nam War, John spoke out about a lost war that a corrupt government stubbornly refused to end - no matter the cost.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Viet Nam was a mistake. We know that now. Many knew it then. Many in Washington knew it was a mistake, but refused to admit it. John knew, and he was brave enough to speak out.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

Kerry’s language was harsh. He spoke out about the way the war was being fought, and especially about how badly it was being managed. Much as he does today.

But what do Bush and Cheney’s actions in 1971 say?

In 1971, while John was protesting the War in Viet Nam, George W. Bush was in Texas avoiding it, and Dick Cheney was in the Nixon White House, prolonging it.

While in law school, John continued to speak out against the war. At the same time, George Bush used his family name to get an early dismissal from the National Guard service he’d been ducking, and Dick Cheney was defending Richard Nixon – calling Watergate "a political ploy by the president's enemies."

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story?id=6450422

In 1975, the Republican administration in Washington, led by Chief of Staff Dick Cheney and Defense Secretary Don Rumsfeld, pulled the troops out of Viet Nam in a humiliating retreat – never once admitting their mistakes. It was not the soldiers who lost in Viet Nam, it was their civilian leadership.

"How do you ask a man to be the last man to die for a mistake?"

In the 1990’s while George Bush practiced insider trading and Dick Cheney made deals with Saddam Hussein, John reached out to heal the wounds of Viet Nam. While Bush and Cheney defrauded stock-holders to get rich, John risked his political life to help veterans, their families and the country finally put the war behind us.

Now, 3o years later, America again faces a mismanaged war on foreign soil. Again, Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld play games with the lives of American soldiers. And again, John Kerry speaks out.

“If I learned one thing from my service, I would never have gone to war without a plan to win the peace.”

30 years ago was a very confusing time. Then, Dick Cheney supported a corrupt administration and helped run a botched war. George Bush avoided service and shirked responsibility. Kerry served with honor – both as a soldier and a citizen – risking his life when others refused. Speaking truth to power, when others were silent.

Yes, those days long ago speak volumes.

“When it comes to Iraq, it’s not that I would have done one thing differently – I would have done almost everything differently.”
- John Kerry

John Kerry served America 30 years ago and every year since. He serves America now. What are YOU doing?

http://www.johnkerry.com/signup/mediacorps.php
http://volunteer.johnkerry.com/

theforum@usatoday.com
http://www.nypost.com/php/letters_editor/letters_editor.php
http://www.knightridder.com/papers/addresses.html
http://www.ohio.com/mld/ohio/contact_us/

Speak out.

e

Bush’s Big Stick

Lauer: “You can't dispute the fact that there is enormous growing discontent – and I want to use the word hatred and if you think it's too strong we can …”

President Bush: “Well maybe…”

Lauer: “The day after 9/11, there was never a greater outpouring of support and compassion for the United States. In Tehran they held candlelight vigils, flags were half-staff in Turkey, in France, in Germany – gatherings in the street.

Three years later, polls show we have never been more hated. We’ve separated ourselves from traditional allies.”

President Bush: “Actually that's not a necessarily a true statement.”

[President Bush and Matt Lauer on the Today Show]

...

Teddy Roosevelt, a REAL republican, once said “Speak Softly and carry a big stick.”

President Bush translates that into “Speak like a really big pr!ck.”

The President’s position on terrorism – to allies and enemies – is "don’t fcuk with us." Speaking loudly and swinging a big stick feels real manly. But it can also lead us to do things like using mushroom clouds to scare the world, or standing on an air-craft carrier with a Mission Accomplished banner over our heads.

(Is that banner Bush’s geopolitical equivalent of a bad prom tux, or what?)

Bush’s lack of self-awareness is stunning. His swagger is completely without merit, and his lack of military acumen has created tens of thousands of new terrorists in the Middle East.

Now it has begun to lose him support within his own party:

“Based on intelligence relating to Saddam and weapons of mass destruction, I believe that launching a preemptive military action was not justified. As a result of that work, our country's reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened."

[Doug Bereuter, Republican-Nebraska; Vice Chair House Intelligence Committee]

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/08/18/politics/main636799.shtml


Lauer: "Three years later, polls show we have never been more hated. We’ve separated ourselves from traditional allies.”

President Bush: “Actually that's not a necessarily a true statement.”


It is true. Bush's lack of awareness and humility has begun to alienate even our staunchest ally. England, the only truly willing member of the Coalition of the Willing, has lost faith in the President. The Times of London recently found that Senator John Kerry beats Bush among Brits 56 to 22 percent.

Why?

This is not a liberal view - just the opposite. Ultra Conservatives in England have begun to attack the politics and policies of this President – eroding America’s support in the United Kingdom (polls are worse for the President in Ireland), and perhaps explaining Tony Blair’s reluctance to visit Bush in America during the campaign.

In London, it's an actual parade of Conservative Tories leading the charge - the spawn of Thatcher as it were - supporting Kerry because has at least proven himself sane. Sir Max Hastings, former editor of the very conservative Daily Telegraph, recently wrote a column entitled "I hate George Bush," that argued "every single bleak forecast about their follies has been fulfilled," and then urged his readers to pray for John Kerry's victory in November.

Conservative Member of Parliament, Alan Duncan has said he is “prepared to work for the campaign of John Kerry to prevent a second Bush term in the White House,” and that “Neo-Conservatives such as Defense secretary Mr. Rumsfeld are making the world a more dangerous place” because of the way they are dealing with the threat from international terrorism.

Read about these and other Conservatives For Kerry@:
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/article3488.html
http://www.opinionet.com/article.php?id=2207

The President had unprecedented support on September 12. America – and the world – was willing to follow him almost anywhere, even Iraq.

His half-assed job in Afghanistan, his rush to invade Iraq, his lazy and cavalier assessment of the risks in both operations, and his lack of empathy for even our most steadfast allies has discouraged our friends and reinforced our enemies. In the end, all of the swagger in the world cannot make us safe if our friends don’t have our back.

George W. Bush is certainly no Teddy Roosevelt - no one expects him to be. But as Commander in Chief, Bush is like a fourteen year old with hard-on... he’s got the big stick, but no idea how to use it.

The result is usually a mess.

e

Tucker Carlson is a Conservative. While a bit on the young side, he is an important and well spoken conservative voice on both CNN and PBS. He’s annoying, but mostly because he’s successful and often proved right.

In the September issue of Esquire, Tucker admits that he’s in a dilemma. He cannot decide whether to vote for George Bush, or no one. This is a growing sentiment in the conservative movement. Among hard-core Goldwater conservatives and founding members of the Post Reagan neo-conservative movement, there is a question of faith about this President not seen since Nixon.

While I imagine that these folks would vote LaRouche before Kerry, I do think their desertion of Bush is a leading indicator.

Please read his article – posted in its entirety below (esquire makes you pay for whole articles, so I saved you four bucks. Let me know what you think.


A Conservative's Dilemma

Six and a half years after I first met him, I still don't know what I think of George W. Bush. Initially, I was won over by him. In interviews, he was relaxed yet unapologetic about his political beliefs. He exuded decency. His political skills were awesome. He had an intuitive understanding of people, coupled with a Ripley's-Believe-It-or-Not ability to recall details about their lives: what schools they'd gone to, the names of their wives and parents and children, how many dogs they had. He was like Clinton—maybe better—and much less weird and needy. The first time I saw Bush work a crowd, in the spring of 1998, I became convinced he was going to be president.

It never even occurred to me that he might be dumb. For one thing, he was witty as hell, a sure marker for intelligence. For another, he had no trouble at all expressing himself. A couple of times, I did notice that tape recordings of our interviews seemed considerably less substantial than the interviews themselves had seemed at the time, as if someone had erased the content. But it didn't trouble me particularly. I put it down to the effect of Bush's personal charm.

Then I saw him give a press conference. I was shocked. Bush sputtered and stumbled, mangling words ("Kosovanians," "Grecians") and looking slightly desperate. It was like watching a fat man cross an icy street; I couldn't relax till it was over. Bush clearly was rattled by public speaking. For the first time, it dawned on me that he might be insecure.

By November 2000, my view of Bush had changed substantially. I still strongly preferred him to Gore, who even before he grew a beard struck me as far too odd to be president. But I was less convinced I knew what Bush believed. After months of covering the campaign, I still didn't understand what "compassionate conservatism" meant, much less what Bush thought about America's role in the world. Not that it seemed to matter at the time. It was a virtually issue-free election. I had trouble imagining that much was at stake.

Then came September 11. Bush's approval ratings immediately soared to unbelievable heights. Yet the attacks initially made me sorry I'd voted for him. For most of that day, as my wife and children stayed inside our house listening to the roar of fighter jets overhead, and black smoke from the Pentagon hovered above our neighborhood, Bush failed to return to Washington. My family sat unprotected a few miles from the scene of a terrorist attack; Bush hid in a bunker on some faraway military base.

It infuriated me, as did the subsequent excuses from White House spokesmen. There was a risk in coming back, they said. Of course there was. That's the point: Leaders must take risks, sometimes physical ones. Bush should have elbowed his Secret Service detail out of the way and returned in a display of fearlessness to his nation's capital. I found it distressingly revealing that he didn't.

Then, a little more than a week later, Bush redeemed himself. His address on September 20 to a joint session of Congress wasn't simply a good speech. It was a nearly perfect one, possibly the greatest delivered by any president in American history. Bush seemed calm, resolute but not bellicose—completely, reassuringly in charge. His stammers and tics had disappeared.

"It is natural to wonder if America's future is one of fear," he said to a nation that was wondering just that. "I know there are struggles ahead and dangers to face. But this country will define our times, not be defined by them. As long as the United States of America is determined and strong, this will not be an age of terror; this will be an age of liberty, here and across the world. Great harm has been done to us. We have suffered great loss. And in our grief and anger, we have found our mission and our moment. . . The advance of human freedom—the great achievement of our time, and the great hope of every time—now depends on us."

For once, Bush had found precisely the right words: our mission and our moment. Out of the calamity of 9/11, Bush promised a new purpose for America, which was also the original purpose. America didn't ask to lead the world, or even want to. The responsibility had been thrust upon us by events beyond our control. Bush seemed to understand the task and embrace it. He spelled out the terms directly, without euphemism or embarrassment. The hijackers weren't misguided, he said. They were evil, and so is the ideology that drove them.

The speech was lovely and true. In living rooms across America, including mine, people listened with tears streaming down their cheeks. Bush seemed like a new man. It was later reported that he considered himself empowered by God to lead the nation after 9/11. I believe that Bush believed this. I also believe, on this night at least, that he may have been right.

Over the next few months, however, Bush slowly reverted to the man he had been. He wasted critical momentum tinkering with the Department of Homeland Security, as if the obvious response to 9/11 was bureaucratic reshuffling. His administration alienated even potential allies by responding to the slightest criticism in a tone that fluctuated between high-handed and contemptuous.

And then, of course—famously, fatally—Bush began planning for a war in Iraq. It was obvious from the beginning what was happening. Bush intended to topple Saddam Hussein. He said as much, in public, repeatedly. But it was still hard for me to believe it. This was the next step in the new war on terror Bush had described on September 20? At the time, he promised to avenge 9/11 with a campaign "unlike any other we have ever seen." But a conventional invasion of Iraq, with tens of thousands of American soldiers driving north in tanks through the desert toward Baghdad? We had definitely seen that before.

Hardly anyone else seemed to believe Bush would go through with it, either. A few who did made self-discrediting arguments against the war. Like Clinton, Bush has been blessed by the rage and paranoia of his enemies. In late 2002, some Democrats began to suggest that the drive to invade Iraq had political motives. The administration, they said, was planning to start a war—open-ended and unprovoked, against an enemy thought to have chemical weapons ready to use on the battlefield—simply to gain advantage in the midterm elections.

There has never been a more stupid critique of anything. In fact, the invasion amounted to a remarkable risk. No political consultant would ever have suggested it. Had Bush not invaded Iraq, his reelection would have been all but assured. As it stands, he may well lose because of it.

It's hard not to admire his boldness. However wrong his conclusions have been, Bush has described the larger war against terrorists with the clarity it requires: They are evil. We are not. Only one of us will win. Bush says this often, and when he does, there is no ironic inflection in his voice. He means it. And he is right.

Yet some of the anti-Bush critique was accurate. As he has managed and mismanaged the war in Iraq, Bush has proved stubborn, uncommunicative, and slow to adapt to changing realities. His enemies cite these qualities as evidence of Bush's arrogance. But Bush isn't inflexible because he's arrogant. He's inflexible because he's weak.

And it is because he is weak that we invaded Iraq. Bush may have been uncertain about how to fight terrorism after the fall of the Taliban, but many of those around him were not. Years before, they had concluded that an Iraq without Saddam would lead to a more stable, less dangerous Middle East. Against compelling evidence to the contrary, Bush accepted their judgment.

I believe this was a colossal error—made in good faith, but a mistake nonetheless. It will be hard for me to vote for a man who has done something so reckless.

And that's a problem, because unless you believe that the threat from Islamic extremism has been seriously overhyped—and I don't—John Kerry isn't really an alternative. So it's Bush or no one. That will be my choice on November 2. I still haven't decided which will get my vote.

Tucker is not alone. He is the latest in a line of conservative, neo-con and moderate Republicans jumping the Bush ship. Word is, that many more prominent conservatives are teetering on the fence.

He may not have proved himself a viable alternative. . . yet. But if your only other choice is NO ONE, Kerry deserves a much better look than he’s been given – by Carlson and the rest of his conservative buddies in the press.

e

The Era of Big Government is BACK!

George Bush has never used his veto power. Not once in nearly four years as President, has Bush vetoed ANYTHING.

“Big government is not the answer!”
[George W. Bush, Republican Convention acceptance speech, 2000]

President Bush has added 1.1 million jobs to the national government – many outside of Defense and Homeland Security, in departments like Health and Human Services. That brings the total U.S. governmental employees to more than 12 million — the most since the Cold War ended.

"President Bush's actions haven't matched his words."
[Chris Edwards, Director of fiscal policy, Cato Institute]

According to the Brookings Institution, Bush and Cheney have increased discretionary spending on non-military items by 21%, with pork barrel spending (according to the VERY conservative watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste) up 48% since 2001.

According to the Washington Times (perhaps the country’s most conservative newspaper), Bush’s proposed 2004/2005 budget (announced at his state of the union address in January), “will increase non-defense spending well beyond the 4 percent to 5 percent the administration has budgeted for the current fiscal year, nearly double the average annual increases of about 2.5 percent by President Clinton during his two terms.”

http://www.washtimes.com/national/20040121-120324-4002r.htm

The Congressional Budget Office estimates that the Federal Deficit will reach between $1.5 and 2 trillion in the next ten years. THAT’S TRILLION – WITH TWELVE ZEROES.

“He is a big government Republican."
[Stephen Moore, Executive Director, Conservative tax organization Club for Growth]

In his accepting his first Republican Nomination, then Governor Bush promised to reduce the size of government, but to do so responsibly. He promised to be America’s first Compassionate Conservative.

By proposing to write bigotry into the Constitution, by allowing corporate greed to destroy our environment, by eliminating overtime for 4 million Americans, by creating a back door draft of 50,000 of America’s weekend warriors, by attempting to eliminate Affirmative Action, by slowly destroying a woman’s right to choose – the President has proven to be anything but Compassionate.

By ballooning the government to its largest size since the end of the Cold War, by increasing the government payroll by 10% in just three years, by refusing to veto ANYTHING since his inauguration, by engaging in Nation-Building on an epic scale, at a cost of more than $200,000,000,000 and 975 American lives – Bush has proven to be anything but Conservative.

One can only wonder what he will promise – and who he will be – THIS time.

e

From the Home Office – across the street from Madison Square Garden…

THE TOP TEN THINGS YOU WILL NOT HEAR WHILE WATCHING THE REPUBLICAN CONVENTION:

#10: 1.3 million more Americans moved under the poverty line in 2003 – earning less than $18,810 for a household of four and $12,000 for a two-person home. This is the third straight year that the number of Americans living in poverty has increased – that number now totals 35.9 million.

http://www.concordmonitor.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20040827/REPOSITORY/408270342/1013/NEWS03

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5829707/

#9: Good Music.

#8: 1.4 million Americans LOST their health insurance in the last year. 45 Million Americans now live without health insurance. If you think this doesn’t affect you, think again. Every time an uninsured person enters an emergency room – your rates increase.

http://news.google.com/news?q=uninsured+americans+1.4+million+more&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=nn

#7: Humility

#6: U.S. Attorneys are investigating Boeing’s CEO for illegally hiring an Air Force Official before she left her job. The company has been under investigation for almost a year because the Air Force Official, Darleen Druyun, admitted to negotiating her job at Boeing (earning her well into six figures), while she was negotiating Air Force contracts with Boeing in 2002.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5838914/

#5: Humor.

#4: President Bush admitted yesterday that he “miscalculated” the difficulties of occupying Iraq, but said that they came from winning the war “too quickly.”

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5835941/

I really want to SEE him try and say that with a straight face, so I hope to be wrong on this one.

#3: Two Words – Kenneth Lay.

#2: Two More Words – Abu Grhaib

http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&tab=nn&filter=0&q=abu+ghraib+prison+abuses+army+reports

And the #1 Top Ten thing YOU WILL NOT hear at the Republican Convention:

#1: "I’m Sorry."

You will most definitely NOT hear an apology to the families of the 971 US Soldiers killed in Iraq for President Bush’s “miscalculation” on the human cost of occupying Iraq.

http://icasualties.org/oif/

e

America’s Largest Company

That’s how the Department of Defense describes itself:
1. AMERICA’S LARGEST COMPANY;
2. AMERICA’S OLDEST COMPANY;
3. AMERICA’S BUSIEST COMPANY;
4. AMERICA’S MOST SUCCESSFUL COMPANY.

Not "a department designed to protect Americans and their interests." Not "a governmental agency responsible for the safety of our citizens and our allies." Just, "America’s Largest Company." Really.

Don’t believe me? Go to their DoD 101 website:
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/dod101_for_2002.html

And, please, enjoy their neato online PowerPoint presentation!
http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/dod101/

The DoD - America’s Largest Company - has 2,036,000 employees – 700,000 more than WalMart – and a Budget/Revenue of $371 Billion – more than twice that of General Motors.

America’s Largest Company lists the Congress as its Board of Directors and George W. Bush as its CEO. As its shareholders, it names the American People.

So, fellow sharholders, just how is our investment going?

This week, two reports came out on the prisoner abuses at the Abu Grhaib prison in Iraq. Both assigned blame far beyond the few “bad apples” that the White House and Pentagon identified as the perpetrators of the torture and abuse, and pointed fingers far up the chain of command – up to senior military and intelligence commanders, even up to Secretary Rumsfeld himself.

Both reports show – in tremendous detail – that the conditions which led to those abuses stemmed from unbelievable confusion and terrible planning in command and control by the Pentagon’s civilian authority in Washington: Deputy Secretary Stephen Cambone, Deputy Secretary Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld.

This is NOT my interpretation of the reports – the combined reports total more than 400 pages, and frankly I just don't have that much free time (hard to believe, I know). This is, in fact, the universally accepted reading of the reports by almost every news organization in the country:

http://news.google.com/news?q=Schlesinger+report+on+prison+abuses&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=nn

http://news.google.com/news?q=internal+army+report+prison+abuse&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&c2coff=1&sa=N&tab=nn

The reports call for the discipline of low AND high ranking officers, and will probably result in repercussions as far up as General Ricardo Sanchez – who was due to receive a promotion to Four Stars later this year. Now, not so much.

While they do blame military officials at the very top of command in Iraq and demonstrate severe negligence on the part of the civilian leaders in Washington, the reports stop short of calling for the resignation of Feith, Cambone, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld.

WHY?

The investigations were executed and the reports written by Army loyalists. They did their duty and assigned blame, but you must remember Maj. General Fay, Lt. General Jones and former Defense Secretary Schlesinger all answer to one man – Donald Rumsfeld. Their assignment was to make their reports accurate, but leave their boss wiggle room to keep his job.

“When you put these reports together, the clear message is that the system failed in a widespread manner."

[Sen. Lindsey Graham, REPUBLICAN-S.C., Senate Armed Services Committee]

The Department of Defense website shows that ultimate decision-making power in America’s Largest Company rests with the National Command Authority – comprised of The President (our CEO) and Secretary Rumsfeld (I guess he’d be our COO).

The two reports demonstrate that commanders had no clear direction, contradicted each other’s orders and created an "anything-goes" atmosphere. They demonstrate, in great detail, how guards received little or no punishment for abuses and how almost all of the practices were adapted from other military-run prison facilities in Afghanistan and Cuba. In Iraq, these practices were used not only on Iraqi prisoners – but also on innocent Iraqi police officers, suspected - and then later exonerated - of being terrorists.

The reports prove – with great certainty – how lack of adequate training and troop levels far below what was required or requested were the most significant contributing factors that led to the abuse. It does not excuse the “morally corrupt” soldiers who actually perpetrated the acts of torture, but shows that these acts would not have been possible, if not for the negligence of their military and civilian leadership.

Period. There is no ambiguity about it.

In 2002, President Bush and Donald Rumsfeld were told by almost all of their senior military advisors that an invasion of Iraq would require 200,000 troops.

In testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee – and via private counsel – Commanding General Shinseki, Chief of Staff of the Army, said repeatedly that it would take “200,000 troops to occupy and secure the peace in Iraq.”

http://www.thehillpolitics.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=89

In order to save money and paint a better political picture, the CEO and COO of America’s Largest Company ignored the advice of their staff and tried to do the war on the cheap.

The initial invasion consisted of approximately 100,000 troops. Today, we have 140,00 soldiers in Iraq.

Also in 2002, COO Rumsfeld approved acts of torture for Al Qaeda prisoners, and lawyers for the President advised that prisoners in Afghanistan and Iraq did not specifically fall under the Geneva Convention if they were considered terrorists. This was done to expedite the delivery of actionable intelligence in the war on terror.

http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040622_1767.html

Since then, it has been determined that intelligence garnered from torture has been both useless and false.

If the CEO and COO of United Airlines decided – against expert advice – to reduce the number co-pilots in their planes in order to lessen the cost of flying; what would the shareholders do? What would the public do? What if that decision led to the death of 1000 Americans and injury to hundreds of innocent people?

America’s Largest Company – supported by your tax dollars – has a CEO and COO that do not listen to their most senior advisors. As a result, our Armed Forces went into war without adequate training, armor, intelligence or support. This failure has resulted in the death of 970 American Soldiers, 325 National Reservists and thousands of Iraqi civilians. It has also been proven to be the genesis of the torture of prisoners by American hands, and it is tantamount to treason.

Donald Rumsfeld - our COO - must resign. If he does not, our CEO needs to fire him. Now. You – the shareholders of America’s Largest Company – need to exercise your options. Write to our Board – your Representatives in the House and Senate – and demand they call for Rumsfeld’s resignation immediately.

Senate: http://www.senate.gov/general/contact_information/senators_cfm.cfm
House: http://www.house.gov/writerep/

America’s Largest Company has created the greatest miscalculation of troop deployment and military execution in American History. It is time that someone – other than our troops – paid for it.

"Harry Truman had that sign on the desk, and it said, 'The buck stops here.' The buck doesn't stop at the Pentagon. And in this case, it doesn't just stop with any military personnel. I believe it lands in the civilian leadership."

[Senator John Kerry]

e

Please nominate blogtruth for Best Blog @

www.washingtonpost.com/bestblogs.

Dude, Relax!!!

In this blog, I have tried – though not always successfully – to avoid preaching to the choir. I have attempted to focus on facts, not rhetoric, to show the stark choice ahead of us this November – cajoling moderates and independents into an educated decision, while arming my fellow liberals with arguments that resonate outside of the Blue States (or are they Red? That always confuses me).

But, perhaps I have been too moderate? Lately, a disturbing number of democrats have come to me with dire predictions and glum outlooks. “Kerry’s not making his case. Bush is going to win. Why can’t Kerry do better – blah, blah, blah?!?”

To those nay-sayers and doom-seers, I offer the immortal words of Cher:

SNAP OUT OF IT!!!!!!

