|
18-19 September 2004
Physician Sees 'Presenile Dementia' in
Bush's Faltering Speech
By Jerry Mazza
Online Journal, 18 September 2004
EXCERPT: In a letter to the editor of Atlantic Monthly, October 2004,
Joseph M. Price, M.D. of Carsonville, Michigan, comments that James
Fallows' July/August Atlantic article on John Kerry's debating skills
("When George Meets John"), "was interesting, but most remarkable was
Fallows's documentation of President [sic] Bush's mostly overlooked
changes over the past decade—specifically 'the striking decline in his
sentence-by-sentence speaking skills.'" Dr. Price understands Fallows'
initial "speculations that there must be some organic basis for the
President's [sic] peculiar mode of speech, a learning disability, a
reading problem, dyslexia or some other disorder."
Quoting Fallows, Dr. Carson also agrees with him that "The main problem
with these theories is that through his forties Bush was perfectly
articulate." Yet, Dr. Carson stated he felt "that something organic was
wrong with President [sic] Bush, most probably dyslexia, but . . . was
unaware of what Fallows pointed out so clearly: that Bush's problems
have been developing slowly, and that just a decade ago he was an
articulate debater." He was as Fallows said, "artful indeed in steering
questions and challenges to his desired subjects . . . [one] who did not
pause before forcing out big words, as he so often does now, or invent
mangled new ones." As Dr. Carson suggests, "Consider, in contrast, the
present: 'the informal Q&A he has tried to avoid,' 'Bush's recent
faltering performances,' 'his stalling, defensive pose when put on the
spot,' 'speaking more slowly and less gracefully.'"
Dr. Price suggests that "not being a professional medical researcher and
clinician, Fallows cannot be faulted for not putting two and two
together. But he was 100 percent correct in suggesting that Bush's
problem cannot be 'a learning disability, a reading problem, [or]
dyslexia,' because patients with those problems have always had them."
The doctor. goes on to say, "Slowly developing cognitive deficits, as
demonstrated so clearly by the President [sic], can represent only one
diagnosis, and that is 'presenile dementia'! Presenile dementia is best
described to nonmedical persons as a fairly typical Alzheimer's
situation that develops significantly earlier in life, well before what
is usually considered old age."
AUDIO LINK
Kitty Kelley: "The Family"
(Doubleday)
Diane Rehm Show Interview, 17 September 2004
 Kitty
Kelley is known for her controversial biographies of celebrities and
political figures. Her latest is about the Bush family.Kitty
Kelley, also author of books about Britain's royal family,
Nancy Reagan, Frank Sinatra, and others.
Listen now.
From the Inside Flap
They have wielded enormous financial power and dominated world politics
for more than half a century. They have been appointed to positions of
great power and have been elected as governors, congressmen, senators
and presidents. They have shaped our past and, with our country at war
under the leadership of their number one son, they are, more critically
than ever, shaping our future.
As the Bush family has risen to dominance, so too they have been master
orchestrators of their own public image, acting and operating under the
shield of privacy their money and status have always afforded them.
Until now.
Number One bestselling author and investigative biographer Kitty Kelley
has closely examined the lives of Jacqueline Onassis, Nancy Reagan,
Frank Sinatra, and the British Royal family. Now the First Lady of
unauthorized biography reckons with the first family of the United
States—and the result is at once a rich and shocking history and a very
human portrait of the world's most powerful dynasty.
An important work on wealth, power, and class in America, The Family is
rich in texture, probing in its psychological insight, revealing in its
political and financial detail, and stunning in the patterns that emerge
and expose the Bush dynasty as it has never before been exposed. Ms.
Kelley takes us back to the origins of the family fortune in the Ohio
steel industry at the turn of the last century, through the oil deals
and international business associations that have maintained and
increased their wealth over the past hundred years. The book leads us
through Prescott Bush's first entrée into government at the state level
in 1950s' Connecticut, to George Herbert Walker Bush's long and winding
road to the White House, to his son's quick sweep into the same office.
Along the way, we see the complex relationships the Bushes have had with
the giants of the century—Eisenhower, Nixon, Joseph McCarthy, Kissinger,
Reagan, Clinton—as well as the often ruthless methods used to realize
their goals.
Perhaps most impressive—and surprising—is the way the book delves behind
the obsessively protected public image into the family's intimate
private lives: the matriarchs, the mistresses, the marriages, the
divorces, the jealousies, the hypocrisies, the golden children, and the
black sheep.
At a crucial point in American history, Kitty Kelley is the one person
to finally tell all about the family that has, perhaps more than any
other, defined our role in the modern world. This is the book the Bushes
don't want you to read. This is The Family.
About the Author
Kitty Kelley is the internationally acclaimed bestselling author of
Jackie Oh!; Elizabeth Taylor: The Last Star; His Way: The Unauthorized
Biography of Frank Sinatra; Nancy Reagan: The Unauthorized Biography;
and The Royals. The last three titles were all #1 on the New York Times
bestseller list. Ms. Kelley has been honored by her peers with such
awards as the Outstanding Author Award from the American Society of
Journalists and Authors, the Philip M. Stern Award, and the Medal of
Merit from the Lotos Club of New York City. Her articles have appeared
in the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal,
Newsweek, People, Ladies Home Journal, McCall's, the Los Angeles Times,
and the Chicago Tribune. She lives in Washington, D.C., with her
physician husband, Jonathan Zucker.
SEE ALSO:
Don't Mess with the Bushes
David Talbot talks to Kitty Kelley, whose scathing portrait of the
Bush family has fired up the Republican camp
The Guardian, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: After weeks of bracing by the Bush White House, the category 5
storm has hit: Hurricane Kitty. Bestselling author Kitty Kelley's
withering portrait of the Bush dynasty, The Family, is landing in
bookstores on Tuesday - more than 720,000 copies of it. And the White
House is already on high alert. "This book is fiction and deserves to be
treated as such," snarled Republican spokeswoman Christine Iverson, as
the RNC fired off an anti-Kelley talking-points memo to friendly media
assets.
