tBlog - X-Files

X-Files

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February
2004 January

My Links
Information Clearing House
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

New Database Created of GOP Distortions ...

04.30.04 (10:24 am) [edit]

[b]The Center for American Progress [/b]today launched a new, searchable database to help journalists, activists and the public compare conservatives' rhetoric to factual truth. The Claim vs. Fact database, http://www.americanprogress.o... found at www.claimvfact.org, http://www.americanprogress.o... contains more than 400 separate quotes on all kinds of issues from top conservatives including Bush administration officials, members of Congress and Fox News personalities. The database contrasts these quotes with well-documented facts. And you don't have to take our word for the facts we cite – in as many places as possible, we include direct Web links to primary source materials.

[b]WE NEED YOUR HELP[/b]: We are soliciting the public to help us build this database by submitting examples http://www.americanprogress.o... of conservatives' distortions and dishonesty not already documented in the database. Simply go to the submission page, http://www.americanprogress.o... and fill out the form. And please pass on the Web address www.claimvfact.org http://www.americanprogress.o... to as many people as possible.

CLAIM VS. FACT: New Database of GOP Distortions

04.30.04 (10:22 am) [edit]

Bush Put Condi Rice In Charge Of Iraqi Stablization Group? What Have Bush & Rice Been Doing? Hmmm...

04.30.04 (9:34 am) [edit]

[b]Condoleeza Rice's Appointment To Head the New Iraq Stabilization Group in October 2003[/b]

President Bush is reorganizing the American campaign to rebuild Iraq. In October 2003 the president announced the creation of a new office called the Iraq Stabilization Group, and he put national security adviser Condoleezza Rice in charge. The White House wants to make it clear that the Department of Defense and civilian administrator Paul Bremer are still in charge on the ground. They say this new group is to facilitate their plans by slicing through any bureaucratic tangles and thickets back in Washington, DC.

But the announcement comes at a time when the news from Iraq is dominated by mounting casualties. Two more US soldiers and an Iraqi interpreter were killed today in an attack south of Baghdad. And opinion polls in the United States show a majority of the public now question President Bush's handling of postwar Iraq, while the US Congress ponders an $87 billion request from the White House for the occupation and reconstruction of the country.

So how significant is this change? What does it tell us about the White House and how it's reassessing its progress in Iraq? And will a change in Washington, DC, spur changes on the ground in Iraq. We want to hear from you. What are your concerns about the reconstruction effort in Iraq? Perhaps what are your concerns about the costs, both personal and financial?

This reorganization may signal a new role for Condoleezza Rice, but it also indicates a change in administration policy toward the reconstruction of Iraq. We're joined now to talk about the policy implications of this reorganization—Ivo Daalder, senior fellow at The Brookings Institution and co-author of "America Unbound: The Bush Revolution in Foreign Policy." He joins us from The Brookings Institution studios in Washington, DC. And Todd Lindberg joins us here in Studio 3A. He's editor of Policy Review and a research fellow at the Hoover Institution. Thank you very much for being with us. [[b]It has turned out to be a disaster ... a fiasco like everything else Bush & Rice touch[/b]!]

[b]The following interview took place on October 7th 2003-- Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and the rest of the neo-con incompetents have fucked Iraq into a blooody fiasco ever since ...[/b]

SIMON: And, Mr. Daalder, if I could begin with you, then Mr. Lindberg, just what's your general reaction to the president's announcement about this reorganization?

IVO DAALDER: In my view, it's a very welcome reorganization that unfortunately comes 10 months too late. It would have been nice if we had started off the entire project here with a recognition from the outset that when it comes to reconstruction, to reconstructing a country, the Defense Department is not the agency which you give control over that process but that it has to be situated within the White House so that everybody in the US government who has a stake and an expertise and the capabilities that are important for making this work has a voice at the table. I'm glad to see that on October 10, six-plus months after we started the war, we have finally recognized that essential truth.

SIMON: Mr. Lindberg?

TODD LINDBERG: Well, I think this is a very important step, and one that is really testimony to the difficulty of the task of reconstruction. Where I suppose I would disagree with Ivo is with the proposition that what we faced in terms of reconstruction was really knowable in advance. In fact, there is no playbook, no modern playbook for nation-building, for reconstruction on the scale at which we're trying to accomplish.

Unfortunately, you do learn a lot by making mistakes that you then have to correct. You know, it's perfectly good and, indeed, socially useful for people outside to sort of be critical and second-guess the process a bit. But I think all the people who went into this knew that they faced a monumental task and they also knew that there were things they didn't know about what this task was going to entail. And, you know, you learn by doing.

DAALDER: Yeah. No, no. I mean, I think that's right, we didn't quite know what was going on, but we had some experience. We had spent the last 10 years in various nation-building activities, and at each and every turn learned that you had to do this organization from the White House and that the White House is the organizational hub from which all else in these kinds of tasks takes place. And to have handed it over to the Defense Department just was not the kind of thing that was smart, and everybody who knew anything about these kinds of things said so at the time.

SIMON: Mr. Lindberg?

LINDBERG: The problem here is that what you've got in this case, unlike other cases, is a massive invasion and occupation, which is necessarily going to be run by the Defense Department. Now I certainly approve of the consolidation of the reconstruction effort in the White House. I think Condoleezza Rice, who is immensely capable—in fact, I think no one inside or outside of government is more capable to direct this task—is exactly the right person to be handling it. But again, you know, it's fine to talk about how all this could have been done differently, but, you know, you've got the facts that got you here in the first place, and that is the fact that we overthrew a government by force of arms using a large military.

KOHRAN (Caller): Yes, you have. I come from the region. I actually grew up in the Middle East, and I'm a physician here in Denver. And I have a question for the panel. Has Condoleezza Rice actually published or talked about any concrete steps—or the administration has talked about any concrete steps they would take in order to stabilize the region if, you know, now that the administration's trying to transfer it over to Condoleezza? And I'll take my answer off the air.

LINDBERG: Well, I think, you know, as far as a particular to-do list, I think she's going to be relying on regional experts within the government and who are involved in this process. In the broader sense, though, I think the administration has been quite clear in talking about a broader vision for the liberalization and democratization in the Middle East, something, by the way, which is by no means a partisan project. That's something that I think the Democrats too, who have been talking a lot about. Now obviously, there'll be differences over how you go about this and those differences may be sharpened because we're entering into a political season, but nevertheless, I think the broad goal of a region that is transformed over the coming years, is one that's widely shared.

SIMON: Let's now take a call from Bob in Grass Valley, California.

BOB: I just have a comment on what I have seen of Condoleezza Rice, and it's clear that she's an extremely skilled rhetoritician in support of the Bush or the neoconservative ideology. But it's not so clear that she has a strong commitment to the truth, and probably the best example of that is with reference to the whole nuclear flap—or nucular, as President Bush says. In reference to Iraqi nuclear weapons prior to the war, she coined a phrase, you know, that 'We don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud,' which is just bombast, and then later after the Joe Wilson flap, I saw her on "Tim Russert" tell Tim Russert that she or one of her underlings had simply forgotten to take the 16 offending words out of the president's State of the Union message—the 16 words referring to yellow cake from Niger, so...

SIMON: Well, Bob, just in the interest of time let me get our two guests to comment on that. I would infer you don't believe that Dr. Rice's reputation for public integrity is such that she should receive this added responsibility.

BOB: I don't think that she has public integrity. Whether or not she can handle the responsibility—I can't speak to that.

SIMON: All right. Thanks very much for being with us. Mr. Daalder.

DAALDER: I don't see any reason to question her integrity, and I think that there is nobody who is closer to the president than Condoleezza Rice, and as a result, if the president wants things to get done in Iraq in the right way, investing her with the responsibility for reorganizing the government, which, by the way, is her job when it comes to national security policy, is exactly the right thing to do. And I don't see that her statements or lack thereof on Niger or others are any different from much of the rest of the administration. I think she'll do a superb job now that she has gotten the power and the right to do that.

SIMON: Mr. Lindberg, do you have any comments on that, because she's going to have to sit down with a group of people, maybe to whom she has not spoken—I'm thinking of people in Iraq as much as anyone else—and the caller previously might have been quite explicit in the way he expressed those views, but that would be dim compared to the way some Iraqis might express those views.

LINDBERG: Well, I think some—yes, that's absolutely true. But again, we're engaged in a pretty big project here in terms of trying to put Iraq back together. I think it's in the interest of Iraqis to be helpful, and this is a good step in that way.

[[b]Condi Rice has turned out to be a disaster. Bush's so-called plan is just another fuck-up and hasn't turned out to be "helpful", has it?!?![/b]]

[b]The Brookings Institute[/b], http://www.brookings.edu/view...

State Dept. Didn't Mismanage Iraqi Fiasco: Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld's Defense Dept. Fucked-Up!

04.30.04 (9:22 am) [edit]

[b]"[i]Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz should be summarily fired," the group said Thursday. "The Bush admininstration needs to be held accountable for its mistakes[/i]." http://www.commondreams.org/h...

"[i]It is no good for British supporters of George Bush to accuse his critics of anti-Americanism. It is a plain statement of the facts that the allies are today in a dreadful mess in Iraq, as a direct consequent of culpable blunders by Bush, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz and their friends, who understand everything about American military power and nothing about the human behaviour of societies other than their own.

They were told again and again, long before the war, that Iraqi celebration and gratitude for the fall of Saddam would last five minutes, to be followed by a huge requirement for troops to maintain security, and vociferous Iraqi demands to make the sewage system work. In 1945, the Germans and the Japanese did not show themselves penitent, but they knew that they were defeated, and abased themselves accordingly. The Iraqis, however, have been told that they are not enemies, but victims. In consequence, they are today behaving with the extravagant petulance of all other paid-up members of the compensation culture. They treat the allies as if they were political leaders who have failed to deliver on election promises[/i]." - http://www.crookedtimber.org/...

It is no good to blame the State Department who had nothing to do with planning the invasion of Iraq or the U.S. Occupation because they were not responsible. Hell they were side-lined and ignored. The responsibility for the neo-con's Iraqi fiasco lies with Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the neo-cons in the Defense Department, and then Condi Rice who Bush appointed to co-ordinate the Iraqi Stablization Group in October 2003.

But can any war based upon lies and deceptions turn out well??? Who was responsible for the lies and deceptions???

Truth: [u]Too Little of It on Iraq[/u][/b]

Dick Cheney is not a public relations man for the Bush administration, not a spinmeister nor a political operative. He's the vice president of the United States, and when he speaks in public, which he rarely does, he owes the American public the truth.

In his appearance on "Meet the Press" Sunday, Cheney fell woefully short of truth. On the subject of Iraq, the same can be said for President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz. But Cheney is the latest example of administration mendacity, and therefore a good place to start in holding the administration accountable. The list:

Cheney repeated the mantra that the nation ignored the terrorism threat before Sept. 11. In fact, President Bill Clinton and his counterterrorism chief, Richard Clarke, took the threat very seriously, especially after the bombing of the USS Cole in October 2000. By December, Clarke had prepared plans for a military operation to attack Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan, go after terrorist financing and work with police officials around the world to take down the terrorist network.

Because Clinton was to leave office in a few weeks, he decided against handing Bush a war in progress as he worked to put a new administration together.

Instead, Clarke briefed national security adviser Condoleezza Rice, Cheney and others. He emphasized that time was short and action was urgent. The Bush administration sat on the report for months and months. The first high-level discussion took place on Sept. 4, 2001, just a week before the attacks. The actions taken by the Bush administration following Sept. 11 closely parallel actions recommended in Clarke's nine-month-old plan. Who ignored the threat?

Cheney said that "we don't know" if there is a connection between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks on the United States. He's right only in the sense that "we don't know" if the sun will come up tomorrow. But all the evidence available says it will -- and that Iraq was not involved in Sept. 11.

Cheney offered stuff, but it wasn't evidence. He said that one of those involved in planning the attack, an Iraqi-American, had returned to Iraq after the attack and had been protected, perhaps even supported, by Saddam Hussein. That proves exactly nothing about Iraq's links to the attack itself.

Cheney also cited a supposed meeting in Prague between hijacker Mohamed Atta and a senior Iraqi intelligence officer -- but the FBI concluded that Atta was in Florida at the time of the supposed meeting. The CIA always doubted the story. And according to a New York Times article on Oct. 21, 2002, Czech President Vaclav Havel "quietly told the White House he has concluded that there is no evidence to confirm earlier reports" of such a meeting.

Moreover, the United States now has in custody the agent accused of meeting with Atta. Even though he must know how much he would benefit by simply saying, "Yes, I met Atta in Prague," there has been no announcement by the administration trumpeting that vindication of its belief in an Iraq-Sept. 11 link.

In trying to make that link, Cheney baldly asserted that Iraq is the "geographic base" for those who struck the United States on Sept. 11. No, that would be Afghanistan.

On weapons of mass destruction, Cheney made a number of statements that were misleading or simply false. For example, he said the United States knew Iraq had "500 tons of uranium." Well, yes, and so did the U.N. inspectors. What Cheney didn't say is that the uranium was low-grade waste from nuclear energy plants, and could not have been useful for weapons without sophisticated processing that Iraq was incapable of performing.

Cheney also said, "To suggest that there is no evidence [in Iraq] that [Saddam] had aspirations to acquire nuclear weapons, I don't think is valid." It's probably not valid; Saddam wanted nuclear weapons. But Cheney is changing the subject: The argument before the war wasn't Saddam's aspirations; it was Saddam's active program to build nuclear weapons.

Cheney also said "a gentleman" has come forward "with full designs for a process centrifuge system to enrich uranium and the key parts that you need to build such a system." That would be scientist Mahdi Obeidi, who had buried the centrifuge pieces in his back yard -- in 1991. Obeidi insisted that Iraq hadn't restarted its nuclear weapons program after the end of the first Gulf War. The centrifuge pieces might have signaled a potential future threat, but they actually disprove Cheney's prewar assertion that Iraq had, indeed, "reconstituted" its nuclear-weapons program.

Cheney also said he put great store in the ongoing search for Saddam's WMD program: "We've got a very good man now in charge of the operation, David Kay, who used to run UNSCOM [the U.N. inspection effort]." In fact, Kay did not run UNSCOM; for one year he was the chief inspector for the International Atomic Energy Agency's team in Iraq.

But it's funny Cheney should mention Kay. Last summer, the leader of the 1,400-person team searching for WMD expressed great confidence that they would find what they were looking for. He said he wouldn't publicize discoveries piecemeal but would submit a comprehensive report in mid-September. Apparently he has submitted the report to George Tenet at the CIA. The question now is whether it will ever be made public; several reports in the press have suggested that Kay has come up way short. In five months, 1,400 experts haven't found the WMD locations that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld said before the war were well-known to the United States.

Cheney also said that an investigation by the British had "revalidated the British claim that Saddam was, in fact, trying to acquire uranium in Africa -- what was in the State of the Union speech." The British investigation did nothing of the kind. A parliamentary investigative committee said the documents on the uranium are being reinvestigated, but that, based on the existence of those documents, the Blair government made a "reasonable" assertion and had not tried to deliberately mislead the British people.

To explore every phony statement in the vice president's "Meet the Press" interview would take far more space than is available. This merely points out some of the most egregious examples. Opponents of the war are fond of saying that "Bush lied and our soldiers died." In fact, they'd have reason to assert that "Bush, Cheney, Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz lied and our soldiers died." It's past time the principals behind this mismanaged war were called to account for their deliberate misstatements. - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

Acts of Global Terrorism Have Skyrocketed Under Bush, Thanks To His Insane Neo-Con Policies

04.30.04 (9:18 am) [edit]

[b]The incidents and acts of terrorism have [i]skyrocketed[/i] under Bush, thanks to his insane neo-con policies. [i]Not just [/i]9/11,[i] not just [/i]the terrorist attacks in Madrid, Spain; Indonesia; Phillipines; Saudi Arabia; etc. http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ho/... But under Bush more Israelis have been killed between 2001 and 2004 than in the prior 30 years cumulatively. The neo-con arm-chair chicken-hawks' lust to destroy the Arab world, grab their oil and war-profits for their corporate campaign contributors, in concert with pandering to the Israeli right-wing fascist Likud party, are bringing death and destruction down upon all of us. Click on [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

[b]We can all [i]thank[/i] the Mad King George and the Neo-Con Warmongers for the following[/b]:

[b]2001[/b]

Srinagar Airport Attack and Assassination Attempt, January 17, 2001: In India, six members of the Lashkar-e-Tayyba militant group were killed when they attempted to seize a local airport. Members of Hizbul Mujaheddin fired two rifle grenades at Farooq Abdullah, Chief Minister for Jammu and Kashmir. Two persons were wounded in the unsuccessful assassination attempt.

BBC Studios Bombing, March 4, 2001: A car bomb exploded at midnight outside of the British Broadcasting Corporation’s main production studios in London. One person was injured. British authorities suspected the Real IRA had planted the bomb.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 4, 2001: A suicide bomb attack in Netanya killed 3 persons and wounded 65. HAMAS later claimed responsibility.

ETA Bombing, March 9, 2001: Two policemen were killed by the explosion of a car bomb in Hernani, Spain.

Airliner Hijacking in Istanbul, March 15, 2001: Three Chechens hijacked a Russian airliner during a flight from Istanbul to Moscow and forced it to fly to Medina, Saudi Arabia. The plane carried 162 passengers and a crew of 12. After a 22-hour siege during which more than 40 passengers were released, Saudi security forces stormed the plane, killing a hijacker, a passenger, and a flight attendant.

Bus Stop Bombing, April 22, 2001: A member of HAMAS detonated a bomb he was carrying near a bus stop in Kfar Siva, Israel, killing one person and injuring 60.

Philippines Hostage Incident, May 27, 2001: Muslim Abu Sayyaf guerrillas seized 13 tourists and 3 staff members at a resort on Palawan Island and took their captives to Basilan Island. The captives included three U.S. citizens: Guellermo Sobero and missionaries Martin and Gracia Burnham. Philippine troops fought a series of battles with the guerrillas between June 1 and June 3 during which 9 hostages escaped and two were found dead. The guerrillas took additional hostages when they seized the hospital in the town of Lamitan. On June 12, Abu Sayyaf spokesman Abu Sabaya claimed that Sobero had been killed and beheaded; his body was found in October. The Burnhams remained in captivity until June 2002.

Tel-Aviv Nightclub Bombing, June 1, 2001: HAMAS claimed responsibility for the suicide bombing of a popular Israeli nightclub that caused over 140 casualties.

HAMAS Restaurant Bombing, August 9, 2001: A HAMAS-planted bomb detonated in a Jerusalem pizza restaurant, killing 15 people and wounding more than 90. The Israeli response included occupation of Orient House, the Palestine Liberation Organization’s political headquarters in East Jerusalem.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, September 9, 2001: The first suicide bombing carried out by an Israeli Arab killed 3 persons in Nahariya. HAMAS claimed responsibility.

Death of "the Lion of the Panjshir", September 9, 2001: Two suicide bombers fatally wounded Ahmed Shah Massoud, a leader of Afghanistan’s Northern Alliance, which had opposed both the Soviet occupation and the post-Soviet Taliban government. The bombers posed as journalists and were apparently linked to al-Qaida. The Northern Alliance did not confirm Massoud’s death until September 15.

Terrorist Attacks on U.S. Homeland, September 11, 2001: Two hijacked airliners crashed into the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Soon thereafter, the Pentagon was struck by a third hijacked plane. A fourth hijacked plane, suspected to be bound for a high-profile target in Washington, crashed into a field in southern Pennsylvania. The attacks killed 3,025 U.S. citizens and other nationals. President Bush and Cabinet officials indicated that Usama Bin Laden was the prime suspect and that they considered the United States in a state of war with international terrorism. In the aftermath of the attacks, the United States formed the Global Coalition Against Terrorism.

Attack on the Jammu and Kashmir Legislature, October 1, 2001: After a suicide car bomber forced the gate of the state legislature in Srinagar, two gunmen entered the building and held off police for seven hours before being killed. Forty persons died in the incident. Jaish-e-Muhammad claimed responsibility.

Anthrax Attacks, October-November 2001: On October 7 the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported that investigators had detected evidence that the deadly anthrax bacterium was present in the building where a Florida man who died of anthrax on October 5 had worked. Discovery of a second anthrax case triggered a major investigation by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI). The two anthrax cases were the first to appear in the United States in 25 years. Anthrax subsequently appeared in mail received by television networks in New York and by the offices in Washington of Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle and other members of Congress. Attorney General John Ashcroft said in a briefing on October 16, "When people send anthrax through the mail to hurt people and invoke terror, it’s a terrorist act."

Assassination of an Israeli Cabinet Minister, October 17, 2001: A Palestinian gunman assassinated Israeli Minister of Tourism Rehavam Zeevi in the Jerusalem hotel where he was staying. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) claimed to have avenged the death of PFLP Mustafa Zubari.

Attack on a Church in Pakistan, October 28, 2001: Six masked gunmen shot up a church in Bahawalpur, Pakistan, killing 15 Pakistani Christians. No group claimed responsibility, although various militant Muslim groups were suspected.

Suicide Bombings in Jerusalem, December 1, 2001: Two suicide bombers attacked a Jerusalem shopping mall, killing 10 persons and wounding 170.

Suicide Bombing in Haifa, December 2, 2001: A suicide bomb attack aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons and wounded 40. HAMAS claimed responsibility for both this attack and those on December 1 to avenge the death of a HAMAS member at the hands of Israeli forces a week earlier.

Attack on the Indian Parliament, December 13, 2001: Five gunmen attacked the Indian Parliament in New Delhi shortly after it had adjourned. Before security forces killed them, the attackers killed 6 security personnel and a gardener. Indian officials blamed Lashkar-e-Tayyiba and demanded that Pakistan crack down on it and on other Muslim separatist groups in Kashmir.

[b]2002[/b]

Ambush on the West Bank, January 15, 2002: Palestinian militants fired on a vehicle in Beit Sahur, killing one passenger and wounding the other. The dead passenger claimed U.S. and Israeli citizenship. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Battalion claimed responsibility.

Shooting Incident in Israel, January 17, 2002: A Palestinian gunman killed 6 persons and wounded 25 in Hadera, Israel, before being killed by Israeli police. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility as revenge for Israel’s killing of a leading member of the group.

Drive-By Shooting at a U.S. Consulate, January 22, 2002: Armed militants on motorcycles fired on the U.S. Consulate in Calcutta, India, killing 5 Indian security personnel and wounding 13 others. The Harakat ul-Jihad-I-Islami and the Asif Raza Commandoes claimed responsibility. Indian police later killed two suspects, one of whom confessed to belonging to Lashkar-e-Tayyiba as he died.

Bomb Explosion in Kashmir, January 22, 2002: A bomb exploded in a crowded retail district in Jammu, Kashmir, killing one person and injuring nine. No group claimed responsibility.

Kidnapping of Daniel Pearl, January 23, 2002: Armed militants kidnapped Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl in Karachi, Pakistan. Pakistani authorities received a videotape on February 20 depicting Pearl’s murder. His grave was found near Karachi on May 16. Pakistani authorities arrested four suspects. Ringleader Ahmad Omar Saeed Sheikh claimed to have organized Pearl’s kidnapping to protest Pakistan’s subservience to the United States, and had belonged to Jaish-e-Muhammad, an Islamic separatist group in Kashmir. All four suspects were convicted on July 15. Saeed Sheikh was sentenced to death, the others to life imprisonment.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, January 27, 2002: A suicide bomb attack in Jerusalem killed one other person and wounded 100. The incident was the first suicide bombing made by a Palestinian woman.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, February 16, 2002: A suicide bombing in an outdoor food court in Karmei Shomron killed 4 persons and wounded 27. Two of the dead and two of the wounded were U.S. citizens. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP) claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 7, 2002: A suicide bombing in a supermarket in the settlement of Ariel wounded 10 persons, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The PFLP claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 9, 2002: A suicide bombing in a Jerusalem restaurant killed 11 persons and wounded 52, one of whom was a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Drive-By Shooting in Colombia, March 14, 2002: Gunmen on motorcycles shot and killed two U.S. citizens who had come to Cali, Colombia, to negotiate the release of their father, who was a captive of the FARC. No group claimed responsibility.

Grenade Attack on a Church in Pakistan, March 17, 2002: Militants threw grenades into the Protestant International Church in Islamabad, Pakistan, during a service attended by diplomatic and local personnel. Five persons, two of them U.S. citizens, were killed and 46 were wounded. The dead Americans were State Department employee Barbara Green and her daughter Kristen Wormsley. Thirteen U.S. citizens were among the wounded. The Lashkar-e-Tayyiba group was suspected.

Car Bomb Explosion in Peru, March 20, 2002: A car bomb exploded at a shopping center near the U.S. Embassy in Lima, Peru. Nine persons were killed and 32 wounded. The dead included two police officers and a teenager. Peruvian authorities suspected either the Shining Path rebels or the Tupac Amaru Revolutionary Movement. The attack occurred 3 days before President George W. Bush visited Peru.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, March 21, 2002: A suicide bombing in Jerusalem killed 3 persons and wounded 86 more, including 2 U.S. citizens. The Palestinian Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, March 27, 2002: A suicide bombing in a noted restaurant in Netanya, Israel, killed 22 persons and wounded 140. One of the dead was a U.S. citizen. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) claimed responsibility.

Temple Bombing in Kashmir, March 30, 2002: A bomb explosion at a Hindu temple in Jammu, Kashmir, killed 10 persons. The Islamic Front claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in the West Bank, March 31, 2002: A suicide bombing near an ambulance station in Efrat wounded four persons, including a U.S. citizen. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Armed attack on Kashmir, April 10, 2002: Armed militants attacked a residence in Gando, Kashmir, killing five persons and wounding four. No group claimed responsibility.

Synagogue Bombing in Tunisia, April 11, 2002: A suicide bomber detonated a truck loaded with propane gas outside a historic synagogue in Djerba, Tunisia. The 16 dead included 11 Germans, one French citizen, and three Tunisians. Twenty-six German tourists were injured. The Islamic Army for the Liberation of the Holy Sites claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, April 12, 2002: A female suicide bomber killed 6 persons in Jerusalem and wounded 90 others. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Car Bombing in Pakistan, May 8, 2002: A car bomb exploded near a Pakistani navy shuttle bus in Karachi, killing 12 persons and wounding 19. Eleven of the dead and 11 of the wounded were French nationals. Al-Qaida was suspected of the attack.

Parade Bombing in Russia, May 9, 2002: A remotely-controlled bomb exploded near a May Day parade in Kaspiisk, Dagestan, killing 42 persons and wounding 150. Fourteen of the dead and 50 of the wounded were soldiers. Islamists linked to al-Qaida were suspected.

Attack on a Bus in India, May 14, 2002: Militants fired on a passenger bus in Kaluchak, Jammu, killing 7 persons. They then entered a military housing complex and killed 3 soldiers and 7 military dependents before they were killed. The al-Mansooran and Jamiat ul-Mujahedin claimed responsibility.

Bomb Attacks in Kashmir, May 17, 2002: A bomb explosion near a civil secretariat area in Srinagar, Kashmir, wounded 6 persons. In Jammu, a bomb exploded at a fire services headquarters, killing two and wounding 16. No group claimed responsibility for either attack.

Hostage Rescue Attempt in the Philippines, June 7, 2002: Philippine Army troops attacked Abu Sayyaf terrorists on Mindanao Island in an attempt to rescue U.S. citizen Martin Burnham and his wife Gracia, who had been kidnapped more than a year ago. Burnham was killed but his wife, though wounded, was freed. A Filipino hostage was killed, as were four of the guerrillas. Seven soldiers were wounded.

Car Bombing in Pakistan, June 14, 2002: A car bomb exploded near the U.S. Consulate and the Marriott Hotel in Karachi, Pakistan. Eleven persons were killed and 51 were sounded, including one U.S. and one Japanese citizen. Al Qaida and al-Qanin were suspected.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, June 19, 2002: A suicide bombing at a bus stop in Jerusalem killed 6 persons and wounded 43, including 2 U.S. citizens. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Tel Aviv, July 17, 2002: Two suicide bombers attacked the old bus station in Tel Aviv, Israel, killing 5 persons and wounding 38. The dead included one Romanian and two Chinese; another Romanian was wounded. The Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility.

Bombing at the Hebrew University, July 31, 2002: A bomb hidden in a bag in the Frank Sinatra International Student Center of Jerusalem’s Hebrew University killed 9 persons and wounded 87. The dead included 5 U.S. citizens and 4 Israelis. The wounded included 4 U.S. citizens, 2 Japanese, and 3 South Koreans. The Islamic Resistance Movement (HAMAS) claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, August 4, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus in Safed, Israel, killed 9 persons and wounded 50. Two of the dead were Philippine citizens; many of the wounded were soldiers returning from leave. HAMAS claimed responsibility.

Attack on a School in Pakistan, August 5, 2002: Gunmen attacked a Christian school attended by children of missionaries from around the world. Six persons (two security guards, a cook, a carpenter, a receptionist, and a private citizen) were killed and a Philippine citizen was wounded. A group called al-Intigami al-Pakistani claimed responsibility.

Attack on Pilgrims in Kashmir, August 6, 2002: Armed militants attacked a group of Hindu pilgrims with guns and grenades in Pahalgam, Kashmir. Nine persons were killed and 32 were wounded. The Lashkar-e-Tayyiba claimed responsibility.

Assassination in Kashmir, September 11, 2002: Gunmen killed Kashmir’s Law Minister Mushtaq Ahmed Lone and six security guards in Tikipora. Lashkar-e-Tayyiga, Jamiat ul-Mujahedin, and Hizb ul-Mujahedin all claimed responsibility. Other militants attacked the residence of the Minister of Tourism with grenades, injuring four persons. No group claimed responsibility.

Ambush on the West Bank, September 18, 2002: Gunmen ambushed a vehicle on a road near Yahad, killing an Israeli and wounding a Romanian worker. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bomb Attack in Israel, September 19, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus in Tel Aviv killed 6 persons and wounded 52. One of the dead was a British subject. HAMAS claimed responsibility.

Attack on a French Tanker, October 6, 2002: An explosive-laden boat rammed the French oil tanker Limburg, which was anchored about 5 miles off al-Dhabbah, Yemen. One person was killed and 4 were wounded. Al-Qaida was suspected.

Car Bomb Explosion in Bali, October 12, 2002: A car bomb exploded outside the Sari Club Discotheque in Denpasar, Bali, Indonesia, killing 202 persons and wounding 300 more. Most of the casualties, including 88 of the dead, were Australian tourists. Seven Americans were among the dead. Al-Qaida claimed responsibility. Two suspects were later arrested and convicted. Iman Samudra, who had trained in Afghanistan with al-Qaeda and was suspected of belonging to Jemaah Islamiya, was sentenced to death on September 10, 2003.