Remember just one year ago, when the entire country was convinced that there was NO WAY that Bush could lose? Remember last fall when John Kerry was considered flat-lined in Iowa? Remember the Alamo? (Ok, that last one doesn’t make sense, but I was on a roll.)

IN 1980, JIMMY CARTER ENTERED OCTOBER LEADING RONALD REAGAN BY 5 POINTS.

Seriously, it’s true! Though he is now widely considered the least-effective elected President since World War II (Ford doesn’t count), Carter actually benefited from the Iranian crises, as the country rallied to his side, deep into the campaign.

What changed that race is what will ultimately decide this one. The debates.

When the country saw Ronald Reagan on stage next to Jimmy Carter, they decided that he was NOT the mean-spirited demon Carter said he was. They also saw a man who was prepared to be President of the United States. In simplistic terms, they saw a more than acceptable trade-in.

Conversely, in the fall of 1972 Dick Nixon was embroiled in a very unpopular and terribly executed war in Viet Nam, and a tight reelection race. When George McGovern gave a disastrous debate performance and proved to the country that he was NOT an acceptable replacement for the President, it sank his campaign.

http://www.ack.net/346imstory.html

In both cases, when the country was given the opportunity to compare the candidates – as men, side by side – two tight races turned into routs.

The fact that John Kerry is neck and neck in this race, despite HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS worth of Republican attack ads, speaks to the weakness of this incumbent and the nature of the new political calendar. Typically, Presidential races tighten post-Labor Day, after both conventions and the lazy haze of summer are over. But since this campaign started almost a year earlier than usual – due to a stepped up primary calendar – there are fewer undecideds than ever before at this point in the race.

72% of registered voters strongly support their choice for president and will not change their votes. That is unprecedented. But it is also an opportunity – it means that 28% of the electorate IS NOT permanently tied to a candidate, and waiting (probably until just before election day) to move definitively into one column or the other.

More importantly, in the wake of the 2000 election, battleground states are getting the vast majority of campaign attention, making national "who would you vote for" polls almost inconsequential. Almost every major poll shows John Kerry with a lead (though a small one) in the majority of battle ground states:

- The latest Zogby Poll (typically a conservative leaning indicator) has Kerry leading in 14 of the 16 “swing states.”

- The latest Marist poll has Kerry leading 47% to 42% in the battleground states.

More relevant than "if the election were held today" questions, are the issues behind the polls - how that 18% are thinking now to make their final decision in November. The movement and the results are more than promising for the challenger.

SOME IMPORTANT FACTS AND FIGURES:

- Poll after poll after poll show that a majority of Americans think the country is headed in the wrong direction. Go to the link below, and read ALL the polls listed to a get a good picture of the electorate:
http://www.pollingreport.com/right.htm

- Most Americans believe that the President has mishandled the war in Iraq and that he either misled or flat-out lied to the country in taking the nation to war. Again, please read all of the polls:
http://www.pollingreport.com/iraq.htm

- Most importantly (for those who think that convention did little or nothing for Kerry and that the swift boat liars have hurt him) Bush is losing ground – fast – to Kerry on the issue of terrorism and national security, even falling behind in many polls on who would be a better Commander in Chief. And, given a wash on those questions, Kerry has a commanding lead on domestic issues in almost all polls.

Again, please read them all – there are some really good FACTS included here, including the impact (or lack thereof) of the swift boat ads:
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh04misc.htm

- This plays to Kerry’s strategy – take the summer to make foreign policy a wash, then use the fall and the debates to cater to the things Americans care about MOST – jobs and the economy.
http://www.pollingreport.com/prioriti.htm


Lastly, please remember what we learned from 2000:

1. Nationwide polls are meaningless. The fcuked up Electoral College means that this election is ALL about battleground states. If you want to know how Kerry is doing – TRACK THEM:
http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an0823.html

2. EVERY MOTHER-FRIGGING VOTE COUNTS. Focussing on the bad news distracts from the message and dis-encourages our base. Turn-out is key.

3. If you think things are going badly, THEN DO SOMETHING!!! Even one vote can make a difference and it will make you feel so much better than complaining to me.

Send money to movon.org or America Coming Together. Lick stamps, send emails, educate the morons who actually think this President is doing an ok job. Get off your tushy and get motivated. Stop the pessimism and take action.

John Kerry is a great candidate. Ask Edwards, Clarke, Gephardt and Dean. Ask Bill Weld. All of these guys made the mistake of taking Kerry less than seriously and all of them LOST TO HIM. Kerry also has the best minds in the country working for HIM. If you think they have not planned for all of the contingencies they now face (swift boats, November Funds, etc), think again.

Reagan was behind at this stage in the game, as was Bush #1 in '88 AND Bush #2 in '00. In '92, Clinton didn’t take the lead until Yom Kippur. The reason? Americans just don’t change Presidents easily. They need to compare the mettle of the men – mano-a-mano.

This race will remain tight until the debates, period. At that point, the country will see if Kerry truly is a viable alternative to the President. They will watch – in record numbers – and ask themselves, “Could Kerry actually DO the job?” His job is to convince them that he can. Our job is to use the FACTS and REALITIES to help him make his case.

If, before the debate, Americans see that the country is indeed headed in the wrong direction, Kerry’s job will be an easy one. If we spend the next six weeks living and dying by every national poll and every swift boat lie, we play into the hands of the Bushies and we get four more years.

My Prediction: Kerry holds his own at the debates and the country decides it’s time for change. Kerry/Edwards win the national vote by 7 points and the electoral vote by 100 – winning Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, New Mexico, Arkansas, Arizona and Colorado, and losing Florida in the most corrupt vote in electoral history.

My Fear: Republicans find a way to rig electronic voting machines and steal the election. This is what they are currently trying to do in the very states I just listed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A22536-2004Aug21.html

Our Charge: Vote by absentee ballot. Volunteer as an election protector with People for the American Way. Go to Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan or Florida on election day and help prevent voter disenfranchisement and polling fraud.

http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=16609

Don’t allow the Republican-controlled media to color your view of the world. PAY ATTENTION TO THE FACTS, and keep a positive outlook. Envision victory and it will be yours.

Given the state of the economy, the mess in Iraq and our America's reputation in the the world, Bush is the most beatable incumbent in 24 years. His dad lost, and he did a significantly better job! This is our race to lose... or win. Give the challenger your support, tell the truth as it is, and help turn this election into the rout it deserves to be.

If it’s not close, they can’t steal it.

e

Well, there you go again.

Before their ascendancy to the White House, Dick Cheney and George Bush both had questionable records on corporate governance and fiduciary responsibility.

Bush:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2002/07/03/bush-sec.htm

Cheney:
http://www.tucsoncitizen.com/index.php?page=business&story_id=080404d1_halliburton

Now, is seems they are at it again.

Billions of dollars in Iraqi reconstruction funds and billions more in materials and supplies are either missing, misplaced or lost forever in Iraq.

Even worse, the sort lax oversight that led Halliburton to restate millions in profits and which drove Enron into bankruptcy at the expense of retirement funds across the country is to blame… yet again.

Even worser (not a word, I know), Halliburton is AGAIN to blame for much of the misappropriation, and this time YOU are paying for it. Well, not all of it – remember those liberated Iraqis, who were supposed to create a democracy built on renewed oil revenues? Yeah, they got screwed too.

In June, the British charity Christian Aid reported that at least 20 billion dollars in oil revenues and other Iraqi funds intended to rebuild the country have disappeared from banks administered by the Coallition Provisional Authority (aka: Enron's Iraqi division).

http://www.christianaid.org.uk/indepth/406iraqoilupdate/index.htm

And this week, there are reports of billions in missing oil revenues and reconstruction funds due to lack of proper oversight and administration by the CPA.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5763483/

You would think that an organization with the initials CPA would know how to count money. But no.

However, this is nothing new. Since losing the popular vote and being annointed by the Supreme Court, this administration has embarked on a campaign of disinformation and secrecy designed to eliminate transparency from government. Not since Nixon, has the Presidency been subjected to such cloaking.

http://www.twbookmark.com/books/15/031600023X/chapter_excerpt18541.html

This veil of secrecy led us into an unwise invasion of Iraq and the death of nearly 1,000 American Soldiers, but is even more pervasive than that (worser-er!). By centralizing the power and information of formerly democratically run government agencies, the White House has misled American citizens, the press and even members of its own party in an attempt to overhaul the government behind closed doors.

Knowing that their tax plans would balloon the deficit, they kept the long term effects of their "reform" hidden...

http://www.cbo.gov/showdoc.cfm?index=1944&sequence=0#table4

Knowing that the true costs of their Medicare Bill far exceeded their published projections, they lied to Republicans in Congress about the true costs of their Medicare Bill and coerced a public official into keeping quiet…

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A64627-2004Jan30&notFound=true

Knowing that they were miscounting fast food positions as manufacturing jobs, they grossly inflated the country’s projected job growth…

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4303329/

Don't believe for a moment that this is a Republican effort. Many Republican members of Congress - Senator Pat Roberts is the latest - are privately stewing over the dishonesty and deceit of the President and Vice President. Investigations into the misuse of pre-war intelligence have led many in congress to rethink their support of the invasion. Investigations into the Medicare cover-up have many members of the House distancing themselves from that bill.

And today, a Pentagon report on the prison abuse scandal places blame squarely on Donald Rumsfeld himself - not for the abuse, but for creating an atmosphere of distrust and disorganization that led to the atrocities...

http://www.indystar.com/articles/4/172852-9804-010.html

This election is about more than politics. It’s about more than party affiliation or ideological loyalty. It is about the future of our country and about America’s place in the world. If patriotism means supporting your country all of the time and your government only when it deserves it, it is time to support our country by electing leaders whom we can trust.

John Kerry is a leader with integrity. John Edwards has proven his ability to take on avarice and win. Can the same really be said about George W. Bush and Dick Cheney?

Given the challenges we face and the things at stake; given the histories of all four men running for election; given America's current standing in the world – ask yourself, who is it you can trust most?

1 million-plus jobs lost during the Bush Administration
965 US Soldiers have died in Iraq
53 US Soldiers have died in Iraq IN AUGUST

These are just some of the figures the administration wants to hide.

e

Free Martha or Jail George

"Promptly upon learning that the Waksals were selling or attempting to sell all of their ImClone stock at Merrill Lynch, Stewart placed an order to sell all 3,928 shares of her ImClone stock. By the end of the next trading day, December 31, the price per share of ImClone stock had dropped 16 percent. By selling when she did, Stewart avoided losses of $45,673."

[SEC Complaint # 03 CV 4070 against Martha Stewart and Peter Bacanovic; 6/4/03]


And Now, Insider Trading, Texas Style:

In January, 1990, George W. Bush uses diplomatic and family connections to garner substantial contracts in the Persian Gulf for Harken Energy, on whose board he sits. Harken had never before drilled on foreign.

In early June, 1990, President GHW Bush (father of George W. Bush) receives satellite intelligence that Saddam Hussein is amassing troops along the Iraq/Kuwait border.

On June 11, 1990, Harken Energy Board Member, George W. Bush attends the company's Audit Committee meeting with two other board members.

On June 13, 1990, George W. asks Harken's general counsel, Robert Jordan, about his ability to sell Harken shares to pay off a debt. Jordan turns to the company’s law firm, Haynes and Boone, for advice.

On June 15, 1990, Haynes and Boone issues a memo, warning Board members that ''the act of trading, particularly if close in time to the receipt of the inside information, is strong evidence that the insider's investment decision was based on the inside information. Unless the favorable facts clearly are more important than the unfavorable, the insider should be advised not to sell.''

On June 22, 1990, Mr. Bush sells 212,140 shares of stock, which he was given when Harken bought his bankrupt oil company Spectrum 7, for a pure profit of $848,560.

On June 30, 1990, Harken closes the second quarter, with the largest single quarter loss in its history.

On August 2, 1990, Iraq invades Kuwait, establishing a provisional government with Saddam Hussein as its leader. Hussein threatens to turn Kuwait city into a "graveyard if any other country dares to challenge the take-over by force." Harken's substantial Persian Gulf investments are now in grave jeopardy.

On August 20, 1990, Harken Energy, announces in a press release that its overall losses for the quarter total $23.2 million.

On August, 21, 1991, shares of Harken Energy drop more than 40%, from $4 to $2.37 - going down to $1 by year's end. In selling when he did, George W. Bush avoids losses of at least $345,788.80. This is seven times greater than Ms. Stewart's windfall.

In 1991, the SEC, learning from investors that Bush had missed the deadline for filing notice of the Harken sale, begrudgingly opens an investigation into Bush's transaction.

The case is overseen at the SEC by James Doty, George Bush's former personal attorney, SEC Associate Director, Bruce Hiler and SEC Chairman, Richard Breeden, who had been deputy counsel to Bush Sr when he was Vice President and who was appointed SEC chairman when GHW Bush became President. In short order, the SEC finds no wrongdoing and drops the case. The FBI - reporting to President GHW Bush - refuses to consider the case.

Is it me or do YOU have images of foxes investigating a chicken massacre?

Jordan and Harken claim that the transcripts from the Audit Committee meeting demonstrate that the company's finances were not discussed on June 11, and that Harken's losses were only described to the Board in a July 13 memo. Harken refused to release the minutes or the memo, and almost all of Bush Jr.'s correspondence has been locked away in Texas since December, 2000.


For her $45,000 profit, Martha Stewart was indicted and convicted in Federal court for insider trading. She received a five month jail sentence. U.S. Federal and State securities laws state:

"It is unlawful to take advantage of non-public information in connection with purchasing or selling securities or recommending to others the purchase or sale of securities.

Information is material if a reasonable person would want to consider it in determining whether to engage in a securities transaction or if it could reasonably be expected to affect the market price of a security if it becomes generally known. Information should be considered non-public if it has not been disclosed in the news media, research reports, corporate public filings or reports, or in some other similar public manner.

Non-public information should generally be regarded as material unless it is clearly unimportant to investors."

Hussein's pending invasion of Kuwait was classified. The only people who knew Harken was going to take that huge loss were its senior executives, its Board Members and the company's Audit Committee.

Either George W. Bush used non-public, material information to consider his sale of Harken stock, or he is not a reasonable person. If he is not reasonable, he should not be running for President. Otherwise, he broke the same law and is subject to the same punishment - times seven - afforded to Ms. Stewart.

In 2000, Bush Jr. named Robert Jordan US Ambassador to Saudi Arabia - he resigned in disgrace in 2003. Bruce Hiler now represents Enron COO and Bush buddy Jeffrey Skilling. Richard Breeden is now serving as acting CEO of scandal-ridden WorldCom. James Doty is a powerful DC Securities Attorney.

Harken's stock now trades for less than a dollar.

I do not raise these issues lightly. Unlike the Swift Boat Liars from Duluth, I believe that questions regarding a Presidential candidate should be based in fact. If the President did nothing wrong, then we should put this issue to rest. However, the appearance of impropriety cannot be ignored. The SEC investigators had dangerous conflicts of interest on more than one level, and the case was not investigated to its fullest extent.

But that was a different time. Since then, corporate governance has become a major campaign issue. During the Clinton Administration, the number of American stockholders exploded - to include middle and lower income families, Union Retirement plans and non-profit organizations. In light of the Enron, Worldcom and Martha Stewart scandals, we expect our leaders to protect America's new community of shareholders with even more zeal than in eras past.

If the President is guilty of breaking the very law he is empowered to uphold, we - all of us - deserve to know.

The SEC attorney who garnered the Stewart conviction is WAYNE M. CARLIN. I ask you to reach out to him, repeatedly, until he either reopens the Harken/Bush case or sets Martha Stewart free. If Ms. Stewart's actions deserve investigation and prosecution, then certainly Mr. Bush's transactions call for a second look.

Mr. Carlin can be reached at:

WAYNE M. CARLIN, Esq
Regional Director
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION
233 Broadway; New York, New York 10279
Tel: (646) 428-1510
newyork@sec.gov

Also, it's time the players in this drama answer some questions about our President's insider trading. I urge you to reach out to these men who helped bail out Bush, and ask them what they know and when they open their secrets to the taxpayers for whom they used to work.

If they have nothing to hide, then our contact should come as only a pleasant reminder of their service to our country:

James Doty
Phone: 202.639.7792; Fax: 202.585.1018
james.doty@bakerbotts.com

Bruce A. Hiler
O'Melveny & Myers LLP
1625 Eye Street, NW; Washington, DC 20006-4001
Phone: (202) 383-5372; Fax: (202) 383-5414
E-Mail: hiler@omm.com

Richard Breeden
http://www.harrywalker.com/speakers_template.cfm?Spea_ID=612

And if we fail there, maybe we can turn to the people’s champion, Eliot Spitzer. His giant slaying has encouraged stockholders to take heart over the past few months. Perhaps HE will be attracted to this perfect example of corporate largesse.

Eliot Spitzer
NYS Attorney General
120 Broadway; New York City, NY 10271
(212) 416-8000
(518) 474-7330

I know this repetitive of my last post, but this issue has never been given its due. It is only fair to spend as much time researching President Bush's past as Bush's Republicans have done disparaging Kerry's heroism in Viet Nam.

Call, fax, email, those named above! Forward this to your friends in the media - do what you can to bring this to light.

The facts and dates in this post come from various sources:

http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml%3Fi=20020722&s=leopold20020718
http://www.sec.gov/litigation/complaints/comp18169.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/campaigns/wh2000/stories/bush073099.htm
http://www.namebase.org/cgi-bin/nb06/14108?_BREEDEN_RICHARD_C
(this one is super cool, btw!)
http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,3604,824517,00.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/08/01/bush.harken.overseas/index.html
http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/07/15/time.rap/index.html

Truth's best ally is the light of the sun.

e

Move over Martha

George W. Bush was a terrible businessman. Absolutely lousy. People liked him fine and he was always good at raising money, but he was miserable at making it. Regardless, his family connections and famous name gave George plenty of opportunity to tap into investors’ pockets and promptly lose it.

In 1985, just before his 40th birthday, Bush was on the brink of bankruptcy. His oil company, Spectrum 7, had drilled fifteen or more dry wells and he was faced with an embarrassing failure. Then, Harken Energy decided to buy his company, atrracted to the Bush family name and his daddy’s (VP Bush at that time) oil connections in the Middle East.

In 1986, Harken put Dubbya on the Board, gave him 212,000 shares of stock and paid him $120,000 a year – even after he went off to work full time on Bush Sr.’s Presidential campaign in 1987. In 1990, George Dubbya Bush remained on the Harken Board, and on Harken’s Audit Committee – with complete access to and oversight of the company’s financials.

On June 22, 1990, Bush sold 212,140 shares of Harken stock at $4 a share – garnering $848,560.

Eight days later, Harken ended its second quarter with operating losses of $6.7 million – three times the losses it reported a year earlier. When Harken released these figures, their stock fell by more than 40%, costing shareholders tens of millions of dollars. Enronesque, no?

As a member of Harken’s Board and one of only three members of their Audit committee, Bush had to know that the company was underperforming. He then used this information to sell those stocks, just weeks before the release of the company’s losses for his own personal gain.

Federal securities law prohibits corporate "insiders" from trading "on the basis of" material information that is not publicly known. Insider trading is illegal and punishable by fines and jail time - just ask Martha Stewart.

Because Bush failed to file a notice of sale before selling the stock, the SEC launched an investigation into the matter in 1991. Conveniently, the SEC investigator assigned the case was Bush’s former personal attorney, James Doty. Really. Surprisingly, Doty found no wrongdoing. You just can't make this sh*t up.

The Justice Department – which at the time reported to President Bush Sr. – also declined to pursue the case.

Bush’s lawyer, Robert Jordan (who also represented Harken) claims that the minutes from a Harken Audit Committee meeting show that the company’s performance was not discussed at the last meeting before the sale on June 11. Jordan also claims that Bush first learned about the company’s losses in a memo from Harken’s President on July 13.

When asked by the Washington Post in 2002 to produce the minutes of the June 11 meeting or the memo of July 13, Jordan and Harken declined.

WHY?

If the Harken Audit Committee didn’t talk about the company’s enormous losses on June 11 – what the fcuk DID they talk about - the new toilet seats in the executive washroom? If Bush didn’t know about the impending 2Q losses, why did he suddenly sell those shares – after six years of holding onto them?

If Martha Stewart can be held responsible and go to jail for a similar trade, from which she garnered only $50,000, why does the SEC NOT pursue President Bush? If the Republican Party can spend seven years and $60 Million to investigate Bill Clinton’s land deal from 1975, creating a Constitutional crises in the process – how do they now ignore blatant crimes by President Bush?

George Bush took part in insider trading, period. What’s good for Martha, is good for the President.

Read a great piece about Bush’s business record and SEC violations @ http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A49309-2002Oct31&notFound=true

e

Oh, by the way, $8.8 BILLION dollars are missing in Iraq and the Bush Administration is to blame... http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5763483/.

Everything old is new again.

RUN AND HIDE

In the late fall of 2000, as the Supreme Court was overturning the will of the American Electorate, George W. Bush was breaking the law.

Bush’s last official act as Governor of Texas was to sign an executive order, sealing his documents from public view and hiding them in his father’s Presidential Library.

Why?

He picked his father’s Library because it is technically federal land, meaning it is out of the jurisdiction of the state of Texas. So, shortly after hearing he had been chosen President by the Supreme Court, Bush moved his gubernatorial papers into the basement of a federal building, shielding them from journalists and the people of Texas.

Why?

Peggy Rudd, the director of the Texas State Library – where the papers should have been sent – sued the state to return the documents to her possession. This process took two years, as Bush’s hand-picked successor, Governor Rick Perry, stonewalled the suit.

In 2002, the papers were freed… momentarily. During a short period of liberation, some of Bush’s records were given to journalists who had requested them. And from them, we learned that Governor Bush had VERY friendly correspondences with Kenneth Lay, whom he now claims only a passing acquaintance.

(See the letters @ http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0708042lay1.html
Read Bush's denial of Lay @ http://slate.msn.com/id/2060884/).

We also learned that Bush had signed 151 confidential death-penalty memoranda, ordering the executions of 151 men and women, including Terry Washington, a mentally retarded thirty-three-year-old man with the communication skills of a seven-year-old.

The memoranda - prepared by his legal counsel, Alberto Gonzales - suggest that Bush failed to review the relevant issues in the cases at hand signing them minutes after they landed on his desk – just about as fast as he sends National Reservists to their deaths in Iraq.

(Read about killer Bush @ http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/prem/200307/berlow)

Enough was too much for Bush. After reading about his killer tendencies towards the retarded and warm regards for corporate criminals, he had Rick Perry again seal the documents away from view. Perry then conveniently found exceptions to the Texas Public Information Act that allowed him to deny any request for the documents, as he sees fit. (Read about Rick Perry's secrets @ http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2003-11-07/pols_feature.html)

WHY?

I’m not saying that these documents include pictures of a coked out George Bush rubbing baby oil on a naked Kenneth Lay; or a gubernatorial pardon of his own DUI in Austin after crashing a Frat Party; or records of his daughter’s high school arrest for marijuana possession. I’m not saying any of that. But what if they did?

Or, more realistically, what if they show Bush’s efforts to hide the rampant malfeasance in the Houston school system, overseen by Ron Paige, now Secretary of Education; or letters from Alberto Gonzales (now Chief White House Counsel) with recommendations on how to hide Bush’s illegal business dealings with the City of Arlington over the Texas Rangers baseball stadium – which eventually provided Bush with $14 million in profits made from Texas taxpayers?

The point is, since the President has put so much effort into hiding them, we are left only to imagine what kind of misdeeds and misappropriations are hidden deep within Bush’s gubernatorial documents. As the President attempts to discredit John Kerry by bashing his record in the Senate, is not fair for us to have open access to his own record as Governor of Texas?

Hiding these papers from the public is not only dishonest, it’s illegal. (Read the Texas Public Information Act @ http://www.oag.state.tx.us/AG_Publications/txts/publicinformation99.shtml).

What is the President hiding? Why won’t he allow the American People free access to his record as Governor? Almost every aspect of John Kerry's life has been laid bare and lied about by the Bush Campaign, yet so much of the President's life is kept secret.

I call on the Bush Campaign to open these records and let us better understand the man who again wants to be our President. I urge you all to call or write Governor Rick Perry and tell him to let those papers go!