The media blowback against Kelley, author of controversial biographies
of Nancy Reagan and Frank Sinatra, has already begun. On the Monday
morning Today Show, host Matt Lauer showed how tough an interviewer he
can be when not questioning presidents and other potentates, pressing
Kelley on who she's going to vote for in November ("Who're you voting
for?" Kelley shot back) and the timing of the book's publication, weeks
before the November election ("Why not? It's relevant," countered the
author, who's been working on the book for four years).
The hottest dispute sparked by the book involves the allegation that
George W Bush, who claimed to be clean and sober at the time, snorted
cocaine with one of his brothers at the Camp David presidential retreat
when his father was president. One of Kelley's sources - and the only
one on the record - was Sharon Bush, the deeply aggrieved ex-wife of W's
younger brother Neil. She is now in strong denial mode, even though her
own publicist, who was present at a lunch where she told Kelley the
story, confirms the accuracy of Kelley's account. Nonetheless, Lauer
produced the Bush divorcee after his interview with Kelley to repeat her
denials.
Kerry Sees Plan to Call Up New
Reserves After Nov. 2
By ELISABETH BUMILLER and DAVID E. SANGER
NYT, 18 September 2004
EXCERPT: Senator John Kerry on Friday accused the Bush administration of
secretly planning a mobilization of Army Reserve and National Guard
units immediately after the election. At the same time, Mr. Kerry
harshly attacked Vice President Dick Cheney for his financial ties to
Halliburton, which has billions of dollars of government contracts in
Iraq. Mr. Kerry made his attacks as President Bush said for the first
time that he planned to pull American troops out of Iraq as soon as
Iraqi forces were trained to defend themselves and the country was "on
the path to stability."
GOP Mailing Warns Liberals Will Ban
Bibles
By WILL LESTER
AP in YahooNews, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: Campaign mail with a return address of the Republican National
Committee (news - web sites) warns West Virginia voters that the Bible
will be prohibited and men will marry men if liberals win in November.
The literature shows a Bible with the word "BANNED" across it and a
photo of a man, on his knees, placing a ring on the hand of another man
with the word "ALLOWED." The mailing tells West Virginians to "vote
Republican to protect our families" and defeat the "liberal agenda."
Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie said Friday that he
wasn't aware of the mailing, but said it could be the work of the RNC.
"It wouldn't surprise me if we were mailing voters on the issue of
same-sex marriage," Gillespie said. The flier says Republicans have
passed laws "protecting life," support defining marriage as between a
man and a woman and nominate conservative judges who will "interpret the
law and not legislate from the bench." It does not mention the names of
the presidential candidates. Jim Jordan, a spokesman for American Coming
Together, described the mailing as "standard-issue Republican
hate-mongering."
PBS Panders to Right With New
Programming
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting Action Alert, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: A new public television program called The Journal Editorial
Report, featuring writers and editors from the arch-conservative Wall
Street Journal editorial page, will debut tonight on public television
stations around the country. The show joins Tucker Carlson: Unfiltered,
hosted by conservative CNN pundit Tucker Carlson, and a planned program
featuring conservative commentator Michael Medved as part of what many
see as politically motivated decisions to bring more right-wing voices
to public television.
According to reports in the public broadcasting newspaper Current
(1/19/04, 6/7/04) and in the New Yorker (6/7/04), conservative
complaints about the alleged liberal bias of the program Now with Bill
Moyers contributed to the momentum to "balance" the PBS lineup. The new
programs seem to be the result of that pressure. In fact, Now will soon
see its role on public television diminish, as the program is cut from
one hour to 30 minutes when Moyers voluntarily leaves the program later
this year. He will be replaced by co-anchor David Brancaccio, formerly
of the public radio business show Marketplace, who expresses no obvious
ideology. If Carlson, Medved and the staff of the Wall Street Journal
editorial page are all necessary to balance the liberal Moyers, by 2005
there will be no one on PBS to balance them.
Election Matters: Bush's War Is
Destroying the US Army
By William Greider
The Nation, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: The presidential pageant has now risen full in the sky and is
blocking out the sun. Until November, we dwell in a weird half-light,
stumbling into spooky shadows but shielded from the harsh glare of the
nation's actual circumstances. Down is up, fiction is truth, momentous
realities are made to disappear from the public mind. The 2004 spectacle
is not the first to mislead grossly and exploit emotional weaknesses in
the national character. But this time the consequences will be
especially grim. The United States is "losing" in Iraq, literally losing
territory and population to the other side. Careful readers of the
leading newspapers may know this, but I doubt most voters do. How could
they, given the martial self-congratulations of the President and
relative restraint from his opponent? High-minded pundits tell us not to
dwell on the long-ago past. But the cruel irony of 2004 is that Vietnam
is the story. The arrogance and deceit--the utter waste of human life,
ours and theirs--play before us once again. A frank discussion will have
to wait until after the election.
Apparently incompetence and brutal aggression
aren't enough to lose votes in the "heartland"
Supporting the Troops, Doubting
the War
By Sasha Abramsky
The Nation, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: "My sense is there's a lot of forgiveness for the President,"
says Shelbyville News editor Bill Walsh. "Maybe we shouldn't have got
involved in it [Iraq], but now that we are, let's make the best of it. I
don't think people are uncritical here, but there's definitely a mood
that you don't switch horses in midstream." But while many share the
sense of forgiveness he describes, at least some are starting to look at
ways to abandon that horse. It's not that there's been a sudden
conversion to the values and politics the Kerry/Edwards team embodies.
Indeed, the local Democratic Party headquarters, the doors of which were
locked throughout my stay in town, has only one tiny bumper sticker on
its door mentioning Kerry's name. The rest of its stickers and posters
are concerned with local and state races, and the candidates in those
races would just as soon have people forget their party ties to a
liberal Northeasterner like Kerry. (Moreover, because of the workings of
the Electoral College system, Democrats in Indiana, like Republicans in
Massachusetts, are in practice largely disenfranchised in the upcoming
presidential race; whether Kerry loses Indiana by 7 percent or 17
percent, the Democrats there really aren't a part of current political
calculations.) So Indiana, and Shelbyville, will vote for Bush in 2004,
just as they did in 2000. But neither will do so with anywhere near the
same enthusiasm the second time around. There is a nascent sense of
frustration here that will lead quite a few traditional Shelbyville
Republicans to vote against Bush, and others to vote for the Republican
ticket with fingers firmly clenching their nostrils shut.