Chechen Rebels Seize a Moscow Theater, October 23-26, 2002: Fifty Chechen rebels led by Movsar Barayev seized the Palace of Culture Theater in Moscow, Russia, to demand an end to the war in Chechnya. They seized more than 800 hostages from 13 countries and threatened to blow up the theater. During a three-day siege, they killed a Russian policeman and five Russian hostages. On October 26, Russian Special Forces pumped an anesthetic gas through the ventilation system and then stormed the theater. All of the rebels were killed, but 94 hostages (including one American) also died, many from the effects of the gas. A group led by Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.

Assassination of an AID Official, October 28, 2002: Gunmen in Amman assassinated Laurence Foley, Executive Officer of the U.S. Agency for International Development Mission in Jordan. The Honest People of Jordan claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, November 21, 2002: A suicide bomb attack on a bus on Mexico Street in Jerusalem killed 11 persons and wounded 50 more. One of the dead was a Romanian. HAMAS claimed responsibility.

Attack on Temples in Kashmir, November 24, 2002: Armed militants attacked the Reghunath and Shiv temples in Jammu, Kashmir, killing 13 persons and wounding 50. The Lashkare-e-Tayyiba claimed responsibility.

Attacks on Israeli Tourists in Kenya, November 28, 2002: A three-person suicide car bomb attack on the Paradise Hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, killed 15 persons and wounded 40. Three of the dead and 18 of the wounded were Israeli tourists; the others were Kenyans. Near Mombasa’s airport, two SA-7 shoulder-fired missiles were fired as an Arkia Airlines Boeing 757 that was carrying 261 passengers back to Israel. Both missiles missed. Al-Qaida, the Government of Universal Palestine in Exile, and the Army of Palestine claimed responsibility for both attacks. Al-Ittihad al-Islami was also suspected of involvement.

Attack on a Bus in the Philippines, December 26, 2002: Armed militants ambushed a bus carrying Filipino workers employed by the Canadian Toronto Ventures Inc. Pacific mining company in Zamboanga del Norte. Thirteen persons were killed and 10 wounded. Philippine authorities suspected the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), which had been extorting money from Toronto Ventures. The Catholic charity Caritas-Philippines said that Toronto Ventures had harassed tribesmen who opposed mining on their ancestral lands.

Bombing of a Government Building in Chechnya, December 27, 2002: A suicide bomb attack involving two explosives-laden trucks destroyed the offices of the pro-Russian Chechen government in Grozny. The attack killed over 80 people and wounded 210. According to a Chechen website run by the Kavkaz Center, Chechen warlord Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.

[b]2003[/b]

Suicide Bombings in Tel Aviv, January 5, 2003: Two suicide bomb attacks killed 22 and wounded at least 100 persons in Tel Aviv, Israel. Six of the victims were foreign workers. The Al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Night Club Bombing in Colombia, February 7, 2003: A car bomb exploded outside a night club in Bogota, Colombia, killing 32 persons and wounding 160. No group claimed responsibility, but Colombian officials suspected the Colombian Revolutionary Armed Forces (FARC) of committing the worst terrorist attack in the country in a decade.

Assasination of a Kurdish Leader, February 8, 2003: Members of Ansar al-Islam assassinated Kurdish legislator Shawkat Haji Mushir and captured two other Kurdish officials in Qamash Tapa in northern Iraq.

Suicide Bombing in Haifa, March 5, 2003: A suicide bombing aboard a bus in Haifa, Israel, killed 15 persons and wounded at least 40. One of the dead claimed U.S. as well as Israeli citizenship. The bomber’s affiliation was not immediately known.

Suicide Bombing in Netanya, March 30, 2003: A suicide bombing in a cafe in Netanya, Israel, wounded 38 persons. Only the bomber was killed. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility and called the attack a "gift" to the people of Iraq.

Unsuccessful Hostage Rescue Attempt in Colombia, May 5, 2003: The FARC killed 10 hostages when Colombian special forces tried to rescue them from a jungle hideout near Urrao, in Colombia’s Antioquia State. The dead included Governor Guillermo Gavira and former Defense Minister Gilberto Echeverri Mejia, who had been kidnapped in April 2002.

Truck Bomb Attacks in Saudi Arabia, May 12, 2003: Suicide bombers attacked three residential compounds for foreign workers in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. The 34 dead included 9 attackers, 7 other Saudis, 9 U.S. citizens, and one citizen each from the United Kingdom, Ireland, and the Philippines. Another American died on June 1. It was the first major attack on U.S. targets in Saudi Arabia since the end of the war in Iraq. Saudi authorities arrested 11 al-Qaida suspects on May 28.

Truck Bombing in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: A truck bomb explosion demolished a government compound in Znamenskoye, Chechnya, killing 54 persons. Russian authorities blamed followers of a Saudi-born Islamist named Abu Walid. President Vladimir Putin said that he suspected that there was an al-Qaida connection.

Attempted Assassination in Chechnya, May 12, 2003: Two female suicide bombers attacked Chechen Administrator Mufti Akhmed Kadyrov during a religious festival in Iliskhan Yurt. Kadyrov escaped injury, but 14 other persons were killed and 43 were wounded. Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bomb Attacks in Morocco, May 16, 2003: A team of 12 suicide bombers attacked five targets in Casablanca, Morocco, killing 43 persons and wounding 100. The targets were a Spanish restaurant, a Jewish community, a Jewish cemetery, a hotel, and the Belgian Consulate. The Moroccan Government blamed the Islamist al-Assirat al-Moustaquim (The Righteous Path), but foreign commentators suspected an al-Qaida connection.

Suicide Bomb Attack in Jerusalem, May 18, 2003: A suicide bomb attack on a bus in Jerusalem’s French Hill district killed 7 persons and wounded 20. The bomber was disguised as a religious Jew. HAMAS claimed responsibility

Suicide Bombing in Afula, May 19, 2003: A suicide bomb attack by a female Palestinian student killed 3 persons and wounded 52 at a shopping mall in Afula, Israel. Both Islamic Jihad and the al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, June 11, 2003: A suicide bombing aboard a bus in Jerusalem killed 16 persons and wounded at least 70, one of whom died later. HAMAS claimed responsibility, calling it revenge for an Israeli helicopter attack on HAMAS leader Abdelaziz al-Rantisi in Gaza City the day before.

Truck Bombing in Northern Ossetia, August 1, 2003: A suicide truck bomb attack destroyed a Russian military hospital in Mozdok, North Ossetia and killed 50 persons. Russian authorities attributed the attack to followers of Chechen rebel leader Shamil Basayev.

Hotel Bombing in Indonesia, August 5, 2003: A car bomb exploded outside the Marriott Hotel in Jakarta, Indonesia, killing 10 persons and wounding 150. One of the dead was a Dutch citizen. The wounded included an American, a Canadian, an Australian, and two Chinese. Indonesian authorities suspected the Jemaah Islamiah, which had carried out the October 12, 2002 bombing in Bali.

Bombing of the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, August 7, 2003: A car bomb exploded outside the Jordanian Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq, killing 19 persons and wounding 65. Most of the victims were apparently Iraqis, including 5 police officers. No group claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombings in Israel and the West Bank, August 12, 2003: The first suicide bombings since the June 29 Israeli-Palestinian truce took place. The first, in a supermarket at Rosh Haayin, Israel, killed one person and wounded 14. The second, at a bus stop near the Ariel settlement in the West Bank, killed one person and wounded 3. The al-Aqsa Martyrs’ Brigades claimed responsibility for the first; HAMAS claimed responsibility for the second.

Bombing of the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, August 19, 2003: A truck loaded with surplus Iraqi ordnance exploded outside the United Nations Headquarters in Baghdad’s Canal Hotel. A hospital across the street was also heavily damaged. The 23 dead included UN Special Representative Sergio Viera de Mello. More than 100 persons were wounded. It was not clear whether the bomber was a Baath Party loyalist or a foreign Islamic militant. An al-Qaeda branch called the Brigades of the Martyr Abu Hafz al-Masri later claimed responsibility.

Suicide Bombing in Jerusalem, August 19, 2003: A suicide bombing aboard a bus in Jerusalem killed 20 persons and injured at least 100, one of whom died later. Five of the dead were American citizens. HAMAS and Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility, although HAMAS leader al-Rantisi said that his organization remained committed to the truce while reserving the right to respond to Israeli military actions.

Car Bomb Kills Shi’ite Leader in Najaf, August 29, 2003: A car bomb explosion outside the Shrine of the Imam Ali in Najaf, Iraq killed at least 81 persons and wounded at least 140. The dead included the Ayatollah Mohammed Bakir al-Hakim, one of four leading Shi’ite clerics in Iraq. Al-Hakim had been the leader of the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq (SCIRI) since its establishment in 1982, and SCIRI had recently agreed to work with the U.S.-sponsored Iraqi Governing Council. It was not known whether the perpetrators were Baath Party loyalists, rival Shi’ites, or foreign Islamists.

Suicide Bombings in Israel, September 9, 2003: Two suicide bombings took place in Israel. The first, at a bus stop near the Tsrifin army base southeast of Tel Aviv, killed 7 soldiers and wounded 14 soldiers and a civilian. The second, at a café in Jerusalem’s German Colony neighborhood, killed 6 persons and wounded 40. HAMAS did not claim responsibility until the next day, although a spokesman called the first attack" a response to Israeli aggression."

Assassination of an Iraqi Governing Council Member, September 20, 2003: Gunmen shot and seriously wounded Akila Hashimi, one of three female members of the Iraqi Governing Council, near her home in Baghdad. She died September 25.

A Second Attack on the UN Headquarters in Baghdad, September 22, 2003: A suicide car bomb attack on the UN Headquarters in Baghdad killed a security guard and wounded 19 other persons.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, October 4, 2003: A Palestinian woman made a suicide bomb attack on a restaurant in Haifa, killing 19 persons and wounding at least 55. Islamic Jihad claimed responsibility for the attack. The next day, Israel bombed a terrorist training camp in Syria.

Attacks in Iraq, October 9, 2003: Gunmen assassinated a Spanish military attaché in Baghdad. A suicide car bomb attack on an Iraqi police station killed 8 persons and wounded 40.

Car Bombings in Baghdad, October 12, 2003: Two suicide car bombs exploded outside the Baghdad Hotel, which housed U.S. officials. Six persons were killed and 32 wounded. Iraqi and U.S. security personnel apparently kept the cars from actually reaching the hotel.

Bomb Attack on U.S. Diplomats in the Gaza Strip, October 15, 2003: A remote-controlled bomb exploded under a car in a U.S. diplomatic convoy passing through the northern Gaza Strip. Three security guards, all employees of DynCorp, were killed. A fourth was wounded. The diplomats were on their way to interview Palestinian candidates for Fulbright scholarships to study in the United States. Palestinian President Arafat and Prime Minister Qurei condemned the attack, while the major Palestinian militant groups denied responsibility. The next day, Palestinian security forces arrested several suspects, some of whom belonged to the Popular Resistance Committees.

Rocket Attack on the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, October 26, 2003: Iraqis using an improvised rocket launcher bombarded the al-Rashid Hotel in Baghdad, killing one U.S. Army officer and wounding 17 persons. The wounded included 4 U.S. military personnel and seven American civilians. Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul D. Wolfowitz, who was staying at the hotel, was not injured. After visiting the wounded, he said, "They’re not going to scare us away; we’re not giving up on this job."

Assassination of a Deputy Mayor in Baghdad, October 26, 2003: Two gunmen believed to be Baath Party loyalists assassinated Faris Abdul Razaq al-Assam, one of three deputy mayors of Baghdad. U.S. officials did not announce al-Assam’s death until October 28.

Wave of Car Bombings in Baghdad, October 27, 2003: A series of suicide car bombings in Baghdad killed at least 35 persons and wounded at least 230. Four attacks were directed at Iraqi police stations, the fifth and most destructive was directed at the International Committee of the Red Cross headquarters, where at least 12 persons were killed. A sixth attack failed when a car bomb failed to explode and the bomber was wounded and captured by Iraqi police. U.S. and Iraqi officials suspected that foreign terrorists were involved; the unsuccessful bomber said he was a Syrian national and carried a Syrian passport. After a meeting with Administrator L. Paul Bremer, President Bush said, "The more successful we are on the ground, the more these killers will react."

Suicide Bombing in Riyadh, November 8, 2003: In Riyadh, a suicide car bombing took place in the Muhaya residential compound, which was occupied mainly by nationals of other Arab countries. Seventeen persons were killed and 122 were wounded. The latter included 4 Americans. The next day, Deputy Secretary of State Armitage said al-Qaeda was probably responsible.

Truck Bombing in Nasiriyah, November 12, 2003: A suicide truck bomb destroyed the headquarters of the Italian military police in Nasiriyah, Iraq, killing 18 Italians and 11 Iraqis and wounding at least 100 persons.

Synagogue Bombings in Istanbul, November 15, 2003: Two suicide truck bombs exploded outside the Neve Shalom and Beth Israel synagogues in Istanbul, killing 25 persons and wounding at least 300 more. The initial claim of responsibility came from a Turkish militant group, the Great Eastern Islamic Raiders’ Front, but Turkish authorities suspected an al-Qaeda connection. The next day, the London-based newspaper al-Quds al-Arabi received an e-mail in which an al-Qaeda branch called the Brigades of the Martyr Abu Hafz al-Masri claimed responsibility for the Istanbul synagogue bombings.

Grenade Attacks in Bogota, November 15, 2003: Grenade attacks on two bars frequented by Americans in Bogota killed one person and wounded 72, including 4 Americans. Colombian authorities suspected FARC (the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia). The U.S. Embassy suspected that the attacks had targeted Americans and warned against visiting commercial centers and places of entertainment.

More Suicide Truck Bombings in Istanbul, November 20, 2003: Two more suicide truck bombings devastated the British HSBC Bank and the British Consulate General in Istanbul, killing 27 persons and wounding at least 450. The dead included Consul General Roger Short. U.S., British, and Turkish officials suspected that al-Qaeda had struck again. The U.S. Consulate in Istanbul was closed, and the Embassy in Ankara advised American citizens in Istanbul to stay home.

Car Bombing in Kirkuk, November 20, 2003: A suicide car bombing in Kirkuk killed 5 persons. The target appeared to be the headquarters of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan. PUK officials suspected the Ansar al-Islam group, which was said to have sheltered fugitive Taliban and al-Qaeda members after the U.S. campaign in Afghanistan.

Attacks on Other Coalition Personnel in Iraq, November 29-30, 2003: Iraqi insurgents stepped up attacks on nationals of other members of the Coalition. On November 29, an ambush in Mahmudiyah killed 7 out of a party of 8 Spanish intelligence officers. Iraqi insurgents also killed two Japanese diplomats near Tikrit. On November 30, another ambush near Tikrit killed two South Korean electrical workers and wounded two more. A Colombian employee of Kellogg Brown & Root was killed and two were wounded in an ambush near Balad.

Train Bombing in Southern Russia, December 5, 2003: A suicide bomb attack killed 42 persons and wounded 150 aboard a Russian commuter train in the south Russian town of Yessentuki. Russian officials suspected Chechen rebels; President Putin said the attack was meant to disrupt legislative elections. Chechen rebel leader Aslan Maskhadov denied any involvement.

Suicide Bombing in Moscow, December 9, 2003: A female suicide bomber killed 5 other persons and wounded 14 outside Moscow’s National Hotel. She was said to be looking for the State Duma.

Suicide Car Bombings in Iraq, December 15, 2003: Two days after the capture of Saddam Hussein, there were two suicide car bomb attacks on Iraqi police stations. One at Husainiyah killed 8 persons and wounded 20. The other, at Ameriyah, wounded 7 Iraqi police. Guards repelled a second vehicle.

Office Bombing in Baghdad, December 19, 2003: A bomb destroyed the Baghdad office of the Supreme Council of the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, killing a woman and wounding at least 7 other persons.

Suicide Car Bombing in Irbil, December 24, 2003: A suicide car bomb attack on the Kurdish Interior Ministry in Irbil, Iraq, killed 5 persons and wounded 101.

Attempted Assassination in Rawalpindi, December 25, 2003: Two suicide truck bombers killed 14 persons as President Musharraf’s motorcade passed through Rawalpindi, Pakistan. An earlier attempt on December 14 caused no casualties. Pakistani officials suspected Afghan and Kashmiri militants. On January 6, 2004, Pakistani authorities announced the arrest of 6 suspects who were said to be members of Jaish-e-Muhammad.

Suicide Bombing in Israel, December 25, 2003: A Palestinian suicide bomber killed 4 persons at a bus stop near Petah Tikva, Israel. The Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine claimed responsibility for the attack in retaliation for Israeli military operations in Nablus that had begun two days earlier.

Restaurant Bombing in Baghdad, December 31, 2003: A car bomb explosion outside Baghdad’s Nabil Restaurant killed 8 persons and wounded 35. The wounded included 3 Los Angeles Times reporters and 3 local employees.

[b]Stll awaiting the long list for 2004 ...[/b]

Acts of Global Terrorism Have Skyrocketed Under Bush, Thanks To His Insane Neo-Con Policies

04.30.04 (9:15 am) [edit]

What Substances Are The Nutjobs In The White House Smoking Or Sniffing??????

04.29.04 (10:21 pm) [edit]

[b]From Dream to Nightmare[/b]

At least 10 more American soldiers died yesterday in George W. Bush's senseless war in Iraq.

They died for a pipe dream, which the American Heritage Dictionary defines as a fantastic notion or a vain hope. "Pipe dream" originally referred to the fantasies induced by smoking a pipe of opium. The folks who led us into this hideous madness in Iraq, against the wishes of most of the world, sure seem to have been smoking something.

President Bush and his hyperhawk vice president, Dick Cheney, were busy yesterday lip-syncing their way through an appearance before the commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks. If you want a hint of how much trouble the U.S. is in, consider that these two gentlemen are still clinging to the hope that weapons of mass destruction will be found in Iraq.

Reality was the first casualty of Iraq. This was a war that would be won on the cheap, we were told, with few American casualties. The costs of reconstruction would be more than covered by Iraqi oil revenues. The Iraqi people, giddy with their first taste of freedom, would toss petals in the path of their liberators. And democracy, successfully rooted in Iraq, would soon spread like the flowers of spring throughout the Middle East.

Oh, they must have been passing the pipe around.

My problem with the warrior fantasies emerging from the comfort zones of Washington and Crawford, Tex., is that they are being put to the test in the flaming reality of combat in Iraq, not by the fantasizers but by brave and patriotic men and women who deserve so much more from the country they are willing to defend with their lives.

There is nothing new about this. It seemed to take forever for American leaders to realize that they were lost in a pipe dream in Vietnam. A key government spokesman during a crucial period of that conflict was Barry Zorthian, the public information officer for American forces in Vietnam from 1964 to 1968. In a book published last year, "Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered From All Sides," Mr. Zorthian is quoted as saying:

"We probably could have gotten the deal we ended up with in 1973 as early as 1969. And between 1969 and 1972 we almost doubled our losses. It's easy to second-guess but I've never been convinced that those last 25,000 casualties were justified."

The sad truth about Iraq is that one year after President Bush gaudily proclaimed victory with his "Top Gun" moment aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln, we don't know what we're doing in Iraq. We don't know where we're heading. We don't know how many troops it will take to get us there. And we don't know how to get out.

Flower petals strewn in our path? Forget about that. The needle on the hate-America meter in Iraq is buried deep in the bright red danger zone. Even humanitarian aid groups have had to hustle American and other non-Iraqi workers out of the country because of fears that they would be kidnapped, shot or bombed.

A USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll found that only a third of Iraqis believe the U.S.-led occupation is doing more good than harm. The poll was taken in late March and early April, and it's a safe bet that if the results have changed at all in the past few weeks, they've only gotten worse.

There is nothing surprising about the poll's findings. The U.S. primed Iraq with a "shock and awe" bombing campaign, then invaded, and is attempting to impose our concept of democracy at the point of a gun.

Why would anybody think that would work?

Since then we've destroyed countless homes and legitimate businesses and killed or maimed thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians, including many women and children. That was a lousy strategy for winning hearts and minds in Vietnam and it's a lousy strategy now.

Equally unsurprising is the erosion of support for the war among Americans. There's no upside. Casualties are mounting daily and so are the financial costs, which have never been honestly acknowledged or budgeted.

Mr. Bush has enmeshed us in a war that we can't win and that we don't know how to end. Each loss of a life in this tragic exercise is a reminder of lessons never learned from history. And the most fundamental of those lessons is that fantasy must always genuflect before reality.

[b]By BOB HERBERT, N.Y. TIMES[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Reality In Iraq: In Front Of Your Nose

04.29.04 (10:06 pm) [edit]

[b]In Front Of Your Nose[/b]

"[i]We are all capable of believing things which we know to be untrue, and then, when we are finally proved wrong, impudently twisting the facts so as to show that we were right. Intellectually, it is possible to carry on this process for an indefinite time: the only check on it is that sooner or later a false belief bumps up against solid reality, usually on a battlefield[/i]." That's from George Orwell's 1946 essay "In Front of Your Nose." It seems especially relevant right now, as we survey the wreckage of America's Iraq adventure.

Tomorrow a year will have passed since George Bush's "[i]Mission Accomplished[/i]" carrier landing. Throughout that year — right up to the surge in violence this month — administration officials assured us that things were going well in Iraq. Living standards, they said, were steadily improving. The resistance, they insisted, consisted of a handful of dead-enders aided by a few foreign infiltrators — and each lull in attacks brought pronouncements that the campaign against the insurgents had turned the corner.

So they lied to us; what else is new? But there's more at stake here than the administration's credibility. The official story line portrayed a virtuous circle of nation-building, one that could eventually lead to a democratic Iraq, allied with the U.S. In fact, we seem to be faced with a vicious circle, in which a deteriorating security situation undermines reconstruction, and the lack of material progress adds to popular discontent. Can this situation be saved?

Even among harsh critics of the administration's Iraq policy, the usual view is that we have to finish the job. You've heard the arguments: We broke it; we bought it. We can't cut and run. We have to stay the course.

I understand the appeal of those arguments. But I'm worried about the arithmetic.

All the information I've been able to get my hands on indicates that the security situation in Iraq is really, really bad. It's not a good sign when, a year into an occupation, the occupying army sends for more tanks. Western civilians have retreated to armed enclaves. U.S. forces are strong enough to defend those enclaves, and probably strong enough to keep essential supplies flowing. But we don't have remotely enough troops to turn the vicious circle around. The Iraqi forces that were supposed to fill the security gap collapsed — or turned against us — at the first sign of trouble.

And all of the proposals one hears for resolving this ugly situation seem to be either impractical or far behind the curve.

Some say we should send more troops. But the U.S. military doesn't have more troops to send, unless it resorts to extreme measures, like withdrawing a large part of the forces currently in South Korea. Did I mention that North Korea is building nuclear weapons, and may already have eight?

Others say we should seek more support from other countries. There may once have been a time — say, last summer — when the U.S. could have struck a deal: by ceding a lot of authority to the U.N., we might have been able to persuade countries with large armies, like India, to contribute large numbers of peacekeeping troops. But it's hard to imagine that anyone will now send significant forces into the Iraqi cauldron.

Some pin their hopes on a political solution: they believe that violence will subside if the U.N. is allowed to appoint a caretaker government that Iraqis don't view as a U.S. puppet.

Let's hope they're right. But bear in mind that right now the U.S. is still planning to hand over "sovereignty" to a body, yet to be named, that will have hardly any power at all. For practical purposes, the U.S. ambassador will be running the country. Americans may believe that everything will change on June 30, but Iraqis are unlikely to be fooled. And by the way, much of the Arab world believes that we've been committing war crimes in Falluja.

I don't have a plan for Iraq. I strongly suspect, however, that all the plans you hear now are irrelevant. If America's leaders hadn't made so many bad decisions, they might have had a chance to shape Iraq to their liking. But that window closed many months ago.

[b]By PAUL KRUGMAN, N.Y. TIMES[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

Bush's Economic Swindle: Disconnected from Reality ...

04.29.04 (5:35 pm) [edit]

"[i]No matter what way you look at it, the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years[/i]." - Tom DeLay, 4/27/04, http://online.wsj.com/article...,,BT_CO_20040427_008761-s earch,00.html?collection=autowire/ 30day&vql_string=DeLay+an d+economy%3cin%3e(article -body)

"[i]From late December, when the federal program designed to help the long-term unemployed began phasing out, through the end of March, an estimated 1.1 million jobless workers will have exhausted their regular unemployment benefits[/i]." - Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, 3/25/04, http://www.cbpp.org/3-25-04ui...

[b]The corrupt neo-fascist Bush regime is disconnected from reality ... [/b] Of course, for those traitorous war-profiteers, corporate robber-barons, wealthy oligarchs, hyper-rich plutocrats, and bought-and-paid-for-polit icos-on-the-take (like Bug-Exterminator-cum-Fasc ist Tom DeLay) these are boon-times with [i]lots of money to be made by swindling, plundering and looting [/i]the American people [i]as well as [/i]sovereign nations around the world ... For the majority of the American Working people, this is a disastrous time with the highest deficits/debts in our nation's history while the despicable neo-con Bush/Cheney Inc. [i]junta[/i] is wildly spending on gluttonous corporations & the obscenely rich to pay for their lavishly excessive life-styles, while the rest of us are being ruthlessly impoverished, exploited and made miserable ...

[b]ECONOMY: [i]Disconnected from Reality[/i][/b] - http://www.americanprogress.o...

As the economy still struggles to shake the doldrums, the Bush administration in the last few months has made some strange economic declarations, while its conservative allies in Congress have resorted to outright fantasy. First, the White House said offshoring U.S. jobs was a good thing, then it claimed cutting off millions from federal overtime protection will be good for workers struggling with stagnating wages. Then the president, seemingly unconcerned with the gas price crisis hitting average families, refused to personally intervene after his longtime friends in the Saudi Arabian government cut oil production and raised gas prices (Bush's refusal did nothing to tamp down speculation that he is working with the Saudis to manipulate oil prices for the 2004 election). And yesterday, the administration actually claimed that lower drug prices for American consumers would be bad for the economy, despite economic data to the contrary. For more on conservatives' disconnect from economic realities, see yesterday's American Progress column http://www.americanprogress.o... by senior economist Christian Weller and research associate John Lyman.

[b]TOM DELAY'S FANTASY WORLD:[/b] Meanwhile, the WSJ reports that while even some conservatives on Capitol Hill "are clearly nervous about letting the economic recovery speak for itself," House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-TX) said, "no matter what way you look at it, the American economy is the strongest it's been in 10 years." It seems DeLay hasn't seen the data which shows more than 8 million Americans are out of work, more than one million have exhausted their unemployment benefits, consumer debt is at record levels, wages are stagnating, and more than 40 million Americans are living without health insurance. See this new American Progress backgrounder http://www.americanprogress.o... of how rhetoric from conservatives compares with the harsh economic reality for millions of Americans.

[b]GOOD NEWS – THWARTING BUSH'S EFFORT TO PUSH OFFSHORING:[/b] The White House has done its best to encourage U.S. companies to move jobs overseas – from encouraging offshoring to endorsing tax breaks for companies that move abroad, to sponsoring conferences teaching corporate executives how to move operations offshore. But at least some companies aren't biting. As the NYT reports "Even as the prospect of high-skilled American jobs moving to low-wage countries ignites hot political debate" some U.S. entrepreneurs are finding that offshoring "is not always as effective as advertised." Many companies "are concluding that the cost advantage does not always justify the effort" and that "for many of the most crucial technology tasks, a work force operating within the American business environment better suits their needs."

[b]POLL – INVESTORS DON'T LIKE BUSH'S PUSH FOR OFFSHORING:[/b] As more companies try to hide their offshoring practices, new Gallup poll finds that while some on "Wall Street may love offshoring jobs to low-cost foreign countries, investors do not. Most think it's bad for the U.S. economy, and they appear to support tough measures against corporate America to control it." Specifically, 66% of investors surveyed said they think offshoring is "bad for the economy.'' 76% described a variety of curbs as effective ways to deal with offshoring including requiring all government-related jobs to be performed in the United States, improving the quality of education in the United States, and reducing the cost of health care benefits to companies to make it cheaper to hire U.S. workers. A full 72% said they thought tax penalties for companies that move jobs out of the country would work.

[b]RED-HERRING – WHITE HOUSE SAYS LOWER DRUG PRICES MEAN JOBLESSNESS:[/b] Showing how desperate the Bush administration is to defend its campaign contributors in the drug industry, the White House actually claimed yesterday that bipartisan legislation "to allow Americans to legally import cheaper prescription drugs would lead to U.S. jobs losses." With no data to back up the claims, the administration told a Senate panel that pharmaceutical industry jobs would be lost – a direct contradiction of new research that shows importation could actually add to pharmaceutical industry profits and jobs because more people who simply cannot buy medicine would be able to re-enter the pharmaceutical market. The issue has transformed from a purely health issue to an economic one: with Americans being squeezed by the highest drug prices in the world, more and more families are being forced to use dwindling disposable income on medicines.

[b]SamAdams' CounterPoint[/b], http://www.tblog.com/template...

Washington Unleashes Bloodbath in Iraq!!! Bush Should Be Tried For Crimes Against Humanity!!!

04.29.04 (10:49 am) [edit]

[b]Washington unleashes bloodbath in Iraq[/b]

With thousands of troops massed outside the besieged cities of Fallujah in central Iraq and Najaf in the south, the Bush administration has unleashed a bloodbath against the Iraqi people.

In Fallujah, US forces on Tuesday escalated their attack, with AC-130 gunships firing cannon rounds into crowded residential areas. The city was also pounded by fire from helicopter gunships, jet fighters, tanks and machine guns.

In one instance, tank fire was used to topple the minaret of a local mosque. Marines reportedly closed the last entrance to Fallujah, barring any more of the residents who had fled earlier fighting from returning to their homes. The action was seen by observers as the prelude to the renewal of a full-scale assault on the city of 300,000, which has been a center of resistance to the US occupation.

One Marine commander referred to the city—comparable in size to Birmingham, Alabama or Newark, New Jersey—as a “huge rats’ nest.”

In Najaf, Pentagon officials claimed Tuesday that US occupation forces killed scores of members of the Mahdi Army, a militia loyal to Shiite leader Moqtada al-Sadr. Missile-firing helicopter gunships were called in to mow down some 60 militiamen, according to US officials. Local hospital staff, however, reported that the casualties included unarmed civilians. It was also reported that US troops had seized a major hospital and were denying access or supplies to those seeking to treat wounded Iraqis.

In the aftermath of the clash, throngs of Najaf residents carried the coffins of seven of the slain fighters through the streets, vowing to resist any attempt by US forces to take control of the city.

“We’re going to drive this guy into the dirt,” a commanding officer of the US 1st Armored Division said of Sadr.

What is being prepared is a wave of mass killing aimed at terrorizing the Iraqi people into accepting the continued occupation of their country by the US military. Lacking anywhere near the forces necessary to police a country of 25 million people, Washington is determined to make an example out of Fallujah and Sadr’s movement, much in the same fashion that the Nazi occupiers of World War II Europe leveled the Czech town of Lidice and razed the Warsaw ghetto.