Governor Rick Perry - PH: (512) 463-2000; FAX:(512) 463-1849; email: http://www.governor.state.tx.us/contact

e

UPDATE:
944 US SOLDIERS DEAD IN IRAQ
41 US SOLDIERS DEAD IN IRAQ IN AUGUST

DEAD SOLDIERS TELL NO TALES

President Bush, yesterday, announced a redeployment "plan” for American troops. In doing so, he promised "our military spouses will have fewer job changes, greater stability, more time for their kids and to spend time with their families at home."

Except those that die in Iraq, that is.

Yesterday, the President used America’s soldiers as a political tool... Again. In his ongoing game of bait and switch, the President used his announcement to divert attention from the disaster that is Iraq, by playing politics with the lives and hopes of American Soldiers and their families.

The President wants us to focus on the redeployment of troops in Germany and South Korea, so we forget about his failure to create a cohesive strategy in Iraq or Afghanistan. He wants us to forget:

- 900 US Soldiers have been wounded IN AUGUST
- 5,600 have been wounded since the war began in 2003
- 32 US Soldiers have died in Iraq - JUST IN AUGUST, 2004
- 944 have died in Iraq since the war started
- “Coalition” members have lost 64 soldiers, combined
- 806 US Soldiers have died since MISSION ACCOMPLISHED
- 150,000 US Soldiers occupy Afghanistan and Iraq.

1/3 of those US Soldiers serving and dying in the Middle East are National Reservists – weekend warriors stationed in a war zone, with no exit plan in sight. None of them will be even remotely affected by Bush’s new redeployment “plan.”

The President's "plan" didn’t mention these facts OR those dead Soldiers yesterday. Actually, he didn’t mention ANY facts, like who exactly is being redeployed? When? To Where? According to Don Rumsfeld, those answers will take “years, if not the better part of a decade” to answer.

Then why did the President announce them NOW, two weeks before the Republican Convention… in Ohio? Electoral College Politics.

Listen, I have no problem using military and foreign policy strategy to outline the vision of a Presidential Candidate. For instance, John Kerry has said he will bring troops home from Iraq in his first six months as President, will add 40,000 troops to the military’s standing army, will expand the army’s Special Operations forces to fight terrorism and will work to make the reconstruction and security of Iraq part of the permanent NATO mission.

[See his plan @ http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/national_security/military.html]

Truthfully, I am still not in love with all of Kerry’s Iraq plan. But at least he seems to be thinking about it. Yesterday, in contrast, the President used the emotions of our military families for a really good sound bite about bringing home troops FROM GERMANY! Is anyone here clamoring for our troops to be brought home FROM GERMANY?!? I must have missed that editorial.

Redesigning America’s military strategy and deployment to meet an ever-changing threat to global security is a good idea. Lying about it to gain political advantage… not so much.

And as for moving troops OFF the Korean Peninsula – just as North Korea is gearing up to produce nuclear weapons… What’s with THAT? We invade Iraq on the SUSPICION of nuclear weapons, but evacuate Korea when we THEY'VE TOLD US they’re producing them?

Now, that's Fuzzy Policy.

Bush’s “plan” affects NO troops in Afghanistan and Iraq. Bush’s “plan” does nothing to address the problem of a military stretched to the breaking point by endless occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan. Bush’s “plan” does nothing for the soldiers returning from Iraq with a missing limb who cannot get the medical attention they deserve from a government that sent them into battle without armor-reinforced Hummers or adequate body armor.

Most importantly, Bush’s “plan” does nothing to address the President’s Back Door Draft – ignoring the thousands of National Reservists who spend more time in combat zones than their “regular army” counterparts. [Read about it in the Army Times @: http://www.armytimes.com/story.php?f=1-213101-2839822.php]

And Bush’s “plan” does nothing to help those Reservists who are coming home to find their jobs no longer exist thanks to Bush’s “plan” for the economy. [Read about it @: http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/ap/ap_story.html/National/AP.V7799.AP-Returning-from-.html]

But Bush’s “plan” does do something. It diverts attention away from something the President is desperate to forget:

IRAQ. 944 DEAD SOLDIERS. IRAQ. MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. IRAQ. 50,000 NATIONAL RESERVISTS ON FOREIGN SOIL. IRAQ. 5600 WOUNDED SOLDIERS. IRAQ. WMD’S. IRAQ. AL QAEDA CONNECTION. IRAQ. 200 BILLION DOLLARS AND COUNTING. IRAQ. 150,000 TROOPS OCCUPYING FOREIGN LANDS. IRAQ. CURVEBALL. IRAQ. 944 DEAD SOLDIERS. IRAQ. NO EXIT STRATEGY. IRAQ. ABU GRAIHB. IRAQ. 15,000 DEAD CIVILIANS. IRAQ. IRAQ. IRAQ…

944 DEAD
944 DEAD
944 DEAD… and counting.

Forget your silly plan to bring troops home from Germany, Mr. President. What’s your plan to get American Soldiers OUT of Iraq?

See, unlike you, we cannot forget them.

e

STRIKE THREE?

"Every time you bust down a stovepipe you run the risk of information getting compromised."
[Donald Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, 8/10/04]


FACTS YOU’LL LOVE TO HATE:

1. Paul Wolfowitz received a memo from Richard Clarke on June 30, 2001 that said "Bin Ladin threats are Real." [See the 9/11 Report @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf – PG 277]
   
2. In July of 2001, an FBI Agent in the Phoenix Bureau, sent a memo to HQ that told of "a possibility of a coordinated effort by Usama bin Ladin to send students to the United States to attend aviation schools." [See it @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf – PG 272]
   
3. The Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001, "Bin Ladin Determined to Attack in US," contained the following text: "FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings or other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of buildings in New York." [See it @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf - PG 260]
4. From the 9/11 Report: "Most of the intelligence community recognized in the Summer of 2001 that the number and the severity of the threat reports was unprecedented. Many officials told us they knew something terrible was planned and they were desperate to stop it." [See it @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf – PG 262]
   
5. The 9/11 Report shows George Tenet as saying "the system was blinking red." Yet, Ashcroft in Justice and Wolfowitz at the Pentagon refused to share intelligence and refused to take the threats seriously. [See it @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf – PGS 260-279]
   
6. According to the bi-partisan Senate Committee on Intelligence, the current war in Iraq was sold to America, Congress and the UN primarily on the strength of the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate – assembled under the direction of Tenet, Rumsfeld, Cheney and Rice. [See the Senate Report @ http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf]
   
7. From the bi-partisan Senate Intelligence Committee’s Report on Pre-War Intelligence: "the National Intelligence Estimate was hastily cobbled together, using stale, fragmentary and speculative intelligence reports and was replete with factual errors and unsupported judgments." [See it @ http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf - Pg 450]
   
8. The Estimate – THE reason for invading Iraq – was assembled in just three weeks, and given to Congress just days before the vote for war. [See it @ http://intelligence.senate.gov/iraqreport2.pdf – PG 451]
   
9. Paul Wolfowitz and Doug Feith, reporting to Dick Cheney and Don Rumsfeld, still control the Defense Intelligence Agency.
   
10. To this day, Donald Rumsfeld controls 80% of America’s Intelligence budget. 80%.
    
11. As Defense Secretary, in 1992, Dick Cheney, energetically opposed creating a National Intelligence Director, with oversight of the nation's Intelligence. [See his letter @ http://www.fas.org/irp/congress/1992_cr/cheney1992.pdf]
    
12. Don Rumsfeld, Dick Cheney and Porter Goss have all criticized the 9/11 Report's reccommendation to give Congress greater oversight of Intelligence. [See their comments @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5575678/]
    
13. All 3 have come out against the Commission's reccomendation that the staffing and budgets of the CIA, DIA and FBI come under the new National Intelligence Director. [See their comments @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5575678/]
    
14. In announcing the creationof a National Intelligence Director, the President refused to give that post budget and staffing oversight of ANY other intelligence agencies. [Read about the announcement @ http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5575678/]

The 9/11 Commission Report calls for reorganizing our government to meet the threat of terrorism. [See re-or chart @ http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf – PGS 410-415]

The 9/11 Commission's three most important prescriptions for change are:

1. Stronger Congressional Oversight of Military Intelligence agencies and operations
   
2. Control and Command of the Defense Intelligence Agencies by a National Intelligence Director
   
3. The creation of the National Center for Counterterrorism, which would oversee and coordinate all intelligence agencies, including State, Defense and the CIA
   

These moves would tear down "stovepipes" within our intelligence community by eliminating the confusion and suspicion evident prior to 9/11 and preventing the rampant neglegence and deceit seen prior to the Iraq War. But not if Cheney et al have anything to do with it.

John Kerry has embraced the 9/11 Report and its recommendations - promising to extend the law which created the 9/11 Commission and involve the Commission in taking the steps they prescribe. The President has not.

Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld do not want to give Congress or a new National Director oversight of the Defense Department's Intelligence Budget. They want to keep those funds, that staff and all that information TO THEMSELVES. Despite the fact that these same fellows bungled intelligence before 9/11 and mangled it before the invasion of Iraq, our President seems inclined to let the three stooges remain in charge.

Strike One for this Intel Team was 9/11. Strike Two for Team Cheney was Iraq. What will Strike Three be?

It's time to change teams.

e

The Sensitive Man

“Precisely because America is powerful, we must be sensitive about expressing our power and influence.”

[President George W. Bush, 2001]


The Ashcroft Justice Department has had only one major terror conviction since 9/11. Last year, Justice claimed to have broken up a significant terror ring in Detroit, garnering convictions against Karim Koubriti, and Abdel-Ilah Elmardoudi, on terrorism and fraud charges, and against Ahmed Hannan for fraud.

Turns out that the Justice Department’s key piece of evidence in those cases – a video tape of American landmarks in Las Vegas, New York and California – was a sightseeing tape from a student trip. It also seems that the US Prosecutor in the case may have had evidence to this effect, but withheld it from the defense team.

http://www.theunionleader.com/articles_showa.html?article=42199

Three years since 9/11, and only one conviction – and now THAT conviction is in jeopardy of being overturned because of expedience and incompetence. Three years ago, the President and Dr. Rice knew of al Qaeda surveillance of American landmarks, but this month they finally do something about it – when it served their political timing.

The net result: An even greater distrust of the Administration and its Justice Department – a National Security plan that creates confusion and fear among the very people it is designed to protect.

In his acceptance speech at the Democratic Convention, John Kerry said the following:

“I believe I can fight a more effective, more thoughtful, more strategic, more proactive, more sensitive war on terror that reaches out to other nations and brings them to our side and lives up to American values in history."

Yesterday, Dick Cheney, the Vice President of the United States said this about that:

"America has been in too many wars for any of our wishes, but not a one of them was won by being sensitive, President Lincoln and General Grant did not wage sensitive warfare -- nor did President Roosevelt, nor did General Eisenhower."

Really? Those wars were not sensitive? When did Roosevelt stoop to the chemical warfare and torture of his enemies? When did Grant or Lincoln NOT treat prisoners of war humanely? When did Eisenhower NOT grant war criminals all of the rights of OUR Justice System? When did America NOT fight on the right side of free speech, free religion and democracy?

In my recollection, America has ALMOST always been sensitive in times of war. When we were not – in Manzanar and Viet Nam – we have regretted it and looked back in shame. If the Vice President does not recall this, perhaps he and I read different history books.

The way that the Bush Administration has handled the war on terror – dragging their feet to reform the government while manipulating intelligence and evidence to serve their expedient goals – has been inefficient, un-strategic and INSENSITIVE. And, it has made us less safe, period.

Question:

Do you think terrorist recruitment has increased or decreased as a result of the Bush Administration’s policies?

John Kerry called for a smarter war on terror – strategic, proactive, effective and, yes, even sensitive. Certainly, capturing and LEGALLY convicting terrorists would do more for winning hearts and minds; and less for al Qaeda recruitment, right? Only by being better than our enemies – in ALL aspects of war AND peace – can we defeat them.

Would Dick Cheney have us chuck the Constitution out the window every time America’s interests are threatened? Lincoln didn’t. Wilson didn’t. Roosevelt didn’t. Eisenhower didn’t. George Bush #1 didn’t. Can we say the same about Cheney? Ashcroft? Dubbya?

The President has said recently “the only thing that matters is results.”

Well, Mr. President, John Ashcroft is about to lose you YOUR ONLY TERRORIST CONVICTION IN THE THREE YEARS SINCE 9/11 because he bungled the case and was insensitive to the rights of ALL people. Are those your results in the war on terror? Can we start judging now?

Dick Cheney’s moronic statements yesterday once again demonstrate in big, bold letters:

THEY JUST DON’T GET IT!

e

“We need to be very sensitive when gathering intelligence against potential terrorists.”
[President George W. Bush, August 2004]

Draft Dodgers for the Truth.

Yet another unregulated, soft-money ad is hitting the airwaves today. Produced by a group calling itself “Draft Dodgers for the Truth," the spot again brings the specter of Viet Nam into Presidential Politics. The group, a 527 organization, claims to be in coordination with neither party, but clearly backs President Bush, defending his service in the National Guard during Viet Nam.

The blog feels that all viewpoints deserve to be heard. In the pursuit of full disclosure, here is the script from that ad:


DRAFT DODGERS FOR THE TRUTH

Bill Larkin:
"I avoided service with George W Bush."

Sam Smithers:
"I avoided service with George Bush."

Doug Wright:
"I avoided service with George Bush AND Dick Cheney, and I know how hard they worked NOT to serve. It was a struggle for both of them."

Frankie Johnson:
"I can honestly say George Bush did more to avoid the draft than ANYONE in Viet Nam, especially John Kerry."

Tommy Kelly:
"George worked every angle, man - he pulled strings, he paid off MP's, he even had the Pentagon "lose" his payroll stubs...”

Sam:
"He had a dress in his closet... just in case.”

Doug:
"He used to point at that dress and say, Doug… (he tears up) 'they're not taking me without a fight!' "

Frankie:
"It was a wedding dress, I think... Size 8. He was one lean draft dodger."

Tommy:
"John Kerry volunteered for service in Viet Nam. He saved lives, he got medals... What's with that?"

Bill:
"Kerry cow-towed to special interests... (uses finger quotes) serving with valor, (again, finger quotes) facing enemy fire.”

Sam:
“Sure, he followed orders and commanded others with bravery, but that's easy. Me and George Bush, we STAND for something... Indistinctuality.”

Doug:
“We answered to NO ONE, and that's all that matters. Dubbya and I stood tall, stood proud… and refused to be counted. THAT'S bravery, man. "

Draft Dodgers for the Truth approved the content of this message, but take absolutely no responsibility for it.

e

Bush-Back:

“I would like to get the money for the Contras also, but ... Jim Baker said that if we go out and try to get the money from third countries, it is an impeachable offense.”

[George Schultz; Minutes, 6/84 meeting of the National Security Planning Group]

As Vice President and as Chair of the Presidential Task Force on Terrorism, George HW Bush was complicit in the Iran-Contra scandal that resulted in low-level guilty verdicts, but few repercussions for its masterminds in the Reagan Administration – only future posts as President, Vice President and Secretary of Defense.

Iran-Contra is now infamous, but (as few know) there’s much, much more. At the same exact time that Baker, Bush, Reagan and Cheney were selling weapons to terrorists in Iran, they were doing the same with Sadaam Hussein in Iraq.

“The Senate Committee's reports on Chemical and Biological Warfare-Related Dual-Use Exports to Iraq, undertaken in 1992 in the wake of the Gulf war, give the date and destination of all US exports. The reports show that on May 2, 1986, two batches of bacillus anthracis the micro-organism that causes anthrax were shipped to the Iraqi Ministry of Higher Education, along with two batches of the bacterium clostridium botulinum, the agent that causes deadly botulism poisoning.

One batch each of salmonella and E-coli were shipped from the US to the Iraq Atomic Energy Commission on the Department of Microbiology at Baghdad University in June 1985; to the Ministry of Health in April 1985; to Officers' City, a military complex in Baghdad, in March and April 1986; to the Iraqi State Company for Drug Industries on August 31, 1987 and July 11, 1988; to the Department of Biology at the University of Basrah in November 1989.”

[Sunday Herald, 9/02, http://www.sundayherald.com/27572]

Bush, Reagan, Baker and Cheney's strategy was to sell weapons - biological, conventional and otherwise - to both sides of the Iraq/Iran conflict, stir up trouble with covert operatives in both countries and watch them destroy each other.

Cool, huh?

About the same time, Bush and his CIA were creating another monster in Afghanistan. By funding Osama bin Laden and the Taliban in Afghanistan for more than 15 years, Bush handed the Soviet Union a crushing blow – their Viet Nam. When the Russians pulled out of Afghanistan, the DCI faxed Bush a note that said simply “We’ve won.”

To Bush’s credit, he looked for no glory for that operation – it was covert. Like Iran Contra was SUPPOSED to be. The problem with Bush’s Afghanistan play was (as always) the Blowback - when a policiy decision goes awry and comes back to hurt America's interests.

Osama bin Laden didn’t simply put down his weapons and grow corn in Afghanistan. Mullah Omar had no use for diplomatic tools – these were monsters of war that the CIA created. And after the mission was accomplished, we simply left – ignoring that country’s massive drug trade and humanitarian crises. Bush I created bin Laden, and then left him with weapons and an entire country to run.

No one could have predicted what bin Laden would accomplish, but someone – say George Herbert Walker Bush and his cabinet - should have at least tried.

Blowback is THE major theme in America’s foreign policy for the past 50 years - especially for the Bush Presidents:

- Bush I created Noriega; then Noriega becomes Public Enemy #1.
- Bush I created Saddam; then Saddam becomes Public Enemy #1.
- Bush I creates bin Laden; then bin Laden becomes enemy #1.
- Bush II creates Ahmed Chalabi; now Chalabi is Iraq’s Public Enemy #1.

In January, 2001, George Tenet briefed President Bush about the Ahmed Chalabi and the Iraqi National Congress, outlining the CIA’s reservations about Chalabi’s honesty and reliability. Bush, Cheney, Feith and Wolfowitz ignored Tenet’s warnings and pushed him to find evidence backing up Chalabi’s claims against Hussein.

“Wolfowitz called late one night and promised that this time Saddam would be deposed. Wolfowitz told him he was so committed to this goal that he would resign if he couldn’t accomplish it.”

[The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

After 9/11, when Chalabi came to the Administration with “defectors” and “former officers” claiming first-hand knowledge of WMD’s, the White House and Defense Department ignored the objections of the CIA and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research and started the March to War.

Even worse, they relied only on Chalabi’s WORD that the occupation of Iraq would be a cakewalk. Armed only with INC evidence, Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld underestimated the cost – in money and LIVES - of their occupation operation. Intelligence officials at the CIA and the State Department knew Chalabi was a liar, but still Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice - and even Powell - raced around the country using Chalabi’s false information to scare America into a war.

Now, Iraq and Jordan have made Ahmed Chalabi Public Enemy #1. They are evicting the INC from their Government building and seizing Chalabi’s assets. The charges are forgery and counterfeiting. Shocking.

As Ahmed Chalabi defends himself against these charges, it’s important to note: We – the American Taxpayers - were his sponsors.

Chalabi is a prime example of the Bush Family’s “ends-justify- means” foreign policy and intelligence management. Like Noriega, Hussein and bin Laden before him, Chalabi is Bush Blowback - created by Bush, and paid for with your tax dollars and our soldier’s lives.

Question: When did the President and Vice President know Ahmed Chalabi’s “intelligence” on WMD’s and occupation costs were false?

2004?
2003?
2002?

Before they used the “smoking gun as a Mushroom Cloud” imagery? After? Or, was it way back in 2001, when George Tenet brought the White House evidence of Chalabi’s forgery shop in Iraq and Wolfowitz guaranteed an invasion? My hope is that the upcoming Porter Goss confirmation hearings and 9/11 discussions shed some light on HOW or IF our President and Vice President take the CIA Director or simply blame them when things go wrong.

Porter Goss refused to investigate that question as Chair of the House Intelligence Committee, instead bowing to political pressure. Will he do the same at the CIA?

It's time to end the Bush Blowback and just send Bush back... for good.

e

Advice for Democrats:
Porter Goss is a good candidate for the CIA Director. Do not use his confirmation hearings to force him away from the job – just to force him to do it well.

Representative Peter Goss (R-Florida):

"I would say there's a much larger dose of partisan politics going on right now than there is worry about national security. But I would never take lightly a serious allegation backed up by evidence that there was a willful -- and I emphasize willful, inadvertent is something else -- willful disclosure, and I haven't seen any evidence."

[Rep. Porter Goss, House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence]


Common sense and good judgment. If only he’d had stopped there:

"Somebody sends me a blue dress and some DNA, I'll have an investigation."

[Rep. Porter Goss, utlra-partisan]


Don't get me wrong, Representative Porter Goss is an excellent choice to run the CIA. A former agent for eleven years, he has keen insight to the politics and fear within the George Bush CIA Building (that’s not a metaphor – it IS the George Bush CIA Building). As chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Goss also has the perspective of a civilian legislator, who is SUPPOSED to provide oversight of the intelligence community and the White House.

However, he is a very conservative Republican with distinct and unique ways of politicizing America’s intelligence and National Security. Certainly any fabrications or cover-ups in our pre-war intelligence would rise above the Lewinsky Affair, no? The Iraqi Government thinks so – yesterday, they issued a warrant for Ahmed Chalabi, Dick Cheney’s personal pet and THE most important source in the decision to invade and occupy Iraq.

President Bush had chosen Goss for this job before the ink was dry on Tenet’s resignation, floating trial balloons in the press for weeks to determine Goss’ Q rating in the Electoral College. It’s not an accident that this guy is from… wait for it… Florida.

And herein lies the problem.

Is Goss going to the CIA to fix the systematic problems of the CIA or the political problems of the White House? If Goss concentrates on the issues facing the CIA - an agency built in the shadow of the cold war that has badly lost its way against a less defined enemy – then he could and should have almost-immediate impact on how America’s intelligence is gathered and utilized.

But if every statement from the new Director of Central Intelligence includes a slogan for the President’s reelection campaign, then the 3,000 victims of 9/11 and their families will have lost an important battle.

The 9/11 Report calls for a National Intelligence Director with budget and staffing authority over a National Counterterrorism Center, which would oversee the CIA, the DIA, the FBI, as well as the National Centers for WMD Proliferation and the Middle East, among others. It also strenuously calls for intensified Congressional oversight of American Intelligence – including how it is collected and how it is USED.

For the entire Chapter (13) of the 9/11 Report on how to reorganize America’s government to face the danger of terrorism:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/22jul20041130/www.gpoaccess.gov/911/pdf/sec13.pdf

Goss and Bush have danced around the issues of a centralized intelligence agency and won’t even mention increased Congressional oversight of the agencies AND the White House. Bush is wary of anything that takes power away from the Pentagon and Dick Cheney’s Office of Special Plans and Silly Walks. Doug Feith and Paul Wolfowitz currently oversee the Intelligence Center for Middle East Affairs – reporting directly to the Vice President. Did you know that? The 9/11 Report wants to take those toys away from the Veep Creep – providing autonomy to another agency and oversight to Congress.

In fact, Goss has come out against many of the 9/11 Report’s recommendations:

“It's impractical."

[Goss, Deseret News, 7/25/04]

Instead, Goss has proposed alternate legislation that would give the CIA chief more power. Intersting timing, that, no?

John Kerry has endorsed the entire report and all of its recommendations. As President, he will work with Congress to extend the law that created and mandated the 9/11 Commission and give them a voice in how the government reforms itself.

Will the President follow John Kerry’s lead and embrace the organizational prescriptions of the 9/11 Commission? Will Goss speak truth to power and let his civilian masters know when the intelligence is not enough to invade another country? Will Bush and Cheney listen, when their new Director of Central Intelligence tells them that informants and intelligence from Ahmed Chalabi are fake? They didn’t last time, and Tenet took the fall.

The success of the DCI Porter Goss depends on who shows up – Representative Goss the political operative from a very important electoral state, or Agent Goss the civil servant with a mandate to protect our country, regardless of political pressure.

e

P.S.
See how President Bush defines sovereignty - to big (unintended) laughs.
http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/sovereignty.mov

I'm certain that by now, everybody has seen the JibJab cartoon that made the rounds like wildfire.