House GOP Blocks Effort to
Obtain Cheney Energy Task Force Data
BushGreenWatch, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: Environmental and government watchdog groups reacted angrily
Thursday to a House committee vote rejecting a resolution that would
have directed the Bush administration to release documents and
information surrounding Vice President Dick Cheney's secret Energy Task
Force meetings. "The American people have a right to know what went on
behind closed doors," Anna Aurilio, legislative director for U.S. PIRG,
told BushGreenwatch. "We are extremely disappointed that the House
committee voted to keep the public in the dark about the Bush
administration's secret meetings with big corporations." The
Republican-controlled House Energy and Commerce Committee voted
Wednesday against a "resolution of inquiry" that called upon the White
House to release the names and affiliations of anyone who met with Vice
President Cheney's National Energy Policy Development Group, which
developed President Bush's energy plan. The task force plan provided the
basis for the administration's energy bill, which is currently stalled
in the Senate. Environmental and government watchdog groups have been
fighting to obtain information about individuals and corporations that
may have influenced the administration's energy policy since the draft
plan was released in May 2001. The groups believe the oil, gas, nuclear
and coal industries exerted undue influence over the development of the
White House plan. The U.S. Supreme Court ruled in June that Cheney does
not have to release any information until a lower court reviews the
case.
Bush Administration Directs
Agencies to Ignore Clean Water Act
BushGreenWatch, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Using a back-door route to deregulation, the Bush
administration has removed clean water protections for 20 million acres
of American wetlands and tens of thousands of miles of streams, lakes
and ponds, according to documents obtained through the federal Freedom
of Information Act. The documents, used to produce the report "Reckless
Abandon: How the Bush Administration is Exposing America's Waters to
Harm," outline the consequences of a 2003 federal policy directive that
encourages regulators to routinely avoid enforcing Clean Water Act
protections for American rivers, lakes, streams and wetlands unless
otherwise directed.
SEE ALSO:
Reckless Abandon: How the Bush Administration is
Exposing America's Waters to Harm
SEE ALSO:
Bush Administration Cuts Clean Water Spending;
Hurts Jobs, Health, Environment
(BushGreenWatch)
17 September 2004
In Address to Guard, Kerry Says Bush
Isn't Telling Truth on Iraq
By ELISABETH BUMILLER
NYT, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: Senator John Kerry said at a National Guard conference on
Thursday that President Bush was living in "a fantasy world of spin" and
that the president had deceived them when he presented an optimistic
picture of the war in Iraq at the same conference two days before. "He
failed to tell you the truth," Mr. Kerry, the Democratic presidential
nominee, said to a crowd that greeted him with restrained applause. "You
deserve better. The commander in chief has to level with the troops and
the nation." Citing an intelligence estimate prepared for Mr. Bush in
late July that presents a bleak picture of prospects in Iraq, Mr. Kerry
said the president was turning his back on his own intelligence and
ignoring the reality that Iraq was increasingly in the hands of
terrorists."He didn't tell you this," Mr. Kerry said, even though "his
own intelligence officials have warned him for weeks that the mission in
Iraq is in serious trouble.'' "That is the hard truth, as hard as it is
to bear," he said, adding, "I believe you deserve a president who isn't
going to gild that truth, or gild our national security with politics,
who is not going to ignore his own intelligence, who isn't going to live
in a different world of spin, who will give the American people the
truth, not a fantasy world of spin."
Mr. Kerry's comments were in sharp contrast to the optimistic outlook on
Iraq that Mr. Bush has been presenting on the campaign trail.
AUDIO
LINK
A Comparison of Bush and Kerry Health Care Plans
Health Care in the Presidential Campaigns
NPR's Diane Rehm Show, 16 September 2004
Kerry and Bush's dueling health care proposals would address rising
costs and the growing number of uninsured people in different ways.
We'll look at what their opposing philosophies would mean for American
health care. Listen
now.
Sarah Bianchi, national policy director for John
Kerry's presidential campaign
Gail Wilensky, PhD, senior fellow at Project HOPE, and
informal adviser to the Bush campaign, speaking for the Bush health care
plan.
SEE ALSO:
Bush
has "reckless disregard for the truth"
Bush Says Kerry Is Pushing
Nationalized Health Care
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON and ROBIN TONER
NYT, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: Using terms reminiscent of Republican attacks on President Bill
Clinton's ill-fated effort to reshape the health care system a decade
ago, President Bush attacked Senator John Kerry's health care proposal
on Thursday, saying "it's a plan that is massive and it's big, and it
puts the government in control of health care."
Mr. Bush's critique won applause from Republicans as he campaigned
through Minnesota, a once reliably Democratic state that polls suggest
is up for grabs in November. But his words drew a sharp rebuttal from
the Kerry campaign, which said Mr. Bush was deliberately misrepresenting
Mr. Kerry's plan, and from some independent analysts, who said the White
House had little basis for its suggestion that Mr. Kerry was seeking to
nationalize health care.
Democrats see health care as one of Mr. Bush's greatest vulnerabilities,
and Mr. Kerry has made it a central issue of his domestic agenda. Since
Mr. Bush took office, the number of uninsured people has risen by 5.2
million, to 45 million, and insurance premiums have risen sharply.
There are few signs that Mr. Bush has gotten the political lift he and
others hoped for last year when he signed the Medicare law promising
limited coverage of prescription drug costs for the elderly. But with
polls suggesting that health care costs rank at or near the top of
voters' concerns and with Mr. Kerry campaigning hard on his plan, Mr.
Bush has struck back by suggesting that Mr. Kerry's solution would be
unwieldy, costly and intrusive.
House Votes to Give Itself Pay Raise
CNN.com, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: With little debate, House lawmakers on Tuesday included
themselves as part of a pay raise that all federal employees will
receive next year. The cost-of-living raise would be the sixth straight
for members of the House and Senate, boosting the salaries of lawmakers,
now $158,100, by about $4,000 in the new calendar year. The civil
servant COLA is part of an $89.9 billion Transportation and Treasury
Department spending bill that the House is expected to pass Wednesday.
The Senate has yet to take up the legislation. The measure stipulates
that civil servants get raises of 3.5 percent, the same as military
personnel will receive next year. Under a complicated formula, that
translates to 2.5 percent for members of Congress.