Given the sadism and backwardness of the occupant of the White House, who is said to be making the ultimate decisions on the two sieges, the looming assaults are no doubt also driven by a thirst for revenge. Since the beginning of April, 122 US troops have lost their lives in combat. During the same period, ten times as many Iraqis have been killed, many of them women and children.

Laying siege to cities, attacking hospitals and mosques, denying medical care, food and other essential services to entire civilian populations and imprisoning close to 20,000 Iraqis without charges or hearings are all war crimes, and they are being carried out in the name of the American people.

The original pretexts advanced for invading and occupying Iraq—from weapons of mass destruction to supposed ties between Baghdad and Al Qaeda—have long since been proven lies. Now, the claim that Washington is seeking to bring “freedom” and “democracy” in Iraq is being exposed as a fraud as the full horror of Washington’s dirty colonialist war becomes increasingly evident.

While millions of Americans oppose this war and watch with revulsion as the killing escalates, the onslaught against the Iraqi people enjoys the full support of the US establishment and both of its political parties. That the bloodletting in Iraq is the consensus policy of the entire ruling elite was made clear by editorials appearing in two influential dailies this week.

In an editorial entitled “The Fallujah Stakes,” the Wall Street Journal on Monday gave vent to the thirst for blood that predominates among the right-wing Republican layers that are politically closest to the Bush administration. These elements are increasingly agitated over what they see as a retreat from the administration’s unilateralist policy in Iraq. This has intensified since Bush’s announcement that he will allow United Nations envoy Lakhdar Brahimi to effectively select the personnel for the so-called interim government that is to be installed on July 1.

The Journal, which in response to the first Persian Gulf war coined the infamous slogan, “Force works,” wants to see blood soon and in great quantities. The newspaper warned Monday that the Bush administration must not “shrink from the military campaign that is inevitable.” It continued:

“Sooner or later the Baath remnants, jihadists and criminals who have used Fallujah as a sanctuary have to be killed. They can’t be bargained with, they can’t be reasoned with, because for them a peaceful transition to Iraqi control after June 30 means defeat...[S]ooner or later the insurgents have to be defeated, and at the point of a gun, not by diplomacy. If we’re not prepared to do that, Mr. Bush might as well order the troops home now.”

The day before, the New York Times published an editorial entitled “A Stronger Force in Iraq” that corresponded in large measure to the positions taken by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry. It called upon the Bush administration to confront “unpleasant realities,” including the prospect that an additional 50,000 troops or more will have to be sent to occupy Iraq, and that the occupation will continue well past 2006. It complained that the Bush White House was denying “our forces and the Iraqi people the protection that adequate troop strength would provide.”

The editorial concluded: “We may, in the end, find that the task Mr. Bush has laid out for the brave men and women in the military and the brave Iraqi citizens who are struggling to create a better future is simply impossible to achieve. But we have not reached that point. This is not the moment for retreat and it certainly is not the moment for half measures.” (Emphasis added).

The meaning of this last sentence—written in the context of the sieges mounted by the US military against Fallujah and Najaf—is unmistakable. No “half measures” means unleashing the full force of the US military against a popular uprising that cannot be crushed without massive civilian casualties.

Both the Bush administration’s most fervent right-wing backers and its supposed political opponents in what passes for the liberal establishment have come together to employ the same lies to justify the slaughter in Iraq. They both claim that the US occupation forces are in Iraq as armed missionaries of “freedom” and “democracy.”

For the Wall Street Journal, the transition to “Iraqi control” is possible only through the slaying of those Iraqis who are resisting foreign occupation. For the Times, “security” for the Iraqis is to be achieved through a massive escalation of a US occupation that has already claimed the lives of well over 10,000 civilians.

This killing of Iraqis and the pointless sacrifice of hundreds of young American soldiers’ lives is being carried out not for any of the preposterous reasons—freedom, democracy, security—put forward by the war’s defenders. Rather, US imperialism has decided to conquer and occupy an entire country and suppress its people in order to seize control of its vast oil resources and assert its hegemony over one of the world’s most strategically vital regions.

In the run-up to what US officials and the American media describe as “handing over sovereignty” to the Iraqi people scheduled for June 30, the cynicism of the US colonial project is undeniable. In an interview with Reuters news agency Monday, US Secretary of State Colin Powell made clear that the so-called “sovereignty” of a new group of hand-picked Iraqi officials will not extend beyond their desks.

“It’s sovereignty, but (some) of that sovereignty they are going to allow us to exercise on their behalf and with their permission,” said Powell. “It is not as if we are seizing anything away from them.”

There will be nothing to seize. The US military will continue to occupy the country, exercising powers amounting to martial law. And Washington will resist any attempts by the new body to pass laws or amend those decreed by the occupation authority. All political and economic decisions will be made by the incoming US ambassador, John Negroponte, who will be backed by an embassy staff approaching 4,000—the largest anywhere in the world—and will exercise the authority of a colonial viceroy.

That the US occupation is an expedition devoted to looting rather than liberation was spelled out last month in a revealing interview by the American official first placed in charge in Iraq. Retired General Jay Garner told BBC reporter Greg Palast that the US administration had drawn up detailed plans for the privatization of the Iraqi economy and its oil wealth as early as 2001. Garner was removed from his post, he said, because his call for early elections cut across US plans to implement by decree this economic program of plunder and seizure. Nothing could more clearly testify to the fact that the invasion and occupation of Iraq have nothing to do with “democracy,” and everything to do with transferring the country’s wealth into the hands of the US oil monopolies, banks and corporations.

Part of the plan, Garner added, was to establish Iraq as a US military base for operations throughout the Middle East. He said Iraq would serve much the same function as the Philippines did in projecting US naval power in the Pacific after the crushing of nationalist guerrillas in that country at the end of the 1898 Spanish-American War.

“I think it is a bad analogy, but we should look right now at Iraq as our coaling station in the Middle East, where we have some presence there and it gives us a ... strategic advantage there,” said Garner.

These words, from the horse’s mouth, provide indisputable confirmation that this war marks the resurgence of brutal and unabashed colonialism.

The cynicism and hypocrisy of the US ruling elite and its political servants have no limit. One need only recall that Ronald Reagan in the 1980s hailed the CIA-funded Afghan mujaheddin who fought against Soviet military occupation as “freedom fighters” and the modern equivalent of America’s founding fathers. Yet those who fight today against the American military occupation of Iraq are branded criminals.

Tens of thousands of Iraqis are resisting—with undeniable popular support—the overwhelming military superiority of the occupation forces. While they are routinely described by US officials and the media as “terrorists,” “thugs,” and “extremists,” they have every right to fight for an end to the illegal occupation and colonial conquest of their country.

The demand must be raised with redoubled strength in the US itself for the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all US troops from Iraq and the payment of war reparations to the Iraqi people. Those responsible for dragging the American people into this war based on lies are guilty of war crimes and should be subjected to criminal prosecution.

The “liberal” argument that the US occupation must continue because without American troops Iraq would descend into civil war is as old as colonialism itself, and merits only contempt. The worst alternative in Iraq would be the “success” of this imperialist project. It would entail the permanent occupation of Iraq and endless bloodletting, while paving the way for new and even more catastrophic wars.

The Democratic and Republican parties are united in their determination to exclude from the elections any debate over the continuation of the US occupation. For both Kerry and Bush, the antiwar sentiments of tens of millions of Americans are illegitimate and must be suppressed.

The struggle against war cannot be waged on the basis of the facile politics of “anybody but Bush.” It requires the building of a new and independent mass political movement of American working people fighting to unite their struggles with those of working people internationally.

The Socialist Equality Party is intervening in the 2004 elections to lay the foundations for the building of a mass socialist party of the working class. Only our candidates are demanding an immediate end to the criminal war in Iraq. We call on all those who oppose this war to support the SEP campaign.

Help place our presidential and vice-presidential candidates, Bill Van Auken and Jim Lawrence, on as many state ballots as possible. Come forward to place SEP candidates for Congress on the ballot in your state and locality. Strike a blow against militarism and imperialist war by actively backing the SEP election campaign. - http://www.wsws.org/articles/...

Washington Unleashes Bloodbath in Iraq!!! Bush Should Be Tried For Crimes Against Humanity!!!

04.29.04 (10:48 am) [edit]

He weareth the Christian down ...

04.29.04 (10:36 am) [edit]

[b]'He weareth the Christian down'

by Patrick J. Buchanan[/b] - http://www.wnd.com/news/artic...

At Versailles in 1919, delegates of four of the five victorious powers arrived with cold, clear ideas of what they must bring home.

Japan demanded and got Germany's islands north of the equator and Shantung in China. Italy demanded and got the Austrian South Tyrol, but was denied Fiume on the Adriatic, and left embittered.

France got Alsace-Lorraine, African colonies, Lebanon and Syria. But, above all, Clemenceau wanted Germany driven off the west bank of the Rhine, forced to rebuild war-ravaged France, stripped of lands and people and so weakened she would never threaten Paris again.

Lloyd George got Tanganyika, Transjordan, Palestine, Iraq, the Kaiser's fleet and a treaty guarantee Germany would never again be allowed to build a navy that could imperil the nation or empire.

What did America get? In his war message, Wilson had said, "[W]e shall fight for the things which we have always carried nearest to our hearts – for democracy, for the right of those who submit to authority to have a voice in their own government, for the rights and liberties of small nations, for a universal dominion of right by such a concert of free peoples as shall bring peace and safety to all nations and make the world at last free."

He had plunged us into the greatest war in history for abstract ideals. "We have no selfish ends to serve. We desire no conquest, no dominion. We seek no indemnities for ourselves, no material compensation for the sacrifices we shall freely make."

All very noble. We asked for nothing and got nothing, save 116,000 dead, a $25 billion debt and the ingratitude of Allies we rescued who mocked us as "Uncle Shylock" when we asked them to pay their war debts.

What causes one to recall this brief history is the clear echo of Wilsonian utopianism in the president's press conference of April 13. Pressed as to what we are fighting for, the president – again and again – invoked Wilsonian ideals.

. "We serve the cause of liberty," the president said, "and that is, always and everywhere, a cause worth serving."

. "A secure and free Iraq is an historic opportunity to change the world and make America more secure."

. "A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East will have incredible change."

. "A free Iraq in the midst of the Middle East is vital to future peace and security."

. "We're changing the world." That phrase or a variation recurred again and again.

. "The legacy we are going to leave behind is ... a legacy that really is based upon our deep belief that people want to be free and that free societies are peaceful societies."

. "It's important for us to spread freedom throughout the Middle East. Free societies are hopeful societies."

. "We have an obligation to work toward a more free world. That's our obligation. That's what we have been called to do, as far as I'm concerned."

. "And my job as president is to lead this nation into making this world a better place."

Bush believes God has called him to liberate the repressed peoples of Iraq and the Islamic world, because freedom is God's gift to mankind, and when men are made free, they do not war with one another.

Yet, as one looks to Najaf, Fallujah and Sadr City, this seems not only naïve, but delusional. Where did George W. Bush of Midland-Odessa and Crawford get these ideas?

History shows that the liberated often turn to oppressing their oppressors. Liberated from Saddam, the Kurds seized Kirkut and its oil fields and started kicking Arabs out. The Shiites await a Shiite-dominated Iraq. The Sunnis do not believe in majority rule. They believe in Sunni rule. When we liberate a people, we liberate not only its democrats, but its demons.

When the Ancien regime fell, there came the guillotine, the Terror and Bonaparte. When the Romanovs fell, Lenin crawled out of the rubble. When the Western imperialists departed Africa, despots seized power in almost every sub-Saharan nation. Democracy did not survive in one of 22 Arab states.

Why did Bush risk his presidency on a gamble that this time it would be different? He may be an idealist, but is he a realist? Does he comprehend the world he claims to be changing? Or is he inviting the brutal epitaph of Kipling?

[i]Now, it is not good for the Christian's health to hustle the Aryan brown,
For the Christian riles, and the Aryan smiles, and he weareth the Christian down;
And the end of the fight is a tombstone white, with the name of the late deceased,
And the epitaph drear: 'A fool lies here who tried to hustle the East[/i].'

Conservatives Becoming Increasingly Disgusted With Fool Bush's Sheer Stupidity

04.29.04 (10:34 am) [edit]

Conservatives Becoming Increasingly Disgusted With Fool Bush's Sheer Stupidity

04.29.04 (10:32 am) [edit]

New Poll: Iraqis Want Us Out Of Iraq ... Let's Tell Bush, Cheney & Halliburton To Fuck-Off!!!

04.29.04 (10:21 am) [edit]

[b]Poll: Iraqis out of patience[/b]

Only a third of the Iraqi people now believe that the American-led occupation of their country is doing more good than harm, and a solid majority support an immediate military pullout even though they fear that could put them in greater danger, according to a new USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll.

The nationwide survey, the most comprehensive look at Iraqi attitudes toward the occupation, was conducted in late March and early April. It reached nearly 3,500 Iraqis of every religious and ethnic group.

The poll shows that most continue to say the hardships suffered to depose Saddam Hussein were worth it. Half say they and their families are better off than they were under Saddam. And a strong majority say they are more free to worship and to speak. (Related item: Key findings)

But while they acknowledge benefits from dumping Saddam a year ago, Iraqis no longer see the presence of the American-led military as a plus. Asked whether they view the U.S.-led coalition as "liberators" or "occupiers," 71% of all respondents say "occupiers."

That figure reaches 81% if the separatist, pro-U.S. Kurdish minority in northern Iraq is not included. The negative characterization is just as high among the Shiite Muslims who were oppressed for decades by Saddam as it is among the Sunni Muslims who embraced him.

The growing negative attitude toward the Americans is also reflected in two related survey questions: 53% say they would feel less secure without the coalition in Iraq, but 57% say the foreign troops should leave anyway. Those answers were given before the current showdowns in Fallujah and Najaf between U.S. troops and guerrilla fighters.

The findings come as the U.S. administration is struggling to quell the insurgency and turn over limited sovereignty to an interim Iraqi government by the end of June. Interviews this week in Baghdad underscored the findings.

"I'm not ungrateful that they took away Saddam Hussein," says Salam Ahmed, 30, a Shiite businessman. "But the job is done. Thank you very much. See you later. Bye-bye."

[b]'I would shoot ... right now'[/b]

Bearing the brunt of Iraqis' ill feeling: U.S. troops. The most visible symbol of the occupation, they are viewed by many Iraqis as uncaring, dangerous and lacking in respect for the country's people, religion and traditions.

The insurgents, by contrast, seem to be gaining broad acceptance, if not outright support. If the Kurds, who make up about 13% of the poll, are taken out of the equation, more than half of Iraqis say killing U.S. troops can be justified in at least some cases. But attacks against Iraqi police officers, who are U.S.-trained, are strongly condemned by the Iraqi people.

The Bush administration has contended that the growing resistance, which has killed at least 115 Americans this month, is the work of isolated cells of former regime members or religious fanatics, often from outside Iraq.

Iraqis interviewed in Baghdad say ordinary people have lost patience with the U.S. effort to crush the insurgency and rebuild Iraq.

"I would shoot at the Americans right now if I had the chance," says Abbas Kadhum Muia, 24, who owns a bicycle shop in Sadr City, a Shiite slum of 2 million people in Baghdad that was strongly anti-Saddam and once friendly to the Americans. "At the beginning ... there were no problems, but gradually they started to show disrespect (and) encroach on our rights, arresting people."

Sabah Yeldo, a Christian who owns a liquor store across town, says American failures have left the capital with higher crime and less-reliable services, including electricity. That is "making everybody look back and seriously consider having Saddam back again instead of the Americans."

In the multiethnic Baghdad area, where a Gallup Poll last summer of 1,178 residents permits a valid comparison, only 13% of the people now say the invasion of Iraq was morally justifiable. In the 2003 poll, more than twice that number saw it as the right thing to do.

Americans regard their men and women in uniform as liberators who are trying to help Iraq. But the Iraqis now see them as a threat and focus their anger on them.

"When they pass by on the street, we are curious, so we go out to look and they immediately point their gun at you," says Muia, the bicycle shop owner.

Except for the Kurds, such feelings are widely held. For example:

Two-thirds say soldiers in the U.S.-led coalition make no attempt to keep ordinary Iraqis from being killed or wounded during exchanges of gunfire.

58% say the soldiers conduct themselves badly or very badly.

60% say the troops show disrespect for Iraqi people in searches of their homes, and 42% say U.S. forces have shown disrespect toward mosques.

46% say the soldiers show a lack of respect for Iraqi women.

Only 11% of Iraqis say coalition forces are trying hard to restore basic services such as electricity and clean drinking water.

The Defense Department, which was shown the survey results Wednesday, said it doesn't respond to polls. But in a statement, it noted that Iraqis say their lives are getting better and said that the fact the poll could be taken indicated increased freedom in Iraq.

[b]Secondhand information[/b]

That negative opinion of the behavior of the troops rarely is based on direct contact. Iraq is a country the size of California with a population of 25 million. Many areas are sparsely patrolled. Only 7% in the poll say they based their opinions on personal experience.

Instead, Iraqis get their information from others. For about a third, it's pan-Arabic television such as the Al-Jazeera and Al-Arabiya satellite news channels. The networks frequently show scenes of U.S. forces shooting into Iraqi neighborhoods in hot spots such as Fallujah, an anti-American stronghold in the center of the country. (Related poll results: Baghdad: Then and now)

Although most Iraqis watch the local, U.S.-sponsored broadcast television station, which doesn't require a satellite dish, Iraqis in the poll say the Arab satellite networks are the most trusted and break the hottest stories. Few Iraqis trust Western networks such as CNN and the BBC.

More news is spread through that oldest delivery system: marketplace chatter. In the rumor mill, interviews indicate, every confrontation between Americans and Iraqis is portrayed as an assault on the Iraqi people, not on just a few lawless insurgents.

Jalal Abbas, 20, a student in Baghdad, says it's widely believed "that when soldiers search houses, they steal gold and money. And in our houses, people are taking special (precautions) to hide their money and gold for fear of them being stolen by U.S. soldiers."

Najem Aboud Debib, 37, like many Shiites, says he feels deep disappointment now. The Shiites opposed Saddam, whose regime was dominated by Sunnis. A year ago, they welcomed the Americans and the freedom to exercise their brand of Islam without repression. Now, Aboud Debib says, "I'm sure they have no morals. ...They are something like Saddam Hussein. We are suffering under the same situation."

He'd welcome an American withdrawal but says he's sure U.S. troops will remain in Iraq for a long time. "The trouble is they (U.S. forces) cannot leave now and leave the job undone. They must go and complete the job and try to win the people again."

The negative opinion of the occupation does not mean most Iraqis want to see Saddam back in power. He is in U.S. custody, and four out of five Iraqis view him negatively, according to the poll. A little more than half have a negative view of President Bush.

Marines patrolling around Fallujah this week say they can feel the Iraqi anger every day, even when the two sides aren't shooting.

Marine Lance Cpl. Wes Monks, 23, of Springfield, Ore., says that as he drives around the restive, mostly Sunni city, he sees Iraqis with a knowing, "sarcastic smile. You see it every day. ... We're always the last one to find out when we run over a mine."

"I can see their point of view," says Marine Lance Cpl. Mathew Leifi, 20, of Orange, Calif. "If anyone rolled up on my street, I'd be pissed, too."

Kurds, the ethnic minority most closely allied with the United States, show strong support for Americans in the poll. About 97% say the invasion did more good than harm. And their pro-U.S. stance is obvious on other issues.

Everywhere else in Iraq, it's a different story. Not surprisingly, the Sunni strongholds that benefited most from Saddam's regime are the most negative in their opinion of the new Iraq. Fewer than 20% of people in those areas call the war's outcome positive.

Iraqis expected huge improvements in all aspects of their economy within weeks of Saddam's overthrow, and most say there have been at least some improvements. But a year after Bush declared major hostilities in Iraq over, the poll shows:

Nearly half of Iraqis still report long, frequent power blackouts.

Nearly a third lack clean drinking water much of the time.

Almost everywhere except in the Kurdish north, most people are afraid to leave their homes at night.

[b]'You can't buy love'[/b]

In Baghdad, which has seen the most change — good and bad — since the war, residents say they can feel the boost to the economy that has come from foreign aid and the opening of the country's borders. While many say that they are earning far more than they did before the invasion, they yearn for the safety and stability of the past.

"The freedoms they gave us are satellite television, Thurayas (satellite telephones) and mobile telephones. And you can drive a car without a license," says Resha Namir, 20, a computer science major at Baghdad University. But "I can't even go out because I'm afraid that any minute we will die. The war was not worth it."

Some are more positive. Lauran Waliyah, 46, a restaurant manager and Christian who supported Saddam, says her experience with the Americans has been good. Once, when a madman with a knife entered her business, soldiers came to help, she says.

"It is unfair to ask for the departure of the U.S. troops," she says.

But the hostility reflected in the poll is a message that the troops understand, says Monks, the Marine lance corporal. "They don't want us here," he says. "They want to rebuild their own country. We're trying to Americanize their life. You can't buy love." - http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

New Poll: Iraqis Want Us Out Of Iraq ... Let's Tell Bush, Cheney & Halliburton To Fuck-Off!!!!

04.29.04 (10:20 am) [edit]

Bush's 'Economic Numbers' Keep Getting Flakier ... Boldfaced Lies ...

04.29.04 (10:13 am) [edit]

[b]Bush's economic numbers keep getting flakier[/b]

In the national debate about economic policy, the central element remains the role of the Bush administration's tax cuts in generating jobs and growth. The administration is suggesting that the economy has been mightily helped by the tax cuts, that the economy is doing swell, and that the future is rosy. Oh, yeah, the administration concedes, there have been some tough times, but that's only because we've been through so much: September 11, the Iraq War, corporate scandals, and the stock bubble bursting.

None of this rosy-scenario storytelling is surprising. After all, Ronald Reagan ran for re-election on "morning in America," and Bill Clinton sought a second term with an optimistic "everything's getting better" message. Of course, there was plenty of evidence in 1984 that dawn was nowhere in sight: Since 1980, incomes had fallen, poverty and unemployment were up, and very few people were better off than they had been four years earlier. And, to be fair, Clinton's 1996 claim that the economy was creating nothing but good jobs wasn't true, either: Though there was strong, broad-based wage growth in the second Clinton term and an improved quality of jobs, this was not the case during the first term.

What has caught me off guard, I must admit, is the clever -- some might even say deceitful -- ways the Bush administration argues that the current economy is great.

But before investigating some of its outrageous claims about the economy, let's do a quick reality check. Where are we? The economy went into recession as George W. Bush took office, so it would be unfair and inaccurate to blame the initial downturn on the current administration. The Bush policies, however, have been flawed because they were never intended to generate jobs or growth in the short-term; they were always about cutting government revenue and shifting the tax burden away from income from investments (from the few) and onto income from labor (that's most of us). A decent set of policies -- enacting one-time tax cuts aimed at lower- and middle-income families, building roads and bridges, renovating schools, providing aid to the states, offering improved unemployment insurance -- could have yielded a much better situation today.

What did happen? There were continuous and record-breaking employment losses for roughly two and a half years, followed by some modest job gains starting last September. Oh, there was one very good month for job growth, this last March. After three years, though, the economy has lost 2.6 million private-sector jobs and created about 600,000 government jobs for a net loss of 2 million. In every other business cycle since the 1930s, the economy had recouped all the lost jobs by three years from the start of the recession. In the current case, however, the economy is still suffering a 1.5-percent loss of employment after three years. In the better-managed cycles of the last three decades, the economy had gained 2.5 percent more jobs after three years. That 4-percent difference between the current cycle and recent cycles represents a shortfall of more than 5 million jobs. So, we've certainly had a tough time on the job front.

What's more, inflation-adjusted wages are flat, at best, and are eroding for many workers. When jobs are short, it is inevitable that weekly and hourly wages grow more slowly as employers take advantage of the situation. The offshoring of white-collar jobs has only added to these pressures this time around.

Poor job performance and wage stagnation add up to very little growth in overall wage and salary income -- what most of us live on. With fast productivity and minimal growth in wages and employment, you get big profits. This is exactly whats occurred. Even Alan Greenspan noted this recently, saying: "Most of the recent increases in productivity have been reflected in a sharp rise in the pre-tax profits of nonfinancial corporation … . The increase in real hourly compensation was quite modest over that period. The consequence was a marked fall in the ratio of employee compensation to gross nonfinancial corporate income to a very low level by the standards of the past three decades."

So, how does an administration tiptoe through these tulips? Very selectively.

Consider this point in a new ad, titled "Working to Keep America Working," which hypes the Bush administration's record: "Unemployment rate after Bill Clinton's third year, 5.6%. Unemployment rate after G.W. Bush's third year, 5.6%." True, but isn't it gutsy to say this seeing as the unemployment rate was about 4 percent when Bush was elected (therefore it rose 1.6 percentage points to 5.6 percent) and was 7.5 percent when Clinton was elected (therefore it fell almost 2 percentage points to 5.6 percent)?

Here's another quote from the ad: "US Economic Growth: 'Strongest in Nearly 20 years' (CNN, October, 2003)." This sounds impressive, and it is -- for the one-quarter of growth last summer to which CNN, in late October, was referring! Somehow overlooked is the fact that the economy has grown more slowly (3.5-percent annual rate) in the first 11 quarters of this expansion than in those of the prior eight expansions (5.7-percent annual rate).

Another part of the ad makes it seem as if poverty has been reduced by the current administration: "Poverty in Clinton's years, 10.5%; Poverty in G.W. Bush's years, 9.5%." You would never know that the poverty rate was 8.7 percent in Clinton's last year (2000) and rose to 9.6 percent in 2002 (the latest year of available data). In contrast, poverty was 11.9 percent in 1992 when Clinton was first elected and fell to 8.7 percent, a drop of more than 2 percentage points.

Wow, how did Bush and Co. turn a falling poverty rate from 1992 to 2000 and a rising poverty rate thereafter into a claim that suggests the administration reduced poverty while Clinton policies raised poverty? The mathematical trick, of course, is that the numbers in the ad are averages for the whole period, so the higher poverty at the beginning of the first Clinton term raises the average for him while the low poverty rate that Bush inherited lowers the average in his term.

Consider another claim from a White House "Fact Sheet": "Without the President's tax relief, by the end of last year real GDP would have been more than 3 percent lower and the unemployment rate would have been more than 1 percentage point higher, with more than 2 million fewer Americans working."

Whoops, we can't actually evaluate this claim because the Treasury Department study it is based on has never been made public. Nevertheless, this claim suggests that without the Bush tax cuts, the employment decline since early 2001 would have been 4 million, an amazingly steep and unbelievable decline.

OK, one last claim from a White House "Fact Sheet": "Job creation is accelerating, with more than 750,000 jobs created in the last seven months. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate remains below its average for the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s."

Yes, since September 2003, 750,000 jobs have been created, or about 100,000 per month. That's not really impressive, though, by historical standards (the 1991 to 2001 expansion generated 200,000 jobs per month), and it represents 40,000 to 50,000 fewer jobs per month than we need to absorb a growing workforce. This record is especially weak given that, in April 2003, the president promised 306,000 new jobs each month starting in July 2003 if his tax cuts were passed. The economy has met this standard in only one of the nine months since then and, so far, is 2 million jobs short of the president's promise. (By the way, the Council of Economic Advisers projected again this past February that the economy would create 300,000 per month, so the administration's expectations have clearly been greater than its achievements.)

Comparing the current unemployment rate to the average of the last three decades is not quite appropriate, as the unemployment rate over the prior decades averages steep recessionary years (9.7 percent in 1982, 7.5 percent in 1992) and nonrecessionary years. Again, the relevant fact is that unemployment is up from the 4-percent rate in 2000; that's what matters. When the "missing labor force" (those who left or never entered the labor market because of a lack of jobs) is added to assess the true slack in the current economy, the unemployment rate jumps to 7.4 percent.

This shameless degree of economic spin may well backfire on the president because it counts on people ignoring the evidence of their own pocketbooks. Polling data reveal that many working families remain anxious about the economy, and politicians who tell them otherwise are at risk of appearing out of touch.

Like father, like son?

[b]Lawrence Mishel is the president of the Economic Policy Institute (EPI). He and Jared Bernstein, a senior economist at the EPI, write a biweekly column on economic issues for the Prospect's online edition[/b] - http://www.prospect.org/web/p...

Bush Continues To Unravel: Even His Henchmen Can't Protect Him From This ...

04.29.04 (10:11 am) [edit]

Vietnam hero vs party boy: GOP picking the wrong battle

04.28.04 (8:58 pm) [edit]

[b]Vietnam hero vs party boy: GOP picking the wrong battle[/b]

It most certainly is not the case that only men who have been in combat can lead a nation at war. History teaches otherwise.

Woodrow Wilson. Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Even Abraham Lincoln.

Not one of these wartime American presidents ever stood in an active foxhole with a battle-scarred platoon, fighting to save his buddies as the enemy advanced.

But still.

What on Earth would possess Republican hit squads to trash John Kerry's record of service during the Vietnam War? However you slice it, this is not a comparison that will ever prove flattering to George W. Bush.

Vietnam hero versus wisecracking party boy!

Enemy fire on the Mekong River versus late-night keggers by the apartment-complex pool!

Three Purple Hearts versus take my word for it, I definitely showed up for duty with the Alabama National Guard!

This is really how the hard-driving Karl Rove wants these two men to be judged? By their military service records three decades ago?

Seemingly so.

Suddenly, John Kerry is being pummeled - on the record, off the record and in the lunatic corners of the Internet - for his life-risking performance at the helm of a Navy "swift boat." And he's being pummeled even more for his anti-war activities when he got home.

Were his shrapnel wounds really deep enough to merit the Purple Hearts? Did his valor under sniper fire really earn the Silver Star and the Bronze Star?

These are the kinds of sniveling questions that have been thrust into the center of this year's presidential race, replacing Iraq, replacing the economy, replacing real issues that real Americans care about.

And then the assaults by Bush surrogates turn quickly to Kerry's public opposition to the war. It's painted as somehow un-American, as if a decorated veteran hadn't earned the right to speak his mind. History has fully vindicated the views of Kerry and other outspoken veterans. That war was dreadful, senseless and unwinable.

But listen:

"What he did was nothing short of aiding and abetting the enemy," Sam Johnson, a Republican congressman from Texas, said of Kerry's anti-war protests. "A person like John Kerry does not belong in the White House."

"The senator from Massachusetts has given us ample grounds to doubt the judgment and the attitude he brings to bear on vital issues of national security," adds Dick Cheney, keeping up the hostile drumbeat.

So how did Bush and Cheney spend the war?

While Kerry was volunteering and fighting in Vietnam, the vice president got five student and marriage deferments that kept him out of the military entirely.

And Bush? Well, his own gentle brush with military service is still clouded with unanswered questions. But inspirational it is not.

Despite low pilot aptitude scores, Bush was jumped ahead of 150 other applicants at the Texas Air National Guard, all but guaranteeing he would never see active combat. And he didn't. His unit included such young Texas luminaries as John Connolly III and Lloyd Bentsen III.