Here is a new flash cartoon by a different site that is also quite funny:

http://www.flowgo.com/funpages/view.cfm/5031

I must admit, your post does not specifically say for whom you will vote. I can't say I noticed that before - perhaps because of arguments against Kerry and defending Bush.

And I do sincerely apologize if anything I wrote offended you. However, did I take offense at the following...

"...PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE MOST CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT PUBLIC SERVANT EVER NOMINATED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT."

And in response, tried to show the inconsistencies of his opponent, many of which have delayed improvements to our National Security. I believe that i did that.

Why do I hold Bush responsible for America's screwed up intelligence and not Kerry? Because his name is on the CIA building. Because in the three years since 9/11, he has taken every opportunity to politicize 9/11 - even staging his convention here - while systematically attempting to block any reform to the system that would decentralize power away from his Vice President and the Office of Special Plans and Silly Walks. Because anyone who challenges this President or the "War on Terror" is branded Unpatriotic or Weak or an equivocator. Because instead of chasing bin Laden for the last three years, Bush has been revenging his Dad in Iraq. And now, because there's an election, Bush does something about a threat he was warned about THREE YEARS ago.

Was this not specific enough:

"FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings and other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York."

[9/11 Commission Report, PG 262; Presidential Daily Briefing, 8/06/01]

It was specific enough last week to cause a huge mobilization in three major East Coast cities, the week after the Democratic Convention - even though the intel was THREE YEARS OLD - first appearing in the Presidential Briefing of 8/06/01.

I am affraid, my kids are affraid and the choices we face are more important than not liking a candidate because he may or may not be the most energetic speaker or have the best wife.

"I think he's a weenie."

And that's the thing... I don't. I find his biography inspiring and his dedication admirable. I find Kerry intelligent, brave, curious and wise, and everything that a President should be - or as much as this media-driven, scandal-mad country will let our President be. He made choices that you or I have never had to face and was up to the challenge many of his peers - young men in the sixties, powerful men in the Senate, privilaged men in his class and the two current inhabitants of the White House - failed.

By comparison, I find George Bush smarmy, slick, dangerous and offensive.

Again, I really apologize for getting at all personal - to you, not to George Bush.

e

Did you read my post...

...or just assume (incorrectly) that I'm for Bush? Let me go on record (now that I've been outed by Evan).

1. I am NOT voting for GWB. In fact, I've said this consistently to you Evan in many private messages and before the blog was created.
2. I AM a registered republican. That said, I registered as an R in 2002 so I could vote my neighbor into our town counsel during the primary. Prior to that I have always been an independent. Now for many that read this blog, I suspect you think that we independents lack conviction and passion. I think many (but not all of us) just don't like the extremes of either party.
3. I have voted for Rs and Ds for President.
4. I was prepared to vote D this year. BUT (and this was the point of my post) Kerry sucks the big one and in my opinion could be worse than Bush.

So, as is typical with extremists (the best divisive word in politics today), you immediately jumped into a GWB slam fest and really did not address the points I made about Kerry. And Ev, your message was a bit personal don't you think? Let's try to keep this civil, OK.

Regarding Cheney and the accounting issues, you forget I spent 8 years at a public accounting firm - I think I (and the SEC) know a bit more than you about that issue... I don't disagree that the policies of the past and the incentive pay structure that exists today are dubious at best but that does NOT make Cheney responsible for misstating the revenues.

Regarding the 9/11 report. I did read it. Both the drafts and the final, bound version. I don't have it in front of me and don't have the time to do the homework now but I believe the report says (in the same section that references Clarke's message to Rice) that the threats were not specific. Yes, they mentioned airline hijackings and the possibility of other means but it was not specific like the LAX millennium plot. Moreover, the agencies issued warnings to the FAA and the FAA and their lackey security force did not take the necessary precautions. The report clearly concludes, and the co-chairs have said this in many public forums, that there was a monumental breakdown in our intelligence and there is a fundamental structural problem that needs to be addressed. As you undoubtedly know, it is Congress and not Bush who has the power to change this so where the (*&%% were they. The 9/11 report says precious little (sadly) about this. Heck, Kerry said we knew this would happen on 9/11. He's on the Senate subcommittee for counter terrorism. So, why not blame him??? The answer - for the same reason it's not Bush's fault. Look this country and our intelligence screwed up. (You point out that Clinton stopped the millennium plot. But he didn't stop the Cole, the attacks in Africa, the 1993 WTC bombing. I mean really. I don't blame Clinton for this. HE DIDN'T ATTACK US. THE BAD GUYS DID. I don't get why you and others continually need to find a single scapegoat for the mess - and of course the democrats have been stymied by the republicans since 1980, right? Please. I could argue that Clinton should have done more (as Kerry himself said when interviewed on Meet the Press in 1998). But why bother? It's not productive.

You accuse me of marching to the republican talking points. I do read their info. I really liked watching Kerry, as you say, "evolve his positions." I guess it's just a coincidence that this evolution is closely aligned with public opinion and the increasing failure in Iraq. How can you say - I fully support the President and his policy of regime change in Iraq no matter what the connection to weapons and 9/11? And then accuse the president of deceiving us? Lieberman (my choice) said it best - Dean had principled opposition to the war and Kerry has indifference that makes us weak.

I need to go back to my job now. I respect your opinion and passion for your candidate but I find it hard to believe that, of the group, you would have selected Kerry. I think he's a weenie.

Agree to Disagree...

In order to fully appreciate today’s post, you should read yesterday’s post from fellow blogger, Rick Rohrbach. While I completely disagree with everything he says, I applaud his opposition post – the first for the blog in some time. Before I slam you, Rick, I thank you for at least taking a position and defending it.

That said, I love it when Conservatives try to debate – always long on rhetoric and short on… everything else.

It’s clear you pay very close attention to the Republican advertisements Rick. You’ve picked up nicely on that time honored neo-Conservative theme of calling an opponent a “flip-flopper,” whenever it’s politically expedient, while completely ignoring the inconsistencies of your own candidate.

First, on Corporate Responsibility. Bush did sign the Sarbanes Oxley bill, which did change the rules for Corporate governance and accepted accounting principles. But he did so, because he knew that the corporate scandals of the past five years were going to come back to bite him in the tushy this election cycle.

In addition to signing that bill, Dubbya also signed countless thank you notes and lovely letters to the chief architect of the Enron mess, Kenneth Lay. You can see 40 pages worth of his good-ol-boy love notes @:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/bushlay1.html

What’s more, are you honestly saying that when a company, let’s say Halliburton, secretly changes it’s accounting practices in order to inflate profits that the CEO should not be held responsible? Really?

Dick Cheney took $24 Million in salaries and bonuses, at the same time his stockholders – including the retirement and pension funds for teachers and municipal workers in California, Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and New York – were taking it in the rear. And your defense is that “he didn’t know what was going on at his own company?” Cool...

Bush and Cheney’s economic policies pay the top 1% of taxpayers a huge windfall, while the lowest 60% get nothing; which put 1 million workers out of their jobs and 2 million people below the poverty line is. So you would defend these policies how – by sayingt hey didn’t know what was going on? I love it:

BUSH/CHENEY 2004 – WE HAVE NO IDEA WHAT’S GOING ON!

Second, 9/11. From your post, Rick:

“Was there anything in our recent past that would have or should have given GWB the sense of urgency that Mr. Moore and others imply was necessary? Read the 9/11 commission report. No one knew what was going on at the time.”

Did you actually read the 9/11 Commission Report? C’mon, be honest. You didn’t read it, did you?

Ok, let’s say you did. What did you think of Chapter 8, the one entitled: “THE SYSTEM WAS BLINKING RED?” This Chapter enumerates the ways in which members of Team Bush DID have an idea of what was coming and chose to ignore it.

“In January, Richard Clarke forwarded a strategy paper to [Dr. Condoleeza] Rice warning that al Qaeda had a presence in the United States. He noted that two key al Qaeda members in the Jordanian cell involved in the millennium plot were naturalized U.S. citizens and that one jihadist suspected in the East Africa bombings had ‘informed the FBI of an extensive network of al Qida ‘sleeper agents’ currently exists in the U.S.”

[9/11 Commission Report, PG 263]


Hmmm. No one could have known?

And just what was President Bush DOING in the eight months before he sat there like a moron in the Florida classroom on September 11? Clearly he was out there making us all safe in every way he could, right? Uh, no. Bush was on vacation NEARLY HALF of that time – fishing, golfing and ranching – doing everything he could NOT to govern. I don’t about you, but I’d love a job with four months off every year!

During one such vacation, Bush received something that Kerry and his peers on the Senate Intelligence Committee never saw - the Presidential Daily Briefing of August 6, 2001. The name of that Briefing: Bin Laden Determined to Attack in the United States.

It’s true. That was the name of the brief that the President read – well, at least we THINK he can read – on his ranch, one month before the attacks of 9/11. If you read the 9/11 report, you would know that the 8/6/01 brief included the following:

“FBI information indicates patterns of suspicious activity in this country consistent with preparations for hijackings and other types of attacks, including recent surveillance of federal buildings in New York.”

[9/11 Commission Report, PG 262; Presidential Daily Briefing, 8/06/01]

Crazy, huh? Hey, wait - that sounds familiar! Didn’t we spend millions of dollars just last week, tightening security at Federal Buildings in New York, Newark and Washington because Pakistani intelligence discovered that al Qaeda had been casing them for an attack – THREE YEARS AGO? Bush/Cheney/Ashcroft had that information - THREE YEARS AGO. THREE YEARS. THREE YEARS. THREE YEARS.

I can’t stop saying it – it just sounds so unbelievable.

Yes, Rick, I saw Fahrenheit 9/11. In fact the company I work for released the film. In it, Moore does not make fun of Bush for sitting there like a lump while New York burned. He uses those seven minutes – very effectively – to raise several questions: Why did Bush take so much time off during the first eight months of his administration? Why did the President basically ignore the warnings included in Clarke’s memos and the PDB of August 6? What about his experience in Texas qualified Bush to face such circumstances?

Good questions, no? Hey, did you see Fahrenheit 9/11? Perhaps you couldn’t get in because it was sold out and you read the 9/11 report instead.

Granted, Kerry and other members of congress had some of the intelligence access granted to the President, but none of the oversight. In fact, that is one of the major prescribed solutions outlined by the 9/11 Commission in their report you read:

"13.4: Strengthen Congressional Oversight of Intelligence and Homeland Security"

[9/11 Commision Report, PG 419]

It's important, at this point, to note TWO important facts:

1. While the Report takes President Clinton as much to task as it does President Bush; the Clinton Administration DID stop al Qaeda's planned attacks surrounding the millennium, while the Bush Administration failed to stop 9/11.

2. The 9/11 Report you use to defend your President would have never existed if it was up to YOUR PRESIDENT.

And this gets at the weakest part of your Kerry bashing.

You take Kerry to task for evolving his positions, calling him weak and without a backbone. I will defend Kerry’s changed position on Iraq in a moment, but let's first look at the Bush flip-flops on National security:

- Bush fought the creation of the Department of Homeland Security, then caved and created it under political pressure.

- Bush fought the establishment of the Commission on pre-war Intelligence, then caved under politcal pressure.

- Bush fought the creation of an independent 9/11 Commission, then caved under political pressure.

- Bush fought cooperating with the 9/11 commission every step of the way, prohibiting Dr. Rice from appearing, denying the Commission access to important documents and intelligence - like the very illuminating 8/6 Presidential Briefing - then caved under political pressure.

- John Kerry READ and endorsed the Commission Report - the day it came out. Bush waited, then announced he would adopt SOME of the Report's recommendations, refusing to give budget and staffing oversight to a National Intelligence Director, as prescribed in the Report (see org. chart, PG 413). Today, he announced that he MAY cave to political pressure and reverse his stand.

So is Bush a flag-waving wimp, or a savvy politician, evolving his stance to follow popular opinion and intelligent governance? Good question, huh?

For a complete list of the various Bush flip-flops, please see the following (note it’s a site called Independents For Kerry):

http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/bush-flip-flops.html


Now, on Kerry's Iraq votes:

In 2002/2003, Bush, Cheney, Rice, Powell and Rumsfeld marched around the country, warning that the smoking gun in Iraq could be a "mushroom cloud." They sold the war in Iraq like a "new product launch" (Andy Card, August, 2002). They handed out the 800 page National Intelligence Estimate, with a one page summary that removed any equivocation on WMD and al Qaeda connections. "Gaps" in intelligence and "questions of accuracy" were eliminated from the summary, despite the fact that George Tenet had advised the President otherwise in October of 2002.

They then went to the Senate, and promised that force would be used as "a last resort," and vowing to secure the backing of the UN and a strong alliance of allies before taking military action.

Based on the assertions of Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell, the Senate - John Kerry and John Edwards included - voted to give the President authority to engage in military action.

About this same time, every senior officer in the military was advising civilian leaders in the Pentagon that it would take at least 200,000 troops to win the peace in Iraq. They all advised against trying to invade and then occupy Iraq "on the cheap." Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld did not listen to the Generals. They did not listen to weapons inspectors, on the ground in Iraq, who told him there were no WMD's and who BEGGED for one more month to verify the CIA's intelligence. George W Bush refused to hear any voice but his own.

In March, they invaded Iraq. Then, on May 11, 2003, Bush dressed up like a soldier, spent $1 million to commandeer an aircraft carrier, and declared MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. And then everything started to go terribly wrong.

During the summer of 2003, American soldiers were dying. America’s alliances around the world were becoming strained. The military effort was costing FAR more than the President predicted (remember those annoying accounting scandals at Halliburton – an omen perhaps?), and America was getting bogged down in Iraq - with no exit strategy in sight.

Then the President came back to Congress, looking for more money.

Kerry and Edwards both voted FOR the FIRST $87 Billion appropriations bill – the one that called on the President to tell Congress how he intended to spend the money and exactly how he intended to pay for it.

About that time, Howard Dean started to do something radical - he started questioning the President. He asked why we were in Iraq and when we were coming home. He asked Bush - and Kerry, for that matter - hard and important questions. He asked them to DEFEND the decision to go to war. And you know what? People liked it!

Meanwhile, back in Congress, the President refused to say how he was going to spend the $18 Billion for reconstruction and flat out denied that we needed more troops to secure the peace in Iraq. He wanted to continue playing the war by ear. He wanted to continue Nation-building, without a plan or exit strategy, while young American soldiers were dying.

Bush wanted a blank check.

Kerry and Edwards, seeing this President had no idea what he was doing in Iraq and realizing that the War was going to be THE issue of the election, decided to vote against the last version of the bill – the one that contained no Congressional oversight, no details on how the funds would be allocated and no concept from where the funds were coming.

Two years later, we are stuck in an Iraqi quagmire. 911 American soldiers have died. Of the $18 Billion in reconstruction funds allocated in that appropriations bill, less than $500 million has been spent on projects in Iraq.

Perhaps - just perhaps - Kerry and Edwards were right to have voted against giving Bush a blank check. Perhaps, they were even (call me crazy) brave to vote against it - knowing that neo-cons would do what you are doing now, questioning their patriotism for disagreeing with the President.

Perhaps.

What we do know for sure is that Kerry WILL NOT take the first eight months of his presidency as a paid vacation. He WILL NOT ignore a briefing that details ways that terrorists are determined to kill Americans. He WILL NOT give tax breaks to the very rich, while 46 million Americans cannot afford health care. He WILL NOT ignore allies around or the unemployed at home.

Kerry WILL establish National Counterterrorism Center (Bush will too, but only under political pressure). Kerry WILL give Congress greater oversight on intelligence and military matters. Kerry WILL offer a clear and transparent mission in Iraq. Kerry WILL restore honesty and openness to the White House. He WILL sign the ban on assault rifles. He WILL protect a woman's right to choose. He WILL eliminate the tax break for the upper 1% of Americans, so those in the bottom 50% can have access to health insurance. He WILL close corporate tax loopholes - especially for companies that ship jobs oversees. He WILL lessen our dependence on foreign oil - WITHOUT drilling in Alaska. He WILL protect the environment.

George Bush probably won't do any of those things.

One last thing - let's look at who is more qualified to be President. Here are the work histories of the two candidates:

KERRY:

Senator - 20 years of bi-partisan work on foreign and domestic affairs.

Lt. Governor - 2 years of work on issues such as health care, law enforcement and local taxes.

Prosecutor, Middlesex County - 6 years of protecting his constituents, putting mob bosses behind bars, defending women from spousal abuse and defending the Constitution.

Boston College Law School – nice Catholic boy, Rick, you should like that!

Viet Nam Vet Against the War (VVAW) - Exercising his right to free speech to decry a war that had no reason and no support.

Soldier - brave leader who saved lives at risk to his own. Silver Star, Bronze Star (with combat valor), and three Purple Hearts.


BUSH:

President - Oversaw the worst job record since Hoover, invaded Iraq, without a plan to win the peace, failed to stop 9/11, allowed the rape of the environment, alienated allies, lied to the world about WMD, decimated America's reputation around the world.

Governor - signed more death warrants than any other Governor during that time, lied about the successes of the Texas School system, took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Kenneth Lay and Enron, lied about John McCain during the 2000 primaries.

Businessman - served as a figurehead for the Rangers, drove at least 5 businesses into the ground while getting rich.

Alcoholic - By all accounts, he excelled at this.

MBA Candidate - got into Harvard due to family connections.

Draft Dodger - by all accounts he excelled at this.


Yes, Rick, you were right about ONE THING – there is a BIG, BIG difference.

e

For Kerry or Against Bush? (There is a difference!)

If you want to vote AGAINST GW Bush and the current administration. You’ll get no complaints from this blogger. If, however, you are voting FOR the Kerry-Edwards ticket, I have to ask, what are you smoking?? Let’s dissect E’s most recent post to find out why ...

And Now...Truth Served

Cheney and Halliburton

Per E’s post...

1996-2001:
Under CEO Dick Cheney, Halliburton misled investors, misstated earnings, hid accounts payable and lied about the companies legal liabilities. "Manipulations of monthly P&L's was systematic and indeed a matter of policy." [Testimony of Former Enron Finance executive]

Today:
Vice President Cheney's attorney claims that "there was no responsibility at the CEO level." Apparently the buck stopped somewhere else.

Today, as a result of Enron and the accounting reforms called “Sarbanes Oxley,” Cheney WOULD share responsibility for the accounting misdeeds of Halliburton. However, prior to these reforms it’s laughable to think any CEO would have had an inkling about the financial misstatements.

Moreover, when you consider that Arthur Andersen was Halliburton’s auditor at the time, should you be surprised that the account practices were overly aggressive?? Isn’t it more appropriate to blame the professional, “independent” accounting firm for not doing its job and the people at Halliburton closest to these decisions for not doing their jobs? The SEC thinks the answer is “yes.”

So, E posts, “Apparently the buck stopped somewhere else.” That’s right. The buck stopped with Halliburton’s former Chief Financial Officer Gary Morris and former Controller, the ironically named, Robert Muchmore. According to the SEC, Cheney..."provided sworn testimony and cooperated willingly and fully in the investigation." The SEC found Cheney was not involved in the accounting practice change, nor in the decision on whether to disclose it, said a lawyer for Cheney who asked not to be named.
http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5863455&src=rss/topNews§ion=news

It’s true.


The SEVEN MINUTES THAT COULD HAVE SAVED THOUSANDS OF LIVES

Per E’s post...

September 11, 2001: President Bush is told "we're under attack." He does absolutely nothing for 7 minutes, while listening to "My Pet Goat" with Florida school kids. Yesterday:John Kerry is asked what he would have done that morning. "I would have told those kids, very politely and nicely, that the President of the United States had something to attend to. And then I would have attended to it."

OK. So you watched Fahrenheit 9/11 911 times and have incredibly focused attention on the seven minutes Mr. Bush sat and listened to children reading. Why? What would have happened if he “...very politely and nicely, that the President of the United States had something to attend to...and then...attended to it?” I asked myself two questions:

1. Was there anything in our recent past that would have or should have given GWB the sense of urgency that Mr. Moore and others imply was necessary? Read the 9/11 commission report. No one knew what was going on at the time. This was unprecedented. And do you really think he was listening to the children read? I’m sure he was processing the shocking news and thinking of what he should do first.
2. More importantly, what would have changed if the President DID react immediately? Perhaps the teachers and children would have been alarmed. Perhaps he could have called someone from the Senate Committee on International Operations and Terrorism, like say, John Kerry to get advice regarding what to do. Reality check. With 20/20 hind sight, it’s easy to ask why didn’t you jump but GWB and the others that serve us didn’t have the benefit of hindsight on 9/11.

So, what did John Kerry actually DO when the planes hit on 9/11?

From Larry King Live July 8, 2004
KERRY: I was in the Capitol. We'd just had a meeting -- we'd just come into a leadership meeting in Tom Daschle's office, looking out at the Capitol. And as I came in, Barbara Boxer and Harry Reid were standing there, and we watched the second plane come in to the building. And we shortly thereafter sat down at the table and then we just realized nobody could think, and then boom, right behind us, we saw the cloud of explosion at the Pentagon. And then word came from the White House, they were evacuating, and we were to evacuate, and so we immediately began the evacuation.
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0407/08/lkl.00.html

“At 9:03:11, United Airlines Flight 175 struck the South Tower of the World Trade Center.” (The 9/11 Commission report page 8). “At 9:37:46, American Airlines Flight 77 crashed into the Pentagon.” (The 9/11 Commission report page 10).

So, it seems Mr. Kerry couldn’t think for a full 34 minutes and, when he did finally act, it was to evacuate the Capitol. And what does Theresa think about all this???

"I think the president behaved correctly in terms of being quiet amidst stunning news like that in a classroom of kids," she told the host of MSNBC's "Hardball With Chris Matthews" during an interview before the Democratic National Convention last month. "You know, what can you do? It takes you a couple of minutes to digest what you have just heard. And then he was . . . not in his White House and in his office with all of his people. He was in the school in Florida."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46913-2004Aug6.html


And what did John Kerry actually SAY about the attacks on 9/11?

From Larry King Live 9/11/2001
KING: Senator Kerry did your -- did you committee on international operations and terrorism ever actually fear something like this?

SEN. JOHN KERRY (R), MASSACHUSETTS: We have always known this could happen. We've warned about it. We've talked about it. I regret to say, as -- I served on the Intelligence Committee up until last year. I can remember after the bombings of the embassies, after TWA 800, we went through this flurry of activity, talking about it, but not really doing hard work of responding
http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0109/11/lkl.00.html

Maybe we should blame Kerry, the Senate Committee on International Operations and Terrorism and the rest of Congress for their inaction? Bush waited 7 minutes to act. Kerry and our Congressional leaders never acted at all.

True again.


Per E, “John Kerry has ALWAYS TAKEN RESPONSIBILITY

"John Kerry has ALWAYS taken responsibility: In Viet Nam, Lt. Kerry risked his life to save others. Afterwards, citizen Kerry risked his reputation to protest America's last war without a mission or exit strategy. As an officer of the court, Prosecutor Kerry targeted violence against women. On Capital Hill, Senator Kerry defied his party to help balance the budget. And now, Candidate Kerry refuses to engage in the muckraking, dirty politics endorsed by his opponent.”

Did John Kerry take responsibility for the Iraq war?

http://www.kerryoniraq.com/
Click “Watch Now” This is a MUST SEE!!!

“And as President, I will bring back this nation's time-honored tradition: the United States of America never goes to war because we want to, we only go to war because we have to.”
John Kerry’s Acceptance of the Dem Nomination for President

Oh Yea, the nation’s time honored tradition of only going to wary when we have to... Like when we HAD to go to war in VIETNAM, GRENADA, THE SPANISH AMERICAN WAR, IRAQ 1991, BOSNIA – DO I NEED TO GO ON? Please Johnny. Who’s distorting now??? What a thoughtless wimp.

So...

While I really like the Dems’ platform and (many of) the detailed policy statements (i.e. energy policy, closing the tax loop holes that provide incentives for outsourcing, ) there is very little in Kerry’s record that would make me believe he would actually do these things.