Guns 'N Poses
By Niranjan Ramakrishnan
ZNet, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: It is a fitting coincidence that a mushroom cloud (now
thankfully said to be non-nuclear) should appear over North Korea the
very day the assault weapons ban breathed its last in Washington. The
Bush administration has responded to both happenings with the hallmark
lassitude that informs its approach to all matters not relating to
either tax giveaways or Iraq. The charitable explanation is that
President Bush is at least being consistent. The administration's policy
seems to be as follows: It is the right of individuals in the US to bear
lethal weapons. And (whatever our public pronouncements), it is the
right of countries around the world to acquire nuclear weapons. Bush's
stance, that he believed in the ban, but it was up to Congress to come
up with it, carried all the warmth of a wedding invitation once given
out by a friend of mine (a standing joke among our circle), "If you are
in the neighborhood, please stop by". The same president who expended
every ounce of energy to ram through a wittingly misleading Iraq War
resolution, could not muster the strength to call his pal House Majority
Leader Tom Delay, a strong opponent of the ban, and ask him to 'git on
the program'. A better example of the sheer cynicism of the Bush-Cheney-Frist-DeLay
bunch would be hard to find. First of all, they say, the ban is -- get
this -- an abridgement of our rights! Funny, isn't it? This message
authorized by the same people who brought you the Patriot Act, and are
equally vehement about making it permanent. Besides, they claim, the
crime rate has come so far down that there is no need of the ban any
longer. When one of their representatives made this point on a TV
program, a police chief reasonably asked if that was not the result of
the very ban they were fighting to lift? 72% of the American public,
polls tell us, opposes lifting the ban. But as Al Sharpton famously said
in one of the primary debates, what does public opinion mean to a
president who thinks he doesn't need the votes of the American people to
be president!
General Warns of a Looming Shortage of
Specialists
By ERIC SCHMITT
NYT, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: The chief of the Army Reserve warned on Thursday that at the
current pace of operations in places like Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army
faced a serious risk of running out of crucial specialists in the
Reserves who can be involuntarily called up for active duty. The remarks
by the officer, Lt. Gen. James R. Helmly, throw a spotlight on the
military's existing mobilization authority, under which Reserve and
National Guard personnel can be summoned to active duty for no more than
a total of 24 months, unless they volunteer to extend their tours.
As military operations in Afghanistan and Iraq continue with no end in
sight, General Helmly said he was increasingly concerned that a growing
number of soldiers with critical specialties that are contained mainly
in the reservist ranks will exhaust their two-year stints, making it
increasingly difficult to fill the yearlong tours of duty that have
become standard. The skills include civil affairs and truck driving.
"The manning-the-force issue for me is the single most pressing function
I worry about," General Helmly told reporters at a breakfast meeting. Of
the 205,000 members of the Army Reserve, about 43,500 are mobilized now;
22,600 of those are deployed in Iraq, Afghanistan or the Persian Gulf.
16 September 2004
U.S. Plan for Iraq Funds Worries
Lawmaker
AP via USA Today, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: The Bush administration's plans to divert $3.46 billion in Iraq
reconstruction funds for security could increase dangers in the long
run, the Republican chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee
said Wednesday. Sen. Richard Lugar, R-Ind., also said the slow pace of
spending on reconstruction "means that we are failing to fully take
advantage of one of our most potent tools to influence the direction of
Iraq." State Department officials appeared before Lugar's panel seeking
lawmakers' support for the shift of funds, which needs congressional
approval. The proposal would cover almost of a fifth of the $18.4
billion approved by Congress last year, mostly for water, electricity
and other public works projects. The money was part of an $87 billion
package for operations in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Ex-Feds Blast 9-11 Panel and Bush
Government agencies roasted for screw-ups in war on "terror"
James Ridgeway
Village Voice, 13 September 2004
EXCERPT: A group of 25 former federal employees directly involved in the
government's counterintelligence and counterterrorism programs held a
press conference here this morning to lambaste both the 9-11 Commission
and the Bush administration for failing to hold government officials
accountable for failures leading up to 9-11. The ex-employees, from the
FBI, CIA, FAA, Customs, and the Defense Intelligence Agency, had
firsthand knowledge of their agencies' activities in counterintelligence
and counterterrorism. Bogdan Dzakovic, a former special agent at the
FAA, said he repeatedly sought to warn his superiors of mismanagement
and the dangers of terrorism, but to no avail. He was a leader of a "Red
Team" at FAA, engaged in preparing for terrorist attacks. But he said
the security measures in his agency were "little more than window
dressing," and quoted one frustrated colleague as saying, "The FAA is so
screwed up I don't know where to begin."
Ex-Nader Leaders Change Tune
Katrina vanden Huevel
The Nation, 13 Sepetember
EXCERPT: If there was ever any doubt that Ralph Nader's former
supporters understand that redefeating Bush is the top priority for
progressives in this election, it ended this morning when the
overwhelming majority of Nader's 2000 National Citizens Committee issued
a strong statement urging support for John Kerry and John Edwards in all
swing states. (Click here to
read the statement.)
Among the more than 75 signers are Phil Donahue, Noam Chomsky, Barbara
Ehrenreich (who used one of her New York Times column to come out
against Nader), Jim Hightower, Howard Zinn, Tim Robbins, Eddie Vedder,
Susan Sarandon, Ben Cohen and Cornel West. This urgent call comes at a
time when it appears that the Nader campaign has qualified for the
ballot in some 23 states, a minimum of 10 of which are considered swing
states. Nader will probably also qualify for several other swing state
ballots by the time of the election. In a race which remains both close
and highly polarized, any one of these states could end up as the new
"Florida," and tip the electoral college vote to Bush. While the 75-plus
signers include a spectrum of views, all are united around a single
proposition: Ending the national nightmare of Bush. As Noam Chomsky
describes the stark choice: "Help elect Bush,
or do something to try to prevent it." A number of signers
also stress the importance of working to (re)defeat Bush on behalf of
the world community. "We are not just voting for ourselves," says
political strategist Steve Cobble. "The entire world wishes they could
vote in our presidential election--so they could vote against George W.