Instead of risking his life against Viet Cong fire, Bush was buzzing the beaches of the Texas Gulf Coast, before moving to Alabama to work in a political campaign of a family friend.

So why the attacks? Will they backfire? Won't voters know they're being manipulated here?

Here's hoping. But the sad fact of the matter is that Rove & Co. have had some success attacking the patriotism of genuine war heroes. Just ask John McCain and Max Cleland.

McCain displayed amazing bravery as a POW in Vietnam. Cleland gave two legs and an arm for his country, coming home a triple amputee.

But four years ago, when McCain was gaining ground on Bush in the race for the GOP nomination, Rove launched a vicious assault, all but calling the senator from Arizona a coward and a traitor. Then two years later, when Cleland was in a tough fight for his Georgia Senate seat, the Republican hit squad unleashed a rhetorical howitzer on him, claiming his Senate votes revealed a lack of patriotism.

They beat him. Three limbs, apparently, were not enough.

Kerry was finally fighting back yesterday.

"I think a lot of veterans are going to be very angry at a president who can't account for his own service in the National Guard, and a vice president who got every deferment in the world and decided he had better things to do, criticizing somebody who fought for their country and served," he said on the campaign trail in Ohio.

The old soldier still had some fight in him. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Rejection of Iraqi Flag Symbolic of Administration's Ineptitude in Iraq

04.28.04 (4:44 pm) [edit]

[b]Rejection of Iraqi Flag Symbolic of Administration's Ineptitude in Iraq[/b]

Iraqis apparently hate their new flag. Rather than letting the people determine their own national emblem, the American dominated Iraqi Governing Council unveiled the new flag – in the same blue color as the flag of Israel rather than the traditional colors of other Arab states – to massive public disapproval. This seemingly inconsequential act speaks volumes about how the Bush administration has utterly failed to win the hearts and minds of ordinary Iraqis.

[b]The Bush administration still has no plan for long term stability and democracy in Iraq.[/b] More than one year after our invasion, and only 64 days until the transfer of sovereignty to Iraq, the Bush administration has no viable framework for democracy in Iraq and does not know who will take control in July.

[b]The failure to plan adequately has undermined Iraqi confidence in the intentions of American forces and governing officials.[/b] American troops continue to face a rising nationalist insurgency in Iraq as more and more ordinary Iraqis view the United States as an occupier. Instead of being greeted as liberators, as President Bush promised, our troops and officials are now targets for increased anger and hatred of American intentions. Little will change after June 30 unless the Bush administration seriously revises its approach.

[b]The United Nations and world community must be brought in immediately to provide greater legitimacy to the rebuilding process.[/b] President Bush went to war unilaterally and is now trying to rebuild Iraq in the same manner. As the flag debacle highlights, ordinary Iraqis will never accept actions that are perceived to be imposed by American occupiers. Broader international involvement can both spread the burden of Iraq's reconstruction and restore lost trust among Iraq's citizens.

Bush's Disastrous Legacy: Horrible Trauma Cases in Iraq

04.28.04 (10:30 am) [edit]

[b]Horrible Trauma Cases in Iraq[/b]

Atrios links the Washington Post story everyone's talking about today about the horrific injuries that the military hospitals in Iraq are dealing with and the trauma it is causing for the doctors and surgical teams. Atrios says:

[i]This stuff is just so horrible. I really hope Kerry gets out in front of this and proposes massive increases in VA funds. You can have my goddamn tax cut back. I'd rather pay out the money that way and get some quality care for these people than throw it into their change cups a few years from now.

I hate what these bastards have done, and I hate that they'd rather bankrupt the government than take care of the mess they've made. Assholes[/i].

Which I think rather misses the point of the article. The problem isn't lack of funds, it's that these guys are surviving hideous injuries that would have killed them just a few years ago.

[i]More and more in Iraq, combat surgeons say, the wounds involve severe damage to the head and eyes -- injuries that leave soldiers brain damaged or blind, or both, and the doctors who see them first struggling against despair.

For months the gravest wounds have been caused by roadside bombs -- improvised explosives that negate the protection of Kevlar helmets by blowing shrapnel and dirt upward into the face. In addition, firefights with guerrillas have surged recently, causing a sharp rise in gunshot wounds to the only vital area not protected by body armor.[/i]

[i]The neurosurgeons at the 31st Combat Support Hospital measure the damage in the number of skulls they remove to get to the injured brain inside, a procedure known as a craniotomy. "We've done more in eight weeks than the previous neurosurgery team did in eight months," Poffenbarger said. "So there's been a change in the intensity level of the war."[/i]

With advanced surgical techniques and the military's capability for moving casualties from the field to the hospital in record quick times, they are saving people with devastating brain injuries and people who are blinded and disfigured and paralyzed. There is nothing more money can do for injuries like this, which is what the doctors in the article point out.

[i]"See all that dark stuff? That's dead brain," he said. "That ain't gonna regenerate. And that's not uncommon. That's really not uncommon. We do craniotomies on average, lately, of one a day."

"We can save you," the surgeon said. "You might not be what you were."

Accurate statistics are not yet available on recovery from this new round of battlefield brain injuries, an obstacle that frustrates combat surgeons. But judging by medical literature and surgeons' experience with their own patients "three or four months from now 50 to 60 percent will be functional and doing things," said Maj. Richard Gullick.

"Functional," he said, means "up and around, but with pretty significant disabilities," including paralysis.

'Broken soldiers'

The remaining 40 percent to 50 percent of patients include those whom the surgeons send to Europe, and on to the United States, with no prospect of regaining consciousness. The practice, subject to review after gathering feedback from families, assumes that loved ones will find value in holding the soldier's hand before confronting the decision to remove life support.

"I'm actually glad I'm here and not at home, tending to all the social issues with all these broken soldiers," Carroll said.

But the toll on the combat medical staff is itself acute, and unrelenting[/i].

[i]In a comprehensive Army survey of troop morale across Iraq, taken in September, the unit with the lowest spirits was the one that ran the combat hospitals until the 31st arrived in late January. The three months since then have been substantially more intense.

"We've all reached our saturation for drama trauma," said Maj. Greg Kidwell, head nurse in the emergency room[/i].

The real solution to this problem is to get those Americans out of Iraq, not to throw money at yet another government program. Besides, if you want the best of care for these broken people why would you send them to a shabby hospital system like the VA anyway? Why throw money at the VA when there are thousands of state of the art hospitals all over the US? Let them go to real doctors at real hospitals, not government facilities which are all run as efficiently as Amtrak. Better yet, bring them home before any more get hurt.

Anyway, the point is, even if you gave the VA billions, it won't help. The cases that are demoralizing the doctors are the hopeless ones like brain injuries and missing eyes. These are permanent disabilities. No amount of money will replace eyes or fix an injured brain or spine. A significant number of these soldiers are making the return trip only so their families can see them one last time before they pull the plug. - http://www.antiwar.com/blog/i...

Bush's Disastrous Legacy: Horrible Trauma Cases in Iraq

04.28.04 (10:29 am) [edit]

Bush catches Saddam disease

04.28.04 (10:25 am) [edit]

[b]Bush catches Saddam disease[/b]

From the moment the Americans invaded Iraq, Saddam Hussein was in denial about what was happening. He refused to believe that the American military machine was as awesomely efficient as it is; he refused to believe that very few of his troops would fight and die for him.

Saddam, indeed, was in denial long before that. He refused to believe the Americans would actually invade.

He refused to believe he had no weapons of mass destruction because his scientists kept telling him they were working on them while investing his money in real estate in Saudi Arabia.

As went Saddam — into deep denial — so George W. Bush is showing increasing signs of doing.

It's all going bad and getting worse for Bush in Iraq.

He keeps responding by saying he will "stand firm." That's decisive and tough all right.

But it means that instead of thinking, Bush is operating on instinct. That instead of dealing with reality he's refusing to accept it, convinced that by sheer determination and toughness he can overcome all problems.

Which is pure denial.

The reality about Iraq is that the Americans have lost there. They've lost the peace, that's to say. Except for a miracle, it's now unwinnable for them.

The latest confirmation of how everything has become unstuck is the much-heralded handover of sovereignty to the Iraqis on June 30.

This was always something of a con because it would have involved only nominal sovereignty.

Now it has become the worst kind of con — a glaringly visible one.

The word from Washington is now that while sovereignty will still be handed over to some form of caretaker government, this administration will have only partial control over its own armed forces and no power to enact any new laws.

The new Iraqi government, thus, would be as much a puppet as the existing, and widely despised, American-appointed Governing Council.

An argument can certainly be made that Iraq is now so chaotic that the American-led coalition will still have to run the place until elections due to be held early next year.

In political and diplomatic terms, though, this is an abject admission of failure. And it means the Americans will remain, visibly, as occupiers until well into next year, at a minimum.

These days, the news from Iraq is always about failure, never about success.

The allies are pulling out their troops; first Spain, then Honduras (hardly a severe military setback) and, next, Norway.

Reconstruction, which is critical to winning hearts and minds by demonstrating that along with democracy comes economic progress, has been halted by the violence, most especially the kidnapping of so-called "contractors."

Insurgents are now so bold that in Falluja, a weeklong ceasefire that U.S. Marines hoped would result in the surrender of weapons has produced, almost contemptuously, a handful of weapons, all of them antiquated and defective.

Policy keeps being changed, which robs it of any credibility. Once, "de-Baathization" or the rooting out all ex-members of Saddam's Baath party from official posts, was a way of showing that a clean, new administration was being installed. Washington has just announced that because ex-Baathists had irreplaceable administrative skills, many of them will be welcomed back.

And on and on and on.

Bush's options have narrowed down to one that is stark and brutal. This is how to get out with a minimum loss of face.

His exit strategy for doing this is now to use the United Nations as a cover. Of all the policy reversals, this is the most complete. Once derided and excluded from Iraq, the U.N. is now being welcomed in to provide the vital ingredient of legitimacy.

Whether the U.N. can do this job under even the best of circumstances is an open question. It has botched nation building in Kosovo. It is enmeshed in a massive scandal over corruption in its pre-war oil-for-food program for Iraq.

The U.N.'s prospects for success in Iraq are faint if it is seen as an instrument for giving legitimacy to a continued U.S. presence in Iraq.

In his just-published book, Plan Of Attack, Bob Woodward quotes Bush as telling him, "I believe we have a duty to free people."

There's no doubt Bush genuinely believes this.

True believers do have real value. But it's a quality for a private individual, not for a president.

If Bush would — or could — stand back and actually think about Iraq he'd realize that what most Iraqis now want to be free of is him.

That's why he's lost.

But as a true believer, he can only deal with it by denial. - http://www.thestar.com/NASApp...

Bush catches Saddam disease

04.28.04 (10:24 am) [edit]

Bush's Fiasco of Death & Misery: Creating Homelessness in Iraq ...

04.28.04 (10:21 am) [edit]

[b]Creating Homeless in Iraq [/b]

New families seem to arrive every hour at the Iraqi Red Crescent refugee camp in West Baghdad. The camp, the first tent city erected as a result of the U.S. assault on Fallujah first drew about 50 families, a small fraction of the tens of thousands of civilians forced to flee their homes.

These were the most desperate families, unable to find housing with family or friends. And now there are many more like them.

As a new round of violence erupted in Najaf Tuesday, Red Crescent officials began to fear the need for many more tent cities in Iraq. The Fallujah families were only the first among those.

"All these families, the Americans destroyed their houses," Kamer Jabi, director for youth and volunteers with the Iraqi Red Crescent told IPS. "They destroyed it all. No furniture, no nothing. So they need this help from us."

Jabi says the Red Crescent first tried to set up a camp closer to Fallujah, but the area came under repeated fire from U.S. helicopters.

"We established a camp 7km outside of Fallujah but it was destroyed by the Americans," she says. "They burnt two tents with a helicopter and even until now we have a lot of tents there but we cannot send our volunteers to bring them here because it's very dangerous."

Among those now living in the Red Crescent camp is 12-year-old Khalid Anwar Khalidi. He has not been to school for almost a month. When his family initially fled Fallujah two weeks ago, they all crammed into a relative's house in the poor West Baghdad neighborhood Washash.

"There were nine families in that house, so it was very crowded," he says. "One family on top of the other. So my parents and my sister and my aunt and her two children moved to this camp. The rest of my relatives still live in that house."

This is a story that repeats itself again and again across the camp. Poor Iraqi families who welcomed their relatives from Fallujah at first were unable to support them through what appears to be a long American siege.

"We are refugees in our own country," says one man from inside his tent. "It's so sad. We're just like the Palestinians."

He says his family of 12 stayed with relatives in Baghdad for two weeks before coming to the Red Crescent camp. He considered renting a house or apartment in Baghdad but now that he is a refugee he does not have job. He will need his savings, he says, to fix the glass panes and doors at his house in Fallujah that were destroyed in the U.S. Army assault.

"I'm ashamed to be a refugee," he says. "I had to cross the street when my brother came to visit the camp. He said it was a shame on our whole family."

It may be a long time before these refugees begin to lead normal lives again, says Jabi. "Of course they will eventually be able to go back to their houses. They have to give them some peace. All the Iraqi people are really tired of the war. For 35 years we were under Saddam Hussein and now we are under the Americans. We are fed up. We are very tired."

But while the U.S. military has postponed an all-out assault on Fallujah, it is not giving up on the city. Officials say U.S. troops plan joint patrols with Iraqi security forces inside Fallujah this week in an attempt to restore control over the insurgent stronghold without a major attack.

The decision comes as Lakhdar Brahimi, the United Nations envoy helping appoint a new Iraqi government urged the Bush administration to "tread carefully" in besieged Fallujah and avoid further alienating an already angry populace.

Before leaving Iraq Sunday he described the siege as unacceptable collective punishment.

"When you surround a city, you bomb the city, when people cannot go to hospital, what name do you have for that?" he said. "And you, if you have enemies there, this is exactly what they want you to do, to alienate more people so that more people support them rather than you."

[b](Inter Press Service) [/b]- http://www.antiwar.com/ips/gl...

Bush's Fiasco of Death and Misery: Creating Homelessness in Iraq ...

04.28.04 (10:20 am) [edit]

Majority of Americans Support Universal Health Care

04.27.04 (2:55 pm) [edit]

[b]Read this paper [/b] http://www.kucinich.us/suppor...

[b]Eighty-two percent of Americans rank health care among their top issues, according to a recent Gallup Poll. [/b]In an ABC/Washington Post poll last fall, 79 percent of respondents said that it was more important for the government to provide health care coverage for all Americans than it was to hold down taxes. The same poll found that 62 percent of respondents favored a universal government health insurance program financed by taxpayers. In a Pew Research Center for the People & the Press survey last summer 67 percent of respondents said that they would be in favor of "the U.S. government guaranteeing health insurance for all citizens, even if it means raising taxes."

During the Democratic Presidential primary campaign, all of the presidential hopefuls tapped into this sentiment and offered a wide array of new health care proposals. For example, Richard Gephardt promised in his stump speech "When I'm president, my first week as president, I'll go to the Congress and lay aside the Bush tax cuts and I'll use those monies to see to it that everybody is covered with health insurance in this country." Gephardt would have expanded Medicare to cover Americans 55 years of age and older and state Children Health Insurance Program to cover parents. His plan would cost $692 billion from 2005 to 2007 and he would have paid for it by repealing all of the Bush tax cuts. Dennis Kucinich, Al Sharpton, and Carol Moseley-Braun all favored universal government run health insurance plans.

Now that the Democratic Party Presidential field has been winnowed down, it's time to take a closer look at what the two leading candidates, John Edwards and John Kerry, are promising the electorate with regard to health care. John Kerry has vowed "to fight for the day when affordable health care is a right, not a privilege, for every American." John Edwards has declared, "I want to make health care a birth right for every single child born in this country, period. I want to make sure all of us vulnerable adults are covered. I want to give every one of you a credit in your paycheck to help you with your insurance premium and I want to stand up—stand up against the big HMO's, insurance companies, drug companies and bring down the cost of health care for every single person in America."

Both candidates' plans broaden government health care coverage from both ends of the age spectrum. Right now, oldsters 65 and over are covered by Medicare and in most states, uninsured children under the age of 19, whose families earn up to $36,200 a year (for a family of four) are eligible for State Children's Health Insurance Programs (SCHIP). Both Edwards and Kerry would expand health coverage by allowing Americans over age 55 to buy into Medicare. And both would expand SCHIP to cover all children, up to age 21 for Edwards. Both would offer small businesses tax credits as a way to reduce the cost of insuring their employees. Both would also help workers between jobs to keep their health coverage: Edwards proposes a 70 percent federal subsidy to extend their employer health insurance and Kerry wants to offer a 75 percent tax credit to help the temporarily unemployed paid for their health insurance. Both would require insurers, hospitals, doctors, and so forth to adopt electronic record-keeping as way to reduce administrative costs. Both offer tepid plans for reducing costs by reining in some medical malpractice suits. The latter proposal is interesting since Edwards made millions from medical malpractice lawsuits.

While their plans are similar, Kerry does offer a couple of different twists. One is that the Feds would reimburse employee health plans for 75 percent of the catastrophic costs they incur in paying for individuals' health expenses above $50,000, as long as they use those savings to reduce the costs of worker's premiums. Kerry would also allow small businesses and individuals to buy into the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program. Meanwhile Edwards would throw in subsidies aimed at keeping and attracting 100,000 nurses.

Kerry says his proposals would cover 27 million uninsured Americans at an average cost of $72 billion over the next five years. Edwards claims that his plans would cover 21 million Americans at a cost of about $53 billion per year.

Both of the remaining major Democratic candidates' plans are a continuation of the creeping socialization of medicine that Americans have been experiencing since the adoption of Medicare and Medicaid in the 1960s. President Bush and the Republican Congress are also pushing in that direction by socializing drug purchases for America's senior citizens under Medicare. Today, nearly 43 percent of all health care expenditures are covered by the government. There may be a hidden tipping point in such incrementalism.

Today, ignoring income limits, some 40 percent of Americans would qualify on the basis of their ages for government health care benefits. Both Kerry's and Edwards' plans increase the percentage of the American population that would be eligible for their proposed government health benefits to just over 50 percent. Remember that polls already show that over 60 percent of Americans already favor government guaranteed universal coverage. As fewer and fewer Americans enjoy private health care, fewer and fewer will be willing to resist a complete government takeover of our health care system. Kerry and Edwards may not be proposing a government takeover of medicine, but that's the clear direction that they are leading the country. Perhaps in their second Administration. - http://reason.com/links/links...

Bush is Spending Millions & Millions of $$$ to Lie to Us About Kerry & Everything Else!!!

04.27.04 (2:18 pm) [edit]

[b]A must-read on [/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

Is Condi Rice Giving Her Hubby Bush The Lewinsky???

04.27.04 (2:17 pm) [edit]

[b]A short must-read on[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

BUSH IS AL QAEDA'S BEST FRIEND:- Al Qaeda Recruitment Skyrockets under Bush!!!!

04.27.04 (2:15 pm) [edit]

[b]Where Next for al-Qaeda?[/b]

The war in Iraq was a major challenge to al-Qaeda, whose propaganda had always maintained that the U.S. lacked the stomach for a fight, and whose leader's audiotaped call for retaliation for the U.S. invasion went largely unheeded. But lest anyone count Osama bin Laden's movement out of the post-Saddam Middle East equation, it struck back to devastating effect in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday: Some 29 people, including at least eight Americans are reported to have been killed in three coordinated suicide bombing attacks on heavily-guarded compounds housing foreigners in Riyadh. The attack was not wholly unexpected. On May 1, the State Department had warned Americans to stay away from the desert kingdom, citing intelligence reports of a terrorist attack in the final stages of preparation. Just last week, Saudi security officials uncovered a cell comprising some 19 al-Qaeda members allegedly planning attacks on the royal family (the suspects managed to elude capture after a shootout). Also last week, self-styled al-Qaeda operative Abu Mohammed al-Ablaj had emailed a message to a Saudi weekly newspaper warning that the movement was planning a major operation in the Gulf, "targeting the rear of the American army."

The attack marks a dramatic shift for al-Qaeda, which had for the most part avoided conducting terror operations on Saudi territory. And that could signal a change in al-Qaeda's strategic priorities in response to 18 months of pressure on the organization by the U.S. and its allies, as well as the changed reality in the Middle East now that the U.S. has settled in for a long occupation of Iraq.

Before 9/11, Afghanistan had served as a global hub and sanctuary for al-Qaeda, allowing it to run massive training camps to which tens of thousands of volunteer jihadis had flocked from all over the world. But the U.S.-led ouster of the Taliban regime put Bin Laden's men to flight, forcing them to scatter and decentralize their operations across Pakistan's cities and tribal areas, in remote parts of Chechnya and Georgia, in Morocco, Yemen and other Arab countries, possibly even in Iran according to some intelligence estimates, and, more recently, once again inside Afghanistan's increasingly anarchic countryside. Far greater emphasis was placed on these scattered cells taking local initiatives and striking at targets of opportunity.

The fact that its major strikes since 9/11 (before Tuesday's attack) had been directed at tourists and foreign workers in Bali, Tunisia, Kenya and Pakistan suggest the going has been tough for al-Qaeda and its sympathizers. Hundreds of operatives have been arrested in 98 countries through intensified intelligence cooperation between the U.S. and its European, Arab and Asian allies. Sources of funding have been squeezed, and enhanced security in Western countries has foiled a number of attacks in Europe and rendered the operational environment in the industrialized world considerably more perilous.

But terrorism analysts see the loose al-Qaeda networks as inherently adaptive to changing environments, and they are likely to have attempted to reorganize and further decentralize themselves to limit the damage wrought by U.S. capture of such kingpins Khalid Sheikh Mohammed. Also, as much as the U.S. intelligence offensive of the past 18 months has disrupted al-Qaeda's operations, the U.S. military operation in Iraq has also offered the network new opportunities. Operations in Europe and the U.S. are far more difficult, right now, than they might have been before 9/11, but the arrival of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops in the Gulf region, and the long-term occupation and reconstruction mission in Iraq, dramatically increases the number of targets of opportunity available to al-Qaeda and allied organizations in their own backyard. Pan-Arab anger at the U.S. invasion of Iraq will almost certainly have swelled the ranks of locals willing to be recruited by al-Qaeda, and whereas before 9/11 that might have meant a trip to a camp in Afghanistan, the new al-Qaeda is more likely to bring the training to recruits who are already "embedded" in the operational theater. And rather than recruiting only those capable of participating in sophisticated terror plots thousands of miles away, it may also be tempted to broaden its scope to establish local "mujahedeen" to wage hit-and-run and suicide attacks on Americans in their midst.

While maintaining the threat of attacks against the U.S. mainland, recent statements purporting to be from al-Qaeda emphasize a new focus on operations in the Arab world. "Among the priorities of Al-Qaeda's new strategy, besides strikes at the heart of the United States, are operations in the Gulf countries an countries allied to America, particularly Egypt and Jordan," says an email sent to a Saudi newspaper last week ostensibly from Al Qaeda operative al-Ablaj.

The Saudi attacks raise a further question: Will al-Qaeda now move to translate its hostility to U.S.-allied Arab regimes into direct attacks on those regimes, or will it simply target U.S. personnel and civilians on their soil? Palestinian Islamist groups, for example, tend to challenge the Palestinian Authority not by targeting Palestinian security personnel, but by sending suicide bombers into Israel at times when the PA is seeking to implement cease-fires. There would certainly be a danger of a backlash against Bin Laden even from sympathetic Saudis if he launched a campaign of violence at home against fellow Muslims. Then again, the Egyptian Islamists who make up a major component of al-Qaeda's senior leadership have a long-established tradition of direct and bloody attacks on their own government. And the al-Qaeda leadership may read the decision by the U.S. to withdraw most of its troops from Saudi Arabia as a signal of the growing vulnerability of a regime they regard as illegitimate.

Al-Qaeda's recent statements also speak of a reorganization, deploying new leadership and new structures to repair the damage wrought by the U.S. and its allies since 9/11. Thabet bin Qais, who used a known al-Qaeda's communication channel with the Arab media to announce himself as the movement's new spokesman, warned in an email that al-Qaeda had "carried out changes in its leadership and sidelined the September 11, 2001 team," and that it would take the U.S. a long time to comprehend the movement's new form. That could simply be bravado in the face of damaging blows by its enemies, but analysts have long warned that al-Qaeda is almost certain to have changed its modus operandi under the weight of sustained U.S. assault.

The Saudi bombings are a reminder that al-Qaeda is very much alive after 18 months of the war on terror. But while an occasional attempt to mount a spectacular attack on the U.S. mainland remains a real danger, changed circumstances and opportunities may tempt the network to focus its efforts in the Arab territories whose "liberation" from U.S. influence remains one of the movement's founding objectives. - http://www.time.com/time/worl...,8816,451656,00.html

Bush's Anti-Christian Acts of Horror: 10 Reasons to Oppose Neo-Con's Occupation of Iraq

04.27.04 (1:59 pm) [edit]

[i][b]Ten Reasons To Oppose The Occupation Of Iraq[/b][/i]

[b]1. US Military Occupation has not made us safer[/b].

The occupation of Iraq feeds right into Bin Laden's own rhetoric that the United States has imperial and selfish reasons for reconstructing the Middle East. If US military presence in Saudi Arabia has inflamed fundamentalists like Bin Laden, how will this ongoing occupation not do the same -- only on a much larger scale?

[b]2. As an Occupying Power the United States is violating international law[/b].

Just like the unilateral attack on Iraq, the United States is once again violating international codes of conduct. By not providing for the security of Iraq's museums, market places, water supplies, and roadways, Bush and company have broken treaties and other international statutes. Also, Bush will not make a formal declaration that the war has officially ended -- which would obligate the United States to provide humanitarian relief and take immediate responsibility for the 25 million citizens of Iraq. Instead President Bush has heroically claimed victory as the death toll on both sides continues to mount.

[b]3. Iraqis don't want the presence of US military[/b].

With the massive uprising in Falluja, it is clear that Iraqis do not want a US military presence in their country. The majority of the resistance forces are not former Saddam loyalists, but regular Iraqis pleading for freedom from colonial rule. And as the use of violence against occupation forces increases, the US will find itself in an unwinnable situation as rival Shia and Sunni factions come together to oppose their occupiers. If Iraq has been liberated why are they still living under an occupying power they didn't ask for?

[b]4. Occupation only hinders relief efforts[/b].

Military operations in Iraq make humanitarian efforts more difficult by increasing tension and spurring Iraqi rebellions. American and allied forces have encountered numerous barriers while attempting to provide aid to Iraqis. Many Iraqis are not willing to allow their occupier the freedom needed to supply aid simply because the US is still a threat to Iraqi's sovereignty.

[b]5. Iraqi Security should become number one[/b].

It is pertinent for Iraqi security that electricity gets back up and rolling again -- as well as all hospitals and communication portals. One year since the US took control of Baghdad, electricity in the city is sporadic at best, only running an average of 12 hours a day. Also, over 40% of Iraqis were employed under Saddam's government and none have been paid since the war began. These are the security issues that need to be addressed first in order for Iraq to begin rebuilding its devastated economy.

[b]6. Funding for the environment, education and healthcare are already being cut in the US in order to pay for Iraq's current occupation[/b].

Defense Department officials have announced that Bush's $60 billion dollar estimate for the war in Iraq is actually looking more like $90-100 billion -- this without the added costs of Iraq's occupation and rebuilding. At the same time the Bush administration projects a $300 billion dollar deficit over the next two years. With an average of over 65,000 US jobs lost a month over the past year, it is clear that federal spending could be focused elsewhere.

[b]7. Arab countries are becoming even more critical of United State's plans to govern postwar Iraq[/b].

US military presence is not welcome in the Middle East -- with Palestine, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Turkey, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Libya as well as "liberated" Afghanistan -- showing their anger at Iraq's occupiers through protests and religious/political rallies. Anti-US sentiment is on the rise with every passing day of the colonial occupation.

[b]8. Occupation will not breed democracy[/b].

For true democracy to unfold, Iraq must be allowed to develop its own government, with no oversight from imperial powers. However, neoconservatives in Washington are not willing to allow such a democracy to take shape. They are most likely fearful a regime with animosity towards Israel and the US will gain massive support. But just like this war not being about Weapons of Mass Destruction, it is also not about democracy -- at least not the democracy Bush claims to be spreading.

[b]9. It's time for US troops to come home[/b].

As of April 25, 2004 over 715 American service people have died for Bush's illegal invasion. American troops are no longer wanted nor welcomed in Iraq. Let this not become a shadow of the Israeli/Palestinian struggle -- a conflict with no peaceful end in sight.

[b]10. There are other options to Bush's plan[/b].

The United States should exit all troops in Iraq now. The international court should condemn this illegal and unjust war by prosecuting those that were involved in its planning and execution. Also, foreign companies and investors should return all profits they have made as a result of their reconstruction contracts. Finally, if Bush wants a friendly and liberated Iraq -- then the billions of dollars that are being spent on Iraq's occupation should be swapped for humanitarian efforts.

According to several Iraqi civilian death counts, well over 10,000 innocents have perished as a result of the US led war and occupation. This atrocity must end at once. Unfortunately those looking to send a message to the Bush administration by supporting John Kerry in November may be in for a surprise. Kerry and Bush are virtually indistinguishable on the issue of Iraq's future. In fact, Kerry promises to put more troops in Afghanistan as well as Iraq.

We should all ask both these proclaimed Christians if Jesus would support their military occupation of Babylon. Their answers would undoubtedly be as consonant as their Skull and Bones kinship.

[b]Josh Frank is author of a forthcoming book on the Left and the 2004 election. He can be reached at frank_joshua@hotmail.com. [/b] - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Too Bad George W. Doesn't (Or Can't?) Read Newspapers On His Own!!!

04.27.04 (7:52 am) [edit]

[b]The Cultural Divides of War [/b]

It is said -- actually, he's the one who said it -- that President Bush barely skims the newspapers and instead gets briefed by his staff. If that's the case, then Bush probably missed the story in the New York Times about how, when three Japanese were freed by their captors in Iraq, they returned to Japan and were greeted not with yellow ribbons but with scorn and anger. In Iraq, knives were held to their throats. In Japan, the fear is they might use them on themselves.

The three were kidnapped in early April near Fallujah and released about two weeks later. In the interim, they were seen on TV with their captors, who threatened to kill them unless Japan pulled its troops out of Iraq. Even as that was happening, though, some in the Japanese government and the press were, as the cliche goes, blaming the victim.

For what, you might ask? For three reasons, we are told. For endangering Japan's humanitarian mission in Iraq. For disobeying a government advisory and going to Iraq in the first place. For putting their own goals above those of the nation. The public censure was such that the families of the hostages received harassing phone calls even while the three were still in Iraq, and politicians dumped on them even before they were pronounced safe. A helpful government sent a plane for them -- and then billed them for the flight. An American would be pardoned for paraphrasing the ever-wise Dorothy: This was not Kansas.