Kerry is just a flag waiving in the wind. He seems to change his mind whenever it’s politically convenient. On Viet Nam for example; There are no heroes in Viet Nam (1971), John Kerry the war hero (2004). This is not the kind of leadership I’m looking for.

WHEN YOU PULL THE LEVER IN NOVEMBER. VOTE YOUR CONSCIENCE. VOTE AGAINST GWB IF YOU MUST. HECK, VOTE FOR THERESA (SHE HAS MUCH MORE BACKBONE THAN HER HUSBAND). BUT PLEASE DON’T VOTE FOR THE MOST CONSISTENTLY INCONSISTENT PUBLIC SERVANT EVER NOMINATED TO RUN FOR PRESIDENT.

Responsibility Check

1996-2001:

Under CEO Dick Cheney, Halliburton misled investors, misstated earnings, hid accounts payable and lied about the companies legal liabilities.

"Manipulations of monthly P&L's was systematic and indeed a matter of policy." [Testimony of Former Enron Finance executive]

Today:

Vice President Cheney's attorney claims that "there was no responsibility at the CEO level." Apparently the buck stopped somewhere else.

Yesterday:

Bush/Cheney predict 247,000 new jobs for July.

Today:

Only 32,000 new jobs were created in July.
Apparently the Fuzzy Math continues.


June 1-27:
42 US Soldiers die in Iraq.

June 28:
US hands over "Sovereignty" in Iraq.

July:
54 US Soldiers die in Iraq.
How is that war going, anyway?


September 11, 2001:
President Bush is told "we're under attack." He does absolutely nothing for 7 minutes, while listening to "My Pet Goat" with Florida school kids.

Yesterday:
John Kerry is asked what he would have done that morning. "I would have told those kids, very politely and nicely, that the President of the United States had something to attend to. And then I would have attended to it."


Investors and 401Ks were being robbed and Cheney did nothing. Jobs are disappearing and the President does nothing. Soldiers are dying and the President says "stay the course." Our country is headed dangerously in the wrong direction, and the President flat out refuses to take any responsibility.

John Kerry has ALWAYS taken responsibility: In Viet Nam, Lt. Kerry risked his life to save others. Afterwards, citizen Kerry risked his reputation to protest America's last war without a mission or exit strategy. As an officer of the court, Prosecutor Kerry targeted violence against women. On Capital Hill, Senator Kerry defied his party to help balance the budget. And now, Candidate Kerry refuses to engage in the muckraking, dirty politics endorsed by his opponent.

Has George W. Bush ever taken responsibility for anything in his life? Bush avoided the draft. Dubbya refuses to talk about or get treatment for his substance abuse. Bush sold stock in his various businesses, while shareholders got nothing. Our President deflects all criticism for his mismanagement of two wars abroad and the economy at home. And Candidate Bush denies his own dirty politics while Karl Rove funds lies in all forms of media.

Mr. President, just who IS responsible for the economy, the unemployment level, the mismanaged wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the bungled intelligence of the past 3 years and the distrust the public feels towards their own government?

If not you, who? The Republican House? The Republican Senate? Who will be responsible for the NEXT four years?

e

P.S.
Fun with Google:
Type in "Bush on antidepressants" ad click GO.

_____________________________________________________________

Campaign as you intend to Govern


If you want to photograph the Vice President, you have to be the right race. It’s true.

Last week, President Bush’s reelection campaign demanded to know the race of photographers covering a rally in Arizona featuring your Vice President, Dick Cheney.

http://www.azstarnet.com/dailystar/dailystar/32301.php



If you want to attend a Bush/Cheney campaign rally, you must sign a loyalty oath. It’s true.

Last week, Republicans in Albuquerque staged a campaign event at a public elementary school where the Vice President of the United States spoke. They forced all ticket holders to sign a pledge of support to Bush and Cheney before entering the event.

http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm



If you want to run against President Bush, you have to be prepared to hear lies about your past. It’s true.

This week, Republicans unleashed an ad attacking John Kerry’s record in Viet Nam. The ad features several Viet Nam vets saying that Kerry lied about his military service, his injuries and his medals of honor. Problem is, none of those men actually served with Kerry. Not one.

“As it is, none of these individuals served on the boat Kerry commanded. Many of his crew have testified to his courage under fire. I think John Kerry served honorably in Vietnam. I deplore this kind of politics. I think the ad is dishonest and dishonorable. It was the same kind of deal that was pulled on me."

[Senator John McCain (R-Arizona), 8/4/04, Associated Press]

In 2000, Republicans in South Carolina created a telemarketing campaign, polling voters on whether they knew if McCain had fathered an illegitimate mixed race child in Viet Nam.

McCain has an adopted Vietnamese child.

Then, as in 2000, the Bush campaign has refused to disavow the dishonest attacks. That is because your President and his wizard, Karl Rove, are behind them. Your President racially profiles journalists, stifles any and all dissent and lies about American War heroes.

And now he wants four more years.

e

P.S. President George W. Bush, speaking earlier today:

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

It's true.

George & Dick’s Fun with Numbers!

2 million: The number of people who have fallen below the poverty line during the Bush Presidency – a record.

46 million plus: The number of uninsured people in America – an increase of more than 2 million during the Bush administration – another record!

4.0%: Unemployment when Clinton left office.

5.7%: Unemployment today.

22 Million: Number of jobs CREATED during the Clinton Administration.

1 million: Number of jobs LOST during the Bush Administration.

$225 Billion: Projected surplus in the last year of Clinton’s presidency.

$445 Billion: Projected DEFICIT this year.

$7.5 Million: Fine levied yesterday against Halliburton for lying to their shareholders, while Dick Cheney was their CEO.

$24 Million: Dick Cheney’s pay during the last year as Halliburton CEO, while he was lying to shareholders and inflating profits.

1.5 million: New "jobs" Bush/Cheney claims they have created since last August.

15%: Decrease in pay the average worker was forced to accept in their “new” Bush/Cheney job. Congrats!

140,000: Number of troops in Iraq.

910: Number of soldiers killed in Iraq.

42,000: National Guard Reservists in Iraq.

300: Number of Reservists killed in Iraq.

4: The number of times President Bush has cut veterans' benefits.

ZERO: Number of WMD’s found in Iraq.

44%: Bush’s approval rating in America.

15%: Bush’s approval rating in Germany

20%: Bush’s approval rating in England

10%: Bush's approval rating in Iraq.

7%: Bush’s approval in Jordan and Saudi Arabia – combined.

4: Number of FBI whistle-blowers who have come forward in the past year, objecting to the Bureau’s handling of intelligence.

4: Number of whistleblowers fired by the FBI.

1,000: The number of new “bin Ladens” created by the war in Iraq, according to Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak.

This is the first president since Hoover to preside over a net job and wage loss. This is the most stretched our military has been since the Civil War. This is worst world-wide perception of our country since the American Revolution.

4 MORE YEARS: Shout of Bush supporters.

4 more years of what?

e

___________________________________________________________________

Scared Yet?

The Bush administration is the best political machine in the history of the republic. Yesterday, they proved that they will do ANYTHING to win the upcoming election – even use questionable intelligence to create mass hysteria.

Plain and simple: yesterday, President Bush used your safety as a political tool.

Secretary Ridge, in announcing the “new” warning, felt compelled to tell us that “President Bush had done an excellent job over the past three years in keeping Americans safe at home.” Yet he failed to inform us that the information behind the “new” warning was at least three years old.

President Bush, in the Rose Garden later the same day, announced that he was adopting some of the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission – specifically, he agreed to create the “Intelligence Czar” called for in the report. He failed to let us know, however, that he was not going to give this position any operational or budgetary authority.

Strange that the President and the Secretary felt no compunction about throwing NYC into a panic based on old intelligence; yet they STILL refuse to give NYC the $15 Billion we need to make our Ports more secure. Even curious-er, the same Republicans who rush to use musty intel to inconvenience millions of New Yorkers, have no qualms about bringing the Republican Convention to our city, thus putting a HUGE bulls-eye on the Big Apple for four days in August.

If the President cares so much about the safety of New Yorkers, he should move the Republican Convention to a less populated area, where his presence will not endanger the 14 million citizens who live in and around the city. If Secretary Ridge was most interested in public safety, he would not dilute his terror warnings with political slogans or dull our senses to real danger by crying wolf every time their pollsters tell them to.

Bottom line: Given the choice between REAL public safety and his own job security, which do you REALLY think Bush will choose?

Makes you wonder what they will pull in late October, huh?

e

"If these reforms are not the best that can be done for the American people, then the Congress and the president need to tell us what's better.

But if there is nothing better, they need to be enacted and enacted speedily, because if something bad happens while these recommendations are sitting there, the American people will quickly fix political responsibility for failure."

[Former Governor James R. Thompson (R-ILL), 9/11 Commission member, 7/22/04]

Three years ago – at the behest of the families of 9/11 victims – Senators Joseph Leiberman (Democrat) and John McCain (Republican) introduced legislation that called for the formation of the 9/11 Commission to “determine how 9/11 could happen, and how to prevent it from happening again.”

For an entire year, President Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice, Attorney General John Ashcroft and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld fought the formation of that commission.  They disagreed with the need for an independent committee, stating that the National Security Council, the CIA, the Defense Intelligence Agency and the FBI could best handle the investigation and remedies.

Eventually, the President succumbed to political pressure from his own party and relented. However, as the 9/11 Commission worked feverishly to execute its investigation, the Administration and its employees fought the Commission every step of the way.  The President, The Vice President, The Attorney General, The Defense Secretary and Dr. Rice all at one point or another refused to turn over documents, avoided testifying before Commission, badmouthed its members and generally stonewalled any progress the committee tried to make.  The President even refused to appear alone before the Commission – insisting on going with with (Vice) President Cheney, so they could get their stories straight.

The White House and its minions turned a deaf ear to the desperate pleas from the families of 9/11, delaying the Commission’s work for months.  If not for the stalling tactics of President Bush, the 9/11 Report issued yesterday would likely have been available more than eighteen months ago – before the invasion of Iraq, before the March 11 bombings in Spain, before the death of 900 American Soldiers and tens of thousands of Iraqi civilians.

Now we know that the FBI, CIA, DIA and NSC all missed the warning signals before 9/11.  Now we know that IRAN, NOT IRAQ, may have been complicit in the 9/11 attacks.  Now we know that the CIA didn’t trust the FBI, and that the FBI had little communication within its own ranks.  Now we know that on August 6, 2001, the President heard that “Al Qaeda Was Determined To Attack Inside The US,” using hijacked planes.  NOW, we know that the current administration overlooked a warning system that was “blinking red.”

Yesterday, President Bush spoke kindly of the Commission, even as he began to stonewall its recommendations.  Rather than putting forth a plan to discuss and implement the Commission’s proposals, he touted his success in making America safer.  Rather than making the report “Priority #1,” he dispatched Dr. Rice to downplay the importance of the findings and deflect the key recommendation – greater oversight of intelligence by the Congress and the creation of an intelligence “CZAR.” 


“Every expert with whom we spoke told us an attack of even greater magnitude than Sept. 11 is now possible and even probable.”

[Former Governor Thomas Kean (R-NJ), 7/22/04]


Right now, American troops are stretched to their limit, fighting in and occupying two foreign lands, unable to find bin Laden and completely outmaneuvered by terrorists in Iraq.  Right now, the CIA has no Director, and is led by someone who was part of the problem and is resisting solutions.  Right now, we are spending $200 Billion in Iraq and nothing to protect the NYC seaport.  Right now, our President still relies on the flawed intelligence system that failed to prevent 9/11 to send our troops into harm’s way.  Right now we are less safe than we were on September 11, 2001.

Had the President allowed the 9/11 commission to begin its work earlier, we might not now have 150,000 troops in Iraq.  Had the White House not delayed and stonewalled the commission over the past 18 months, we might have already enacted much of what has been proposed in the report.  Had someone else been President, today, my kids would be safer.

The Clinton administration failed to prevent 9/11.  The intelligence agencies all failed to prevent 9/11.  The Congress failed to fully exert their oversight of America’s intelligence agencies.  But ONLY the Bush Administration fought the creation of the 9/11 Commission. Only President Bush resisted Commission members, refused to let Dr. Rice testify and pushed back strenuously as the Commission bravely strived to fix the system that failed us all.   And only George Bush is running for Presidential re-election.

Thanks to President Bush, more than year was wasted before the Commission got to work.  Now that their work is done, how long will he and his do-nothing team take to heed their warnings?
We cannot afford to let the Bush Administration continue to mismanage our security, our armed forces and our intelligence.  It is now time to affix blame – not for the failure to stop 9/11, but for the gross negligence demonstrated in its aftermath.  The President is to blame for the state of the world today, and this November we must hold him responsible.

e

__________________________________________________________________

 

Before:

"Some have argued we should wait -- and that is an option. In my view, it is the riskiest of all options -- because the longer we wait, the stronger and bolder Saddam Hussein will become. We could wait and hope that Saddam does not give weapons to terrorists, or develop a nuclear weapon to blackmail the world. But I am convinced that is a hope against all evidence. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.”

[President Bush, 10/07/02]


“Every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are NOT assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence.”

[Colin Powell, in testimony before the United Nations, 2/05/03]


“The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

[President Bush, State of The Union Address, 1/28/03]


“Let’s keep in mind the fact this war's going to happen regardless of what Curve Ball said or didn't say, and the Powers That Be probably aren't terribly interested in whether Curve Ball knows what he's talking about."

[Deputy Chief, CIA Iraqi Task Force, inter-agency email, 2003 – Senate Intelligence report, 7/09/04]


"I went through the speech, and I thought, my gosh, we have got - I have got to go on record and make my concerns known."

[Unidentified military intelligence officer and expert in biological warfare, Senate Intelligence committee report, 7/09/04]


After:

“There are some shortcomings in our intelligence capabilities.”

[President Bush, 7/13/04]


"To just throw George Tenet's body from the train and say, 'That takes care of the problem,' I don't think is the way to do this."

[Senator Chuck Hagel (R-Nebraska), CNN “Late Edition,” 7/19/03]


"We shouldn't deny, those of us who were hawks, that there could have been misstatements made, by the president and the secretary of state, [statements] that will turn out to be erroneous."

[Bill Kristol, Weekly Standard editor, 6/07/03]


“Had Congress known before the vote to go to war what the committee has since discovered about the intelligence on Iraq, I doubt if the votes would have been there."

[Pat Roberts (R-Kan.), Senate Intelligence Committee chair, "Meet the Press," 7/11/04]


"Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in, I would have opposed the war."

[William F. Buckley Jr., New York Times, 6/29/04]


Stark comparison.


“As President Kennedy said in October of 1962, ‘Neither the United States of America, nor the world community of nations can tolerate deliberate deception on the part of any nation, large or small.’”

[President Bush, 10/07/02]


Amen, Mr. President.


e

Santorum's Queer Politics


Let’s take stock:

- The economy has slowed significantly, due mostly to inflation caused by high oil prices, worry about our growing deficit, and general anxiety over the war on terror and instability in Iraq, Afghanistan and Israel.

- Afghanistan is in ruins. President Karzai (former CIA operative) has postponed free parliamentary elections for a second time, due to attacks from a nationalized terrorist organization he calls “worse than the Taliban.” [NYT, 7/12/04]

- In Iraq, US officials (along with the new “sovereign” government) have effectively handed over control and command of Faluja to a growing network of nationalized terrorists (sound familiar?), through a deal that leaves al Sadr at large (and in charge) and his militia fully armed.

- Last week, senior officers in our armed forces testified before congress that our military is stretched to the breaking point. More than 40% of the boots on the ground in Iraq are reservists – who have been kept in country far longer than originally promised. Now, 5600 troops from the Individual Ready Reserve – who have fulfilled their military duty through years of service – have been called into active duty, while some in Congress are asking about a potential draft.

- Nearly 900 American soldiers have died and thousands have had life-altering injuries. Thousands of Iraqi civilians have died and tens of thousands more have been badly injured during our liberation of them.

- On Friday, the Senate Intelligence Committee issued its report on pre-war intelligence. That report, along with interim reports from the 9/11 commission, prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have a CRISIS in our intelligence infrastructure. Republicans and Democrats vigorously agree that bad management and poor communication have corrupted our intelligence system. They also agree that we went to war under false pretenses due to untrue, and perhaps fabricated, intelligence.

- Last week, Tom Ridge announced that there was a credible threat that al Qeada would attempt an attack in the United States before the Presidential election. The Administration floated the idea of moving the election in the case of an attack, then rejected it due to public opinion. Question: The intelligence about this pending attack, comes from where? The broken, corrupted, leaderless intelligence community outlined in the Intelligence and 9/11 reports?

- George Tenet resigned more than 30 days ago. Today the CIA has no Director and no potential candidates for the job. We are at war with several terrorist organizations and occupying two sovereign nations, but we have NO DIRECTOR OF CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE.

During this national security CRISIS, at a time when we feel less safe than before the invasion(s), what are our leaders in Washington doing?

Led by Pennsylvania’s Metrosexual Senator, Rick Santorum, Our Senators are debating an amendment to the constitution to ban Gay marriages in America. What’s more, Senate Republicans are debating amongst themselves about how harsh the wording of Santorum’s Amendment should be.

Nevermind that the amendment proposes legalizing segregation, that this is an issue that most republicans believe belongs on the state level, that the amendment doesn’t even have the backing of Lynne Cheney, that republicans are using a vote in YOUR SENATE that they know won’t pass to placate the religious far right of Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell and William (Blackjack) Bennet… NEVERMIND ALL THAT.

The fact is, Tom Ridge has made damn sure that we are all terrified of another 9/11. But instead of pushing for a new CIA Director, or doing their job of OVERSEEING the executive Branch in its reform of America’s intelligence systems…

Rather than protecting America from another 9/11, Rick Santorum is forcing a Senate Vote on an Amendment to the Constitution that stops two people from marrying.

Despite calls from both sides of the aisle to drop the issue in favor of intelligence reform, economic course correction or homeland security, the Senate Leader Frist has stubbornly helped pursue this vote as a wedge issue for the social conservative base, with the complete backing of the White House.

This administration missed the warning signs before 9/11 and used faulty information to take America to War. Rather than admitting these flaws, fixing the system, and protecting the American people, Frist, Santorum and Bush are using the resources of YOUR government to legislate religion.

The coming election is about more than politics. It is about priorities.

e
_________________________________________________________________

The only difference between George W. Bush and Kenneth Lay:

Time.


Like Bush-buddy “Kenny-Boy” Lay, Dubbya and Dick are headed for the long walk of shame. Like Lay, the Bush team is doing the Texas two-step – betting that the success of tomorrow will cover up the failures of today. It is a game that can work for only so long, and time is running out on the neo-cons – or, En-cons.

Let’s take a look at the product in the En-con pipeline:

Afghanistan. If you want to see the future of a “free” Iraq under George Bush, look no further than Afghanistan.

Today, President Karzai will announce yet another postponement of Parliamentary elections in his country. The reason? Yesterday, the Taliban killed one female election official and wounded another as they drove through the country, registering voters. Taliban soldiers discovered the officials’ secret route and planted an improvised explosive device. This type of operation proves the former regime has a keen intelligence organization and centralized command and control.

The move of the Parliamentary elections is in direct conflict with the Afghani Constitution, approved in January, and an enormous victory for the Taliban. Afghanis see a puppet President and former CIA operative bowing to pressure from a terrorist insurgency, more than two years after the declared end of major combat, thus postponing the nation’s journey to Democracy.

What are the neo-cons doing to foster the democracy? Word from Pakistan is that the Bushies are exerting enormous pressure on Musharraf and his posse to bring in Osama bin Laden or Mulla Omar – far more pressure than they have demonstrated in the previous two years, while bin Laden has been at large.

Why?

“The Pakistani government is really desperate and wants to flush out bin Laden and his associates after the latest pressures from the U.S. administration to deliver before the [upcoming] U.S. elections."

"The Musharraf government has a history of rescuing the Bush administration. They now want Musharraf to bail them out when they are facing hard times in the coming elections."

“We have been told at every level that apprehension or killing of HVTs before [the] election is [an] absolute must. What's more, the last ten days of July deadline has been given repeatedly by visitors to Islamabad and during meetings in Washington."

[three unnamed Pakistani Intelligence Officials, The New Republic, 7/7/04]

Those dates coincide with the Democratic Convention in Boston.

And in Iraq – Bush’s modern model of occupation pre-occupation!!

Today, as promised, the select Senate Committee will issue a report on pre-war intelligence failures. The report will come down hard on the CIA and George Tenet, and the administration is claiming that the buck stops there. However, Tenet has gone on record many claiming to have warned the President and the Pentagon about flaws in the information.

Prior to their use in public administration statements, Tenet informed the White House that intelligence on the Niger yellow cake uranium rumor and a meeting between Mohammad Atta and an Iraqi intelligence official in Prague was questionable at best, and in all likelihood completely false.


Two years ago, Bush told us the Taliban was finished. Today that regime threatens the freedoms of the Afghani people. Their President (a former CIA operative) is an ineffective puppet, and the dangers in that country – to its citizens and our troops – grow greater every day.

A year ago, Bush told us “Mission Accomplished” in Iraq. Today another Puppet Prime Minister (and former CIA operative) is embarking on marshal law, while American Marines are killed in their own HQ and Falluja has become the seething nucleus of a terrorist insurgency.

The Bush Franchise – coming to an Arab land near you!

Today, the Senate committee releases their Iraq intelligence report, and the White House will try and sell us a new product – George Tenet on a stick. The report, though, takes Tenet most to task for not being more assertive and organized in his warnings of the President.

Meanwhile, Republicans on the committee have refused to issue a report on how the Bush administration used (or misused) Tenet’s misinformation until after the election, and Colin Powel has ordered Musharraf to deliver Bush’s bin Laden in a Box in time for to spoil Kerry’s party in Boston. Oh, and yesterday it was announced that the Pentagon “accidentally” destroyed (aka shredded) the President’s National Guard pay records for three months in 1972.

This election is not about the past, it’s about the future. We can see the future of Iraq, today in Afghanistan. We can see the future of American intelligence, today in Iraq. We can see the level of honesty in the next Bush administration, today.

The Bush administration is Enron’s DC franchise, and the neo-conmen in Washington should take a long, hard look at yesterday’s pictures of “Kenny-Boy” doing the perp-walk. They should be next.

e

George Tenet served at the pleasure of the President. He always has.

One of Tenet’s lasting legacies will be the CIA building itself. In 1999, George Tenet pushed very hard to have the CIA’s Langley HQ renamed for former President George Herbert Walker Bush. Bush had been director of the CIA in 1976, and literally owned Langley for his twelve years as Vice President and President.

Through the CIA, Vice President Bush sold weapons and technology to Saddam Hussein in a cockamamie scheme to have Iraq and Iran destroy each other in a war. The scheme was dreamed up buy a growing bunch of neo-cons at the pentagon and in the press, while defense contractors and oil speculators were making billions of dollars off of Saddam’s Bush-o-rama shopping spree.

The weaponry sold to Hussein was used to kill hundreds of thousands of Iranians and Iraqi Kurds. Hussein is now on trial for using weapons that George Bush and Don Rumsfeld gave him.

During the Clinton Administration, Tenet worked closely with the White House to craft a strategy to combat terrorism. The CIA was constantly attempting to track Osama bin Laden, and Tenet was in frequent contact with POTUS regarding the al Qaeda leader.

In 1999, Tenet called the President with a lead on bin Laden. CIA reports linked the al Qaeda leader to a temporary encampment in southern Afghanistan. Overhead photographs showed a well-equipped caravan of the sort used by hunters, a commanding figure at its center, and an entourage of escorts bearing arms. Clinton signed a secret executive order, approving the assassination of bin Laden.

Tenet’s information turned out to be incorrect. It was not bin Laden in the photos.

However, in addition to the secret "finding" to authorize covert action, Clinton signed three highly classified Memoranda of Notification, expanding the available tools. In succession, the president authorized killing instead of capturing bin Laden, then added several of al Qaeda's senior lieutenants, and finally approved the shooting down of private civilian aircraft on which they flew.

At one point, near the end of the Clinton administration, the FBI, the White House and the Pentagon waited, while Tenet attempted to make a direct connection between bin Laden and the bombing of the Cole. Everyone in the world knew it to be true, but George Tenet could not confirm it.