Bush, pre-emption, bullying and unilateralism." [BWUSA emphasis]
Mr. Bush's Glass House
By NICHOLAS D. KRISTOF
NYT, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: President Bush's paramount problem with his National Guard
years is not that he took shortcuts in 1972. The problem is that he
still refuses to come clean about it. ...There's no doubt that Mr. Bush
benefited from favoritism. The speaker of the Texas House has
acknowledged making the call to get Mr. Bush into the National Guard.
Does any of this matter? What troubles me is less Mr. Bush's advantage
three decades ago and more his denial today. Mr. Bush's own route to
avoid the draft underscores the disparities in America, yet his policies
seem based on a kind of social Darwinism in which the successful make
their own opportunities. His tax cuts and entire outlook seem rooted in
ideas not of noblesse oblige, but of noblesse entitlement. One fall day
in 1973, when Mr. Bush was a new student at Harvard Business School, he
was wearing a Guard jacket when he ran into one of his professors. The
professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, says he asked Mr. Bush how he wangled a spot
in the Guard. "He said his daddy had good friends who got him in despite
the long waiting list," recalls Professor Tsurumi, who is now at Baruch
College, part of the City University of New York. Professor Tsurumi says
he next asked Mr. Bush how he could have already finished his National
Guard commitment. "He said he'd gotten an early honorable discharge,"
Professor Tsurumi recalls. "I said, 'How did you manage that?' " "He
said, oh, his daddy had a good friend," Mr. Tsurumi said. "Then we
started talking about the Vietnam War. He was all for fighting it."
Professor Tsurumi says he remembers Mr. Bush so vividly because he was
always making outrageous statements: denouncing the New Deal as
socialist, calling the S.E.C. an impediment to business, referring to
the civil rights movement as "socialist/communist" and declaring that
"people are poor because they're lazy."
SEE ALSO:
Rather Says
Memo Flap Doesn't Change His Story
By Peter Johnson and Jim Drinkard
USA Today, 15 September 2004
CBS News anchor Dan Rather on Wednesday strongly defended his 60
Minutes story critical of President Bush's military service, saying
that his report is true but that legitimate questions have been raised
about the authenticity of documents he used to support it. No one,
Rather said repeatedly in an interview, has yet disputed "the heart" of
his report. But, he said, a "thick partisan fogging machine seeks to
cloud the core truth of our story by raising questions about the
messenger, methods and techniques." Congressional Republicans pounced on
the controversy. They demanded that CBS retract the story and "disclose
the identities of the people who have used your network to deceive your
viewers in the final weeks of a presidential election." The letter was
initiated by House Majority Whip Roy Blunt, R-Mo., and was signed by 38
other House Republicans. CBS News President Andrew Heyward backed
Rather's report, although he said CBS would "redouble our efforts to
answer questions" raised about the authenticity of memos used for the
story.
SEE ALSO:
CBS News Chief Defends Memos (WorldNetDaily)
SEE ALSO:
Why Bush Left Texas
by RUSS BAKER
The Nation, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Growing evidence suggests that George W. Bush abruptly left his
Texas Air National Guard unit in 1972 for substantive reasons pertaining
to his inability to continue piloting a fighter jet. A months-long
investigation, which includes examination of hundreds of
government-released documents, interviews with former Guard members and
officials, military experts and Bush associates, points toward the
conclusion that Bush's personal behavior was causing alarm among his
superior officers and would ultimately lead to his fleeing the state to
avoid a physical exam he might have had difficulty passing. His failure
to complete a physical exam became the official reason for his
subsequent suspension from flying status. This central issue, whether
Bush did or did not complete his duty--and if not, why--has in recent
days been obscured by a raging sideshow: a debate over the accuracy of
documents aired on CBS's 60 Minutes. Last week CBS News reported on
newly unearthed memos purportedly prepared by Bush's now-deceased
commanding officer. In those documents, the officer, Lieut. Col. Jerry
Killian, appeared to be establishing for the record events occurring at
the time Bush abruptly left his Texas Air National Guard unit in May
1972. Among these: that Bush had failed to meet unspecified Guard
standards and refused a direct order to take a physical exam, and that
pressure was being applied on Killian and his superiors to whitewash
whatever troubling circumstances Bush was in. Questions have been raised
about the authenticity of those memos, but the criticism of them appears
at this time speculative and inconclusive, while their substance is
consistent with a growing body of documentation and analysis.
Is God Punishing 'Red States' for Supporting Bush?
Ferocious Hurricane Punishes the Gulf Coast
By ANDREW C. REVKIN
NYT, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Hurricane Ivan pummeled and paralyzed communities from New
Orleans to Panama City, Fla., on Wednesday as it surged toward the broad
bay here with a ferocity not seen along the Gulf Coast since Hurricane
Camille struck to the west in 1969.
Kerry Slams
Bush Over Economy
By Martin Kasindorf
USA Today, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: John Kerry attacked President Bush's record on the economy
Wednesday, saying that middle-class Americans are suffering from poor
choices made by a stubborn incumbent who "has created more excuses than
jobs." In a speech to the Detroit Economic Club, a forum that has hosted
presidents and business leaders for 70 years, Kerry went after Bush with
the same aggressiveness that he has shown since the Republican
convention in condemning Bush's handling of Iraq and in countering
Republican attacks on his Vietnam War service. Bush talks about an
"ownership society," Kerry said. "Well, Mr. President, when it comes to
your record, we agree: You own it." The Democratic candidate said that
Bush is the first president in 72 years to record a net loss of jobs
during his term — about 900,000 jobs. He said Bush "consciously,
willfully" turned a $5.6 trillion projected federal budget surplus into
a massive deficit. The Bush record includes falling middle-class
incomes, rising costs of health care, gasoline and tuition, and 5
million more Americans lacking health insurance, Kerry said. "George
Bush accomplished all this in only four years," Kerry said. "Imagine
what he could do in another four years. I'm not saying that the
president wanted these consequences. But I am saying that by his
judgments, by his priorities, he has caused these things to happen or to
grow significantly worse. And he refuses to admit the error of his
choices." Kerry said that Bush has repeatedly blamed the "bad luck" of
an inherited recession, the 9/11 terror attacks and war costs for
economic troubles. "This president has created more excuses than jobs,"
Kerry said. He said Bush's explanations aren't valid, because other
presidents since Herbert Hoover had gone through worse recessions and
wars while managing to post positive job-creation numbers. Bush "chose
and he chose and he chose, and every single time his choice made
middle-class Americans pay the price," Kerry said. Bush misdirected tax
cuts to the wealthy, did nothing to stop companies from moving
manufacturing jobs overseas and answered soaring energy prices with
"secret meetings with the oil industry and special friendships with the
Saudis." Kerry said his own economic ideas are better. He made no new
proposals in detailing an agenda he said is friendly to business. It
includes a 5% cut in the corporate income tax rate and tax credits for
small businesses that hire more workers and cover their health care. He
repeated promises of a middle-class tax cut in the form of a $1,000
child care tax credit and a tax credit up to $4,000 a year for college
tuition.