It was, in fact, a different culture. It was one in which its people dressed like us and worked in companies like our own and was so Western in some ways it was downright avant-garde. And yet under that facade is a culture that retains its uniqueness. The superficialities can be deceptive. Commenting on the hostages, Colin Powell naively told the Japanese they should be "very proud that they have citizens like this." Very proud, though, is not what Japan was feeling. The uninquisitive Bush, his briefing limited to the very brief by his very briefers, might well have uttered a deep and profound "hmmm" had he come across this story. If Japan, so Sony and so Honda, was at the same time so strange, then what does this say about Iraq? Yet motives and goals are ascribed to Iraqis because, in the words of Bush himself, they are just like us in ways that count the most.

Just like us, they are supposed to cherish freedom. The president tells us that this is God's gift to them. "I say freedom is not America's gift to the world," Bush told Bob Woodward. "Freedom is God's gift to everybody in the world." This is a formulation the president has often repeated but it is one based, at bottom, on the expectation of shared values -- that Iraqis are, in this regard, like Americans.

Nothing in that statement shows a humble allowance for the vagaries of culture -- for whatever it is, for instance, that either sanctions or extols suicide bombings, to pick an extreme example. I don't know if "freedom is God's gift," but I do know that some people are willing to sacrifice their lives to deny it to others. In their own minds, they do God's will by blowing up innocent people.

In the Balkans last summer, I became fascinated with the young people who flocked to the seashore for a good time. They dressed like us and they danced like us -- but were they like us? Just a few years before, people like them were capable of waging a civil war of awful brutality. Would they do so again? Is the emergence of a near-universal youth culture a bond or will it prove as evanescent as class ties were to the soldiers of World War I? Despite what they supposedly had in common, the working classes of Europe butchered one another in the trenches.

The one remaining permissible prejudice is the one against discrimination of any kind. We are taught that all people are the same, that all distinctions are invidious. This is PC goop or religious tripe. A proper respect for the role of culture is hardly bigotry. We are not all the same. In America, hostages such as the ones taken in Iraq would be welcomed home with yellow ribbons and a spangle of kitsch. In Japan, they are shunned and berated.

Too bad George Bush doesn't read newspapers on his own. They can teach a lesson. The story about the hostages in Iraq was only partially about Japanese culture. By inference, it was also about American assumptions. - http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Too Bad George W. Doesn't (Or Can't?) Read Newspapers On His Own!!!

04.27.04 (7:50 am) [edit]

Iraq War Casualty : The U.S. Economy

04.27.04 (7:47 am) [edit]

[b]War in Iraq Aims a Bullet at the Heart of the Economy

[i]There's no indication that Bush thought through the potential for far-reaching fiscal damage[/i][/b].

However badly the war is going in Iraq, on the home front it is still a good thing for George Bush — so far.

A year ago, the push to Baghdad doubled the economic growth rate and got a recovery started. Now, the literally untold billions in military payrolls and equipment purchases that keep the war going also help to propel our economy along.

This is normal. All wars bring cheerful economic news at first. They stimulate production. They raise capacity utilization, which helps business cover costs and improve earnings. This is good for the stock market. Wars create jobs and also usually draw young men and women away from the labor force, cutting unemployment. (So far, this war has been fought by a handful of overstretched professional soldiers, so the job effects have been small. That could change, especially if the draft is resurrected, as some would like.)

But the good news doesn't last.

Soon enough, profiteers see their chances. Bottlenecks happen. Prices go up. Long before unemployment disappears, wars generate inflation. Indeed, inflation — and the depreciation of private wealth and public debt that it brings — is the ages-old way in which governments pay for war.

Wars upset the trade balance. They gobble imports. And they tend to pull critical resources — scientific talent and key materials — away from exports. Our trade deficit is already staggering. As the economy grows, it will get worse. Under wartime conditions, it will get worse still.

Wars aggravate the national external debt. Already we borrow half a trillion dollars yearly from abroad. How long will Japan and China keep sending us goods and piling up uncashed IOUs in return? No one knows.

And what do we get for our blood and treasure? Security is priceless, of course — if, in fact, you get it. But in material terms, do we get, for instance, cheaper oil from our Saudi ally? Certainly not at the moment. Bob Woodward does tell us that Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has arranged a few months of relief for his friend, George W. Bush, this coming fall. But don't expect that largess to outlast the election.

The U.S. had one good economic experience with war. World War II conquered the Depression, reindustrialized the country and built the middle class. But that was special. The U.S. fought WWII with full mobilization, super-high taxes, super-low interest rates, big deficits, price controls and rationing. Iraq isn't going to be like World War II.

Economically, the Iraq war is more like Vietnam: insidiously underestimated, sold to the public and Congress on false premises, improperly budgeted and inadequately taxed. During the Vietnam years, there was also economic growth at first. But then came creeping inflation, followed by worldwide commodity shocks, the oil crisis of 1973, international monetary disorder and a decade of economic troubles.

Could it happen again? Yes, it could.

Did Team Bush think through the economics of a long and costly war? There is no evidence it did. It counted on the war being quick, cheap and self-financing. If it thought about the long-range economics, there seems to have been only one goal: control of oil.

Spain's Philip II believed that control of the gold of Peru and silver of Mexico would guarantee his nation's predominance in Europe. Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake disagreed. Louis XIV and Napoleon I trusted in conquest to enrich France. Their ministers — Turgot and Talleyrand — knew better. Winston Churchill vowed not to preside over the end of the British Empire. But his successors gave it up when they couldn't afford it anymore. Luckily, the U.S. was there to take over, and we had the support of the free world. But that was then.

By going into Iraq with few allies, we've assumed the entire economic cost. The home-front damage is small now, but it will build over time. And it will take time and effort to repair. The future American economy will especially need a new energy direction, emphasizing conservation and renewable energy, and concerted investment in the world's next generation of technologies — both to reduce our oil dependence and to help balance our trade deficits.

Let's hope Sen. John F. Kerry makes this point on his manufacturing tour this week.

And let's hope that Americans understand. Real security begins at home.

[b]By James K. Galbraith, James K. Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin and is chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, www.ecaar.org, a global network of economists [/b] - http://www.latimes.com/news/o...,1,7637018.story?coll=la-news-commen t-opinions

Iraq War Casualty : The U.S. Economy

04.27.04 (7:46 am) [edit]

Supreme Court Should Order Cheney To Release Papers - This Isn't Stalinist Russia!!!

04.27.04 (7:43 am) [edit]

[b]Mr. Cheney's Day in Court[/b]

The Supreme Court hears arguments today on Vice President Dick Cheney's attempt to keep the public from knowing who met with him behind closed doors three years ago to draft the administration's energy policy. The case is best known for the controversy over Justice Antonin Scalia's decision to go duck hunting with Mr. Cheney while it was pending. But it raises important issues in its own right. The court should affirm the decisions of the lower courts and order Mr. Cheney to disclose the names of the participants. It should also be mindful of the role Justice Scalia plays. There is a real danger that his participation will damage the court's reputation.

In early 2001, Mr. Cheney convened an energy task force whose membership was secret. Environmental groups charge that he let energy companies and other big campaign donors participate in drafting energy policy and let them lobby for huge subsidies for themselves. Judicial Watch and the Sierra Club sued, saying that because people who are not federal employees were de facto members of the task force, the Federal Advisory Committee Act requires that its records be made public. Mr. Cheney says the act does not apply because the task force's members were all federal employees.

To decide who is right, the trial court had to know something about who participated. It ordered limited disclosure, but Mr. Cheney argued that the order violated his executive privilege. The trial court said it was willing to take reasonable steps to guard the information, such as by reviewing it in private. But Mr. Cheney rejected these offers and is instead seeking a blanket order that he does not need to release the names.

Mr. Cheney is on weak legal ground, as both the trial court and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit have ruled. Many of the legal issues are arcane procedural questions about when pretrial discovery orders can be appealed. But the case also raises more substantive issues about the degree to which a vice president can claim to be above the law. As the Supreme Court held in a landmark case involving President Richard Nixon's Watergate tapes, executive privilege has its limits. Mr. Cheney may be entitled to ask that the disclosure requests be narrowed, but there is no basis for exempting him entirely.

When Justice Scalia's hunting trip became public, there were widespread calls for him to recuse himself. The Supreme Court said that the decision was Mr. Scalia's, and that he had chosen not to. That may resolve the question legally, but it remains troubling. If the court decides this case, which has implications for the Bush-Cheney re-election campaign, by 5 to 4, with Justice Scalia casting the deciding vote, it will bring back memories of Bush v. Gore. And it will further harm the reputation of a court whose authority has always derived from its claim to be a legal body, not a political one.

[b]The N.Y. Times[/b], http://nytimes.com/2004/04/27...

Supreme Court Should Order Cheney To Release Papers - This Isn't Stalinist Russia!!!

04.27.04 (7:42 am) [edit]

War in Iraq aims a bullet at the heart of the economy

04.26.04 (7:56 am) [edit]

b]War in Iraq aims a bullet at the heart of the economy[/b]

[i][b]There's no indication that Bush thought through the potential for far-reaching fiscal damage[/b][/i].

However badly the war is going in Iraq, on the home front it is still a good thing for George Bush — so far.

A year ago, the push to Baghdad doubled the economic growth rate and got a recovery started. Now, the literally untold billions in military payrolls and equipment purchases that keep the war going also help to propel our economy along.

This is normal. All wars bring cheerful economic news at first. They stimulate production. They raise capacity utilization, which helps business cover costs and improve earnings. This is good for the stock market. Wars create jobs and also usually draw young men and women away from the labor force, cutting unemployment. (So far, this war has been fought by a handful of overstretched professional soldiers, so the job effects have been small. That could change, especially if the draft is resurrected, as some would like.)

But the good news doesn't last.

Soon enough, profiteers see their chances. Bottlenecks happen. Prices go up. Long before unemployment disappears, wars generate inflation. Indeed, inflation — and the depreciation of private wealth and public debt that it brings — is the ages-old way in which governments pay for war.

Wars upset the trade balance. They gobble imports. And they tend to pull critical resources — scientific talent and key materials — away from exports. Our trade deficit is already staggering. As the economy grows, it will get worse. Under wartime conditions, it will get worse still.

Wars aggravate the national external debt. Already we borrow half a trillion dollars yearly from abroad. How long will Japan and China keep sending us goods and piling up uncashed IOUs in return? No one knows.

And what do we get for our blood and treasure? Security is priceless, of course — if, in fact, you get it. But in material terms, do we get, for instance, cheaper oil from our Saudi ally? Certainly not at the moment. Bob Woodward does tell us that Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has arranged a few months of relief for his friend, George W. Bush, this coming fall. But don't expect that largess to outlast the election.

The U.S. had one good economic experience with war. World War II conquered the Depression, reindustrialized the country and built the middle class. But that was special. The U.S. fought WWII with full mobilization, super-high taxes, super-low interest rates, big deficits, price controls and rationing. Iraq isn't going to be like World War II.

Economically, the Iraq war is more like Vietnam: insidiously underestimated, sold to the public and Congress on false premises, improperly budgeted and inadequately taxed. During the Vietnam years, there was also economic growth at first. But then came creeping inflation, followed by worldwide commodity shocks, the oil crisis of 1973, international monetary disorder and a decade of economic troubles.

Could it happen again? Yes, it could.

Did Team Bush think through the economics of a long and costly war? There is no evidence it did. It counted on the war being quick, cheap and self-financing. If it thought about the long-range economics, there seems to have been only one goal: control of oil.

Spain's Philip II believed that control of the gold of Peru and silver of Mexico would guarantee his nation's predominance in Europe. Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake disagreed. Louis XIV and Napoleon I trusted in conquest to enrich France. Their ministers — Turgot and Talleyrand — knew better. Winston Churchill vowed not to preside over the end of the British Empire. But his successors gave it up when they couldn't afford it anymore. Luckily, the U.S. was there to take over, and we had the support of the free world. But that was then.

By going into Iraq with few allies, we've assumed the entire economic cost. The home-front damage is small now, but it will build over time. And it will take time and effort to repair. The future American economy will especially need a new energy direction, emphasizing conservation and renewable energy, and concerted investment in the world's next generation of technologies — both to reduce our oil dependence and to help balance our trade deficits.

Let's hope Sen. John F. Kerry makes this point on his manufacturing tour this week.

And let's hope that Americans understand. Real security begins at home.

[b]James K. Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin and is chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, www.ecaar.org, a global network of economists. [/b] - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

War in Iraq aims a bullet at the heart of the economy

04.26.04 (7:54 am) [edit]

[b]War in Iraq aims a bullet at the heart of the economy[/b]

[i][b]There's no indication that Bush thought through the potential for far-reaching fiscal damage[/b][/i].

However badly the war is going in Iraq, on the home front it is still a good thing for George Bush — so far.

A year ago, the push to Baghdad doubled the economic growth rate and got a recovery started. Now, the literally untold billions in military payrolls and equipment purchases that keep the war going also help to propel our economy along.

This is normal. All wars bring cheerful economic news at first. They stimulate production. They raise capacity utilization, which helps business cover costs and improve earnings. This is good for the stock market. Wars create jobs and also usually draw young men and women away from the labor force, cutting unemployment. (So far, this war has been fought by a handful of overstretched professional soldiers, so the job effects have been small. That could change, especially if the draft is resurrected, as some would like.)

But the good news doesn't last.

Soon enough, profiteers see their chances. Bottlenecks happen. Prices go up. Long before unemployment disappears, wars generate inflation. Indeed, inflation — and the depreciation of private wealth and public debt that it brings — is the ages-old way in which governments pay for war.

Wars upset the trade balance. They gobble imports. And they tend to pull critical resources — scientific talent and key materials — away from exports. Our trade deficit is already staggering. As the economy grows, it will get worse. Under wartime conditions, it will get worse still.

Wars aggravate the national external debt. Already we borrow half a trillion dollars yearly from abroad. How long will Japan and China keep sending us goods and piling up uncashed IOUs in return? No one knows.

And what do we get for our blood and treasure? Security is priceless, of course — if, in fact, you get it. But in material terms, do we get, for instance, cheaper oil from our Saudi ally? Certainly not at the moment. Bob Woodward does tell us that Prince Bandar ibn Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the U.S., has arranged a few months of relief for his friend, George W. Bush, this coming fall. But don't expect that largess to outlast the election.

The U.S. had one good economic experience with war. World War II conquered the Depression, reindustrialized the country and built the middle class. But that was special. The U.S. fought WWII with full mobilization, super-high taxes, super-low interest rates, big deficits, price controls and rationing. Iraq isn't going to be like World War II.

Economically, the Iraq war is more like Vietnam: insidiously underestimated, sold to the public and Congress on false premises, improperly budgeted and inadequately taxed. During the Vietnam years, there was also economic growth at first. But then came creeping inflation, followed by worldwide commodity shocks, the oil crisis of 1973, international monetary disorder and a decade of economic troubles.

Could it happen again? Yes, it could.

Did Team Bush think through the economics of a long and costly war? There is no evidence it did. It counted on the war being quick, cheap and self-financing. If it thought about the long-range economics, there seems to have been only one goal: control of oil.

Spain's Philip II believed that control of the gold of Peru and silver of Mexico would guarantee his nation's predominance in Europe. Elizabeth I and Sir Francis Drake disagreed. Louis XIV and Napoleon I trusted in conquest to enrich France. Their ministers — Turgot and Talleyrand — knew better. Winston Churchill vowed not to preside over the end of the British Empire. But his successors gave it up when they couldn't afford it anymore. Luckily, the U.S. was there to take over, and we had the support of the free world. But that was then.

By going into Iraq with few allies, we've assumed the entire economic cost. The home-front damage is small now, but it will build over time. And it will take time and effort to repair. The future American economy will especially need a new energy direction, emphasizing conservation and renewable energy, and concerted investment in the world's next generation of technologies — both to reduce our oil dependence and to help balance our trade deficits.

Let's hope Sen. John F. Kerry makes this point on his manufacturing tour this week.

And let's hope that Americans understand. Real security begins at home.

[b]James K. Galbraith teaches at the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas in Austin and is chair of Economists Allied for Arms Reduction, www.ecaar.org, a global network of economists. [/b] - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Who would Jesus occupy?

04.26.04 (7:52 am) [edit]

Who would Jesus occupy?

04.26.04 (7:51 am) [edit]

'Who would Jesus occupy?'

04.26.04 (7:50 am) [edit]

Dick Cheney and his little dummy Bushy-boy: Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation

04.26.04 (7:46 am) [edit]

[b]Dick Cheney and his little dummy: Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation[/b]

Chairman Thomas H. Kean, asked at a news conference a few weeks ago about the White House's requirement that President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney appear together before his commission on the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, quipped: "Well, we recognize that Mr. Bush may help Mr. Cheney with some of the answers."

Kean's remark sparked laughter among the assembled reporters because it turned upside down the assumption of the question, and of much of official Washington: that the White House requested the joint appearance, scheduled for April 29, so Cheney could coach Bush on his answers. While Bush has declined to explain the rationale for the joint meeting, Democrats charge that Cheney is a "ventriloquist," and even a number of independent observers say it appears that the two men are trying to keep their stories straight.

Bush, asked twice at his recent news conference why he and Cheney required a joint appearance, declined to discuss the decision, saying, "It's a good chance for both of us to answer questions that the 9/11 commission is looking forward to asking us, and I'm looking forward to answering them."

Bush aides have offered a somewhat more detailed explanation. Officials said they see the session as a way to tie together the testimony of many other administration officials. They also said that while the commissioners are free to address any subject, they expect the panel to focus on the actions on Sept. 11, and that because the two were in separate locations, though in constant contact, presenting the narrative jointly would allow for a comprehensive chronology rather than two largely redundant accounts.

"On Sept. 11, the president and vice president were in different locations when these horrific attacks took place, but they were in contact with each other throughout the day," said White House press secretary Scott McClellan. "It makes sense, from that standpoint, to pull together as much as possible."

But analysts said that explanation has not dispelled suspicions that the two men are trying to keep their accounts consistent. "I've tried to think of a better explanation, and I can't," said Norman Ornstein, a congressional scholar with the American Enterprise Institute. "There's little doubt if the president had a better explanation, he would have addressed the issue."

Bruce Fein, who served in the Justice Department during the Reagan administration and on the Republican staff of the congressional Iran-Contra investigation, said such an arrangement has both constitutional and investigative flaws. "A joint appearance sabotages the idea of a unitary executive -- the 'buck stops here' attitude of Harry Truman -- by enabling Bush to shift blame or accountability to Cheney when politically expedient." In investigations such as Iran-Contra, Fein said, "customary legal rules require sequestration of witnesses in depositions and at trial to avoid tailoring the truth to avoid inconsistencies."

America Coming Together, an anti-Bush election fund, offered a less clinical analysis.

"Edgar Bergen and Charlie McCarthy?" the group asked in a news release about the Bush-Cheney appearance.

The thinking of Bush aides, though, is that if the goal of the two men were to keep their stories straight, a joint appearance would not be required. Though the commission is not permitted to transcribe the session, the White House is free to do so, which means the second man to address the commission could read the answers the first man gave.

The commission in mid-February requested individual interviews with Bush, Cheney, Bill Clinton, and Al Gore. Clinton and Gore accepted, but Bush and Cheney each said they would meet only with representatives of the commission. The White House also sought to put a one-hour time limit on the president's appearance.

The commission pushed for the sessions with Bush and Cheney to be for all 10 commissioners and without a set time limit -- a request the White House ultimately accepted, but with the condition that the session be a joint appearance. The private session will not be considered an under-oath testimony because of executive-power concerns voiced by the White House.

"The commission's response was it was a little unusual and a little unprecedented, but it was fine," said commission spokesman Al Felzenberg. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Dick Cheney and his little dummy Bushy-boy: Joint 9/11 testimony raises speculation

04.26.04 (7:45 am) [edit]

Bush's lawyers try to gag FBI translator who says gov't knew of al Qaeda's plans

04.26.04 (7:43 am) [edit]

[b]Bush's lawyers try to gag FBI translator who says gov't knew of al Qaeda's plans[/b]

The Bush administration will today seek to prevent a former FBI translator from providing evidence about 11 September intelligence failures to a group of relatives and survivors who have accused international banks and officials of aiding al-Qa'ida.

Sibel Edmonds was subpoenaed by a law firm representing more than 500 family members and survivors of the attacks to testify that she had seen information proving there was considerable evidence before September 2001 that al-Qa'ida was planning to strike the US with aircraft. The lawyers made their demand after reading comments Mrs Edmonds had made to The Independent.

But the US Justice Department is seeking to stop her from testifying, citing the rarely used "state secrets privilege". Today in a federal court in Washington, senior government lawyers will try to gag Mrs Edmonds, claiming that disclosure of her evidence "would cause serious damage to the national security and foreign policy interests of the United States".

Mrs Edmonds, 33, a Turkish-American who had top secret security clearance, claimed this month that while working in the FBI's Washington headquarters, she saw information proving senior officials knew of al-Qa'ida plans to attack the US with aircraft months before the strikes. She has provided sworn testimony to the independent panel appointed by President George Bush to investigate the circumstances surrounding 11 September.

Mrs Edmonds was subpoenaed by the law firm Motley-Rice, which represents hundreds of families who are taking civil action against a number of banks and two members of the Saudi royal family for allegedly aiding al-Qa'ida.

Her lawyer, Mark Zaid, said last night: "The FBI wants to shut her up completely." He said it was ridiculous to claim that everything Mrs Edmonds knew had national security implications. Rather, he said, the FBI wanted to silence his client to save its embarrassment.

The Bush administration has been put on the back foot by allegations that senior officials - perhaps even Mr Bush himself - were provided with considerable information warning of an imminent attack by al-Qa'ida and that they failed to act. Mrs Edmonds said yesterday: "What are they are afraid of? If I am not allowed to give evidence, the families will not get the information I have; that will be that."

She said it was wrong for the Bush administration to claim it wanted a full investigation. "If there is transparency, there is going to be accountability and that is what they don't want." - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Bush's lawyers try to gag FBI translator who says gov't knew of al Qaeda's plans

04.26.04 (7:41 am) [edit]

The Rich Get Richer, The Rest Of Us Get Iraq!

04.25.04 (7:22 am) [edit]

[b]THE RICH GET RICHER, THE REST GET IRAQ[/b]

All right, here's the plan. The Bush Plan. Only the rich kids get into the good colleges, like Yale, with big federal tax cuts financing even bigger tuitions. The poor kids and middle-class kids get drafted into the military to fight preventive wars around the globe.

I exaggerate. I hope. But you could make the case that this is what is really going on in the United States today. Last Tuesday, Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska, a Republican who served in Vietnam, questioned Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz during a hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee about the rising costs and dangers of occupying Iraq (news - web sites), then concluded:

"There is not an American who doesn't understand what we are engaged in and what the prospects are for the future. ... Those who are serving today and dying today are the children of the middle and lower middle class. Why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?"

He went on to say that the United States is making military commitments today -- particularly a 25-year war against terrorism -- that it cannot possibly meet with today's all-volunteer military. Then he spoke the unspeakable: "We must consider a draft."

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the ranking Democrat on the committee, added later: "The whole notion of shared burden is something we should be talking about well beyond the issue of just the draft."

Why not indeed? Ending the draft was Richard Nixon's biggest dirty trick. He managed to pull it off in 1973 as a way to stop student demonstrations against the war in Vietnam. It worked; most students went back to studying after they did not have to face the risk of being sent out to die for the mistakes of their elders.

One result of all that was to give the White House the opportunity to plan wars in secret and execute them without the consent of the governed. War has become a spectator sport for most of us. To be more specific: If there had been a draft, we would not be in Iraq, because President Bush (news - web sites) and his gang would have had to persuade the Congress and country that we were in grave danger from the inhabitants of that particular rats' nest.

Meanwhile, life goes on as usual at home. The rich get richer and ... we all know the rest. The New York Times confirmed it the day after Hagel spoke, under the front-page headline: "As Wealthy Fill Top Colleges, Concerns Grow Over Fairness."

The newspaper reported what any parent of a college student, me among them, already knew: People with significant money are the only Americans who can meet bills of $40,000 a year for tuition, room and board -- and the tens of thousands of dollars more for private school educations, tutoring and coaching often necessary to get into the best private and state universities.

The spreading gaps in American incomes are turning around one of the United States' greatest achievements (and investments), the democratization of the best education that began with the GI Bill after World War II. Until then, Americans knew their place. Harvard and Yale were, more or less, the places for the children of their own graduates -- and most applicants were accepted because most Americans never even thought of applying.

Then, in a new America, everyone began to think Harvard or the University of Michigan or Stanford was their place, too. Soon only one in 10 applicants were being accepted, and the schools were getting better and better because smart middle-class kids, and some smart poor ones, too, were replacing all the rich kids at Daddy's school, say, Yale. I'm not naming any names here.

Speaking of who gets in and who doesn't, which means who runs America one day, the president of Harvard, Lawrence Summers, told the Times: "It's very much an issue of fairness. An important purpose of institutions like Harvard is to give everyone a shot at the American dream."

That's the way it should be. But the tide and all the costs have begun to turn back toward the past. The percentage of students at the 250 highest-rated colleges and universities who come from families in the top quarter of incomes has risen from 46 percent in 1985 to at least 55 percent now. It is a turn that few welcome. After all, if it continues, we will forever have presidents named George Bush. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...%2Fuclicktext%2F20040424% 2Fcm_ucrr%2Ftherichgetric hertherestgetiraq

The Rich Get Richer, The Rest Of Us Get Iraq!

04.25.04 (7:21 am) [edit]

Loser Bush & The Jesus Factor

04.25.04 (7:18 am) [edit]

[b]The Jesus Factor[/b]

On the day that George W. Bush was sworn into his second term as governor of Texas, friend and advisor Dr. Richard Land recalls Bush making an unexpected pronouncement.

"The day he was inaugurated there were several of us who met with him at the governor's mansion," says Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention's Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission. "And among the things he said to us was, 'I believe that God wants me to be president.'"

How George W. Bush became a born-again Christian--and the impact that decision has had on his political career--is the focus of the FRONTLINE® report "The Jesus Factor," airing Thursday, April 29, at 9 P.M. on PBS (check local listings). Through interviews with Bush family friends, advisors, political analysts, and observers--as well as excerpts from the president's speeches, interviews, and debates--the one-hour documentary chronicles George W. Bush's personal religious journey while also examining the growing political influence of the nation's more than 70 million evangelical Christians.

"President Bush has been called the most openly religious president in modern history," says producer Raney Aronson. "The documentary explores what that means for George Bush, both as a person and as president of the United States."

"The Jesus Factor" recounts how George Bush--struggling with business failures and a drinking problem--made a life-altering decision in the 1980s after spending a weekend with longtime family friend Billy Graham: "It was the beginning of a new walk where I would recommit my heart to Jesus Christ," Bush later wrote. The change that decision produced in his life, friends say, was both remarkable and genuine.

"It wasn't just a flash in the pan," says Mark Leaverton, co-founder of the Midland, Texas, Community Bible Study--a group to which Bush became a devoted attendee. "It wasn't just a temporary experience for him. He'd changed and all of a sudden studying the Bible was important."

Bush's newfound faith would prove politically important during his father's 1988 presidential campaign, when the elder Bush--an Episcopalian--found himself struggling to connect with a group that had recently gained political clout: evangelical Christians. Evangelicals had helped elect Ronald Reagan, the Bush campaign knew, and observers credit George W. Bush with playing a key role in cementing this group's support for his father in 1988.

"If it wasn't for the son, George Bush the father wouldn't have received as much support as he did in the evangelical community," says Wayne Slater, Austin bureau chief of the Dallas Morning News and author of Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential. "George W. Bush reached out to some key evangelical ministers, reassuring them about the values of his father in a way his father, an Episcopalian, never could."

The younger Bush's evangelical credentials would later help him in his campaign for governor of Texas. After a failed run for Congress in the 1970s--during which he was portrayed as a partying, rich-boy outsider--Bush's newfound faith enabled him to connect with Texans in a whole new way, observers say.

"I saw George Bush in church settings--and he was a master," Slater says. "He was marvelously successful in talking their language, reinforcing their values, and appealing successfully to the kinds of people who not only would vote for him, but would tell the neighbors to vote for him. Not only organize phone banks for him, but would call prayer lines and talk about George Bush as a campaigner."

"The Jesus Factor" chronicles Bush's efforts in Texas to allow faith-based groups to access state funding for social service programs--a policy he would later advance following his election to the White House. And once again, the support of evangelical Christians proved critical to Bush's razor-thin victory.

"The single most reliable predictor of how a person voted in the 2000 election was whether they went to church or to synagogue or mosque at least once a week," the Southern Baptist Convention's Land says. "If [they did], two-thirds of them voted for George Bush."

In "The Jesus Factor," viewers hear from numerous evangelical Christians who say President Bush understands the "heart and soul" of their beliefs and that his post-9/11 speeches comforted a grieving nation. FRONTLINE also speaks to those who feel the president has taken his rhetoric--and his religion--too far.

"If we turn religion into a tool for advancing political strategy, we treat it as anything other than a sacred part of life from which we draw values and strength," says Rev. Dr. C. Welton Gaddy, president of The Interfaith Alliance. "Any time that religion has identified itself with a particular political movement or a particular government, religion has been harmed by that."

"The Jesus Factor" concludes by assessing the importance of the evangelical vote to George W. Bush's reelection campaign strategy.

"Evangelical Protestants are an absolutely critical part of the Republican base," says Dr. John Green, director of the University of Akron's Bliss Institute of Applied Politics and author of Religion and the Culture Wars. "The first stone in building the wall of re-election are evangelical Protestants." - http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages...

Beware of Criticizing Israel in the So-called "Land of the Free"

04.25.04 (7:14 am) [edit]

[b]A Warning to Those Who Dare to Criticize Israel in the Land of Free Speech[/b]

Behold Mary Robinson, former president of Ireland, former UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, would-be graduation commencement speaker at Emory University in the United States. She has made a big mistake. She dared to criticise Israel. She suggested--horror of horrors--that "the root cause of the Arab-Israeli conflict is the occupation". Now whoah there a moment, Mary! "Occupation"? Isn't that a little bit anti-Israeli?

Are you really suggesting that the military occupation of the West Bank and Gaza Strip by Israel, its use of extrajudicial executions against Palestinian gunmen, the Israeli gunning down of schoolboy stone-throwers, the wholesale theft of Arab land to build homes for Jews, is in some way wrong?

Maybe I misheard you. Sure I did. Because your response to these scurrilous libels, to these slurs upon your right to free speech, to these slanderous attacks on your integrity, was a pussy-cat's whimper. You were "very hurt and dismayed". It is, you told The Irish Times, "distressing that allegations are being made that are completely unfounded".

You should have threatened your accusers with legal action. When I warn those who claim in their vicious postcards that my mother was Eichmann's daughter that they will receive a solicitor's letter--Peggy Fisk was in the RAF in the Second World War, but no matter--they fall silent at once.