In fact, three times after Aug. 20, 1998, when Clinton ordered the only missile strike of his presidency against bin Laden's organization, the CIA came close enough to pinpointing bin Laden that Clinton authorized final preparations to launch. In each case, doubts about the intelligence aborted the mission. [Washington Post, 12/19/01]

Meanwhile, Tenet’s counterparts at the FBI and National Security Council were able to thwart attacks in the United States, focused at LAX, Seattle and various millennium celebrations.

In one of his first briefings with President Bush (43), Tenet repeated to Bush the Clinton Administration’s warnings that terrorism, and specifically bin Laden, were the biggest threats facing the United States. At that February of 2001 meeting, Bush chose to focus instead on Iraq, and intelligence that he knew Tenet had from the Iraqi National Congress and Ahmed Chalabi. [New Yorker, 6/7/04]

Richard Perle, through Dick Cheney, had Bush believing that Hussein and Iraq had a nuclear weapons program. At that meeting, Tenet strongly warned Bush that Chalabi and most INC sources were unreliable, if not flat out charlatans.

Bush continued to ignore Tenet’s warnings about the terrorist threat, instead going on vacation for 48% of his first eight months, while Vice President Cheney mapped out a strategy for an invasion of Iraq with Perle, Feith and Wolfie.

Tenet unraveled. His work went from bad to worse – he mishandled countless briefings with the President and Vice President, while Cheney, Rumsfeld and Ashcroft got all of the attention. He failed to communicate consistently with other agencies in the administration – but mostly because they shut him out or undercut his authority. This breakdown was a key to the lack of urgency in the White House prior to 9/11. But it does not stand alone as culprit.

The FBI was aimless during the same period of time, as Ashcroft spent more time covering up a statue breast than he did protecting our citizens and prosecuting criminals. The Pentagon found itself completely under a civilian, neo-con leadership who had never served a day in their collective lives, but was ramping up for some big changes – signing ridiculous and illegal deals with Boeing and other defense contractors.

The Bush administration was asleep at the wheel. But George Tenet served at the pleasure of the President. And then 9/11.

Tenet saw this as his last chance. He knew the President’s preoccupation with Iraq, and so he set out to prove some sort of link or imminent threat to make his President happy. In the dark hallways of the George Bush CIA building, George Tenet was serving at the pleasure of the President.

Tomorrow, the a bi-partisan Senate committee on the pre-war intelligence failures will issue a 410 page report outlining those failures, placing the most significant part of the blame on George Tenet and the CIA.

Ahead of that report, the White House and Bush apologists have started using its findings to place the entire blame for the misleading use of intelligence prior to the invasion on the shoulders of the CIA and its Director. Conveniently for Tenet and the White House, George Tenet ended his seven-year tenure as CIA Director, today in a tearful farewell at the (you guessed it!) George Bush CIA Building.

In the coming months, George Bush and Dick Cheney will run for reelection on the claim that all of the intelligence failures pre-9/11 and during the build-up to the invasion and occupation are the fault of the CIA. They will claim that with Tenet’s departure, they are now poised to correct the system.

As they do that, it is important to note that the CIA has been under the control of one George Bush or another for 16 out of the past 24 years; that Saddam got his first weapons of mass destruction from George Bush 41; that Osama bin Laden got his start up capital from George Bush 41; that George Tenet got his orders and his directive from George Bush 43; that Ahmed Chalabi was on the CIA payroll for more than a decade, while a pocket pet of the Bush 43 administration; and that the Iraq’s new Prime Minister, Dr.Iyad Allawi, was a CIA operative for more than 15 years and has the full-throated support of George Bush 43.

Tenet may have been a major league screw-up, but he served only at the pleasure of the President. The CIA and ALL of its failures, belong to the men for whom the building was named... George Bush.

e

I once did the hustle with a whistleblower.

2 years ago, at an industry event in New Orleans, my company presented Sherron Watkins its Scales of Justice Award. The award recognized her courage in staring down a huge, old-boy business conspiracy at Enron, which cost its shareholders, the people of California and American taxpayers billions of dollars in personal savings and government energy funding.

It was a 70’s party, and we disco-ed.

Sherron’s actions were beyond courageous – the Enron part, not the disco. While others did nothing, Sherron stood alone against every senior executive at Enron. This is especially daunting at a company whose ties to the upper echelons of American government were unparalleled. And she can also cut a rug!

Now, imagine the FBI in place of Enron, and John Ashcroft in place of Kenneth Lay.

Yesterday, Reggie B. Walton, a Federal District Court Judge in Washington DC, threw out the whistleblower case of Agent Sibel Edmonds. Agent Edmonds claimed she witnessed serious lapses in the FBI’s translator and intelligence gathering programs.

Ms. Edmonds is a former wiretap translator in the Washington field office of the FBI. She raised suspicions about a co-worker's connections to a group under surveillance. In defense of the suit, Attorney John Ashcroft claimed that her case could “expose intelligence gathering information and disrupt diplomatic relations with foreign governments.” Again, he didn’t argue any of Agent Edmond’s facts, he simply claimed – it’s a secret.

In fact, the FBI confirmed that Edmonds's co-worker had been part of an organization that was a target of top-secret surveillance and that the same co-worker had "unreported contacts" with a foreign government official subject to the surveillance, according to a letter from the two senators to the Justice Department's Office of the Inspector General. In addition, the linguist failed to translate two communications from the targeted foreign government official, the letter said.

"This whistleblower raised serious questions about potential security problems and the integrity of important translations made by the FBI. She made these allegations in good faith and even though the deck was stacked against her. The FBI even admits to a number of her allegations, and on other allegations, the bureau's explanation leaves me skeptical."

[Senator Charles Grassley (REPUBLICAN - IOWA), Washington Post, 6/19/04]

Edmonds’ case was not thrown out on its merits. The Judge, a George W. Bush (yes, the current president) appointee – ruled that Ms. Edmonds claims “might expose government secrets that could damage national security.” Mr. Ashcroft says it’s secret, so it must be!!

Tomorrow, the Senate Intelligence Committee will issue its interim report on the intelligence gathering during the build-up to the invasion of Iraq. The story has already leaked – from the White House – that the report finds great fault with the CIA for not providing more transparent intelligence to the White House and Pentagon. The White House has already started using this report to point the finger at George Tenet, who conveniently resigned last month.

However, it is impossible to ignore that the FBI knew as nearly much about Iraq’s weapons programs during the call to war as the CIA, as they were investigating a series of Anthrax “mailings” in the fall of 2001. Additionally, in their 9/11 investigations, the FBI was desperately seeking any terrorist ties to Iraq and/or Iran.

Again, no one has refuted Sibel Edmonds’ claims: that an agent of the FBI had contact with a foreign government official regarding an organization with suspected ties to al Qaeda, and that the agent neglected to share those communications with his superior. General Ashcroft won’t even discuss their merits – he says they’re secret.

Ms. Edmonds, like Coleen Rowley before her, decided that the public’s right to know outweighs their personal reputations or career aspirations. They are standing up to the biggest Goliath on the planet, without blinking. Yet, they have been isolated by their employer and disallowed by YOUR government to have their day in court. George Bush, John Ashcroft and Dick Cheney don’t want you to hear their stories.

I propose that John Edwards join his colleagues, Senators Grassley and Leahy, to take on Sibel Edmonds’ case in Washington. I suggest they call for an independent counsel to investigate her claims and those of Agent Rawley. Maybe they could ask Elliot Spitzer to join the fight?

John Kerry was brilliant in his cross-examination of Ollie North, and John Edwards may be this country’s most talented advocate. There is bi-partisan support in the Senate for a return to accountability in government and such questions need to be asked NOW – before we sign America up for four another four year tour of duty in Dubbya’ Army (just ask a reservist!). In any other year, it might be considered partisan warfare. In 2004 the unanswered questions about this President and Vice President are far too great to ignore, regardless of appearances.

Sherron Watkins exposed the greatest Ponzi scheme in modern history. Who knows what Sibel Edmonds had to say? Thanks to a Bush/Cheney Judge, we may never know.

Senator Edwards, please take up the fight.

e

THE WAIT IS OVER

Many have asked: “you’ve been back from vacation for a week now, why no posts?”

No, I have not been struck dumb by the secret and early handover of “sovereignty,” (quotation marks are required for anything theoretical); no, I haven’t been seeing “Fahrenheit 9/11” twenty-three times (who could, it’s been sold out); and no, I haven’t been interviewing to be John Kerry’s VP (though I would serve, if asked, Senator).

So what gives? I have spent the past two weeks in deep contemplation, in advance of this announcement: I am prepared to announce my endorsement of a candidate for President of the United States.

It was a long, labored two weeks. There are, after all, dozens of qualified candidates running for the most powerful job in the world. Some of my favorites:

Michael W. ‘Mike’ Bay of the National Barking Spider Party.
http://www.outofthinair.homestead.com/NBSRParty.html
(any campaign that samples Groucho Marx must be considered)

Mr. HRM Caesar St Augustine De Buonaparte, Emperor
http://www.vote-smart.org/bio.php?can_id=MZZ70428
(party? we don’t need no stinking party!)

Mr. Ronald E. ‘John Galt, Jr’ Gascon (“Sneak Attack Campaign 2004!”)
http://user.aol.com/johng101/jonpol.htm
(who is John Galt?)

and my personal favorite, running as a Republican for the fourth straight election...

Ms. Mildred T. 'Millie' Howard
http://www.milliehoward.com/index.htm

I reviewed more than 100 potential candidates – Libertarians, Greens and write-ins – and decided to narrow my choices to three: President George W. Bush, Senator John F. Kerry and Ralph (middle names are for corporate lackeys) Nader.

The Candidates:

Ralph Nader has spent almost his entire adult life fighting for the rights of average Americans. Since his first book, “Unsafe at Any Speed,” Nader has taken on the status quo, despite blistering and seemingly insurmountable opposition. In 1965, in response to his book, which took on the auto industry, General Motors hired a detective to harass Nader, which they later admitted in a Senate hearing.

He’s founded more than 100 civic organizations, all designed to make the lives of Americans safer. Without Nader, there is no Environment Protection Agency. Without Nader there is no Occupational Safety and Health Administration or Consumer Product Safety Commission. And without Nader there is no Freedom of Information Act – a pet peeve of most Republicans.

Nader’s basic platform is easy. Americans have been lulled into blindly following the two political Parties down the rabbit hole of corporate greed and largesse. The Democrats and the Republicans take money from the same group of powerbrokers, who in turn control both houses of Congress, the White House and the Supreme Court. These two parties play-act at policy debate to keep the game alive and to court more corporate angels to fund their never-ending campaigns.

And he’s right.

Many otherwise self-respecting Democrats bash Nader – at a near blood-curdling pitch – for continuing to run, because he may cost Kerry votes. “He cost Gore the election,” they claim. Let’s get this straight: Al Gore cost Al Gore the election. Ralph Nader ran a protest campaign, whose votes would just as likely have gone somewhere else, had he not run. Meanwhile Gore couldn’t carry his home state.

I firmly believe it’s time to reexamine the present-day political paradigm. Freedom is this country’s founding precept – NOT the two party system. The vast majority of Americans side strongly with NEITHER political party and await a truly independent candidate to break the Republican/Democrat headlock on government.

Agree with his politics or not, Ralph Nader is an American Hero of unparalleled intellect, heart, stamina and courage. If he wants to run, and can get on the ballot, it’s his right (and HE would say his responsibility) to do so. He should most definitely run, and I hope to see him debate Bush and Kerry. But I’m still not endorsing Nader – sorry, Ralphie.



George W. Bush has been President for four years. Before that he was Governor of Texas. Before that, he lost money in almost every business he ran. Before that, he was drunk.

His foreign policy experience is limited to the past four years, during which time he started then abandoned a war in Afghanistan, started then fu*ked up a war in Iraq, unbalanced the budget (a $525 billion in deficit in 2004, a $3 trillion deficit by 2010), oversaw the worst employment data since Herbert Hoover and created a world in which America and its citizens are at greater risk than at any point in world history.

A recent poll by the New York Times found that 79% of all Americans believe that the President is at least hiding something or “mostly lying” about the war in Iraq.

Even if you believe that the war in Iraq was a worthy endeavor, the way the war was sold to the public, the distrust it created with our allies and among citizens of every nation in the world and the HUGE distraction that has created from the real threats we face – anyone seen Ossama lately? – can only be characterized as the most significant foreign policy failure since Viet Nam.

The upside? Production of opium in Afghanistan has reached an all time high and tomatoes cost more in Kabul than heroin. Bush-o-nomics!!!

At a time of war – when past generations have pulled together and sacrificed for the greater good – Bush has pushed through TWO enormous tax cuts, which have produced the largest deficits in American history. He claims that these tax cuts – 70% of which go to the top 2% of tax payers – have revived the economy and produced “one million new jobs since August.” Even if those one million new jobs were real (they’re real, if you think flipping burgers qualifies), that still leaves us with 1.5 million FEWER JOBS than when Bush and Cheney were sworn in.

As a point of comparison, Reagan created 6 million new jobs in his first term, Clinton created 7 million in his first term and Bush 41 created 1.5 million new jobs in his only term. This President has not only NOT created ANY new jobs, he has overseen the worst employment environment since Herbert Hoover (I know I said that already, but it bears repeating).

Worst of all, George W. Bush lies. He and his administration have decimated the standing of this country in the community of nations. Our President is more feared and hated than any leader in the world, and our country has become the holy enemy of a generation of extremists.

It did not have to be that way. Remember the international outpouring of support after 9/11? Remember the way our country pulled together? What happened to that? Two Words: George Bush.

Even if the war in Iraq was going swimmingly – which it isn’t – Bush lied to the world about the reasons for invasion. Even if his Medicare bill was a panacea – which it isn’t – Bush lied to Congress (and HIS OWN PARTY) about its cost. Even if the Abu Grahaib scandal is limited to a few bad apples – which it isn’t – Bush asked his Justice Department for diplomatic cover for pre-approved torture, effectively condemning any American to the same fate at the hands of our enemies.

President Bush campaigned as a “uniter, not a divider.” He promised to be a “Compassionate Conservative.” He promised return honor and integrity to the White House. Funny, you don’t hear those phrases much anymore. What happened to those promises? Two Words: he lied.

Is this who we want representing our country? Do we really want America’s strategy in Iran and Korea built on “shoot first, don’t ask questions later?” Do we really want four more years of obfuscation, deceit, secrecy, deficits, joblessness, fear and hate? I don’t.


John F. Kerry has spent his entire adult life in service to his country. When many young men looked for an escape from service, Kerry volunteered for Viet Nam, where he saved many men under his command.

Upon returning from Asia, with three purple hearts in tow, Kerry decided his fellow servicemen were fighting a war they could not win, for a government that did not have their best interest at heart. At a time when many young men and women looked the other way, he protested the war and stood up for his comrades in arms.

He went on to become a prosecuting attorney, and a damn good one at that – convicting countless members of Massachusetts’s largest organized crime family. He then served as Lieutenant Governor to Michael Dukakis and for twenty years in the United States Senate. In the Senate, he was instrumental in furthering President’s Clinton agenda in reducing the size of the government (which President Bush has spent the last four years reversing), simplifying the tax code, creating hundreds of inner-city empowerment zones, putting more than one-hundred thousand additional policemen on the streets of our communities and in normalizing relations with Viet Nam, so America could finally close the book on that harrowing chapter of our history.

He broke with his own party to endorse the Balanced Budget Act (which the Bush Administration has spent four years destroying), served honorably on the Armed Services Committee and has been arguably the Senate’s strongest advocate for the environment, education, universal health care coverage and abortion rights.

During this campaign, Kerry has called for months for President Bush to seek more assistance from other nations in Iraq. He called for a greater role for NATO and the United Nations. The response from Republicans was to first call him unpatriotic and weak on defense, then to co-opt his entire position and beg for help from the U.N. and NATO.

For months, Kerry has clearly stated his position on national security – calling for greater international cooperation to corral the world’s nuclear arsenal, greater inter-agency collaboration to secure our ports and an overall strengthening of our alliances to ensure that our enemies can truly find no safe haven. Republicans first called him unpatriotic, then co-opted all of his positions as their own.

Kerry’s positions on the economy are starkly different from those of the current administration. From investment in our national infrastructure (to improve transportation and create jobs), conservation of our natural resources (to lessen our foreign oil dependency and preserve our environment), to the balancing of the budget (he believes in it, Republicans do not) and the repeal of a large portion of the Bush Tax Cut, Kerry’s platform is built on the premise that America is a great place that can be greater.

I volunteered for the John Edwards campaign in New York. From the first time I heard him speak, I thought: "that guy would make a great Vice President." With a laser-like focus and a Southern gift for speechifying, this self-made man from blue-collar beginnings, is the one person (on either ticket) who has stood up to the corporate ownership of the American public.

His biography, his heart and his blazing intellect make him the most qualified vice presidential candidate in the race.

John Edwards has spent his life successfully defending the rights of average Americans. Some would then point out that he has made himself very rich in the process. I would hope none of those people are on the Republican ticket, as that would make milk come out of my nose. Others would say that Edwards disagrees with Kerry on some important issues – and they would be right.

The courage to choose someone who might challenge him on such issues as free trade, the environment and corporate governance, proves that a Kerry administration would change the tenor of Washington – from one of “my-way-or-the-highway,” to one of “We the People.”


That is why I am officially endorsing Senator John F. Kerry as the next President of the United States. Surprised?

Many, many calls to the Senator for comment have gone answered. I like to believe he is too overcome with pride and emotion to comment. Regardless, I am confident this endorsement will provide an enormous lift for Senator Kerry and elicit a “Go Fu*k yourself!” from the Vice President.

e
________________________________________________________________________________________

Previously on My Chalabi:

The CIA disowns Chalabi. Wolfie promises an Iraq attack. 9/11. Dubbya: “Find the link, Saddam.” Ahmed urges to skip Afghanistan and go to Iraq. Dick paints the picture of a Nuclear Saddam.

“We were not focused on WMD. The US asked us. We didn’t bring these people up, they asked us!”

[Ahmed Chalabi, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

“We settled on the one issue everyone could agree on, which was weapons of mass destruction.”

[Wolfowitz, Vanity Fair, 4/04]



September 2002

Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas J. Feith and Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz rename the Northern Gulf Affairs Office on the Pentagon's fourth floor the “Office of Special Plans” (OSP) and increase its four-person staff to sixteen.

The INC Information Collection Program moves from the State Department to the Defense Intelligence Agency, under Feith and Wolfowitz. The wolves take over the chicken coop, and any remaining objectivity towards America’s intelligence gathering goes out the window.

Feith, Wolfowitz, Rumsfeld and Cheney use Chalabi’s intel almost exclusively as they build their case for invasion – from the weapons of mass destruction, to the link between Saddam and bin Laden to the size of the force needed for an invasion and occupation.

“It got me pretty angry. Chalabi’s plan was pie in the sky, a fairy tale. They were saying if you put a thousand troops on the ground Saddam’s regime will collapse, they won’t fight.”

[General Anthony Zinni, former commander of CENTCOM, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

"What's unfolding is a campaign by well-placed hawks to undermine the CIA's ability to provide objective, unbiased intelligence to the White House. They make no distinction between intelligence and propaganda, using alleged informants and defectors who say what Chalabi wants them to say, creating cooked information that goes right into presidential and vice-presidential speeches."

[Vincent Cannistraro, former head of CIA counter-intelligence, ABC News, 6/16/03]

Cheney and his gang of civilian hawks use the resources of the pentagon to set up a shadow power center for the dissemination of propaganda (the Niger memo, “Saddam’s Bombmaker,” INC exclusives in the New York Times) and the elimination of dissent within the government or military. Chalabi and Brooke manufacture defectors and their stories to suit the PR needs of their Pentagon benefactors.

“It is the U.S. intelligence community’s job to check these people out. What do you want us to do? Hush them up?”

[Ahmed Chalabi, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

“Chalabi was the crutch the neo-cons leaned onto justify their intervention. He twisted the intelligence that they based it on and provided a rosy and unrealistic picture.”

[General Anthony Zinni, former commander of CENTCOM, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]




September, 2002 – A Busy Month

Using information from Chalabi and his defectors, the British government publishes a "white paper" asserting that Saddam Hussein and his unconventional arms posed an immediate danger. As evidence, the report cited Iraq's attempts to purchase uranium from an African country. It is rumored that British Intelligence agents initially received this information from Feith and the Office of Special Plans (remember that the memorandum was forged – Chalabi’s specialty).

Despite the fact that both the CIA and the State Department know this information to be false, the white paper, it’s contents and the alleged Niger memorandum are all included in the National Intelligence Briefing – an inter-agency intelligence “bible,” used to vet information across departments of the government.

A few weeks later, CIA Director Tenet calls White House Communications Director Dan Bartlett – the man responsible for vetting each and every speech made by the President – and instructs him to excise any references to the yellowcake and the Iraq-Niger sale from a speech the President planned to give in Cincinnati.



October, 2002 – Curveball

Aras Habib, INC Intelligence Chief, brings an Iraqi defector to the offices of Germany’s intelligence agency. There, Curveball – who turns out to be brother of a Chalabi aide – describes a network of mobile weapons labs, using satellite photos to pinpoint their routes across the desert. He even has maps.


Meanwhile in Africa (October 2002)

Following leads from the British press Elisabetta Burba, a political journalist for Italian news magazine Panorama, travels to Niger to secure documents revealing Saddam’s plan to buy Yellowcake Uranium. Returning to Italy, she discovers (with the help of Italian intelligence) that the documents are fake, and turns them over to the US Embassy in Rome.

Weeks later, the American Embassy in Niger is ransacked, nothing of any real value is stolen, but the many files are strewn about the offices and/or destroyed.



Meanwhile back in Washington (Fall 2002)

In the fall of 2002, Cheney, Wolfie, Scooter Libby and Doug Feith visit the CIA ten times. They use INC information to berate CIA agents for not finding corroborating evidence of weapons of mass destruction, specifically mobile weapons and labs nuclear centrifuges.

"The whole emphasis, was, 'We are sure that there are weapons of mass destruction. We are sure that Saddam is acquiring a nuclear capability. Why isn't your reporting showing this? We're getting reporting independently from the intelligence community that convinces us that that's the case. You're not providing any corroboration for that.' … The weapons of mass destruction analysts at CIA took these visits as intimidation, as pressure."

[Vincent Cannistraro, former head of CIA counter-intelligence, Nightline, 11/29/03]


“Cheney's role masked significant disputes within the U.S. intelligence community. One would think if Cheney was on some sort of noble pursuit of the truth and really wanted to get into details, he would have noticed that INR had very loud and lengthy dissents on some critical pieces of Iraq intelligence."

[Greg Thielmann, director of strategic, proliferation and military affairs in the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, known as INR, Salt Lake Tribune, 8/3/03]

The INR was far more skeptical than the CIA about claims that Iraq possessed threatening weaponry.

“You'd think he might want to hear from us," he added. "It never happened, of course, because Cheney wasn't engaged in an academic search for truth."

[Thielmann, Salt Lake Tribune, 8/3/03]



2003 – March to War

Curveball’s weapons labs become a major focus of the administration’s case for war – most notably speeches given by Bush, Cheney, Rice and Powell (aka Dewey, Cheatum and Howe).

These mythical labs, the supposed Iraq-Qaeda connection and the specter of a nuclear holocaust on American soil, became the clarion call for war among the neo-conservative class, and the bullet points of their marketing campaign for the invasion.
"We know that Saddam has the infrastructure, nuclear scientists to make a nuclear weapon. And we know that when the inspectors assessed this after the Gulf War, he was far, far closer to a crude nuclear device than anybody thought -- maybe six months from a crude nuclear device. There will always be some uncertainty, but we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."

[Dr. Rice, CNN, 1/10/03]

“UNSCOM inspectors conclude that at least 90% of Iraq's weapons have been destroyed or dismantled. Chief UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter believes that a good portion of the remaining 10% was destroyed during the First Gulf War, thus leaving only a small fraction unaccounted for.”