The Fearful Voter
David Corn
TomPaine.com, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: It seems that his campaign and the Bush effort exist in
alternate universes. Bush is pushing buttons, and Kerry is trying to
score debating points. Saddled with a costly and no-end-in-sight war
that he launched under false pretenses—and that most of the public has
come to consider a mistake—Bush has made the strategic decision to hail
this war as proof he is a strong and decisive leader who can be counted
upon to take action (even misguided action!) to protect America. He is
promoting fear—or the freedom from it. He is identifying himself and his
personal attributes (swagger and all) with the security of the country.
What could be a bigger or better message than vote for me and I will
keep you safe? As psychologists at Stanford University recently noted
after studying 7000 voters who participated in the 2000 election, fear
was the number-one motivation for these voters. And that was before
9/11.
Kerry’s retort to Bush (and note that it is more parry than thrust) is
that W. was “wrong” to launch this war—and “wrong” to promote tax cuts
for the rich, “wrong” to neglect the health care crisis, “wrong” to
stand by while manufacturing jobs disappeared, “wrong” to do nothing to
preserve the ban on assault weapons, “wrong” to let the situation in
North Korea deteriorate before addressing it. Kerry is correct on policy
grounds. But his critique lacks the psychological punch of Bush’s
vote-for-me-or-die argument. On one level, Kerry is saying that Bush’s
decisions have endangered the nation. But he sure ain’t saying it on the
level where Bush (and Dick Cheney) are playing.
Defeat Bush: The Guide
by Robert Christgau & Ben Reiter
Village Voice, 10 September 2004
EXCERPT: If George Bush is to be defeated this year, he'll be defeated
on the ground. He'll be defeated because we want it more than they want
it. He'll be defeated because we swallow our fantasies of a candidate
who doesn't exist and recognize that John Kerry is a manifestly superior
positive choice. And he'll be defeated not just because we vote for
Kerry, but because we urge cynics and undecideds to vote for him too.
This work will not be easy or neat—new campaign finance rules make
figuring out where to help a job in itself. But no one is overqualified
for it. Don't think blue-staters like us can't make the difference in
swing states. And don't forget that even in New York, pluralities
count—win or lose, every vote for Kerry makes us feel better and Bush
look worse. There are still two or three weeks to register voters, and
there's plenty of follow-up to do in October. Examine the options
outlined below and decide how you might best donate your time. Then tell
your friends to do the same.
15 September 2004
Review of Nuclear Plant Security Is
Faulted
Indulgent regulatory process indicates business as usual
By MATTHEW L. WALD
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Nuclear power plants will soon be required to defend against
bigger, more capable groups of attackers, but Congressional auditors
said Tuesday that it would be years before the Nuclear Regulatory
Commission would know if the plants meet the requirements. The
commission has been ordering changes since the Sept. 11 attacks, and in
April 2003 it published requirements, which take effect next month, for
how many attackers a plant must be prepared to repel, and what training,
weapons and tactics it should employ. The commission required plant
owners to submit plans on how they would comply. But the
commission's assessment of the plans "has been rushed and is largely a
paper review," Jim Wells, an auditor at the Government Accountability
Office, the Congressional agency formerly known as the General
Accounting Office, said at a House subcommittee hearing. The owners'
submissions consisted mostly of checking "yes" and "no" boxes on a form
initially developed by the industry, Mr. Wells said. The plans do not
detail "defensive positions at the site, how the defenders would deploy
to respond to an attack or how long the deployments would take," he
said. The agency has visited only four or five of the plants to look at
security arrangements, Mr. Wells testified before the subcommittee on
national security of the House Government Reform Committee.
Representative Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who is
chairman of the subcommittee, asked, "There isn't any real-life stuff to
verify this is happening?" Mr. Shays said people near reactors "take
little comfort from a cozy, indulgent regulatory process that looks and
acts very much like business as usual."
Media focuses on origin of documents
Documents Doubted, Content Confirmed
By PETE SLOVER
The Dallas Morning New, 13 September 2004
Courtesy of Talking Points Memo
EXCERPT: The former secretary for the Texas Air National Guard officer
who supposedly wrote memos critical of President Bush's Guard service
said Tuesday that the documents are fake but that they reflect documents
that once existed. Marian Carr Knox, who worked from 1957 to 1979 at
Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, said that she prided herself on
meticulous typing and that the memos first disclosed by CBS News last
week were not her work.
"These are not real," she told The Dallas Morning News after examining
copies of the disputed memos for the first time. "They're not what I
typed, and I would have typed them for him." Mrs. Knox, 86, who spoke
with precise recollection about dates, people and events, said, "I
remember very vividly when Bush was there and all the yak-yak that was
going on about it."
SEE ALSO:
Media Should Probe Bigger Questions
About Bush's Record
FAIR Media Advisory
Fairness and Accuracy In Reporting, 14 September 2004
Entire Advisory: In the past week, a handful of stories have cast
doubt on whether George W. Bush fulfilled his National Guard obligations
30 years ago. Reports by the Associated Press (9/7/04), Boston
Globe (9/8/04) and U.S. News & World Report (9/20/04) have
all raised new questions about Bush's military service. Though each of
these stories has been accompanied by significant official
documentation, developments in the investigations by AP, U.S.