But no, you are "hurt". You are "dismayed". And you allow Professor Kenneth Stein of Emory University to announce that he is "troubled by the apparent absence of due diligence on the part of decision makers who invited her [Mary Robinson] to speak". I love the "due diligence" bit. But seriously, how can you allow this twisted version of your integrity to go unpunished?

Dismayed. Ah, Mary, you poor diddums.

I tried to check the spelling of "diddums" in Webster's, America's inspiring, foremost dictionary. No luck. But then, what's the point when Webster's Third New International Dictionary defines "anti-Semitism" as "opposition to Zionism: sympathy with opponents of the state of Israel".

Come again? If you or I suggest--or, indeed, if poor wee Mary suggests--that the Palestinians are getting a raw deal under Israeli occupation, then we are "anti-Semitic". It is only fair, of course, to quote the pitiful response of the Webster's official publicist, Mr Arthur Bicknell, who was asked to account for this grotesque definition.

"Our job," he responded, "is to accurately reflect English as it is actually being used. We don't make judgement calls; we're not political." Even more hysterically funny and revolting, he says that the dictionary's editors tabulate "citational evidence" about anti-Semitism published in "carefully written prose-like books and magazines". Preposterous as it is, this Janus-like remark is worthy of the hollowest of laughs.

Even the Malaprops of American English are now on their knees to those who will censor critics of Israel's Middle East policy off the air.

And I mean "off the air". I've just received a justifiably outraged note from Bathsheba Ratskoff, a producer and editor at the American Media Education Foundation (MEF), who says that their new documentary on "the shutting-down of debate around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict"--in reality a film about Israel's public relations outfits in America--has been targeted by the "Jewish Action (sic) Task Force". The movie Peace, Propaganda and the Promised Land was to be shown at the Boston Museum of Fine Arts.

So what happened? The "JAT" demanded an apology to the Jewish community and a "pledge (for) greater sensitivity (sic) when tackling Israel and the Middle East conflict in the future". JAT members "may want to consider threatening to cancel their memberships and to withhold contributions".

In due course, a certain Susan Longhenry of the Museum of Fine Arts wrote a creepy letter to Sut Jhally of the MEF, referring to the concerns of "many members of the Boston community"--otherwise, of course, unidentified--suggesting a rescheduled screening (because the original screening would have fallen on the Jewish Sabbath) and a discussion that would have allowed critics to condemn the film. The letter ended--and here I urge you to learn the weasel words of power--that "we have gone to great lengths to avoid cancelling altogether screenings of this film; however, if you are not able to support the revised approach, then I'm afraid we'll have no choice but to do just that".

Does Ms Longhenry want to be a mouse? Or does she want to have the verb "to longhenry" appear in Webster's? Or at least in the Oxford? Fear not, Ms Longhenry's boss overrode her pusillanimous letter. For the moment, at least.

But where does this end? Last Sunday, I was invited to talk on Irish television's TV3 lunchtime programme on Iraq and President Bush's support for Sharon's new wall on the West Bank. Towards the end of the programme, Tom Cooney, a law lecturer at University College, Dublin, suddenly claimed that I had called an Israeli army unit a "rabble" (absolutely correct--they are) and that I reported they had committed a massacre in Jenin in 2002.

I did not say they committed a massacre. But I should have. A subsequent investigation showed that Israeli troops had knowingly shot down innocent civilians, killed a female nurse and driven a vehicle over a paraplegic in a wheelchair. "Blood libel!" Cooney screamed. TV3 immediately--and correctly--dissociated themselves from this libel. Again, I noted the involvement of an eminent university--UCD is one of the finest academic institutions in Ireland and I can only hope that Cooney exercises a greater academic discipline with his young students than he did on TV3--in this slander. And of course, I got the message. Shut up. Don't criticise Israel.

So let me end on a positive note. Just as Bathsheba is a Jewish American, British Jews are also prominent in an organisation called Deir Yassin Remembered, which commemorates the massacre of Arab Palestinians by Jewish militiamen outside Jerusalem in 1948. This year, they remembered the Arab victims of that massacre--9 April--on the same day that Christians commemorated Good Friday.

The day also marked the fourth day of the eight-day Jewish Passover. It also fell on the anniversary of the 1945 execution by the Nazis of Pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer at Flossenburg concentration camp. Jewish liberation 3,000 years ago, the death of a Palestinian Jew 2,000 years ago, the death of a German Christian 59 years ago and the massacre of more than 100 Palestinian men, women and children 56 years ago. Alas, Deir Yassin Remembered does not receive the publicity it merits.

Webster's dictionary would meretriciously brand its supporters "anti-Semitic", and "many members of the Boston community" would no doubt object. "Blood libel," UCD's eminent law lecturer would scream. We must wait to hear what UCD thinks. But let us not be "hurt" or "dismayed". Let's just keep on telling it how it is. Isn't that what American journalism school was meant to teach us?

[b]Robert Fisk is a reporter for The Independent and author of[i] Pity the Nation[/i]. He is also a contributor to CounterPunch's hot new book, The Politics of Anti-Semitism[/b]. - http://www.counterpunch.com/f...

Coalition of the Unwilling: Bush Loses More Occupation Support

04.25.04 (7:11 am) [edit]

[b]US to lose more occupation support[/b]

Faced with an eroding occupation force, the United States has said it hopes several nations will keep troops in Iraq past their July deadline for withdrawal.

But Norway rejected the appeal on Saturday, indicating its 180 troops would leave after an American-backed interim Iraqi government takes power on 30 June.

Foreign Minister Jan Petersen said: "We must follow our original plan, of a commitment until the summer."

In the face of worsening violence, three countries - Spain, Honduras and the Dominican Republic - have announced they are pulling out their troops, totalling roughly 2000.

And occupation strength could crumble further because several nations have committed to staying only until the US occupiers transfer power to a selected Iraqi government.

[b]US request[/b]

In interviews with media from occupation allies on Friday, Secretary of State Colin Powell acknowledged Norway, the Netherlands and El Salvador - who have almost 2000 troops in Iraq - may not be in Iraq after 1 July.

Powell said a new UN resolution the US was drafting may persuade some nations to extend their tours of duty.

"With a new UN resolution it might be possible for Norway to take another look at the contribution they have made to this effort and perhaps make another contribution or extend the stay."

[b]Coming resolution[/b]

The resolution is in response to governments' requests that the UN role in Iraq and the international community's relationship with the interim government be made clear.

The US claims it is transferring sovereignty to Iraqis on 30 June.

But critics of the plan say Iraq will remain under American occupation because US troops will be outside the control of the interim government.

The forces from most occupation supporters are minimal compared with the 135,000 American troops in Iraq, but their symbolism is large.

[b]Bush unconcerned[/b]

During an election campaign stop in Florida on Friday, Bush indicated he was not ultimately concerned what other nations did when it comes to occupying Iraq.

"We're working closely with our friends and allies who understand the stakes.

"But let me make this very clear to you: I will never allow leaders of other nations to determine the national security issues of America," he said.

The US invaded Iraq without explicit authority from the UN and over the objections of major allies.

But it has stressed that its initial invasion and the fact the occupation force comprised troops from more than 30 nations showed international support for the war.

([b]Reuters[/b]) - http://english.aljazeera.net/...

Coalition of the Unwilling: Bush Loses More Occupation Support

04.25.04 (7:05 am) [edit]

Neo-Fascism in Action: Bush's Tax Cuts Feed the Rich & Impoverish the Rest of Us!!!

04.24.04 (7:30 am) [edit]

[b]Feed the Rich[/b]

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/ has come out with the most comprehensive study http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04ta... to date of three years of George W. Bush's tax policies. Highlights put together by CBPP can be found here http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04ta... , but I'll cherry pick a few of the more telling:

* Families making more than $1 million a year will enjoy 2004 tax cuts, on average, of $123,600 each.

* Middle-class families will enjoy 2004 tax cuts, on average, of $647.

* A crack team of White House experts has taken the middle-class families, mixed in the super-wealthy families and crunched out an "average" -- so that the President can cite a higher tax cut that the "average" family will get. Of course, the "average" family is not the typical family. If Bill Gates moves into your neighborhood, than the "average" wealth of families on your street moves into the billions, but that doesn't do you much good, does it.

* Without the tax cuts, deficits would be modest, and ten years from now would be at about $100 billion. With them, the deficit is on a pace to balloon to six or seven times that.

* Since we're borrowing money, at interest, to fund these tax cuts, we have tremendous interest payments. The President has proposed new tax cuts in his 2005 budget and has also proposed making permanent the fine work he's already done. Assuming he gets his way, then over the next ten years, we'd have coughed up $1.1 trillion in interest payments alone.

The CBPP doesn't make this calculation, but luckily I am an expert in back-of-the-envelope long division. So $1.1 trillion divided by the US population (of 293 million http://www.census.gov/ ) works out to just over $3,754 per American in interest payments; or, for a family of four, $15,016.

Hmm. From the perspective of a middle-class family of four, that's the annual equivalent of about $1,500 in interest payments on debt -- so as to finance about $647 in annual tax relief. What a bargain! Four more years! Four more years!

[b]By Matt Bivens, The Daily Outrage, The Nation[/b] - http://www.thenation.com/outr...

Neo-Fascism in Action: Bush's Tax Cuts Feed the Rich & Impoverish the Rest of Us!!!

04.24.04 (7:29 am) [edit]

LA Times Poll: Bush Approval Rating At Low Point, Kerry With Big Lead

04.24.04 (7:22 am) [edit]

[b]Bush Approval Hits a Low Point in State

[i]Bush's handling of Iraq gets poor marks. California would back Kerry, even with Nader in the race[/i][/b].

President Bush's popularity in California has dropped to the lowest level of his presidency amid rising public concern over his handling of Iraq and the economy, according to a new Los Angeles Times poll that found dislike of Bush driving support for his Democratic rival.

At a time of mounting American casualties in Iraq, the survey found a sharp turnaround in attitudes toward Bush's management of the war: 56% of California voters disapprove, up from 44% in July.

Most say the war is worth neither the lost lives of U.S. troops nor the cost to taxpayers. A solid majority of California voters believe Bush has no clear plan for Iraq. Two-thirds are concerned it will become another Vietnam.

The surge in public dissatisfaction with the Republican president on Iraq is among the starkest findings of a survey that illustrates the difficulties that Bush faces in trying to win California in the contest with Massachusetts Sen. John F. Kerry in November.

The poll affirmed the state's continuing tilt toward Democrats at a time when the country as a whole is almost evenly split between the two major parties.

Capturing the breach between California and Bush was poll respondent Roger Sack of Palo Alto, a Democrat who described himself as "uniformly negative" on the president.

"He represents a cultural kind of strain that I don't like — call it Texas, call it born-again, call it Southern — while at the same time, coming out of a country-club Republican background, and I think he's incompetent on top of all of that," Sack, a 62-year-old computer marketer, said in a follow-up interview.

Overall, the survey found, 54% of California voters disapprove of the way Bush is handling his job, while 44% approve.

On the economy, 53% disapprove of Bush's performance and 42% approve.

Bush's best showing came on his handling of terrorism — there, voters were split, but as in the other categories, his approval ratings slumped from past polls.

If the election were held today, the poll found, California voters would choose Kerry over Bush, 53% to 41%, in a two-way race.

With independent Ralph Nader on the ballot, Kerry would still defeat Bush in a romp, 49% to 39%, with Nader at 6%.

Either way, just 6% of voters are undecided — remarkably few for an election still more than six months away.

Despite Kerry's wide lead, the poll reflects a key challenge ahead for the Massachusetts senator, one he has tried to meet with television advertising in more closely divided states: to define himself clearly for voters. Fewer than a third of Kerry's California supporters say they will vote for him because they like him and his policies; 65% say they back him primarily because of their opposition to Bush.

Among them is Los Angeles lawyer Chad Levy, 27, a Democrat who called Kerry "one of those unobjectionable candidates."

"He seems all right, but I wouldn't say he's exactly inspired me or anything like that," Levy said. "I don't see anything wrong with him." Or in the words of Sack: "He's a little deficient in the charisma department."

By contrast, the president's support base, while smaller, is more solid. More than three out of four Bush supporters say they will vote for him mainly because they like him and his policies; just 17% because of opposition to Kerry.

Bush has climbed slightly in national polls, but The Times' poll shows that Iraq poses growing problems here in California. Just 41% of voters approve of the way he has handled the situation, down from 51% in July.

The poll found that public sentiment on Iraq was intense, mainly against the war: 47% strongly disapprove of what Bush has done there while 24% strongly approve.

"The thing I lose sleep over right now is these young men being killed," said Democrat Culvert William, 66, a retired San Diego high-school counselor who backs Kerry.

Bush's handling of Iraq draws dismal scores from Democrats and liberals (more than 80% of each disapprove), but Republicans and conservatives remain solidly behind him on the issue (roughly three out of four approve).

"He's doing the right thing," said Bush supporter Rita Fortney, 63, a Republican homemaker who lives in Sonoma County. "Nobody likes to go to war, but if that's what you've got to do to protect the United States, then that's what you've got to do."

Retired engineer Allen Sanderfer, 83, a Carpinteria Republican, wondered why the U.S. was at war in Iraq when many of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers were Saudi Arabian. "I can't understand for the life of me why, when A attacks you, you go after B or C," he said.

Nearly two-thirds of moderates disapprove of the president's handling of Iraq, along with 60% of independents. Both are key voting blocs in California, particularly for Republicans seeking to overcome Democrats' advantage in voter registration.

Half of the state's voters say they are very concerned that Iraq will become another Vietnam in which the United States does not accomplish its goals despite years of military involvement. An additional 17% are somewhat concerned, while about a third are not concerned.

"Didn't we learn anything from that horrible travesty?" asked Democrat Mary Bradshaw, 55, a Palm Springs mental-health therapist.

Roughly three out of five California voters see the Iraq war as not worth the military lives lost or the money spent. The strongest opposition comes from African Americans, statistically the most loyal Democrats; 86% of them see it as not worth the lives lost, and 80% say it is not worth the cost to taxpayers.

If Bush's news conference on Iraq last week was meant to buttress his position, it did the opposite among California voters, the poll found. Nearly two-thirds caught Bush's presentation, but 59% of them say he did not clearly explain his reasons for going to war. Also, 38% say the president's remarks made them view him less favorably, 14% say more favorably, and just under half say it made no difference.

Despite Bush's Iraq troubles, the survey was not uniformly bleak for the president on national security issues, which his campaign views as a prime asset for November. On the subject of terrorism, 55% say Bush's policies have made the country safer, while 22% say they have made it less safe. Overall, voters were split on Bush's record of handling terrorism: 49% approve, 48% disapprove.

"He's doing a good job of keeping us protected," Fortney said. "I think he's doing all he can. I really do."

Still, many California voters find credible the allegations by former White House counter- terrorism chief Richard A. Clarke that Bush neglected terrorism before the Sept. 11 attacks.

Asked about those charges and national security advisor Condoleezza Rice's assertion that Bush did all he could to thwart terrorism before the attacks, 47% of California voters say they believe Clarke more than Rice, while 42% back Rice.

Complicating Bush's efforts in California is the state's lagging economy. With voters calling it the state's most important problem, Bush's ratings have dropped substantially since July. Then, 50% approved of the job he was doing on the economy and 46% disapproved. Now it is nearly the reverse — 42% approve and 53% disapprove.

As for Bush's tax cuts, 36% say they helped the nation's economy, but 28% believe they hurt it and 31% see them as making no difference.

In the two-way match-up with Kerry, Bush wins strong support from Republicans (80%), conservatives (74%) and whites who attend religious services at least once a week (60%). Despite Bush's appeals to Latino voters, just 36% of them favor Bush over Kerry. That is close to the 38% support he garnered among Latinos in 2000.

Kerry's base is broader. He is heavily favored by Democrats (82%), liberals (86%), blacks (75%), Latinos (58%), union members (67%), voters between the ages of 18 and 29 (58%) and whites who never attend religious services (58%).

Nader, the former consumer advocate whom many Democrats still blame for Al Gore's defeat in 2000, runs strongest among young voters, winning 16% of those between 18 and 29. He also captures at least 10% of liberals, independents, Latinos and unemployed men.

Geographically, the poll reflects the political fault between coastal and inland California. Kerry runs well ahead of Bush in counties along the coast (56% to 36%), but Bush has a narrow edge (49% to 46%) in the less populous inland counties, primarily the Central Valley and the Inland Empire.

In a state dominated by Democrats, the poll also found distinct trouble spots for Bush beyond the built-in disadvantage that any Republican faces in California. Most striking: 32% of moderate Republicans favor Kerry over Bush. And independent voters, now more than 16% of the state's electorate, also prefer Kerry over Bush, 50% to 42%.

Some Republicans have suggested that the election of Arnold Schwarzenegger as governor could help Bush defy expectations and win California. But nine out of 10 voters say the Republican governor's endorsement makes no difference to them in the presidential race.

The survey, supervised by Times polling director Susan Pinkus, interviewed 1,265 registered California voters between April 17 and 21. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

*

([u]BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX[/u])

[u][b]Asked of registered California voters[/b][/u]

Cost of war

Do you think the outcome of the war in Iraq has been ...

... worth the cost in U.S. military lives?

Yes: 30%

No: 62%

... worth the financial cost to the U.S.?

Yes: 36%

No: 58%

Source: Times Poll

*

([u]BEGIN TEXT OF INFOBOX[/u])

[u][b]California outlook[/b][/u]

Q: If the November election were being held today, for whom would you vote:

... if George W. Bush and John F. Kerry were running:

All voters Democrats Independents Republicans

Bush 41% 11% 42% 80%

Kerry 53 82 50 15

Someone else 0 1 1 0

Don't know 6 6 7 5

... if George W. Bush, John F. Kerry and Ralph Nader were running:

All voters Democrats Independents Republicans

Bush 39% 9% 40% 78%

Kerry 49 80 44 14

Nader 6 4 10 3

Don't know 6 7 6 5

Q: Are you planning to vote for your presidential candidate mostly because you like him and his policies or mostly because you are voting against his opponent?

All Voters

Like candidate: 52%

Voting against opponent: 44%

Don't know: 4%

Voting for Bush

Like candidate: 78%

Voting against opponent: 17%

Don't know: 5%

Voting for Kerry

Like candidate: 32%

Voting against opponent: 65%

Don't know: 3%

Q: Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling:

Approve Dispprove

Overall job 44% 54%

Situation in Iraq 41% 56%

War on terrorism 49% 48%

Economy 42% 53%

Q: Over the past three years, George W. Bush's policies on terrorism and national security have made the country:

All voters Democrats Independents Republicans

More secure 55% 35% 59% 83%

Less secure 22 37 18 5

No difference 21 26 21 11

Don't know 2 2 2 1

Q: Do you think President Bush and his advisors have a clear plan for handling the situation in Iraq?

All voters Democrats Independents Republicans

Clear plan 34% 19% 23% 58%

Not a clear plan 61 78 70 34

Don't know 5 3 7 8

[u][b]How the Poll Was Conducted[/b][/u]

The Los Angeles Times Poll contacted 1,571 California residents, including 1,265 registered voters, by telephone April 17 through 21, 2004. Telephone numbers were chosen from a list of all exchanges in the state. Random digit dialing techniques were used so that listed and unlisted numbers were contacted. The sample of all California adults was weighted slightly to conform with census figures for sex, race, age, education and party registration figures from the secretary of state's office. The margin of sampling error for all adults and registered voters is plus or minus 3 percentage points. For certain subgroups the error margin may be somewhat higher. Poll results can also be affected by factors such as question wording and the order in which questions are presented. Interviews were conducted in English and Spanish.

[b]Note: [/b][i]Some columns may not add up to 100% where `don't knows' are not shown. All results shown are among registered voters[/i].

*
[b]L. A. Times Poll [/b]- http://www.latimes.com/news/c...,1,2857451.story?coll=la-home-headli nes

LA Times Poll: Bush Approval Rating At Low Point, Kerry With Big Lead

04.24.04 (7:20 am) [edit]

The Ignorant More Likely to be Bush Supporters!!!

04.24.04 (7:07 am) [edit]

[b]Bush's believe it or not[/b]

US public perceptions about former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda and stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) continue to lag far behind the testimony of experts, boosting chances that President George W Bush will be re-elected, according to a survey and analysis released on Thursday.

Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix; as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before US troops invaded the country 13 months ago.

"The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.

"The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November," he added.

The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the presidential election in November.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in carrying out the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, Senator John Kerry.

Among the 40 percent of respondents who said they believed there was no connection at all between Saddam and al-Qaeda or that ties consisted only of minor contacts or visits, on the other hand, only 28 percent said they intended to vote for Bush, while 68 percent said their ballots would go to Kerry.

The survey, which was based on interviews with a random sample of 1,311 respondents in March, was released amid a series of polls that indicate that Bush and Kerry are in a virtual tie less than seven months before the actual election.

While Kerry appeared to be leading in the wake of last month's congressional testimony by Clarke, who accused the Bush administration of being insufficiently seized with the threat posed by al-Qaeda before the September 11 attacks, the president, who in recent weeks has spent an unprecedented amount of money on television advertising so early in the campaign, has closed the gap and, according to one Washington Post poll published this week, pulled slightly ahead.

The latest PIPA study is remarkable because it shows that public perceptions about Iraq, or at least about the threat it posed before the US invasion, are lagging far behind what acknowledged experts have themselves concluded and whose findings have been reported in the mass media.

Virtually all independent experts and even senior administration officials have concluded since the war that ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the war were virtually non-existent, and even Bush himself has explicitly dismissed the notion that Baghdad had a hand in the September 11 attacks.

Yet the March poll found that 20 percent of respondents believe that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks - the same percentage as on the eve of the war, in February 2003.

Similarly, the percentages of those who believe Iraq provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda (37 percent) and those who believe contacts were minimal (29 percent) are also virtually unchanged from 13 months before. As of March 2004, 11 percent said there was "no connection at all", up 4 percent from February 2003.

Some - but surprisingly little - change was found in answers to whether Washington had found concrete evidence since the war that substantiated a Saddam-al-Qaeda link. Thus, in June 2003, 52 percent of respondents said evidence had been found, while only 45 percent said so last month.

As to WMD, about which there has been significantly more media coverage, 60 percent of respondents said Iraq either had actual WMD (38 percent) or had a major program for developing them (22 percent). In contrast, 39 percent said Baghdad had limited WMD-related activities that fell short of an active program - what Kay, as the Central Intelligence Agency's main weapons inspector, concluded in February - or no activities at all.

Moreover, the message conveyed by Kay and other experts appears not to be getting through to the public, adds the survey, which found a whopping 82 percent of respondents saying either, "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda" (47 percent) or, "experts are evenly divided on the question" (35 percent).

Only 15 percent said it was their impression that "experts mostly agree [that] Iraq was not providing substantial support to al-Qaeda".

There was similar confusion with respect to the WMD question: despite all the publicity given Kay's, Blix's, and the findings of other independent experts that Iraq did not have WMD before the war, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believed that most experts said it did have them (30 percent) or that experts were evenly divided on the issue (35 percent).

The poll found a high correlation between beliefs about prewar Iraq with support for going to war with Iraq and for the intentions to vote for Bush in November.

Among those who perceived experts as saying Iraq had WMD, 72 percent said they would vote for Bush, and 23 percent said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived the experts as concluding that Iraq did not have WMD, 23 percent said they would vote for Bush and 74 percent for Kerry.

The opinion of experts was found to be very important in predicting support for Bush or Kerry, as well as support for the war itself, according to Kull. While 38 percent of a discrete sample within the survey said they believed that Iraq had WMD before the war, the percentage dropped to 21 percent after they were informed later in the questionnaire that Kay had concluded that Baghdad was engaged only in minor activities for developing WMD.

Confusion over what the experts are saying, according to Kull, could be due to a number of factors, including the repetition by Bush (most recently in his press conference last week) and other senior officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, that Iraq had once used WMD, and the fact that in the electronic mass media, in particular, Iraq is still discussed in the context of the "war on terror".

In another misperception, 59 percent of the public believed that world public opinion either favored Washington going to war (21 percent) or believed that global views were "evenly balanced" (38 percent). Only 41 percent appeared aware that a majority of world public opinion opposed the US-led war.

Those who were aware or were made aware that world opinion opposed the war were more likely to think the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and less likely to support Bush. Those who believed, on the other hand, that world opinion supported the war were substantially more likely to support Bush and think that going to war was correct.

[b]By Jim Lobe, (Inter Press Service) [/b]- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/...

The Ignorant More Likely to be Bush Supporters!!!

04.24.04 (7:04 am) [edit]

[b]Bush's believe it or not[/b]

US public perceptions about former Iraqi president Saddam Hussein's alleged ties to al-Qaeda and stocks of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) continue to lag far behind the testimony of experts, boosting chances that President George W Bush will be re-elected, according to a survey and analysis released on Thursday.

Despite statements by such officials as the Bush administration's former chief weapons inspector, David Kay; its former anti-terrorism chief, Richard Clarke; former chief United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix; as well as admissions by senior administration officials themselves, a majority of the public still believes Iraq was closely tied to the al-Qaeda terrorist group and had WMD stocks or programs before US troops invaded the country 13 months ago.

"The public is not getting a clear message about what the experts are saying about Iraqi links to al-Qaeda and its WMD program," said Steven Kull, director of the Program on International Policy Attitudes (PIPA) at the University of Maryland, which conducted the survey.

"The analysis suggests that if the public were to more clearly perceive what the experts themselves are saying on these issues, there is a good chance this could have a significant impact on their attitudes about the war and even on how they vote in November," he added.

The survey and analysis found a high correlation between those perceptions and support for Bush himself in the presidential election in November.

Among the 57 percent of respondents who said they believed Iraq was either "directly involved" in carrying out the September 11, 2001, attacks on New York and the Pentagon or had provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda, 57 percent said they intended to vote for Bush and 39 percent said they would choose his Democratic foe, Senator John Kerry.

Among the 40 percent of respondents who said they believed there was no connection at all between Saddam and al-Qaeda or that ties consisted only of minor contacts or visits, on the other hand, only 28 percent said they intended to vote for Bush, while 68 percent said their ballots would go to Kerry.

The survey, which was based on interviews with a random sample of 1,311 respondents in March, was released amid a series of polls that indicate that Bush and Kerry are in a virtual tie less than seven months before the actual election.

While Kerry appeared to be leading in the wake of last month's congressional testimony by Clarke, who accused the Bush administration of being insufficiently seized with the threat posed by al-Qaeda before the September 11 attacks, the president, who in recent weeks has spent an unprecedented amount of money on television advertising so early in the campaign, has closed the gap and, according to one Washington Post poll published this week, pulled slightly ahead.

The latest PIPA study is remarkable because it shows that public perceptions about Iraq, or at least about the threat it posed before the US invasion, are lagging far behind what acknowledged experts have themselves concluded and whose findings have been reported in the mass media.

Virtually all independent experts and even senior administration officials have concluded since the war that ties between Iraq and al-Qaeda before the war were virtually non-existent, and even Bush himself has explicitly dismissed the notion that Baghdad had a hand in the September 11 attacks.

Yet the March poll found that 20 percent of respondents believe that Iraq was directly involved in the attacks - the same percentage as on the eve of the war, in February 2003.

Similarly, the percentages of those who believe Iraq provided "substantial support" to al-Qaeda (37 percent) and those who believe contacts were minimal (29 percent) are also virtually unchanged from 13 months before. As of March 2004, 11 percent said there was "no connection at all", up 4 percent from February 2003.

Some - but surprisingly little - change was found in answers to whether Washington had found concrete evidence since the war that substantiated a Saddam-al-Qaeda link. Thus, in June 2003, 52 percent of respondents said evidence had been found, while only 45 percent said so last month.

As to WMD, about which there has been significantly more media coverage, 60 percent of respondents said Iraq either had actual WMD (38 percent) or had a major program for developing them (22 percent). In contrast, 39 percent said Baghdad had limited WMD-related activities that fell short of an active program - what Kay, as the Central Intelligence Agency's main weapons inspector, concluded in February - or no activities at all.

Moreover, the message conveyed by Kay and other experts appears not to be getting through to the public, adds the survey, which found a whopping 82 percent of respondents saying either, "experts mostly agree Iraq was providing substantial support to al-Qaeda" (47 percent) or, "experts are evenly divided on the question" (35 percent).

Only 15 percent said it was their impression that "experts mostly agree [that] Iraq was not providing substantial support to al-Qaeda".
There was similar confusion with respect to the WMD question: despite all the publicity given Kay's, Blix's, and the findings of other independent experts that Iraq did not have WMD before the war, nearly two-thirds of respondents said they believed that most experts said it did have them (30 percent) or that experts were evenly divided on the issue (35 percent).

The poll found a high correlation between beliefs about prewar Iraq with support for going to war with Iraq and for the intentions to vote for Bush in November.

Among those who perceived experts as saying Iraq had WMD, 72 percent said they would vote for Bush, and 23 percent said they would vote for Kerry, while among those who perceived the experts as concluding that Iraq did not have WMD, 23 percent said they would vote for Bush and 74 percent for Kerry.

The opinion of experts was found to be very important in predicting support for Bush or Kerry, as well as support for the war itself, according to Kull. While 38 percent of a discrete sample within the survey said they believed that Iraq had WMD before the war, the percentage dropped to 21 percent after they were informed later in the questionnaire that Kay had concluded that Baghdad was engaged only in minor activities for developing WMD.

Confusion over what the experts are saying, according to Kull, could be due to a number of factors, including the repetition by Bush (most recently in his press conference last week) and other senior officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney, that Iraq had once used WMD, and the fact that in the electronic mass media, in particular, Iraq is still discussed in the context of the "war on terror".

In another misperception, 59 percent of the public believed that world public opinion either favored Washington going to war (21 percent) or believed that global views were "evenly balanced" (38 percent). Only 41 percent appeared aware that a majority of world public opinion opposed the US-led war.

Those who were aware or were made aware that world opinion opposed the war were more likely to think the decision to attack Iraq was wrong and less likely to support Bush. Those who believed, on the other hand, that world opinion supported the war were substantially more likely to support Bush and think that going to war was correct.

[b]By Jim Lobe, (Inter Press Service) [/b]- http://www.atimes.com/atimes/...

Since Bush Took Over, America Has Suffered A Staggering Decline

04.23.04 (9:03 am) [edit]

[u][b]Let's Take America Back[/b][/u]

Looking for a savvy, sassy and strategic agenda to counter the rightwing and take America back from the most extremist Administration of our lifetime? Pick up a copy of [i]Taking Back America--And Taking Down the Radical Right[/i], http://www.nationbooks.org/bo... a new collection of articles which I co-edited with [i]Campaign for America's Future [/i]head Robert Borosage.

Featuring illuminating and inspiring contributions from Bill Moyers, Barbara Ehrenreich, Benjamin Barber, William Greider, Robert Reich, Danny Goldberg, Joel Rogers, Reps. Jesse L. Jackson and Jan Schakowsky and other leading scholars, thinkers and advocates, NationBooks' Taking Back America offers positive alternatives to the reactionary policies of the Bush Administration.