[Newsday, 7/30/02]



January 28, 2003

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

[President Bush, State of the Union Address, 1/28/03]

These 16 words put in motion a spiral of fingerpointing and back-biting that has torn apart the administration ever since, pitting the intelligence agents at the State Department and the CIA against the civilian authority and Office of Special Plans in the Pentagon.

George Tenet eventually took the fall for the inclusion of this text in the President’s speech – despite the fact that he had warned the White House to eliminate the same verbage from a speech in Cinncinatti the previous fall. However, Tenet’s sloppiness was not the only culprit. State knew the yellow cake document was forged – they had been briefed by the the CIA upon Wilson’s return and again the previous fall before the Cincinnati speech. The Vice President and the Office of Special Plans also knew the document was forged.


“There should be at least four documents in United States government archives confirming my mission. The documents should include the ambassador's report, a separate report written by the embassy staff, a C.I.A. report, and a specific answer from the agency to the office of the vice president.”

[Joseph C. Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”, New York Times editorial, 7/6/03]


That is why those 16 words were phrased so specifically – technically, they were true. The “British government” HAD “just learned” that “Hussein had recently sought quantities of Uranium from Africa.” Unfortunately, they “learned” that information from Chalabi and Feith, who had most likely had arranged to have it forged in the first place.

Frauds become rumor, rumors become press and press becomes intelligence. Meanwhile a President sells an invasion.



February 5, 2003

Secretary of State Colin Powell gives a PowerPoint presentation to the United Nations, outlining America’s reasoning for war against Iraq. Bill Gates contribution aside, INC intelligence is the source of nearly 100% of Powell’s presentation – most of this coming either from Curveball or Hamza.

“I cannot tell you everything that we know, but what I can share with you, when combined with what all of us have learned over the years, is deeply troubling. What you will see is an accumulation of facts and disturbing patterns of behavior. The facts and Iraqis' behavior, Iraq's behavior, demonstrate that Saddam Hussein and his regime have made no effort, no effort, to disarm, as required by the international community.

My colleagues, every statement I make today is backed up by sources, solid sources. These are not assertions. What we are giving you are facts and conclusions based on solid intelligence. I will cite some examples, and these are from human sources.

I asked for this session to support the core assessments made by Dr. Blix and Dr. ElBaradei. That Saddam Hussein is very much focused on putting in place the key missing piece from his nuclear weapons program, the ability to produce fissile material and acquiring weapons of mass destruction.”

[Remarks by Secretary Powell to the United Nations, 2/5/03]


But Powell’s pitch did not exactly agree with the core assessment of Drs. ElBaradei or Blix. While the neo-cons were beating the war drums, the UN weapons teams were begging contradicting INC intelligence and begging for more time to pursue peace...

“To conclude: we have to date found no evidence that Iraq has revived its nuclear weapons program since the elimination of the program in the 1990s. Our work is steadily progressing and should be allowed to run its natural course. With our verification system now in place, we should be able within the next few months to provide credible assurance that Iraq has no nuclear weapons program.

It is worth recalling that, in our past experience in Iraq, the elimination of its nuclear weapons program was mostly accomplished through intrusive inspections. These few months would be a valuable investment in peace because they could help us avoid a war.”

[Dr. Mohamed ElBaradei, Director General of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), Statement to the UN Security Council, 1/27/03]


“I think that it's probably one of the low points in Powell’s long, distinguished service to the nation."

[Greg Thielmann, Former State Department intelligence analyst, 60 Minutes II, 2/4/04]

“When I made that presentation in February 2003, it was based on the best information that the Central Intelligence Agency made available to me. We studied it carefully; we looked at the sourcing in the case of the mobile trucks and trains. There was multiple sourcing for that. Unfortunately, that multiple sourcing over time has turned out to be not accurate. It turned out that the sourcing was inaccurate and wrong and in some cases, deliberately misleading. And for that, I am disappointed and I regret it.”

[Powell, Meet the Press, 5/16/04]



March, 2003 – Meanwhile in Iran and Washington

Chalabi runs the INC from a palatial house in Tehran, Iran – an interesting choice of locales, given the later turn of events. Meanwhile, his buddies in the Office of Special Plans plot Ahmed ascendancy to Iraq Presidency, and use INC-manufactured intelligence to create a PR blitz about how easy the invasion and occupation will be.

Cheney, Feith and the OSP cadre, along with a small circle of civilian consultants – Perle, Kristol, et al – dominated planning for postwar Iraq. They bought Chalabi’s prediction of a post-war roll-over by the Iraqi people hook, line and sinker. They believed Ahmed’s claim that he had a secret network in Iraq, awaiting his return, and that the people would embrace him as their leader immediately after the fall of Baghdad.

Not so fooled, the State Department created a detailed, 8-month study – the “Future of Iraq” project – to prepare for the fall of Saddam. The plan included input from dozens of exiled Iraqi professionals and 17 U.S. agencies – including the Pentagon – and prepared strategies for everything from a new Iraqi judicial code to restoring the unique ecosystem of Iraq's southern marshes, which Saddam's regime had drained.

Feith and Wolfowitz ignored the study. None of the “Future of Iraq” plan has been utilized. Cheney would not allow anyone to even consider the possibility of the sort of backlash against the US occupation that have erupted since the invasion. After all, having a back up plan would be a sign of weakness.

Cheney:
“From the standpoint of the Iraqi people, we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators.”

Russert:
“If your analysis is not correct, and we're not treated as liberators, but as conquerors, do you think the American people are prepared for a long, costly, and bloody battle with significant American casualties?”

Cheney:
“Well, I don't think it's likely to unfold that way, Tim, because I really do believe that we will be greeted as liberators. I've talked with a lot of Iraqis in the last several months myself, had them to the White House. The read we get on the people of Iraq is there is no question they will welcome us as liberators.”

[Interview of Vice President Cheney, Meet the Press, 3/27/03]

The Pentagon group had a visionary strategy that it was convinced would transform Iraq into an Israeli ally. They were blinded by the apparition of unfettered access to the Persian Gulf oil. They dreamt of an Iran, surrounded by U.S. friends and allies.

So officials at the State Department and CIA thought the vision was badly flawed and impractical? The Office of Special Plans simply excluded rivals from involvement and went their own way into war.

"You have to plan before you invade, to prepare for the things that go wrong. They weren't in planning mode; they were in selling mode, selling this war to the American people."

[Retired USAF Lt. Col. Karen Kwiatkowski former intelligence analyst at the Pentagon]



March 19, 2003

The War begins with a bombing raid on high level targets in and around Baghdad. The raid is coordinated using intelligence from INC operatives in Iraq and inadequate global satellite positioning equipment. Remember when we all thought Saddam was dead on day 1?

The result was zero targets hit (no Saddam, no Chemical Ali) and hundreds of dead Iraqi civilians.



April 8, 2003

Baghdad falls. Thousands... wait, no, Hundreds... wait, no, DOZENS of “liberated” Iraqis pour into Fardus Square to watch US Marines pull down the statue of Saddam.

The entire photo op is reportedly staged. Reuters photographs from across the street, show the US military securing the Fardus Square with tanks – allowing almost no one in to celebrate or demonstrate.

Many of the “revelers” who helped pull down the statue, were reportedly INC agents, flown into Bagdhad the night before in anticipation of the “impromptu celebration.”

Type “does this look like the fall of the Berlin Wall” into google. The number of pages dedicated to this “photo op” theory are mind-boggling. The photo itself is really the only important fact.



May 11, 2003

“Mission Accomplished.”



Spring, 2003 – Chalabi stumbles

"It was very clear that there was an expectation that the INC exiles would be the core of an Iraqi interim (governing) authority. Once Saddam's regime fell, American authorities quickly grasped that Chalabi and his people couldn't take charge.

However, the Pentagon had devised no backup plan. If Pentagon civilians had a detailed plan that anticipated what could happen after Saddam fell, it was invisible.”

[Retired U.S. Ambassador Timothy Carney, Knight-Ridder, 7/12/03]

Chalabi is put in charge of the program of de-Baathification. He uses this as an excuse to restart his embezzling career – absconding as much as $500,000 provided by the US government for the program and appropriating Sunni property for the INC and its staff.

[Newsweek, 4/5/04]

Chalabi heads the finance committee of the Iraqi Governing Council. He installs friends and relatives in countless governmental posts, including governor of Iraqi’s Central Bank (remember that Jordanian Bank Ahmed ran?) and the Minister of Trade, who is Chalabi’s nephew.

[The New Yorker, 6/7/03]



July 6, 2003 – Wilson’s Back and he’s not a Beach Boy

Joseph C. Wilson, former US Ambassador who the CIA and Cheney asked to investigate a potential Iraq-Niger connection over the sale of yellow cake Uranium, writes a New York Times editorial refuting the accuracy of the intelligence used in the President’s Stats of the Union address.

“If my information was deemed inaccurate, I understand (though I would be very interested to know why). If, however, the information was ignored because it did not fit certain preconceptions about Iraq, then a legitimate argument can be made that we went to war under false pretenses.”

[Joseph C. Wilson, “What I Didn’t Find in Africa”, New York Times editorial, 7/6/03]




July 12, 2003 – The Plame Blame Game

The President and Condoleezza Rice blame Tenet and the CIA for the 16 words in the State of the Union.

Someone close to the White House leaks to Robert Novak, that Wilson’s wife, Valerie Plame, is actually a CIA operative. This not only endangers her life, but is against the law.



July 14, 2003 – Bastille Day

In his article, ‘Mission to Niger,’ Novak writes about Wilson’s trip to Africa, dismissing his work, while outing his wife as a CIA spook to the entire world. Her job as CIA agent was given to Novak as context to how Wilson was chosen for the Niger-yellowcake assignment.

“Wilson never worked for the CIA, but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an Agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him.”

[Mission to Niger, Robert Novak, 7/14/03]

The “two senior administration officials” had to have known how Wilson came to be chosen for the gig (opportunity) and were obviously pissed off enough at Wilson to want to put his wife’s life at risk.

Most Washington insiders believe that the leak came from “Scooter” Libby, Cheney’s Chief of Staff and Douglas Feith, Deputy Secretary of Defense and head of the Office of Special Projects. Both had the opportunity to have inside information about Wilson’s trip and his wife’s job. Both had more motive to do leak the leak than they had to invade Iraq.



Fall 2003 – According to Plan?

INC informants and defectors return to Iraq to help the US military find and identify the weapons of mass destruction, the mobile labs and the nuclear centrifuges they spoke of during the build up to war.

Al-Haideri (of the chemical weapons bunker on the front page of the Times) and Hamza (Saddam’s Bombmaker) both lead weapons inspectors and search teams on countless of fruitless searches.

“Curveball,” turns out not to be the source the INC purported. Instead, it turns out he is a former Iraqi prisoner, who’s information on mobile weapons labs was manufactured by Aras Habib, INC Intelligence Chief and Feith confidante, with close ties to the government in Iran.

[New Yorker, 6/7/04]

No weapons, nor labs, nor nuclear programs are found, the reputation of the US and its government grows increasingly tarnished.



October, 2003 – Frustration in Motion

Faced with a growing insurgency and the complete absence of WMD’s, Rumsfeld decides to step up the interrogations of Iraqi prisoners.

“A senior C.I.A. official, said that the operation stemmed from Rumsfeld’s long-standing desire to wrest control of America’s clandestine and paramilitary operations from the C.I.A. ‘Some people think you can bullshit anyone.’”

[“The Grey Zone,” The New Yorker, 5/24/04]

The link between Chalabi and Abu Ghraib are direct and important. Without Chalabi, there is no WMD “intelligence,” and therefore no need for WMD “evidence.” Without Chalabi, it is more difficult to believe that we would “be greeted as liberators,” therefore we MAY have been more prepared for the insurgency.



December, 2003 – The Leaky Leak

“Attorney General John Ashcroft will recuse himself from an investigation into who leaked the name of a CIA operative, Justice Department sources said Tuesday. The investigation will be headed by the U.S. attorney in Chicago, Patrick Fitzgerald, who will report to Ashcroft's new deputy, James Comey, the officials said. It was not immediately clear why Ashcroft made the decision.”

[US News and World Report, 12/30/03]



2004 – The Fall of Chalabi – Part 4

“As far as we're concerned we've been entirely successful. That tyrant Saddam is gone and the Americans are in Baghdad.

What was said before is not important. The Bush administration is looking for a scapegoat. We're ready to fall on our swords if he wants.

We were heroes in error.”

[Ahmed Chalabi, London Telegraph, 2/19/04]

Pulling the rug out from under the administration’s lies was not done by accident. By this time, Chalabi knew that he was not going to be handed the keys to the Iraqi government. This quote was the straw that broke the camel’s back. It was decided within the Cheney operation to distance Bush from Chalabi and work towards installing someone else as the head of the provisional government on June 30.

Chalabi decides that it is time to establish some street cred in Iraq. He begins attacking the US occupation and most specifically Paul Bremer and the Coalition Provisional Authority.



Spring 2004 – When it Rains

* 109 American soldiers die in Iraq in April.

* Sunni and Shia insurgencies rise up in numerous Iraqi cities. American contractors are attacked and killed. Foreign civilians of all nationalities are taken hostage.

* Pictures emerge from Abu Graib prison, depicting US Soldiers torturing Iraqi Prisoners.

* Sentiments inside Iraq turn solidly against the US occupation.

* US attorney Fitzgerald subpoenas members of the White House staff, including Scooter Libby and Karl Rove, as well as journalists from NBC News and Time Magazine.

“The Bush administration faces fire from its own intelligence agencies over the misuse of INC intelligence in the buold up to the Iraq War. That anger has recently gone public in leaks of a Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA) report questioning the credibility of intelligence provided by the administration’s closest allies in Iraq.

It also surfaced in the disclosure that the CIA has notified the Justice Department that a criminal statute apparently was violated when someone allegedly divulged the identity of a CIA covert agent to the media. That someone was likely a senior administration official or two. With a now openly hostile intelligence community, those embarrassing revelations may be only the first of many to come.”

[Media Monitors Network, 3/10/04]

“The DIA concluded that several Iraqi defectors introduced to American intelligence by the INC have falsely claimed to have direct knowledge of illicit weapons programs in Iraq.”

[New Yorker, 6/7/04]



May 20, 2004 – Knock, Knock

US military intelligence raids the home of Ahmed Chalabi and the offices of INC. This happens amidst charges that Chalabi’s Intelligence Chief, Arad Habib, has provided US intel to the Iranian Government.

Habib flees, escaping just ahead of the US raid.

"The charges about giving classified information to Iran by me or by any INC officer are false, non-existent. They are charges put out by George Tenet and his CIA."

[Ahmed Chalabi, May 23 on Meet the Press]

That weekend, several high-powered neo-cons, including Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz plead Ahmed’s case to Bush and Rice.



June 2, 2004 – D-fence

The President of the United States, George W. Bush, hires an attorney to represent him to the Leak Probe Grand Jury.

Vice President Cheney is questioned by Leak Probe prosecutors a few days later.



June 3 – The Wrong George Quits

Director of the CIA, George Tenet resigns for “personal reasons.”

The administration mobilizes to make Tenet the fall-guy for everything from 9/11 to inaccurate pre-war intelligence to the Wilson/Plame/Novak leak.



June 18, 2004 – Follow the Yellowcake Road

The Senate Intelligence Committee investigating the failure of pre-war intelligence – headed by Senator John McCain – submits its interim report.

The White House hands it back, excising 40% of the report, claiming the information is “classified.”

“After reviewing the roughly 400 pages for classified data, the intelligence agency returned the report to the Senate Intelligence Committee with brackets around 30 percent to 40 percent of the contents to signal the information was secret.”

[Reuters, 6/19/04]



There has never been a greater or more costly deception of the American people. Ahmed Chalabi found in the Bush White House a willing buyer of information – as long as that information agreed with their very narrow vision of the world.

The Office of Special Plans, under the direction of the Vice President, bulldozed any dissent or contradiction under a mountain of fabricated evidence and ideological muscle-flexing. They used their vault of secrets to win friends and influence people – tainting event the vaunted New York Times in the process (a lucky strike extra for Cheney, who famously hates the Times). Anyone who dare question their quest was deemed unpatriotic, or – in the case of Wilson or Plame – had their lives and livelihoods threatened.

For the first time, the “embedded” press is beginning to question it all – the leaks, the lies and the war itself. If half of the rumors are true, the swirling scandals could bring down this administration, or at least some of its more nefarious neo-con operators.

Meanwhile, all of the controversy and mishegas rolls off of Chalabi like rainwater off an oil-slick. The attacks by the US have only strengthened his reputation on the streets of Iraq, and now he prepares for what could be the history’s ultimate irony: Bush cold lose the election over the WMD lies and the resulting cover-up; while Chalabi runs in the first free election in Iraqi history.

“A foreigner and an Arab has beaten the administration at their own game, in their own back yard.”

[Tamara Chalabi, daughter of Ahmed Chalabi]


e

I am on vacation for the next seven days. Don’t get lazy in the mean time!

Read! Listen! Question!

__________________________________________________________________________

How curious is it that just as the State Department is telling Americans to leave Saudi Arabia, Colin Powell (doesn't he run the State Department?) says in a radio interview that Americans shouldn't leave the Kingdom, because it would send a signal that the terrorists are winning? What gives? Why would Powell put Americans in danger for what amounts to propaganda reasons? It's nonsense to presume that the terrorists will be buoyed by Americans leaving Saudi Arabia (putting aside the State Department warnings) just as it's absurd to argue that the terrorists will be de-motivated by the continuing presence of Lockheed Martin employees. I can just see the Al Qaida meeting now: "I'm bummed. The Americans are staying. I think I'll quit and get a job in Silicon Valley."

It reminds me of Giuiliani saying we should go shopping after 9/l1 to prove that the terrorists haven't won. Well I went to Barney's and it didn't seem to prevent anything.

Every Blog needs some humor . . .

One sunny day in 2005 an old man approached the White House from across Pennsylvania Avenue, where he'd been sitting on a park bench. He spoke to the U.S. Marine standing guard and said, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine looked at the man and said, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer
president and no longer resides here."

The old man said, "Okay" and walked away.

The following day, the same man approached the White House and said to the same Marine, "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine again told the man, "Sir, Mr. Bush is no longer president
and no longer resides here." The man thanked him and, again, just
walked away.

The third day, the same man approached the White House and spoke to
the very same U. S. Marine, saying "I would like to go in and meet with President Bush."

The Marine, understandably agitated at this point, looked at the man
and said, "Sir, this is the third day in a row you have been here
asking to speak to Mr. Bush. I've told you already that Mr. Bush is no longer the president and no longer resides here. Don't you understand?"

The old man looked at the Marine and said, "Oh, I understand. I just
love hearing it."

The Marine snapped to attention, saluted, and said, "See you tomorrow."

M-M-M-MY CHALABI - Part 2
How did the US and the world get it so wrong on Iraq, WMD's and the ease of occupation? Two Words: Ahmed Chalabi.

Previously on As The Chalabi Spins:
After years in the wilderness, the neo-cons return to power. They bring with them a penchant for war, a fetish for secrecy and a hunk-a burnin desire to exact revenge on Saddam! And now, the story continues...


January 2001 – The First 100 Days of Bush!

Richard Clarke briefs the President, Secretary Powell, Secretary Rumsfeld and Condi Rice that Ossama bin Laden is the world’s most dangerous man and that Al Qeada is poised to attack US interest at home and abroad. But the Bushies are already obsessed by Iraq.

Greg Thielmann, an analyst for the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR), is appointed to serve as intelligence liaison to John Bolton, Under Secretary of State for Arms Control. But his intelligence briefings do not support Bolton's assumptions about Iraq, and Thielmann is soon barred from attending the meetings.

About the same time, George Tenet briefs President Bush about the Iraqi National Congress, outlining the Agency’s reservations about his honesty and reliability. Dick Cheney and the neo-hawks convince Bush otherwise.

“Wolfowitz called [Brooke] late one night and promised that this time Saddam would be deposed. Wolfowitz told him he was so committed to this goal that he would resign if he couldn’t accomplish it.”

[The New Yorker, 6/7/04]



February, 2001

The Bush White House holds its second National Security Council meeting. One of the memos discussed during the meeting is titled, “Plan for post-Saddam Iraq.” It reportedly discusses the need for troops in a post-Saddam occupation, war crimes tribunals, and how to divvy up Iraq's oil wealth.

[CBS News, 1/10/04; New York Times, 1/12/04]

Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, speaks in favor of removing Saddam Hussein. It would “demonstrate what US policy is all about,” and contribute to the transformation of the Middle East.

[National Security Presidential Directives—NSPD-1, 2/13/01]



September 11, 2001



September 12, 2001

Bush: “Go back over everything, everything. See if Saddam did this.”

Clarke: “But Mr. President, Al-Qaeda did this,”

Bush: “I know, I know. Look into Iraq, Saddam.”

[Washington Post, 3/22/2004]

“The president, in a very intimidating way, left us, me and my staff, with the clear indication that he wanted us to come back with the word that there was an Iraqi hand behind 9/11 because they had been planning to do something about Iraq from before the time they came into office.”

[Richard Clarke, CNN.com, 5/6/04]



September 20, 2001

Ahmed Chalabi addresses the Defense Policy Board – an honorary committee, chaired by Richard Perle, that advises Secretary Rumsfeld. He advocates skipping Afhganistan completely and proceeding immediately to Iraq. “There will be no resistance, no guerrilla warfare and it will be a quick matter of establishing a new government.”

That same day, PNAC writes President Bush. Giving short-shrift to Ossama bin Laden (only one sentence), the letter turns to Iraq.

“Even if evidence does not link Iraq directly to the attack, any strategy aiming at the eradication of terrorism and its sponsors must include a determined effort to remove Saddam Hussein from power. Failure to undertake such an effort will constitute an early and perhaps decisive surrender in the war on international terrorism.” [Project for a New American Century, 9/20/01]

It is only nine days after 9/11.



November, 2001 – Anthrax Scare

Letters delivered to television networks and Congressional offices are found to contain small, potentially weapons-grade Anthrax. It is clear that the targets have been chosen for their media value (remember, Chalabi and Brooke first met doing PR for the CIA).

One week later, Ahmed Chalabi provides an Iraqi defector, named Sabah Khalifa Khodada al-Lami. Lami claims to have been a colonel in the Iraqi army and tells reporters of a terrorist training camp at Salman Pak in Northern Iraq that was contaminated by Anthrax.

After the invasion, neither records of Lami’s military service nor any evidence of a training camp at Salman Pak are found.

To this day, there have been nor arrests or informational updates by the Justice Department on the perpetrator of the Anthrax mailings.



January 16, 2002 – Interesting Side Note

CIA Director George Tenet informs Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak during a meeting in Sharm el Sheikh that the Bush administration has already decided to attack Iraq and asks Mubarak not to publicly express Egypt's opposition to the planned invasion. The Egyptian president warns that such an attack could destabilize the entire Middle East.

[Ha'aretz, 2/17/02]



2001/2002 – The Disinformation Tour

The US intelligence community—most notably the intelligence gatherers working under the authority of Douglas Feith's office in the Pentagon—bases several of its intelligence assessments concerning Iraq on information offered by the Iraqi National Congress (INC) and by Iraqi defectors provided by the INC.

Despite the fact that Tenet and the CIA refute most of what Chalabi offers, the White House and Cheney’s ever-more-powerful caste of Pentagon neo-cons take only their own counsel.

"Even as it prepares for war against Iraq, the Pentagon is already engaged on a second front: its war against the Central Intelligence Agency. The Pentagon is bringing relentless pressure to bear on the agency to produce intelligence reports more supportive of war with Iraq. Morale inside the U.S. national-security apparatus is said to be low, with career staffers feeling intimidated and pressured to justify the push for war."

[Robert Dreyfuss, “The Pentagon Muzzles the CIA,” The American Prospect, 12/16/02]

A June 26, 2002, letter from the Iraqi National Congress to the Senate Appropriations Committee listed 108 articles based on information provided by the Iraqi National Congress's Information Collection Program. The Program was funded by the U.S.State Depratment, and many of the assertions in these articles – including an Iraqi-Al Qaeda connection, and Hussein’s fictional weapons programs – became the very sources the adminstration used in its case for war.