News and the Boston Globe have been largely sidetracked by
the fixation on questions about the authenticity of documents aired on
CBS on September 8. Weighing the credibility of evidence is an
essential function of journalism. Experts have weighed in on both sides
on the authenticity of CBS's so-called Killian memos (New York
Times, 9/14/04; Washington Post, 9/14/04); efforts to
establish the origin of those documents should continue. However, news
outlets that focus on this tangent of the National Guard story to the
exclusion of the unchallenged new evidence that has recently emerged are
neglecting another essential journalistic task: holding powerful people
and politicians accountable. In the wake of the stories scrutinizing
Bush's stateside service during the Vietnam era, it's hard to imagine a
better situation for the White House than to have the press corps ignore
a range of evidence raising questions about Bush's fulfillment of his
obligations while obsessing singularly on one set of documents from one
story.
A review of some of the information uncovered in recent news reports:
The September 7 Associated Press story, based on new records
the White House had long maintained didn't exist, debunked a Bush
assertion that he'd skipped his flight physical because the jet he was
trained on was becoming obsolete. According to AP, Bush's unit
continued to fly the same jets for two years after the missed physical.
The September 8 Boston Globe expose concluded that Bush
failed in his military obligations by missing months of duty in Alabama
and in Boston. As the Globe revealed, Bush had signed contracts
on two separate occasions swearing to meet minimum Guard requirements on
penalty of being called up to active duty. According to the military
experts consulted by the Globe, Bush's Guard attendance was so
bad "his superiors could have disciplined him or ordered him to active
duty in 1972, 1973 or 1974."
U.S News & World Report (9/20/04) reviewed National Guard
regulations and reported that the White House has been using "an
inappropriate-- and less stringent-- Air Force standard in determining
that he had fulfilled his duty." The magazine noted that Bush committed
to attend at least "44 inactive-duty training drills each fiscal year"
when he signed up for the Guard, but that Bush's own records "show that
he fell short of that requirement, attending only 36 drills in the
1972-73 period, and only 12 in the 1973-74 period." The magazine
explains that even by using the White House's preferred methodology for
measuring Bush's service, he still fell short of those minimum
requirements.
An NBC Nightly News segment (9/9/04) played a clip of Bush
being interviewed in 1988, acknowledging that favoritism sometimes
played a part in getting into the National Guard. While he had said that
he didn't think that happened in his case, he did voice his approval of
the practice: "If you want to go in the National Guard, I guess
sometimes people made calls. I don't see anything wrong with it." (He
continued with a remark that could be taken as an insult to the men and
women who did face combat during the war: ''They probably should have
called the National Guard up in those days. Maybe we'd have done better
in Vietnam.")
Even CBS's September 8 broadcasts, the subject of so much
scrutiny, included important information beyond what is contained in the
disputed memos. On the CBS Evening News and 60 Minutes II
that night, CBS featured Ben Barnes, the former speaker of the
Texas legislature, describing how he used his political influence to
help a young George W. Bush bypass a waiting list and secure a coveted
position in the Guard. In addition, the CBS stories also featured
an interview with Robert Strong, a former colleague of Bush's commander,
Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the purported author of the disputed documents.
Strong described the pressure Bush's commander was working under: "He
was trying to deal with a volatile political situation, dealing with the
son of an ambassador and a former congressman.... And I just saw him in
an impossible situation. I felt very, very sorry because he was between
a rock and a hard place."
Instead of asking the White House tough questions about the
well-documented information contained in these reports, media have
focused almost exclusively on the claims and counter-claims made about
the Killian memos-- as if the discrepancies over Bush's service record
stand or fall based on this one set of disputed documents. It's the
equivalent of covering the sideshow and ignoring the center ring.
Medical Costs Eat at Social Security
By William M. Welch
USA Today, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: With a new Medicare drug benefit set to begin in 2006,
Americans 65 and older can expect to spend a large and growing share of
their Social Security checks on Medicare premiums and expenses,
previously undisclosed federal data show.
Information the Bush administration excluded from its 2004 report on the
Medicare program shows that a typical 65-year-old can expect to spend
37% of his or her Social Security income on Medicare premiums,
co-payments and out-of-pocket expenses in 2006. That share is projected
to grow to almost 40% in 2011 and nearly 50% by 2021. Unless Congress
does something to hold down costs confronting seniors, the official
projections suggest that health spending will consume virtually the
entire amount of Social Security benefits when children born today reach
retirement age.
The table was provided by the Department of Health and Human Services at
the request of Rep. Pete Stark, D-Calif. Stark, who opposed the drug
benefit enacted last year at President Bush's urging, sought the data
after noticing that a chart included in previous annual reports was not
in the 2004 version. Stark charged that the administration threw out the
chart because it shows future Medicare costs under the new law will
erode Social Security checks. "It doesn't look good to lie to grandma,
so the Bush administration has withheld information and come up with
other creative ways to mask the damage they have done to Medicare,"
Stark said.
AUDIO/VIDEO LINK
Leading Muslim Scholar Tariq Ramadan Denied U.S.
Visa to Teach at Notre Dame
DemocracyNow!, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: (Interview) Tariq Ramadan, a Swiss scholar known for his
work on Islamic theology and the place of Muslims in the modern world,
was appointed to teach Islamic philosophy and ethics at the University
of Notre Dame. He received a visa from the State Department and was
scheduled to start his classes in late August. But just days before he
was set to travel, his visa was revoked without explanation at the
behest of the Department of Homeland Security. It turns out
Ramadan was barred under a section of the Patriot Act, which bars entry
to foreigners who have used a "position of prominence . . . to endorse
or espouse terrorist activity." (No further explanation has been
forthcoming from the administration.)
Critical
Book on Bushes Sparks Firestorm
By Kathy Kiely
USA Today, 13 September 2004
EXCERPT: Seven weeks before Election Day, a new book that paints an
unflattering picture of President Bush and his family is putting
celebrity biographer Kitty Kelley in the eye of a political hurricane.
Even before it went on sale today, her latest book, The Family: The
Real Story of the Bush Dynasty ranked No. 2 on Amazon.com's
best-seller list. The Bush administration and the Republican Party
launched a vigorous campaign to discredit Kelley as a Democratic
partisan and discourage coverage of her 733-page book.
14 September 2004
Taking On the Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: On Sunday, a celebrating crowd gathered around a burning U.S.
armored vehicle. Then a helicopter opened fire; a child and a journalist
for an Arabic TV news channel were among those killed. Later, the
channel repeatedly showed the journalist doubling over and screaming,
"I'm dying; I'm dying."