It's not hard for progressives (or any sane citizen, for that matter) to see that we're in the fight of our lives. George Bush's policies have ravaged our country. Since he took office, America has suffered a staggering decline, moving from prosperity to recession, from peace to war, from record budget surpluses to record deficits. This Administration's legacy is one of preemptive strikes ; de-stabilizing tax cuts; the rollback of protection for workers; consumers and the environment; an assault on the rights of women and minorities; and a crony,capitalist corruption devoid of shame.

Progressives have no choice but to rouse themselves, to build the arguments, movements, and institutions needed to turn this country around. It is time to take back America--and build a country that is safer, healthier, better educated, more secure and committed to shared prosperity and opportunity for all. But we must work in smart and coordinated ways. And while many translate this into electoral terms---and we [i]must[/i] defeat Bush in 2004--it is also more than a matter of changing the occupants of the White House. The challenge requires a coherent critique of the conservative ideas that have dominated the past 25 years. It requires bold new vision and vast citizen mobilization to counter the entrenched and growing power of corporate lobbies and restore an America that lives up to its democratic promise. It is a journey not of a year but of a decade or more.

What is hopeful is that on fundamental questions, Bush and the Right are out of tune with the majority of Americans. In area after area, Americans prefer progressive alternatives to the failed policies of the conservative right--- investment in health care and education over tax cuts, fair trade over free trade, corporate accountability over deregulation, environmental protection over laissez-faire oversight, defending Social Security and Medicare over privatizing them, public schools over vouchers, raising the minimum wage over eliminating it. Moreover, civilizing causes like civil rights, reproductive choice and environmental protection are now mainstream values.

It is increasingly clear that Americans face challenges that will never be addressed by the rightwing extremists now in power. [i]Taking Back America [/i] http://www.nationbooks.org/bo... features thinkers, writers and strategists intent on laying out an agenda that makes sense for most Americans. It offers policies that are commensurate with the size of the challenge. But it is also filled with strategic insights and good ideas about how to build the capacity to reach out to citizens, to mobilize allies, to identify, recruit, train and support the next generation of leaders.

It is time, as Senator Paul Wellstone said in one of his last speeches, not to duck, not to hide, not to bite our tongues or bide our time. It is time to stand up, to speak out. We need to return to a politics of passion and principle that asserts our values, our ideas and our energy and develop the independent capacity to drive our causes into the political debate and electoral arena.

Click here http://www.nationbooks.org/bo... for more information about [i]Taking Back America[/i].

And sign up for the [i]Campaign for America's Future[/i] http://www.ourfuture.org/ "Take Back America" conference and Awards Dinner to be held from June 2 to June 4th, in Washington DC. Our book arises largely from last year's extraordinary conference at which over 2,000 progressives gathered to share ideas and strategy. (Click here to watch online highlights.) This year, John Sweeney, Jesse Jackson, Rep. Jan Schakowsky, Julian Bond, Gerald McEntee, Kim Gandy, Sen. Jon Corzine, Arianna Huffington and many others are all scheduled to speak. Click here for info and to register.

And, if you're going to be in New York City on May 14 and 15, check out " What We Stand For: Ideas and Values to Take Back America," a conference organized by the Nation Institute and the New Democracy Project featuring many contributors to the book--as well as Paul Krugman, Joe Trippi, Gary Hart, Kevin Phillips, Eliot Spitzer, David Cole, Lori Wallach, Ellen Chesler, Eli Pariser,and Anne-Marie Slaughter.

I'm also heading to Los Angeles this weekend--along with other [i]Nation[/i] folk--to participate in the[i] Los Angeles Times' [/i]annual Festival of Books. Friday night, I'll be at Santa Monica's Track 16 Gallery for what I anticipate will be a spirited conversation about the state of the nation and [i]The Nation[/i]-- with nationally syndicated columnist and [i]Nation [/i]contributing editor Robert Scheer. Seating is limited. - http://www.thenation.com/edcu...

'Iraq Expert' Perle Shills for Embezzler & Liar Chalabi at Senate Panel

04.23.04 (8:57 am) [edit]

[b]'Iraq Expert' Perle Shills for [Embezzler & Liar] Chalabi at Senate Panel [/b]

It was quite an experience to be on the same panel on Tuesday with Richard Perle and Toby Dodge, before the US Senate Committee on Foreign Relations. Perle wasn't added until the last minute, and it is mysterious why he was there, since ours was supposed to be an "expert" panel. Dodge has an important book on Iraq. Originally Ahmad Hashim was going to be on with us (he came Wednesday instead), and then we heard Perle had been put on. Perle, of course, is no Iraq expert. He doesn't know a word of Arabic, and has never lived anywhere in the Arab world.

Perle's entire testimony was a camouflaged piece of flakking for Ahmad Chalabi. He complained that the State Department and the CIA had not created a private army for Chalabi and had not cooperated with him. Perle did not mention Chalabi's name, but it was clear that was who he was talking about (State and CIA famously dropped Chalabi in the mid-1990s when they asked him to account for the millions they had given him, and he could not).

In fact, Perle kept talking about "the Iraqis" when it was clear he meant Chalabi. He said the US should have turned power over to "the Iraqis" long before now.

But here's an interesting contradiction. I said at one point that I thought Bremer should have acquiesced in Grand Ayatollah Sistani's request for open elections to be held this spring, and that if they had been, it might have forestalled the recent blow-up. I had in mind that Muqtada al-Sadr in particular would have been kept busy acting as a ward boss, trying to get his guys returned from East Baghdad & Kufa, etc.

Perle became alarmed and said that scheduling early elections would not have prevented the "flare-up" because the people who mounted it were enemies of freedom and uninterested in elections. Perle has this bizarre black and white view of the world and demonizes people right and left. A lot of the Mahdi Army young men who fought for Muqtada are just neighborhood youth, unemployed and despairing. Some are fanatics, but most of them don't hate freedom – most of them have no idea what it is, having never experienced democracy.

But anyway, what struck me was the contradiction between Perle's insistence that the US should have handed power over to Iraqis months ago, and his simultaneous opposition to free and fair elections. The only conclusion I can draw is that he wants power handed to Chalabi, who would then be a kind of dictator and would not go to the polls any time soon.

Perle also at one point said he didn't think the events of the first two weeks of April were a "mass uprising" and said he thought Fallujah was quiet now. (Nope).

It is indicative of the Alice in Wonderland world in which these Washington Think Tank operators live that Perle could make such an obviously false observation with a straight face. Even a child who has been watching CNN for the past three weeks would know that there was a mass uprising. (Even ten percent of the American-trained police switched sides and joined the opposition, and 40% of Iraqi security men refused to show up to fight the insurgents.)

I replied, pointing out that the US had lost control of most of Baghdad, its supply and communications lines to the south were cut, and a ragtag band of militiamen in Kut chased the Ukrainian troops off their base and occupied it. It was an uprising. I suppose Perle hopes that if he says it wasn't an uprising, at least some people who aren't paying attention will believe him. It is bizarre.

It reminded me of the scene in Ladykillers where the fraudsters set off an explosion in a lady's basement, and she hears it while outside in a car, and is alarmed, and the Tom Hanks character says in a honeyed southern accent, "Why, Ah don't believe Ah heard anything at all." I could just see Perle in a Panama hat at that point playing the character.

It is deeply shameful that Perle is still pushing Chalabi, and may well succeed in installing him. Chalabi is wanted for embezzling $300 million from a Jordanian bank. He cannot account for millions of US government money given him from 1992 to 1996. He was flown into Iraq by the Pentagon (Perle was on the Defense Advisory Board, a civilian oversight committee for the Pentagon) with a thousand of his militiamen. The US military handed over to Chalabi, a private citizen, the Baath intelligence files that showed who had been taking money from Saddam, giving Chalabi the ability to blackmail large numbers of Iraqi and regional actors. It was Chalabi who insisted that the Iraqi army be disbanded, and Perle almost certainly was an intermediary for that stupid decision. It was Chalabi who insisted on blacklisting virtually all Baath Party members, even if they had been guilty of no crimes, effectively marginalizing all the Sunni Iraqi technocrats who could compete with him for power. It was Chalabi who finagled his way onto the Interim Governing Council even though he has no grassroots support (only 0.2 percent of Iraqis say they trust him).

Now Chalabi's nephew Salem has been put in charge of the trial of Saddam Hussein. Salem is a partner in Zell and Feith, a Jerusalem-based law firm headed by a West Bank settler, in which Douglas Feith, the undersecretary of Defense for Planning, is also a senior partner when not in the US government. You can be assured that the trial will be conducted on behalf of the Bush administration and the Neocons, and on behalf of the Chalabis. Since the Chalabis have been trying to overthrow Saddam for decades, it is hard to see how this can have even the appearance of an impartial tribunal.

Anyway, Perle was just a one-note Johnny, with his whole message being "We must give away Iraq to Ahmad Chalabi yesterday! That will solve all the problems."

If the Bush administration listens to Perle and puts Chalabi in as a soft dictator, it will be the final nail in the coffin of the Iraq enterprise. The whole thing is already going very badly wrong. Chalabi will play iceberg to the Iraq/Bush Titanic.

It would be really interesting to know the list of secret promises Chalabi has given Perle (and presumably the Israelis through Perle) that would explain this Neocon fervor for the man.

By the way, that Jordanian bank that Chalabi embezzled from in the 1980s? There has been speculation that he was using it to launder Iranian money for the Khomeini war effort against Saddam. So perhaps from his point of view, he hadn't so much embezzled $300 million at the end, but rather collected his retainer from Tehran.

Since Perle was the source of most of the rotten advice that got the US into its current quagmire in Iraq, and since he was forced to resign as chairman of the Defense Advisory Board under a cloud of scandal, it was doubly inappropriate for him to be testifying before the Senate about what to do in Iraq.

[b]By Juan Cole[/b], http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?...

Neo-con Sweetheart Chalabi Says U.S. Policy Like Putting Nazis In Charge Of Germany

04.23.04 (8:53 am) [edit]

[b]Could it be that the [i]neo-con's sweetheart http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?... [/i]wants to become the neo-Emperor of Iraq and that suits Bush, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Perle and the rest of the neo-con traitors just fine?[/b]

[u][b]Chalabi Compares U.S. Policy on Baathists with Nazis[/b][/u] - http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

A U.S. policy shift that may allow former Baathists join a new Iraqi government was akin to putting back Nazis in charge of Germany, Governing Council member Ahmad Chalabi said on Friday.

"This policy will create major problems in the transition to democracy, endanger any government put together by U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi and cause it to fall after June 30," Chalabi told Reuters.

He spoke after the White House announced an overhaul of the "de-Baathification" policy, which may let some former members join an interim government being put together by the United Nations ahead of a planned June 30 transfer of power.

"This is like allowing Nazis into the German government immediately after World War II," added Chalabi, who heads a council committee specifically dedicated to keeping the upper ranks of Saddam Hussein's Baath Party out of office.

Chalabi said U.S. Governor Paul Bremer discussed with the council on Thursday how to reinstate junior public workers, such as teachers, who were nominally Baath members, but did not mention Baathists taking part in a new government.

Bremer was due to explain changes to the policy in a televised speech to Iraqis later on Friday.

The Baath Party, founded by French-educated Syrian intellectuals in the 1940s, ruled Iraq from 1968 until Saddam was toppled last year by a U.S.-led invasion.

"[u]CHAUVINIST AND RACIST[/u]"

The former Iraqi opposition, violently crushed by the Baath, supports helping junior party members return to work if they did not commit crimes, but is aghast at the prospect of Baathists returning to assume senior government positions.

"We refuse this U.S. direction. Like the Nazis, the Baath was a chauvinist and racist organization," said Adnan al-Assadi, an official of the Dawa Party which is represented on the council.

"It will help security deteriorate further, disappoint Iraqis who have trusted the coalition to manage the political process and lead to civil war," he added.

Saddam all but wiped out the Dawa, ordering the execution of its leader Mohammad Baqer al-Sadr in 1980 along with his sister.

The party split and has been trying to recover since Sadr, one of the Shi'ite Islam's foremost thinkers, was killed.

A Sunni Governing Council member also expressed dismay at the White House announcement, although the policy could bring more Sunnis to positions of power.

Naseer al-Chaderji said there were former Baathists who had joined the party without believing in its ideology, but such people would have to be chosen by Iraqis who best know their record if they were to serve in the new government.

The upper echelons of the Baath were mostly from the Arab Sunni minority that ruled Iraq since its foundation in the 1920s but has been losing power and privileges under the U.S.-led occupation.

"The United States have turned Iraq into a guinea pig without giving Iraqis a say," Chaderji said.

[Chalabi is a nasty piece of work ... an embezzler, liar and arrogant criminal who is being paid-off by the corrupt Bushies in return for letting Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group and the rest of Bush's corporate paymasters rape Iraq of its oil and businesses. But the neo-cons [i]'love him' http://www.antiwar.com/cole/?... [/i]because together they can massacre and tortune Iraqis and amass great fortunes.]

Bush's Fascist Tax Policies: Feed the Rich & To Hell With The Rest of Us!

04.23.04 (8:46 am) [edit]

[b]Feed the Rich[/b]

The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities http://www.cbpp.org/ has come out with the most comprehensive study to date of three years of George W. Bush's tax policies. Highlights put together by CBPP can be found here http://www.cbpp.org/4-14-04ta... , but I'll cherry pick a few of the more telling:

* Families making more than $1 million a year will enjoy 2004 tax cuts, on average, of $123,600 each.

* Middle-class families will enjoy 2004 tax cuts, on average, of $647.

* A crack team of White House experts has taken the middle-class families, mixed in the super-wealthy families and crunched out an "average" -- so that the President can cite a higher tax cut that the "average" family will get. Of course, the "average" family is not the typical family. If Bill Gates moves into your neighborhood, than the "average" wealth of families on your street moves into the billions, but that doesn't do you much good, does it.

* Without the tax cuts, deficits would be modest, and ten years from now would be at about $100 billion. With them, the deficit is on a pace to balloon to six or seven times that.

* Since we're borrowing money, at interest, to fund these tax cuts, we have tremendous interest payments. The President has proposed new tax cuts in his 2005 budget and has also proposed making permanent the fine work he's already done. Assuming he gets his way, then over the next ten years, we'd have coughed up $1.1 trillion in interest payments alone.

The CBPP doesn't make this calculation, but luckily I am an expert in back-of-the-envelope long division. So $1.1 trillion divided by the US population (of 293 million) works out to just over $3,754 per American in interest payments; or, for a family of four, $15,016.

Hmm. From the perspective of a middle-class family of four, that's the annual equivalent of about $1,500 in interest payments on debt -- so as to finance about $647 in annual tax relief. What a bargain! Four more years! Four more years!

[b]By Matt Bivens, Daily Outrage, The Nation [/b]- http://www.thenation.com/outr...

UN Should Reject Dubya's Phony Handover Scam of Iraq (Learn from Dubya's WMDs Lies)

04.22.04 (9:07 pm) [edit]

[b]The UN should reject Dubya's phony handover scam of Iraq ... Surely they have learned their lessons from Dubya's WMDs lies ... http://www.politicalstrategy.... http://www.alternet.org/story...

[u]Hammers and anvils[/u]

[i]Only if the UN breaks with US plans for a cosmetic handover can it win Iraqi confidence [/i][/b]

Yesterday's carnage in Basra is another twist in the downward spiral of violence endangering Iraq. It puts security back at the top of the agenda in the run-up to the long-heralded transfer of sovereignty at the end of June. What use are the trappings of power if there is no guarantee of safety on the streets? The Basra car-bombings were well coordinated and perhaps foreign-inspired. First reports suggested they followed the pattern of al-Qaida-style suicide attacks in other parts of the world. They will be widely condemned in Iraq since far fewer Iraqis support attacks on their police than they do on occupation troops.

But let us not forget the other source of insecurity in Iraq. The United States has not yet lifted its threat to use force in Najaf to arrest the radical cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, a decision which could provoke heavy bloodshed. Nor has it drawn back from Falluja, even after the slaughter of several hundred people. Caught between the hammer of poorly targeted suicide bombs and the anvil of unguided American commanders, Iraqis are approaching formal sovereignty in a mood of understandable doubt.

There has been one small piece of good news. Washington has allowed the United Nations a key role in selecting the interim government which will take over on July 1. The plan, outlined in Baghdad by the UN's special adviser, Lakhdar Brahimi, is for the country's governing council to be dissolved. In its place would be a prime minister at the head of an interim government of technocrats rather than politicians.

The scheme is not a UN invention. It bears a strong similarity to what the Americans and British were considering back in March, as leaked to and reported in the Guardian at the time. But the fact that Brahimi took it up, bounced it off various groups of Iraq's civil society, and heard approving responses, gives it a much greater chance of being accepted. The UN's respect among Iraqis is not as low as that of the occupation forces, as several polls have shown.

The demise of the governing council will be a good thing. When it was formed last July, it had the potential for giving Iraqis a say in how their country was run. But the council failed to win support from most Iraqis, mainly because the US allowed it little scope, but also through the incompetence and lack of authority of many of its members. It included too many exiles, particularly people like Ahmed Chalabi who had no constituency inside Iraq and lacked credibility because of their closeness to Washington's neoconservatives and their eagerness for invasion.

The council also risked accentuating Iraqi divisions since it was chosen almost entirely on regional, ethnic and sectarian lines. The cabinet it appointed then reproduced those tendencies, with entire ministries being filled nepotistically with officials from the boss's party, tribe or region. A new government of technocrats ought to have a better chance of performing well in the months before national elections are due to be held in January 2005.

Brahimi is nothing if not a practised diplomat, and he balanced his endorsement of the US plan with some strong words of criticism of the US performance. This was essential if the UN was to show it understood Iraqi feelings, but it also reflected Brahimi's genuine sense of shock over US behaviour in Falluja - and its other mistakes.

He condemned Washington's Israeli-style overkill in Falluja as collective punishment, in effect a war crime. He called for the US to charge or release the thousands of detainees it holds in what looks increasingly like Guantánamo-on-the-Tigris. He criticised the sacking of honest army officers and the clumsy de-Ba'athification process, which has become a witch-hunt of Iraq's professions, leaving much-needed teachers, doctors and engineers without jobs.

The US has conceded that the UN will be the final arbiter in any disputes over who to pick for the interim government. Brahimi will shortly be returning to Baghdad with a similar mission to the one he had in 2001, when he held long consultations with Afghans and selected Afghanistan's post-Taliban cabinet.

He will need all the skill he can command to come up with a credible team. He must not be a front-man for the United States, or give the prime ministership to an American client. Thereafter, the US expects that the UN's job will be mainly technical, as it prepares the mechanism for elections and helps to monitor their conduct.

Can the UN do more on the political side after July? Much will depend on the UN's masters in the security council. It is clear that the US and Britain want a new resolution to bless the transfer of legal sovereignty to Iraqis, while also keeping US control over all security issues. The result will be a sovereignty which is severely impaired, a bizarre situation in which an allegedly independent country's army is under foreign command on its own territory.

It is not too late to change this, since the Bush administration is running scared, electorally, on Iraq. Spain's new government believes the US will never hand political control of security to the UN, and is withdrawing its troops. Full marks for principle and for keeping faith with its voters, but other countries need not give up hope quite yet. The US is in a weak position and if key members of the security council such as France, Russia and China stand firm, as they did before the invasion last year, there is still a slim chance.

The model is East Timor, where the security council initially mandated a "multinational force under unified command", the exact phrase which was reproduced in resolution 1511 on Iraq last October. Later, the council put the Timor force under UN supervision. This did not mean they became blue-helmeted peace-keepers with a UN general in charge, but it entitled the UN administrator (who happened to be Sergio Vieira de Mello, who was killed in the bombing of the UN's Baghdad headquarters last year) to give the foreign soldiers their political direction.

East Timor was not yet an independent country, but something similar could be done in Iraq. The security council could mandate a senior UN official to work with the Iraqi government in supervising the multinational force. Even if it were still led by an American general, Iraqis and the UN would have the authority to tell the commander that sieges of cities and one-ton bombs dropped on gunmen in populated areas are not politically wise - quite apart from their morality. Other nations might then be willing to join, not as junior partners of the United States, but as contributors to a shared Iraqi- and UN-controlled force, in which the US contingent could be much reduced.

Russia's military strategy in Chechnya is a crime and disgrace. But Moscow can argue it is acting on its own territory. Morally and politically, the Kremlin is wrong, and under international law its case is debatable. No such arguments apply to the US in Iraq. It is using excessive force on other people's soil, and it has no mandate to be there unless from the United Nations.

Now is the time for the majority of UN members to strengthen their control. If Iraq's interim government is to acquire more respect than the outgoing governing council had, it too should stand up to the Americans and lay down the rules. The Americans have killed more civilians in one month in Falluja than all the terrorist bombings of the past year, yesterday's included. That surely is a signal that things must change.

[b]By Jonathan Steele [/b]on http://www.guardian.co.uk/Ira...,2763,1200424,00.html

Bush: International Laughing Stock & Buffoon Boy of Flip-Flops

04.22.04 (8:53 pm) [edit]

[b]Bush is an international laughing stock both feared and despised by the majority of the world's citizens [/b]according to polls because he stupidly stumbles into disasters that cost the lives of other people. http://news.ncmonline.com/new...

[b]The Bush Record: Top 10 Bush Flip Flops[/b] - http://www.democrats.org/spec...

1.[i] Bush Flip-Flops on Independent 9/11 Commission[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Initially Opposed to Independent 9/11 Commission

Bush opposed an independent inquiry into 9/11, arguing it would duplicate a probe conducted by Congress. In July 2002, his administration issued a "statement of policy" that read "...the Administration would oppose an amendment that would create a new commission to conduct a similar review [to Congress's investigation]." [Statement of Administration Policy, Executive Office of the President, 7/24/02; LA Times, 11/28/02]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Relented and Appointed Independent Commission

President Bush finally agreed to support an independent investigation into the 9/11 attacks after "the congressional committees unearthed more and more examples of intelligence lapses, the administration reversed its stance." [Los Angeles Times, 11/28/02]

2. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Independent WMD Commission[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Refuses to Call for Independent Bipartisan Commission on Weapons of Mass Destruction

"President Bush said on January 30, 2004, 'I want to know the facts' about any intelligence failures concerning Saddam Hussein's alleged cache of forbidden weapons but he declined to endorse calls for an independent investigation." [AP, 1/30/04]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Appoints WMD Investigation Commission

President Bush named a nine-member bipartisan commission to investigate U.S. intelligence-gathering capabilities in February 2004. The AP noted, "Bush had initially opposed a commission, but agreed to do so as calls grew from Republican lawmakers as well as Democrats." The Los Angeles Times reported, "The White House opposed that panel initially, then backed down under pressure, and some say administration officials now regret doing so because the administration has become locked in a series of embarrassing battles with the Sept. 11 commission." The New York Times noted Bush "gave the panel until March 2005, well after the November elections, to submit its conclusions." [NY Times, 2/7/04; LA Times, 2/1/04; AP, 2/6/04]

3. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Time He'll Spend With 9/11 Commission[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Would Meet For Only One Hour With 9/11 Commission

McClellan: Obviously, as part of this, the President will be meeting with the chairman and vice chairman at some point in the near future. We are still working on the exact time of that meeting. We have discussed with the commission what we believe is a reasonable period of time to provide the chairman and vice chairman with answers to all of their questions.
Q: Is that the one-hour time frame?
McClellan: That's what I'm referring to. [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: White House Says No Time Limit on President's Testimony

"President George W. Bush will privately answer all questions raised by the federal commission investigating the September 11 attacks, the White House said, suggesting that Bush might allow the interview to extend beyond the one-hour limit originally offered to the panel by the White House. 'He's going to answer all the questions they want to raise,' said the White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, whose remarks suggested that the White House was softening its negotiating stance toward the bipartisan commission. 'Nobody's watching the clock.'" [WH Press Briefing, 3/9/04; International Herald Tribune, 3/11/04]

4. [i]Bush Flip-Flops On Calling For A U.N. Vote On Iraq War[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: U.S. Will Seek U.N. Vote For War With Iraq

Bush: ...yes, we'll call for a vote.
Question: No matter what?
Bush: No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote. We want to see people stand up and say what their opinion is about Saddam Hussein and the utility of the United Nations Security Council. And so, you bet. It's time for people to show their cards, let the world know where they stand when it comes to Saddam. [Bush News Conference, 3/6/03, emphasis added]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Attacked Iraq Without U.N. Vote

Bush "failed to win explicit [security] council approval for the use of force" in Iraq. Two days before bombs began to fall in Iraq, the Bush administration withdrew its resolution from the UN Security Council that would have authorized military force. Bush abandoned his call for a vote after it became clear that the US could muster only four votes in support of force. [Washington Post, 3/21/03; Los Angeles Times, 3/18/03]

5. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Department Of Homeland Security[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Bush Thought Homeland Security Cabinet Position Was "Just Not Necessary"

In October 2001, White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer said Bush opposed creating Office of Homeland Security position for Ridge. "[T]he president has suggested to members of Congress that they do not need to make this a statutory post, that he [Ridge] does not need Cabinet rank, for example, there does not need to be a Cabinet-level Office of Homeland Security is because there is such overlap among the various agencies, because every agency of the government has security concerns," Fleischer said. [White House Press Briefing, 10/24/01]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Decides to Support Homeland Security

The New York Times reported, "Bush initially resisted Democratic proposals for a Cabinet-level agency. But once he endorsed it, the president pushed Congress for fast action as it debated such issues as whistle-blower protections, concerns over civil liberties and collective bargaining for department employees."

In remarks to Homeland Security Department employees, Bush claimed credit for supporting the Department: "In just 12 months, under the leadership of your President...you faced the challenges standing up this new Department and you get a -- and a gold star for a job well done." [New York Times, 2/28/03; Bush Remarks at One-Year Anniversary of DHS, 3/2/04]

6. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Gay Marriage[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: It's Up to the States to Decide

In a 2000 presidential primary debate, candidate George W. Bush said gay marriage was a state's issue, saying, "The state can do what they want to do. Don't try to trap me in this state's issue like you're trying to get me into." [Presidential Primary Debate, 2/15/00]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Supports Constitutional Amendment That Restricts States' Rights

Bush: "If we are to prevent the meaning of marriage from being changed forever, our nation must enact a constitutional amendment to protect marriage in America. Decisive and democratic action is needed, because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country." [Bush, 2/24/04]

7.[i] Bush Flip-Flops on Using Military For Nation Building[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Bush Promised Not to Use Military for Nation Building

In a campaign rally in Tennessee, then-Presidential candidate Bush criticized the Clinton administration for using the military in nation-building missions. Bush said, "I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation-building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place." [Governor George W. Bush, 11/6/00]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: President Used Military for Nation Building in Afghanistan and Iraq

After the removal of the Taliban in Afghanistan, Bush met with soldiers stationed in Afghanistan at the White House and thanked them for their nation building efforts. A senior administration official said, "The administration, with its international partners, is doing something akin to nation-building." The plans for a post war Iraq also included nation building measures and, according to the Baltimore Sun, "Secretary of State Colin L. Powell confirmed...that Bush was considering, among other options, installing a U.S.-led occupation government if Hussein's regime is removed." [Baltimore Sun, 10/19/02]

8. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Hybrid Automobiles[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Bush Mocked Gore's Tax Credit for Hybrid Cars

"'How many of you own hybrid electric gasoline engine vehicles? If you look under there, you'll see that's one of the criteria necessary to receive tax relief. So when he talks about targeted tax relief that's pretty darn targeted,' Bush told the Arlington Heights rally, drawing laughs." [Chicago Sun-Times, 10/29/00]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Supported Investing in Hybrid Cars

In his State of the Union speech, Bush said, "Tonight I am proposing $1.2 billion in research funding so that America can lead the world in developing clean, hydrogen-powered automobiles. ... Join me in this important innovation, to make our air significantly cleaner, and our country much less dependent on foreign sources of energy." [White House, "President Delivers 'State of the Union,'" 1/28/03]

9. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Assault Weapons Ban[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Bush Supports Extending Assault Weapons Ban

Ashcroft: "It is my understanding that the president-elect of the United States has indicated his clear support for extending the assault weapons ban, and I will be pleased to move forward with that position." [Confirmation Hearing, Senate Judiciary Committee, 1/17/01]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Opposes Extension of Assault Weapons Ban

"The White House is opposing addition of gun show and assault weapons restrictions to a bill shielding firearms makers and dealers from lawsuits, prompting angry complaints from Democrats that President Bush is reneging on earlier support for the two proposals...In a statement [on February 24, 2004], the White House urged passage of the lawsuits measure without amendments that might delay its enactment. 'Any amendment that would delay enactment of the bill beyond this year is unacceptable,' the statement said. Democrats interpreted this as an effort to undermine support for the gun-control measures. 'For the president to say he is for the assault weapons ban but then act against it is a flip-flop if there ever was one,' said Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.), one of several sponsors of the assault weapons proposal in the Senate." [Washington Post, 2/26/04]

10. [i]Bush Flip-Flops on Steel Tariffs[/i]

[u]Bush Flip[/u]: Bush Imposes Steel Tariffs

"President Bush on [March 5, 2002] slapped punishing tariffs of 8% to 30% on several types of imported steel in an effort to help the ailing U.S. industry, drawing criticism from American allies and mixed reviews at home. 'An integral part of our commitment to free trade is our commitment to enforcing trade laws to make sure that America's industries and workers compete on a level playing field,' Bush said in a statement issued by the White House." [USA Today, 3/5/02]

[u]Bush Flop[/u]: Bush Rescinds Steel Tariffs

"Facing a potential global trade war, President Bush on [December 4, 2003] lifted tariffs he imposed on foreign steel 21 months ago, declaring the U.S. steel industry healthy and ready to compete despite the industry's claim that it needs more time to recover." [Chicago Tribune, 12/5/03]

John F. Kerry: Man of Courage VERSUS Dubya: Cowardly AWOL Drunkard

04.22.04 (8:38 pm) [edit]

[b]"I request duty in Vietnam"[/b] -- the first line in one of the documents http://www.johnkerry.com/abou... from John Kerry's service records, now posted on the Kerry website on http://www.johnkerry.com/abou... .

[b]VERSUS[/b]

So, while the news networks have sat on this explosive story for months, it's well documented that George W. Bush[b] never showed up [/b]for National Guard duty for a period of approximately one year, possibly more, in 1972-1973. Despite all the talk about "honor and dignity," Bush seems to have a problem meeting his commitments http://www.kings.edu/twsawyer... . [u]Source[/u]: http://www.awolbush.com

What Colin Powell Saw But Didn't Say

04.22.04 (7:01 am) [edit]

[b]What Colin Powell saw but didn't say [/b]

[i][b]The rush to war in Iraq echoes Reagan's Iran-contra scandal [/b][/i]

"History? We won't know," George Bush tells Bob Woodward. "We'll all be dead." But in his book, Plan of Attack, Woodward's facts move the past from the shadows, adding significant new documentation to the story of the rush to war in Iraq.