The administration was buying the information it needed, from those they knew could provide it. They questioned nothing, because they didn’t want to know the truth.

Unfortunately, niether did the New York Times. Judith Miller, a Times writer, became a very willing stooge for Chalabi, who offered exclusives in exhange for great placement and little background checking. Over the past three years, Miller has printed much of Chalabi’s information, including a front page piece on an Iraqi engineer who claimed to have see, first hand, nuclear weapons sites in Iraq as well as waepons tests on live prisoners.

Three day before Miller’s exclusive, the engineeer had failed a polygraph test performed by the CIA and the Defense Intelligence Agency. Chalabi knew it was false, Feith knew it was false, Wolfowitz knew it was false, Rumsfeld knew it was flase and Cheney knew it was false.

Yet they let Miller run the story. Then they quoted it as the word of God.

“Accounts of Iraqi defectors were not always weighed against their strong desire to have Saddam Hussein ousted,” the note said. “It looks as if we, along with the administration, were taken in.”

[Editor’s Note, The New York Times, 5/26/04]



February, 2002 – Wilson’s Journey

Joseph Wilson, former US Ambassador to Gabon, is asked by the CIA and the Vice President to travel to Niger to investigate the possibility that Iraq had been trying to purchase weapons grade uranium from the country. The investigation centered on a “memorandum of agreement that documented the sale of uranium yellowcake” between Niger and Iraq.

Wilson traveled to Niger, met with any and all pertinent officials – including Ambassador Owens-Kirkpatrick, who had already told the CIA and Washington that the purchase was a rumor and the memorandum a forgery.

“The documents had glaring errors — they were signed, for example, by officials who were no longer in government — and were probably FORGED. And then there's the fact that Niger formally denied the charges.”

Additionally, Niger simply didn’t have the knowledge, technology or ability to process this type of Uranium, let alone broker a deal to sell it.

Wilson returns to America in March and reports his findings to the CIA and the State Department.

[What I didn’t Find in Africa, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, New York Times Editorial, 7/6/03]


“An official said the documents included a letter about the purchase of some 500 tons of uranium ore, supposedly signed by Niger's president, Mamadou Tandja. The signature was found to have been faked.

U.S. intelligence officials suspect the bogus documents were created by Iraqi opposition groups to exaggerate Iraq's nuclear-arms program as part of an effort to garner international opposition to Baghdad.”

[Washington Times, 7/19/03]



Summer 2002 – Ramping up

Chalabi discovers a low-level defector and scientist, Khidhir Hamza, working in the Institute of Science and International Security. Chalabi helps Hamza find a ghost-writer (Jeff Stein), with whom Hamza writes “Saddam’s Bombmaker.” Chalabi and Richard Perle get Hamza booked on the conservative lecture circuit, where he is paid handsomely for his insights. Often, Hamza speaks of Saddam’s desire to wreak “nuclear blackmail” on the United States and its allies.

Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz secretly meets with Francis Brooke, (the Iraqi National Congress lobbyist) and Hamza. Wolfowitz asks Hamza if he thinks aluminum tubes found in Iraq by inspectors could be used in centrifuges. Hamza—who has never built a centrifuge - looks at the tubes' specifications and concludes that the tubes are adaptable.

[Vanity Fair, 5/2004, pg 281]


And, in short order, Hamza’s thoughts creep into speeches by the administration.

“Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction. We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Among other sources, we've gotten this from the firsthand testimony of defectors – including Saddam's own son-in-law, who was subsequently murdered at Saddam's direction. We have learned that he is perhaps within a year of acquiring such a weapon.

Armed with an arsenal of these weapons of terror, and seated atop ten percent of the world's oil reserves, Saddam Hussein could then be expected to seek domination of the entire Middle East, take control of a great portion of the world's energy supplies, directly threaten America's friends throughout the region, and subject the United States or any other nation to nuclear blackmail.”

[Remarks by the Vice President to the Veterans of Foreign Wars 103rd National Convention, 8/26/02]


Funny, though. That dead son-in-law was Hussein Kamel, Iraq's former minister of military industry and Saddam Hussein's son-in-law (I told you to remember him!). If you remember, he had overseen Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile weapons programs for almost a decade. You’ll also remember that he had overseen the destruction of most of Iraq’s weaponry.

At that time, Kamel also called Khidhir Hamza, “a professional liar.” “He worked with us, but he was useless and always looking for promotions. He consulted with me but could not deliver anything. He was even interrogated by a team before he left and was allowed to go.”

[New York Review of Books, 2/26/04]

Kamel tells this to the CIA and to Britain’s MI6, but… “Kamel's revelations about the destruction of Iraq's WMD stocks were hushed up by the UN inspectors ... for two reasons. Saddam did not know how much Kamel had revealed, and the inspectors hoped to bluff Saddam into disclosing still more.” [Newsweek, 3/3/03]

With Kamel dead, however, no one can contradict Hamza or Cheney. The summer ends, and the campaign begins…


“From a marketing point of view, you don’t introduce new products in August.”

[White House Chief of Staff, Andrew Card, on why the administration was waiting to make its case for war, 8/10/02]


In the next - and last - installment of 'My Chalabi':
The 16 words, Powell's PowerPoint, Joseph Wilson returns, and Ahmed's Army

e

P.S. The CIA announced today that it would classify (aka HIDE) up to 40% of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on prewar intelligence. This order comes directly from the White House, despite the fact that the report comes with enormous bi-partisan support. One wonders what is in the report that White House does not want us to see.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

M-M-M-MY Chalabi!


This weekend, on Meet the Press, Tim Russert asked Secretary of State Colin Powell "how so many countries in the world - and their intelligence agencies - could have been so wrong on Iraq and WMD?"

Powell had not much to say. But the answer is easy and it comes in two words: Ahmed Chalabi. Ahmed Chalabi is the head of the Iraqi National Congress and the single most important reason that Americans and Iraqis are dying in Iraq. But just who is Ahmed Chalabi?

This is the first in a two-part series on Chalabi and his ties to the neo-conservatives in and out of the Bush Administration. I have tried to distill the story into the basic and important facts - to outline the timeline of the current Iraqi conflict and demonstrate Chalabi's importance in it.


1958 – The Chalabi Legacy

The Iraqi revolution. The Chalabi Family – one of Iraq’s wealthiest, is thrown into exile. Chalabi’s father loses a vast fortune and royal standing.

“Ahmed wanted to avenge his father’s ouster and the deprivation of his lands. Now he’s trying to fill his father’s shoes, like your little Bush.”

[Imad Khadduri, Chalbi childhood classmate,The New Yorker, 6/7/04]



1970’s – The Education of Ahmed

After relocating to London and attending private school, Chalbi receives a B.S. and masters from M.I.T. and a PhD from the University of Chicago. His degrees are in mathematics, but his passion is America.

“I studied very closely how Roosevelt, who abhorred the Nazis, at a time when isolationist sentiment was paramount in the US, managed adroitly to persuade the American people to go to war.”

[Ahmed Chalabi, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]



1977 – The Comeback – Part 1

Founds Petra Bank in Jordan, with the backing of Crown Prince Hassan. He introduces the Middle East to their first ATM machines. In ten years, Petra Bank is the second largest in Jordan. The Chalabi children play polo with the royal family, and Ahmed is one of Jordan’s best connected men.

[Newsweek, 5/12/04]



1989 – The Fall of Ahmed

Jordan faces a financial crisis. An oil-poor nation, Jordan had depended mostly on other Arab nations for donations to support a huge military buildup during the 1980’s.

The Royal family seizes the Petra Bank, accusing fraud. There is a national scandal and Chalabi flees to London with his wife and children. Investigators in Jordan, Switzerland and America find that Chalabi had overstated the bank’s assets by more than $300 million, purchased real estate with Royal accounts and absconded with approximately $158 Million. The scandal created a banking crisis and nearly bankrupts the nation of Jordan.

[Newsweek, 5/12/04]



1991 – The Seeds are Planted

The first Gulf War begins and ends in 43 days.

George HW Bush decides NOT to invade Iraq nor march on Baghdad. Instead, he signs a covert 007-like “lethal finding,” which gave the CIA $100 million and authorized the agency to “create conditions for the removal of Saddam Hussein from power.” A similar type of “lethal finding” led to the Bay of Pigs in 1960.

The CIA hires the Rendon Group, a London PR shop, to disseminate misinformation and influence worldwide political opinion against Hussein. Among Rendon’s team members is Francis Brooke – a former lobbyist for the Beer Industry. Brooke and Rendon form the Iraqi National Congress, to “gather information, distribute propaganda and recruit dissidents." The INC attracted several Iraqi exiles in London, including Ahmed Chalabi – a charming, American-educated banker with “rare administrative competence.”

[The Center for Cooperative Research, 6/1/04]



1991-1997 – Interesting Side Note

Under the supervision of UNSCOM weapons inspectors, Iraq destroys more than 38,000 filled and unfilled chemical munitions, 690 tons of chemical warfare agents, over 3,000 tons of precursor chemicals, more than 400 pieces of production equipment, 48 missiles, 6 missile launchers, and 30 missile warheads modified to carry chemical or biological agents.

[UNSCOM report, S/1998/332, April 16, 1998]

After cross-referencing weapons-making materials found in Iraq with sales records from other countries, UNSCOM inspectors conclude that at least 90% of Iraq's weapons have been destroyed or dismantled. "Chief UNSCOM inspector Scott Ritter believes that a good portion of the remaining 10% was destroyed during the First Gulf War, thus leaving only a small fraction unaccounted for." [Newsday, 7/30/02]



February, 1992 – The Comeback – Part 2

A military court in Jordan tried Chalabi in abstentia and handed down a 223 page verdict, finding Ahmed guilty of 31 charges; including fraud, embezzlement, currency speculation and forgery (that word seems uniquely tied to Mr. Chalabi, as you will see).

In London, Chalabi claimed that the whole affair was a political frame-up, targeting him for his outspoken stance against Saddam Hussein – an ally of the Jordanian Royal family.

Chalabi fixes INC’s first election in order to gain a seat on its board and become its de facto leader.



March 8, 1992

Paul Wolfowitz and Lewis “Scooter” Libby write “The Defense Planning Guidance,” a “blueprint for the department's spending priorities in the aftermath of the first Gulf War and the collapse of the Soviet Union.” They then leak the document before it has been “scrubbed” to The New York Times causing enormous embarrassment for the Clinton Administration among its allies.

In the document, Wolfowitz and Lewis argue that the US dominates the world as sole superpower, and to maintain that role it “must maintain the mechanisms for deterring potential competitors from even aspiring to a larger regional or global role.”

[New York Times, 3/8/92; Newsday, 3/16/03]

The document claims that “America's friends are potential enemies. They must be in a state of dependence and seek solutions to their problems in Washington.”

[The Observer, 4/7/02]

It also calls for “punishing” or “threatening punishment” against regional aggressors before they act. Interests to be defended pre-emptively include “access to vital raw materials, primarily Persian Gulf oil, proliferation of weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles, and threats to US citizens from terrorism.”

[Harper's, 10/02]

“It is my opinion that Bush Jr.'s plan for preemptive strikes was formed back at the end of the first Bush administration with that 1992 report.”

[Senator Lincoln Chafee (R), Newsday, 3/16/03]



1993 – The Shell Game Goes On

Chalbi has solidified his position in the INC. But there are financial questions. At least some of the funds are funneled to an INC outpost in Kurdistan – a self-governing area in Iraq, protected by the American “no-fly zone.”

“The agency (CIA) didn’t know how he spent the money. All transactions were cash.”

[Former INC associate, New Yorker 6/7/04]



1994 – Forgery R Us

Robert Baer, a CIA officer at the time, goes with Chalabi to the Kurdistan outpost. There, he visits an INC “forgery shop” inside an abandoned school. Baer says, “It was something like a spy novel. There was a whole wing that he did forgeries in – a room where people were scanning Iraqi intelligence documents into computers and doing disinformation. He was forging back then to bring down Saddam.”

Among the forgeries was a letter on the stationary of President Clinton’s National Security Council, asking for Chalabi’s help in an assassination attempt on Hussein. The letter, Baer said, “was a complete fake.” Ahmed claimed to be using it to fool the Iranians to join his plot. The letter eventually made its way back to CIA headquarters, where Baer had to take a polygraph test to disprove his involvement in the scheme.

“Millions of dollars flowed into this shadowy operator, but he was reporting no intel; it was total trash. The INC’s intelligence was so bad, we weren’t even sending it in.”

[The New Yorker, 6/7/04]



March, 1995 – A Marriage on the Rocks

Using CIA/American taxpayer money, Chalabi establishes a militia in Kurdistan. He plans an elaborate 3-city assault against Saddam, but when the Baathists discover the plot, the CIA tells Ahmed “any decision to proceed, will be on your own.”

Chalabi goes ahead with the attack and the revolt is destroyed completely. The CIA was enraged at Chalabi’s arrogance and really pissed that their funds had been misused so badly. As a result, the FBI launched an investigation of Baer and other CIA operatives, creating “a chilling effect on the CIA's ability to conduct covert operations against Iraq.”

[World Socialist Website, 2/6/98]



August 22, 1995 – Defector In Law

Hussein Kamel, Iraq's former minister of military industry—who was Saddam Hussein's son-in-law and who had overseen Saddam's nuclear, chemical, biological and missile weapons programs for almost a decade—defects and is interviewed by UNSCOM.

Kamel tells UNSCOM that Iraq had destroyed all of its banned weapons after the First Gulf War.

“I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear were destroyed, we changed the factory into pesticide production. Part of the establishment started to produce medicine ... We gave instructions not to produce chemical weapons. All missiles were destroyed.”

“You have important role in Iraq with this. You should not underestimate yourself. You are very effective in Iraq.”

[UNSCOM Interview with Hussein Kamel, August 22, 1995]

Remeber this guy, he comes back later.



1996 – A Chalabi Scorned

In a stinging betrayal of Chalabi, a Kurdish faction of the I.N.C. invites Saddam Hussein to invade Kurdistan, killing and torturing hundreds of I.N.C. operatives. The action was in direct violation of a United Nations decree, but the Clinton Administration and the CIA sent no assistance. Chalabi and Brooke were apoplectic and decide to exact their revenge.

Brooke, ever the publicist, helped ABC News assemble a “gotcha” piece on the CIA’s work and mistakes in Northern Iraq. The Agency, to say the least, was not happy.

“It pissed them off in the biggest way.”
[Francis Brooke, New The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

Ahmed’s support from the CIA was over. He and Brooke set up shop in an expensive townhouse in Georgetown and set out to find a new set of suckers... uh benefactors.



1997 – If at First You Don’t Succeed... Try Try Trent Lott

Brooke and Chalabi, no longer able to count on the support of the Clinton administration – particularly the CIA – decide to target Republicans. They study the ways the African National Congress had marshaled opposition to apartheid and how Jewish groups had rallied support for Israel against the PLO.

In June, Chalabi gives a speech at the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs. In the speech he describes the ease with which America could oust Saddam and replace him with a new Iraqi democracy – one that was friendly to Israel and an example of freedom for the rest of the region. Best of all, the Iraqi oil would pay for it all... and more. He portrayed himself as the perfect mix of freedom fighter and businessman – and the neo-cons ate it up.

“It was very moving.”
[Douglas Feith, Newsweek, 5/31/04]

Brooke and Chalabi start dining with the right wing elite – Trent Lott, Richard (“The Dark Prince”) Perle and Dick Cheney. Cheney, then still the CEO of Halliburton, was still burning about revenge against Saddam and very interested in Iraqi wells.

“Very seldom in life do you get a chance to fix something that went wrong.”

[Dick Cheney, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

Chalabi was everything the neo-cons desired – a moderate Sunni, American educated and hell-bent on embarrassing Clinton. He was also a grade-A student of American politics.

“We took a Republican Congress and pitted it against a Democratic White House.”

[Francis Brooke, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

The same month of Chalabi’s speech, The Project for the New American Century (PNAC) issues its statement of principles. PNAC members include William J. Bennett, Jeb Bush, Dick Cheney, Norman Podhoretz, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Dan Quayle, Lewis Libby, Elliott Abrams, Steve Forbes, and its aims are:

“... to increase defense spending significantly, to shape a new century favorable to American principles and interests, and to achieve a foreign policy that boldly and purposefully promotes American principles abroad.”

[PNAC, Statement of Principles, 6/3/97]



1998 – The Comeback, Part 3

On Januray 26, the PNAC releases “An Open Letter to Bill Clinton.” The letter, signed by the cuddly neo-cons listed above, boldly states that “we can no longer depend on our partners in the Gulf War coalition to continue to uphold the sanctions or to punish Saddam when he blocks or evades UN inspections.” Hussein, they say is “hazard a significant portion of the world's supply of oil.”

“We urge you turn your Administration's attention to implementing a strategy for removing Saddam's regime from power. We believe the U.S. has the authority under existing UN resolutions to take the necessary steps, including military steps, to protect our vital interests in the Gulf. In any case, American policy cannot continue to be crippled by a misguided insistence on unanimity in the UN Security Council. We urge you to act decisively. If you act now to end the threat of weapons of mass destruction against the U.S. or its allies, you will be acting in the most fundamental national security interests of the country.”

[PNAC, 1/28/98, Open Letter to Bill Clinton]

On January 27, UNSCOM weapons inspector and former US Marine, Scott Ritter meets with Ahmed Chalabi in London to determine if the INC can help UNSCOM (the United Nations Special Commission) locate and account for a number of missing Iraqi weapons.

“I should have asked him what he could give me,” Ritter said. “Instead, I let him ask me, ‘What do you need?’”

[Ritter, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]

Chalabi asked Ritter, what exactly UNSCOM and the United States were looking for – what would constitute a smoking gun compelling enough to get traction in the States. Ritter, generally a provocateur, spoke to Chalabi about a theory that Hussein had “mobile weapons labs,” which would explain why inspectors could not find them. Within months, rumors of weapons labs were permeating the halls of the PNAC and has made their way into the speeches of certain neo-cons.

“We made that up!” Ritter said. “We told Chalabi, and, lo and behold, he’s fabricated a source for the mobile labs.”

[Ritter, The New Yorker, 6/7/04]



October, 1998 – I.N.C., Inc.

On October 7, 1998, the Iraq Liberation Act (ILA), ghost-written by Ahmed Chalabi and sponsored by Trent Lott, passes almost unanimously in Congress. It calls for the removal of Saddam Hussein “by and for the people of Iraq,” and gives Ahmed Chalabi and the INC access to $97 Million.

Ahmed is back, baby.

Even back in 1998, the neo-cons used fear-mongering as a wedge, and WMD’s as a whip. The PNAC letter, the ILA and swirling scandals at home backed Clinton into a corner. He caved under Congressional pressure (from republicans and democrats) and began bombing Iraq late that year, removing UNSCOM and International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) inspectors beforehand. They would not return until 2003.

“If Iraqi disarmament were a five-lap race, we would be three quarters of the way around the fifth and final lap.”

[UNSCOM weapons inspector Richard Butler, Boston Globe, 3/22/99]



December, 1998 – Interesting Side Note

According to US intelligence sources, Farouk Hijazi, the Iraqi ambassador to Turkey, visits Afghanistan in late 1998 after US cruise missiles are fired on al Qaeda training camps following the bombings of the US embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Hijazi, a longtime intelligence officer, meets Osama bin Laden in Kandahar and extends an offer from Baghdad to provide refuge for him and Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar. Bin Laden reportedly rejects the offer because he doesn't want his organization dominated by Saddam Hussein.

After the 9/11 attacks, proponents of invading Iraq will claim the visit makes Hijazi a key link between Saddam Hussein and al Qaeda.

Hijazi will be captured by US troops in late April 2003 after the US/British invasion of Iraq begins. When interrogated by US authorities, he will deny any Iraq-al-Qaeda ties.

[The Guardian, 2/16/99; The Associated Press, 9/27/01; Knight Ridder News Service, 10/7/02; USA Today, 7/13/03]



1999-2000

George W. Bush runs for President. Dick Cheney is chosen to help Bush select his running mate. Cheney selects himself.

The Supreme Court selects Bush and Cheney. The neo-cons are back in power.


LATER THIS WEEK... The March to War and the Fall of Chalabi (again!)

e

___________________________________________________________________________________

FOR THE GIPPER

Now, from the home office in Midland, TX – THE NEW OFFICIAL BUSH/CHENEY CAMPAIGN SLOGAN:

RON REAGAN JUST DIED, SO VOTE FOR ME!

Of all the most significant lies of the Cheney/Bush/Rove Administration, their most egregious, bald-faced lie is about Stem Cell research. To announce the Administration’s unilateral restriction of Stem Cell research, Bush said the following [8/8/01]:

“Research on embryonic stem cells raises profound ethical questions, because extracting the stem cell destroys the embryo, and thus destroys its potential for life.

Nancy Reagan has written me about President Reagan's struggle with Alzheimer's. My own family has confronted the tragedy of childhood leukemia. And like all Americans, I have great hope for cures.

As a result of private research, more than 60 genetically diverse stem cell lines already exist. They were created from embryos that have already been destroyed, and they have the ability to regenerate themselves indefinitely, creating ongoing opportunities for research.

I have concluded that we should allow federal funds to be used for research on these existing stem cell lines, where the life-and-death decision has already been made.”

Since then, we have found that the President’s accounting of available, research-worthy stem cells was more… optimistic than reality. At the time the President gave that speech, there was only one viable stem cell in American research facilities.

“The number of cell lines available for widespread distribution has grown from a single cell line in the spring of 2002 to 11 cell lines at present.” [Science (5/3/03), Elias Zerhouni; Director, National Institutes of Health]

In cutting funding for stem cell research, the President was dooming future generations of Americans – people like Michael J. Fox (he’ll always be Alec P. Keaton to me), Muhammad Ali, Katherine Hepburn and President Ronald W. Reagan (that’s right, the Gipper).

True, there is little hope that current stem cells would have saved President Reagan. But by in cutting this funding, and lying to Nancy Reagan – NANCY REAGAN – in the process, President Bush sealed the fate of many people just like President Reagan.

For three years, the former First Lady has lobbied Congress and President Bush – personally – to rethink the issue. She shared with them her – and the President’s – agony with Alzheimer’s. She was rebuked.

"I oppose the use of federal funds for the destruction of human embryos for stem cell research. I will work with Congress -- (applause) -- and I will work with Congress to pass a comprehensive and effective ban. Human life is -- (applause) -- human life is a creation of God, not a commodity to be exploited by man. (Applause.)”
[Press Release, Office of the Press Secretary (3/1104)]

True to her nature, Mrs. Reagan let the President know where she stands.

“Now science has presented us with a hope called stem cell research, which may provide our scientists with many answers that have for so long been beyond our grasp, I just don't see how we can turn our backs on this." [CNN, (5/16/04]

Now, Bush, Rove, Cheney, Feith, Perle and Wolfowitz want to appropriate the memory of a national hero to win an election - while they simultaneously spit on President Reagan’s grave and slam the door in his widow’s face.

Have you no shame, Mr. President?

e

CHENEY IN THE WEST WING WITH A LEAD PIPE.

Theory #1:

"The charges about giving classified information to Iran by me or by any INC officer are false, non-existent. They are charges put out by George Tenet and his CIA." - Ahmed Chalabi, May 23 on Meet the Press

That same weekend, Richard Perle and his neo-con street gang marched into the White House to argue Chalabi's case to Condi Rice.

Ten days later George Tenet resigns for "personal reasons."


Theory #2:

Yesterday, the president hired an attorney to represent him for the leak-gate Grand Jury.

Today, Tenet resigns for "personal reasons."


Theory #3:

"Powell has raised a number of questions over a number of months about the intelligence at the CIA. It's an issue that Powell is intensely interested in."
- NY Times, June 2

June 3 George Tenet Resigns for "personal reasons."


My Theory:

Tenet caught Chalabi giving comfort to Iran. Feith and Wolfowitz were the drunken sources of the intelligence that Chalabi leaked to back to Iran. Chalabi used Meet the Press to tell his neo-con sponsors "it's him or me and I can really screw you."

Tenet made himself expendable when he trapped Cheney's pets using and losing neo-con intel, and agreed to fall on his sword the day the President leaves the continent for a week. Thus Tenet becomes the White Ho