The serious constitutional issues and governmental abuses, the methods and even the continuity of some personnel that Woodward catalogues evoke memories of the Reagan Iran-contra scandal. That involved a network of aides outsourcing US foreign policy to circumvent the separation of powers - selling missiles to Iran to fund the Nicaraguan contras. The Iraq war was conceived by the president and his war cabinet in an apparent effort to evade constitutional checks and balances. In Iran-contra, the national security council, CIA and Pentagon were stealthily exploited from within; in Iraq, they were abused from the top.

When the Iran-contra scandal was revealed, the Reagan administration was placed into receivership by the old Republican establishment. Neoconservatives and adventurers, criminal or not, were purged, from Elliott Abrams to Richard Perle. Now they are at the centre of power.

Woodward reports that in July 2002 Bush ordered the use of $700m to prepare for the invasion of Iraq, funds that had not been specifically appropriated by Congress, which alone holds that constitutional authority. No adequate explanation has been offered for what, strictly speaking, might well be an impeachable offence.

Woodward also reports that the battle plan was unfurled for Prince Bandar bin Sultan, the Saudi ambassador to the US. On its top, it was stamped "Top Secret: Noforn" - "No Foreign", not to be seen by anyone but Americans with the highest security clearance. Following Bush's instructions, the vice-president, Cheney, and the secretary of defence, Rumsfeld, briefed Bandar, who responded by promising to lower oil prices just before the election. As we can now see, prices have skyrocketed, giving oil-producers windfall profits upfront, and ultimately exaggerating the political effect of any subsequent drop in prices.

While Bandar was treated as an ex-officio member of the war cabinet, the secretary of state, Colin Powell, was kept in the dark. "Mr President," the national security adviser, Condoleezza Rice, gently suggests, "if you're getting to a place that you really think this might happen, you need to call Colin in and talk to him." So after Bandar had been told of the battle plan, Bush decided to inform his secretary of state, a frequent squash playing partner of the Saudi prince. After all, he was bound to learn anyway.

Powell had sought to warn Bush on Iraq: if you break it, you own it. "Time to put your war uniform on," says Bush. Powell snaps to attention.

Powell is obviously Woodward's source. Powell believed the government had been seized by a "Gestapo office" of neoconservatives directed by Cheney. "It was a separate little government that was out there," writes Woodward of Powell's view. The only precedent is Iran-contra.

Powell was appalled by the mangling of intelligence as Cheney and the neocons made their case to an eager Bush and manipulated public opinion. But Powell had put on his uniform for his commander-in-chief. In the White House, his capitulation was greeted with a combination of glee and scorn. Powell would make the case before the world at the United Nations. Cheney's chief of staff, I Lewis "Scooter" Libby, gives him a 60-page brief that Powell dismisses as filled with "murky" intelligence. Powell goes to CIA headquarters himself, where he discovers that "he could no longer trace anything because it had been 'masticated over in the White House so that the exhibits didn't match the words'." He hastily constructs his own case, which turned out to be replete with falsehood.

Powell played the good soldier, not taking his qualms and knowledge to the Congress or the American people. The most popular man in the country, he never used his inherent veto power to promote his position. Rather than fighting his battles in earnest when it counted, before his army was put in harm's way, he chose to settle scores by speaking to Woodward.

Bush tells Woodward that he is "frightened" by detailed questions. He admires Cheney for not needing to explain in public. Pointedly, Bush says, unlike Tony Blair, "I haven't suffered doubt." Asked if he seeks advice from his father, the former president, Bush says: "He is the wrong father to appeal to in terms of strength. There is a higher Father that I appeal to."

Bush gazes upward for guidance, or turns to Cheney. Judgment Day may not come before election day. Here on earth, the Republican establishment that rescued Reagan after Iran-contra has become superannuated and powerless. There is no one to intervene.

·[b] Sidney Blumenthal is former senior adviser to President Clinton and Washington bureau chief of Salon.com [/b] - http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...,3604,1200371,00.html

Bush Makes Peace With Sharon & Forments Disaster

04.22.04 (6:59 am) [edit]

[b]BUSH MAKES PEACE WITH SHARON [/b]

Israeli leaders know the best time to wring favors and funds from Washington is during presidential election years. Even so, Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's tenth visit to the White House last week produced an extraordinary bonanza.

First, Sharon almost certainly won Bush's agreement to assassinate the new leader of Hamas, Dr. Abdul Aziz Rantisi, who only recently replaced the movement's founder, Sheik Yassin, who was also assassinated by Israel. The Israelis used US helicopters and missiles in both killings. If Sharon did not advise Bush in advance of the killing that inflamed the entire Mideast against Israel and the US, then Sharon demonstrated remarkable contempt for the American president.

Next, breaking with three decades of US policy, international law, numerous UN resolutions, and even his own `roadmap for peace,' President George Bush accepted all Sharon's demands and strongly endorsed the Israeli leader's unilateral plans for the West Bank and Gaza.

Bush agreed to Israel's permanent retention of major Jewish settlement blocs on strategic high ground of the occupied West Bank. These, plus new Jerusalem suburbs, contain nearly 450,000 Jewish settlers. To Sharon's delight, Bush rejected any right of return to Israel of 4 million Palestinian refugees, and declared Israel need not go back to its pre-1967 War borders.

As a `concession,' Sharon offered his `disengagement plan' to pull 7,400 Israeli settlers out of the Gaza Strip and close some marginal West Bank outposts. In short, Sharon was trading unwanted, indefensible, settlements for the West Bank's choicest land and water. Bush called this election-year plum, `courageous and historic.'

Sharon and Bush will now proclaim a just, lasting Arab-Israeli peace, though Palestinians - dismissed as `terrorists' - were not even consulted. They are to have no say in the give-away of their land.

The `temporary' Berlin Wall being built by Sharon will seal off Jewish settlements from Palestinians, turning densely populated Arab areas into seething ghettos, packed with enraged, unemployed people.

Bush's gifts to Israel provided a potent boost to PM Sharon's troubled political fortunes. The President's claim to be bringing democracy to Iraq will now be buttressed by the equally preposterous claim to be a Mideast peacemaker. Middle America, innocent to foreign affairs, will likely swallow this nonsense. Bush's Christian fundamentalist backers, who yearn for recreation of Biblical Israel, will be ecstatic. So, the Bush campaign hopes, will be Jewish voters.

When extremist Palestinian groups like Hamas and Islamic Jihad inevitably react with violence to Israel's land expropriations, wall-building, and assassinations, Bush will be able to claim he and Sharon are brothers-in-arms fighting terrorism.

The administration's pro-Sharon neo-conservatives, who engineered the calamitous Iraq war, and continue to dominate US foreign policy, have now achieved their long-sought goal of thwarting the Oslo peace process, keeping hold of the best part of the West Bank and Golan, and blocking any viable Palestinian state.

It was no coincidence Elliot Abrams, the fanatically anti-Palestinian White House Mideast chief, was point man on the Bush deal with Sharon.

The Jewish settlements - really mid-sized cities - that Bush allows to remain in the heart of the West Bank will chop up remaining Palestinian territory into 3-5 non-contiguous enclaves surrounded by Israeli security forces and cut off from the outside world. Israel will thus retain the useful land while dumping Arab population centers.

Sharon has long sought such West Bank apartheid-style `Bantustans.' No truly viable Palestinian state could exist on such fragmented territory. Now denied any hope of a real state, the Palestinian intifada will intensify, and grow more violent.

Bush's claim Israeli settlement-cities deserved to stay because they were `facts on the ground,' was not only illogical but gave Israeli settlers a green light to keep expanding and seizing more Arab land.

The president's total embrace of Israel's far right is a misfortune for Palestinians, the United States and Israel. By allying himself with Israel's expansionist right wing, Bush assures there will be no peace between Israelis and Palestinians. It also undermines all Palestinians who advocated non-violence - just what Sharon wanted.

This dismaying policy change further accelerates the Bush Administration's marginalization and exclusion of Israel's pro-peace moderates and left, who bitterly oppose the radical settler factions that are Sharon's political core supporters. Moderate American Jewish groups seeking to nurture peace with Palestinians have also been cold-shouldered by the White House.

The Bush-Sharon love fest will unfortunately confirm the Muslim World's growing belief the US has become their principal enemy, and that Israel's far right pulls the Bush Administration's strings. Many Europeans share this view.

Undermining Israel's moderates and enraging Muslims everywhere will certainly fuel more anti-US terrorism, wreck hopes for Mideast peace, and further damage America's interests in the Islamic World.

What a tragedy. Bush and Sharon seem determined to wage non-stop jihad against the Muslim World. They have sabotaged any chances of real peace. As Israeli thinker Uri Avnery rightly noted, `Bush and Sharon made peace between them. But Israel must make peace with the Palestinians.'

[b]Eric Margolis[/b], http://www.bigeye.com/foreign...

Al Jazeerah is More Reliable Than The U.S. Media Who Lied/Lie About The Iraqi War!!!

04.22.04 (6:47 am) [edit]

[b]Al Jazeerah has a good reputation for accurate reporting but is maligned because they do not hide U.S. crimes; they do not pander to U.S. administrations; and they do not regurgitate U.S. governmental propaganda. It is neo-con hitlerian channels like Fox News who are a fascist propaganda outlet brain-washing ignorant Americans, that is dangerous. The U.S. media now corporate-owned has let us down and misled/misleads the American people. Click on http://www.tblog.com/template...

How the Media Blew the Iraq Story [/b] - http://www.commondreams.org/v...

It is part of the media's job to cover the White House. Yet there must be a difference between reporting on what the president says and repeating what the president says.

As a result of the failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, the rise in American casualties and the attention of the 9/11 Commission, the media today are looking skeptically at presidential statements and policies on WMD.

But that is a relatively recent trend. In the fall of 2002 and the spring of 2003, the media slavishly repeated the administration's assertion that a core objective of the war on terror was to prevent Iraqi WMD from falling into the hands of terrorists. While that may have been a common fear, no terrorist organization had committed an act of true "mass" destruction using chemical, biological or nuclear weapons - much less one involving materiel gained from Saddam Hussein.

The media, by giving such presidential statements front- page treatment, effectively magnified those fears.

That was one of the conclusions of a study released last month by the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland. The study, "Media Coverage of Weapons of Mass Destruction," which I authored, evaluated how 11 leading U.S. and United Kingdom newspapers, newsmagazines and public-radio programs covered WMD during three critical months: May 2003, when President George W. Bush announced that combat operations in Iraq had ended and the hunt for WMDs escalated; October 2002, when Congress approved military action to disarm Iraq and when revelations about the North Korean nuclear weapons program surfaced; and May 1998, when India and Pakistan conducted nuclear tests.

In contrast to coverage during the Clinton era, when many reporters made careful distinctions between acts of terrorism and the acquisition and use of WMD, in 2002 and 2003 many stories stenographically reported the administration's perspective and gave too little critical examination of the way officials framed events, issues, threats and policy options. The media tended to report uncritically the Bush administration's conflation of all "weapons of mass destruction" into a single category of threat - a conflation that equates the destructive power of, say, chemical weapons with that of nuclear weapons.

Analysis of the coverage of WMD documented how successful the White House has been in getting the media to confirm its political agenda. The Bush administration dominated the daily news cycle. The media covered Iraq and the issue of WMD through breaking stories that led with the most "important" news of the day - the president's statements. Bush's argument that a pre-emptive war in Iraq was imperative because Hussein had WMD became a top-of the-news story.

The coverage not only disseminated the administration's logic, but because it didn't offer equally prominent alternative perspectives, it also validated it. When reporters did take on the administration, their stories were often buried by their editors.

Terrence Smith, media correspondent for "The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer," confirmed that tendency in a conversation with Michael Getler, ombudsman for The Washington Post, on a recent Diane Rehm radio show: "One thing that was rarely reported and was on the public record of statements of al-Qaida and Osama bin Laden were very critical statements about Saddam Hussein and his regime. To Osama bin Laden, Saddam Hussein's regime represented precisely the sort of secular world leadership that he wants to get out of the Arab world. So there was evidence, was there not, Michael Getler, that rather than being allied they were quite opposed?"

"Yes, there was," replied Getler. In one of his tapes, bin Laden "specifically made that point ... and even that got very little attention." Getler quoted headlines for four stories published in the Post that did question the 9/11-Iraq-WMD connection in the run-up to the war, but they all ran "inside the paper - not on page one," he said.

In the period before the Iraq war, pressure to respond to crises patriotically - and the lack of much congressional opposition - limited the assessment of White House policy and the consideration of other policy options. According to recent books by Bob Woodward, Richard Clarke and Ron Suskind (with former Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill), several top officials entered office in 2001 determined to make war.

This insider information only emphasizes how critical the need is for the media to give a more prominent examination of the administration's still active argument that WMD is an integral element in a global terrorism matrix, and that Iraq was part of that equation.

[b]Susan Moeller, a media and international affairs professor at University of Maryland, is author of "Compassion Fatigue: How the Media Sell Disease, Famine, War and Death." [/b]- http://www.commondreams.org/v...

Bush's Re-election Strategy:- Create Warfare & Fear, Because He's Crap At Everything!!!

04.22.04 (6:38 am) [edit]

[b]Bush's Re-election Strategy [/b]

A string of disturbing events over the past week may point to the Bush campaign's real reelection strategy. Short of bringing peace and harmony to Iraq or eliminating the gargantuan national deficit, two highly unlikely occurrences, the Bush team is desperate for a home run issue in November. The developments of the past few days, while unconnected on the surface, are just what the Bush campaign ordered.

The killing of Hamas leader Abdel Aziz Rantisi over the weekend comes on the heals of Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's triumphant visit to Washington, DC, where he gained the enthusiastic official US approval for breaking international law.

It's hard to imagine that the Bush/Sharon lovefest didn't include a green light for the latest Israeli extra-judicial killing.

But if Sharon didn't mention it when he met with our brain-challenged fearless leader, why should he have bothered anyway.

He had just killed Hamas spiritual leader Sheikh Ahmed Yassin a few short weeks before, and look what that got him--a hero's welcome at the White House and an erasure of decades of international agreements.

As Stephen Zunes reminds us, George W. Bush this past week has effectively torn up UN Security Council Resolutions 242 and 338 (calling on Israel to withdraw to pre-1967 borders and for a 'just settlement' for Palestinian refugees); 446, 455, 465 and 471 (calling for the removal of all Israeli settlements from the Occupied Territories); and the Fourth Geneva Conventions (which prohibits the transfer of civilians onto territories seized by military force).

It's only right that this deal was reportedly hatched as a result of 'negotiations' between Elliot Abrams and Ariel Sharon, the first a convicted felon, the latter a mass murderer.

So now, the man who barely a year ago was calling on the UN to enforce its resolutions against Iraq, as if it should be any surprise, has decided to come right out and trample not only on half a dozen UN Security Council resolutions, but also on longstanding US foreign policy.

But that was one whole year ago, after all, and the American electorate can barely remember what it had for lunch yesterday.

But this past week was remarkable not because of the Bush administration's contempt for international law and basic decency--that was made clear to most people in the world during the run up to the Iraq invasion--it was extraordinary because it marked the terrible unveiling of the Bush reelection campaign strategy.

Let's take a quick survey of some key events of the past week.

First campaign stop--Iraq. While continuing to battle Sunni resistance fighters, the US decided to open a new front the week prior against Moqtada al-Sadr and his Shi'i supporters by shutting down his newspaper, arresting its editor, and issuing an arrest warrant for al-Sadr himself. As a result, Iraqi Shi'is and Sunnis begin to unite against the US military's heavy-handed tactics in Fallujah. Despite suffering the heaviest casualties since the invasion, the US continues to press on, surrounding the Shi'i holy city of Najaf with a mandate to get al-Sadr 'dead or alive.'

A reasonable person might wonder why the US may want to provoke al-Sadr, and Iraq's Shi'i population with him, at this particular juncture, when they face enough trouble.

The mess in Iraq is only getting messier, but the Bush administration seems to be deliberately calling out to the ever-increasing numbers of desperate and frustrated Iraqis and saying, 'Bring it on.'

Meanwhile, back at the ranch, President Bush was finishing up a much-needed extended Easter vacation when Egyptian President Husni Mubarak came by for a visit to Crawford, Texas Monday. Mubarak, the aging dictator (as in, he might be an asshole, but he's our asshole) of the Arab world's most populous country, came by for the usual 'distinguished statesman' photo op intended for the tired front pages of semi-official newspapers back home (and of course to beg for some moneyc loans... loan guarantees... anything to fix a couple of planks in the huge shipwreck that is the Egyptian economy).

Mubarak got the photo ops he wanted, and apparently enough cash for a few extra nights at the Houston Intercontinental for him and his entourage. The poor guy was still in Texas when he got a call from Secretary of State Colin Powell on Tuesday telling him of President Bush's intention of presenting the West Bank on a platter to Ariel Sharon the following day.

The people in Peoria may not care, but this won't play well in Cairo, that's for sure.

But why did Bush decide to drop the pro-Sharon bombshell at a time that would also produce maximum embarrassment to his most important Arab ally? Again, as with the curious moves in Iraq, a reasonable person might see this as counterintuitive. Why would Bush want to help create another mess in Egypt, a country of over 70 million people, when he already has his hands full in Iraq (and Afghanistan, lest we forget).

Then the kicker. One day after Bush's glowing endorsement of his plan, Sharon orders the hit on Hamas' Rantisi.

Why so soon after the trip to Washington? One would expect that perhaps good ol' Elliot Abrams would have told his friend Ariel to wait another week or two so that it does not seem so... obvious.

And it is obvious. Sharon timed Rantisi's assassination to make a clear statement to Arabs: made in the USA.

Certainly, the week's developments concerning Iraq and Israel/Palestine can be blamed on severe diplomatic and strategic incompetence on the part of the Bush administration.

That kind of assessment presumes that this Administration is run by generally well-meaning people who may not have a clue, but who at least have the interest of the American people at heart.

Yet all the evidence points to the fact that the week's series of events were carefully timed.

Al-Sadr formed his militia last summer, not last week, and the newly issued arrest warrant was for a crime that took place last year. Nothing changed to cause the US to react at this specific time.

The same goes for the Bush policy on Israel/Palestine. Abrams' talks with Sharon to prepare for the President's announcement b egan in November of last year. And it's no accident that Sharon's White House visit came immediately after Mubarak's stop at the ranch.

Most notably, the week's events fit perfectly within the Bush Administration 's three-year record in the Middle East.

In an inte rview back in October 2001 about the then-impending US war against Afghanistan, Mohamed Heikal, one of the Arab world's most respected political analysts, presciently told the UK's Guardian, 'I have seen Afghanistan, and there is not one target deserving the $1m that a cruise missile costs, not even the royal palace. If I took it at face value, I would think this is madness, so I assume they have a plan and this is only the first stage.'

Of course, as the world soon found out, there was a plan, and it winds its way through Iraq and from there, to the rest of the resource-rich Arab world, in order to establish the dominion of Halliburton-style democracy.

Paul Wolfowitz and his fellow neocons in this Administration have shaped their Middle East policy around the brilliant premise that the US should start treating Arab governments like the spineless, mindless bunch of sheep that they are. The US knows that none of these governments have any legitimacy with their own people--they certainly should know since they helped create most of them. These governments exist by virtue of the military and/or financial might of the United States. So why on earth pay them any mind. Just go about your own business old chap.

Now it's election time, and Karl Rove and his crew know that this President has nothing going for him except the prospect of spreading fear in Americans' minds. If the majority had a problem with him last time, then he' s really in trouble this time around, unless he can get back on firm war footing once again.

When President Bush told Iraqi guerillas to go ahead and 'bring it on,' he meant it. And just in case the Iraqis don't bring it on, he must have thought, then let the Palestinians, or the Egyptians, or heck, even those tree-hugging Canadians for all I care. He needs his war, a war that is never-ending, or at least one that can take long enough so that brother Jeb can make himself at home too on Pennsylvania Avenue one of these days.

Now the scene is set for the next calamity, God help us. And it is all being played out for us ever so subtly on our TV screens.

If it comes, do you think there will be anything standing in the way of Patriot Act 2, or perhaps by then we can skip directly to Patriot Act 3.

Remember, You are either with us, or with the terrorists.

The Spaniards were smart enough to cut through the double-speak.

Will we?

Will we get the chance?

[b]By Ahmed Nassef, ZNET[/b], http://www.zmag.org/content/s...

Bush, A True Chimp, Based Going To War On Body Language

04.22.04 (6:35 am) [edit]

[b]The Body Politic[/b]

Not since Jane Goodall lived with chimps in Tanzania has there been such a vivid study of the nonverbal patterns of primates engaged in a dominance display.

Bob Woodward's new book, "Plan of Attack," reveals that President Bush decided to go to war based mostly, believe it or not, on body language.

Like his father, Mr. Bush prefers more elemental means of self-expression than the verbal. (Not long before the first gulf war, Bush senior's masseuse told a client that the president's neck was so tight, she assumed we were going to war.)

The younger Bush, suspicious of Clintonesque dialectical fevers and interminable analyses, did not bother to ask most of his top advisers what they thought. The less Dick Cheney talked, the more power Mr. Bush entrusted in him.

Like the silent, cool-hand cowboy he aspires to be, who would shoot a man just because he didn't like the way the varmint was looking at him, the president preferred doing gut checks, visually sizing up advisers and Saddam, rather than dwelling on pesky facts.

He did not probe deeply to reconcile advisers' assessments. He cared only about their spine, figuratively and literally. There was no skeptical debate in the Oval Office like the one before the Cuban missile crisis in 1962.

The president explained to Mr. Woodward that he had wanted to talk to Tommy Franks in person about the Iraq war plan. " `I'm watching his body language very carefully,' Mr. Bush recalled. He emphasized the body language, the eyes, the demeanor. It was more important than some of the substance. . . . `Is this good enough to win?' he recalled asking Franks, leaning forward in his chair and throwing his hand forward in a slicing motion at my face to illustrate the scene."

As the president studied the physio-semiotics of those around him, they studied his. " `I knew my relationship with the president and the access and his interest and how he feels and his body language on things,' " a typically cocky Donald Rumsfeld said.

The author writes of the Cheney aide and Iraq hawk Scooter Libby: "He was watching the president carefully, noting the body language and the verbal language ordering war planning for Iraq, the questions, attitudes and tone."

When the C.I.A. briefers told Mr. Bush that to recruit sources inside Iraq, they would have to say the U.S. was coming with its military — putting him in the awkward position of simultaneously pursuing diplomatic and military solutions — Condoleezza Rice watched the president. "The president's body language suggested he had received the message, but he didn't make any promises."

Nick Calio, the White House legislative affairs director, realized the endgame by September 2002: "Judging from Bush's side comments and body language, Calio assumed that the question on Iraq was not if but when there would be a war."

When George Tenet was telling a dubious president that the W.M.D. "evidence" would be there when he needed it, he knew how to physically underscore his point. "Tenet, a basketball fan who attended as many home games of his alma mater Georgetown as possible, leaned forward and threw his arms up again. `Don't worry, it's a slam-dunk!' "

When the president at long last informed his top diplomat that he was going to war, Colin Powell could tell from the president's body language that there was no point in arguing: "It was the assured Bush. His tight, forward-leaning, muscular body language verified his words."

After a while, the usually literal Mr. Woodward also began dipping into the science of kinesics. When he greeted Mr. Bush at a White House Christmas party in 2002, he interpreted the president's body language as blessing the prospect of a sequel to his last book, "Bush at War."

The end of "Plan of Attack" says that when Mr. Woodward asked the president how history would judge his Iraq war, Mr. Bush smiled. " `History,' he said, shrugging, taking his hands out of his pockets, extending his arms out and suggesting with his body language that it was so far off. `We won't know. We'll all be dead.' "

Soon, these people had the problem of the body language of more than 700 dead soldiers. Some persuasive non-body language is way overdue.

[b]By Maureen Dowd, N.Y. Times[/b], http://www.nytimes.com/2004/0...

The 'National Review' Flip-Flop ...

04.21.04 (7:58 am) [edit]

[i]National Review [/i]has issued a surprisingly semi-sober editorial acknowledging the state of the Iraqi occupation. They condemn the Wilsonianism neoconservative mindset that thinks that American can import democracy to Iraq. They also denounce the extreme optimism that denies any American failures or difficulties that occur in Iraq. While not admitting that the war was a bad idea to begin with, they at least call for a relatively prompt withdrawal from Iraq. Good for them.

The editorial concludes,

Ultimately, even if our choices now can help or hurt, it is Iraqis who have to save Iraq. It is their country, not ours. In coming weeks and months, we will have to defer to the authorities we hope will eventually take control, in the process endorsing compromises that we will consider less than ideal. But it is time for reality to drive our Iraq policy, unhindered by illusions or wishful thinking. We should do what we can to give Iraqis a chance at a better future, then pray that they take it.

I couldn’t agree more, but it would be nice if our friends at [i]National Review [/i]could admit that they were the ones full of illusions and wishful thinking. Maybe they could issue a mea culpa and apologize to us unpatriotic conservatives who have urged a "self-fulfilling defeatism." Just for fun, I thought it would be nice to compare what [i]National Review’s [/i]new illusion-free editorial board thinks to earlier comments made in the nations premiere conservative magazine.

------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----

[b]Now[/b]:

Since the conclusion of the war, the Bush administration has shown a dismaying capacity to believe its own public relations. The post-war looting was explained away as the natural and understandable exuberance of a newly-liberated people.

[b]Then[/b]:

Violence is latent in Iraq, but with forethought and goodwill retired general Jay Garner and the several hundred other American officials of the newly formed Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance should be able to contain and defang it. The initial outburst of looting in Iraqi cities has struck some as an unwelcome surprise. But looting happens in war, and even more in the vacuum created by the collapse of a totalitarian regime.

Everyone was looting in Germany in 1945, including from art collections and museums. In Yeltsin's Russia, everyone knew Communism had stolen so much from them that they felt impelled to take back anything they could, by whatever means. Saddam Hussein stole the whole of Iraq, and the looters are also only trying to lay hands on a little of their own. Why, as a war correspondent in the Six Day War of 1967, I took from a Syrian trench a copy of Balzac's Pere Goriot in Russian, presumably abandoned by a Soviet adviser.

[b]Marcus Epstein, LewRockwell.com[/b], http://www.lewrockwell.com/ep...

US Senator: Iraq War Will Require US Military Draft! Let's Start With Dubya, Cheney & the Neo-Cons!

04.21.04 (7:48 am) [edit]

[b]Senator says US may need compulsory service to boost Iraq force: Okay, let's start with Dubya, Cheney, Rice, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, the Neo-Cons & War Supporters!

Why should others pay the price for Dubya's insane fuck-up and to enrich the Bush Crime Family, the House of Saud, Halliburton and the rest of these assholes?[/b]

A senior Republican lawmaker said Tuesday that deteriorating security in Iraq may force the United States to reintroduce the military draft.

"There's not an American ... that doesn't understand what we are engaged in today and what the prospects are for the future," Senator Chuck Hagel told a Senate Foreign Relations Committee hearing on post-occupation Iraq.

"If that's the case, why shouldn't we ask all of our citizens to bear some responsibility and pay some price?" Hagel said, arguing that restoring compulsory military service would force "our citizens to understand the intensity and depth of challenges we face."

The Nebraska Republican added that a draft, which was ended in the early 1970s, would spread the burden of mililitary service in Iraq more equitably among various social strata.

"Those who are serving today and dying today are the middle class and lower middle class," he observed.

The call to consider a imposing a draft comes just days after the Pentagon moved to extend the missions of some 20,000 US troops in Iraq.

Some critics of the US-led occupation complain that military planners used too few troops to subdue Iraq, and insist that more military muscle will be needed to restore order.

[b]SpaceWar, WarWire[/b], http://www.spacewar.com/2004/...

Bush's 'Mistakes' (Crimes) in Iraq ... What Needs to be Done? ...

04.21.04 (7:43 am) [edit]

[b]US Mistakes in Iraq [/b]

Testimony before Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, April 20, 2004

This brief addresses three areas. First, what mistakes have been made in the Coalition administration of Iraq, and why? Second, what is the current situation? Third, what steps can be taken to ensure the emergence of a stable and democratic Iraq?

[b]Mistakes[/b]

The biggest US failure in Iraq to date lay in American inability to understand the workings of Iraqi society. Many US administrators and military commanders appeared to believe that once the Baathist state of Saddam Hussein was overthrown, they would be dealing with an Iraqi society that was docile, grateful and virtually a blank slate on which US goals could be imprinted.

In fact, Baathist Iraq was a pressure-cooker, consisting of a highly mobilized, urban and relatively literate population that had organized clandestinely to oppose the weak and ramshackle Baath state. Although the clan-based political parties and militias of the Kurds in the north were well known because they had emerged as autonomous under the US no-fly zone, similar phenomena in the Sunni Arab center and the Shiite south were obscured by the information black-out of Baath party censorship. In al-Anbar Province, lying on the road between Amman and Baghdad, local populations came under the influence of Salafi or Sunni fundamentalist movements and ideas that were also growing popular in Jordan. In the late Saddam period, the secular Baathist state allowed more manifestations of Sunni religiosity than it had earlier, allowing these groups to establish beachheads in Fallujah, Ramadi and elsewhere.

Many books and articles were published in Arabic in the 1990s, that should have made clear that the Shiite south in particular was a lively arena of contention between the Baath military and the religious parties and their militias, some with bases in Iran to which they could withdraw. Shiite guerrillas in the south, springing from the clandestine al-Da‘wa Party, Iraqi Hizbullah, Sadrists, or Supreme Council for Islamic Revolution in Iraq, conducted bombings, raids, assassinations and other acts of defiance against the Baath, often sheltering in the swamps of the south or retreating, if pursued, to Iranian territory. The followers of Muhammad Sadiq al-Sadr (d. 1999) in particular were militantly anti-Baath, anti-American and anti-Israel, and aspired to an Islamic state in Iraq on the Iranian model. Given the US role in calling for, and then allowing the crushing of, the Shiite uprising of spring, 1991, after the Gulf War, the idea that Shiite Iraqis would be "grateful" to the United States and now willing to forgive altogether that earlier betrayal, was fanciful. Moreover, US officials appeared to be ignorant of the important role of Iran in Iraqi Shiite politics, a role that goes back to 1501, and kept talking about the need of Iran to avoid "interfering" in Iraq (which is rather like telling the Vatican to stop interfering in Ireland). In addition to dissident groups, figures existed within Iraqi society like Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani, who have enormous moral authority, about which American administrators were ignorant or skeptical into winter, 2004, to their peril.

These covert political parties and clandestine guerrilla groups were curbed by the Baath secret police and by the Fidayee Saddam. What the Americans did in March and April of 2003 was to remove that apparatus of repression, and allow the religious parties and militias freely to organize, canvass for new members, and spread their ideas and structures freely throughout the country. The Salafi Sunnis and the various Shiite religious parties had a vision of post-Baath Iraq, for which they had been planning for over a decade, that differed starkly from United States goals in Iraq. But because the US was unable to assemble in post-war Iraq anything like the 500,000 troops it had had in the first Gulf War, it an