Such scenes, which enlarge the ranks of our enemies by making America
look both weak and brutal, are inevitable in the guerrilla war President
Bush got us into. Osama bin Laden must be smiling. U.S. news
organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq.
In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, "It's worse than you think."
Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective;
no-go zones, which the military prefers to call "insurgent enclaves,"
are spreading - even in Baghdad. We're losing ground. And the losses
aren't only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq,
intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite:
nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are
bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea's
ongoing nuclear program, "he opened his palms and shrugged."
Bush Record: New Priorities in
Environment
By FELICITY BARRINGER
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Every fall, after raising their young near Teshekpuk Lake and
the Colville River, tens of thousands of geese and tundra swans leave
the North Slope of Alaska for more southerly shores. Some end their
journey at the Pocosin Lakes National Wildlife Refuge in the flatlands
of North Carolina. Both habitats could be transformed if current Bush
administration initiatives come to pass. The birds would have oil rigs
as neighbors in Alaska and be greeted by Navy jets simulating carrier
takeoffs and landings in North Carolina. That such projects could
bracket the birds' path is not surprising in light of the priorities of
the administration. Over the last three and a half years, federal
officials have accelerated resource development on public lands. They
have also pushed to eliminate regulatory hurdles for military and
industrial projects. From the start, Bush officials challenged the
status quo and revised the traditional public-policy calculus on
environmental decisions. They put an instant hold on many Clinton
administration regulations, and the debates over those issues and others
are intensely polarized. The administration has sought to increase the
harvesting of energy and other resources on public lands, to seek
cooperative ways to reduce pollution, to free the military from
environmental restrictions and to streamline - opponents say gut -
regulatory and enforcement processes. In a recent interview, Michael O.
Leavitt, the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
summed up the Bush administration's philosophy. "There is no
environmental progress without economic prosperity," Mr. Leavitt said.
"Once our competitiveness erodes, our capacity to make environmental
gains is gone. There is nothing that promotes pollution like poverty."
The administration's approach has provoked a passionate response. Asked
about his expectations in the event of President Bush's re-election,
Senator James M. Jeffords, the Vermont independent who is the ranking
minority member on the Environment and Public Works Committee, wrote in
an e-mail message: "I expect the Bush administration to continue their
assault on regulations designed to protect public health and the
environment. I expect the Bush administration to continue underfunding
compliance and enforcement activities." Mr. Jeffords concluded, "I
expect the Bush administration will go down in history as the greatest
disaster for public health and the environment in the history of the
United States."
Jeb delivers again, the law be damned
Florida OK's Nader's Name on
Election Ballot Despite Court Ruling
By Jim Loney
Reuters, 13 September 2004
Courtesy of Talking Points Memo
EXCERPT: Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can
appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the
contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials on Monday in a move
that could help President Bush in the key swing state. The Florida
Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move "blatant
partisan maneuvering" by Gov. Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother,
and vowed to fight it. In a memo to Florida's 67 county supervisors
of elections, Division of Elections director Dawn Roberts said the
uncertainty of Hurricane Ivan, which could hit parts of the state by
week's end, forced her to act.
The action came in an ongoing legal battle over whether Nader should be
allowed on the Florida ballot as the Reform Party candidate. Nader, an
independent nominated by the Reform Party, was a presidential candidate
in 2000 when Bush won Florida, and the White House, by 537 votes over
then-Vice President Al Gore. Analysts said most of the nearly 98,000
votes Nader got in Florida would have gone to Gore had Nader not been on
the ballot. Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary
injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004
ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not
qualify as a national party under state law. A hearing on a permanent
injunction is scheduled for Wednesday. But Roberts said Hurricane Ivan,
which is headed for Florida's Gulf coast, had raised "a substantial
question as to when such a hearing" will be held. [BWUSA emphasis]
Cheney Misleads on Iraq/Al-Qaeda
Connection
Daily MisLead, 13 September 2004
EXCERPT: Displaying a brazen disregard for the facts, Vice President
Cheney told an audience in Cincinnati Thursday that Iraq had "provided
safe harbor and sanctuary...for Al Qaeda." There is no evidence to
support Cheney's claim. The 9/11 Commission - which spent months
exhaustively studying the issue - concluded there was no "collaborative
relationship" between Iraq and al-Qaeda. After the release of the
report, Cheney claimed there was "overwhelming" evidence of a
relationship between al-Qaeda and Iraq and that he had "probably" seen
evidence that was not shared with the commission. After investigating
the matter, the 9/11 Commission found "it had access to the same
information the vice president has seen regarding contacts between Al
Qaeda and Iraq prior to the 9/11 attacks." The commission also
reaffirmed its position that it had not discovered a
"collaboration-cooperation between al-Qaeda and Iraq."
Issues vs. Character
Kevin Drum
Washington Monthly, 13 September 2004
Our main problem isn't that this year's campaign has ignored
the issues, our main problem is that the #1 issue in this campaign is
national defense, and on that issue — like it or not — the majority of
Americans favor the Republican position. If John Kerry wants to win, he
should focus on the issues, but he has to focus on the issues that
matter most in this campaign cycle. It's all about 9/11, Iraq,
terrorism, and national security, baby. This election is going to be won
on that issue, and Kerry needs to convince the country that he can
handle it better than Bush. And really, considering the botch Bush has
made of national security, that shouldn't be all that hard. Bottom line:
Republicans aren't avoiding the issues. It's just that their signature
issue happens to be the one people care most about this year. Democrats
had better figure that out pronto.
Genesis of a Rightwing Military
Character Assassination
Anti-Kerry Veterans' group now political
machine with big budget and made up 'truths'
Kinght Ridder Newspapers, 11 September 2004
Courtesy of the Political Animal
EXCERPT: The steering committee immediately saw that some sort of
political organization had to be formed - perhaps a 527 committee. Named
for a section of the Internal Revenue Code, a 527 can raise money to
influence a federal election, so long as it doesn't coordinate its
activities with a candidate or party. O'Neill said he researched how to
form and run such a group and got help from Political Compliance
Strategies, a suburban Washington organization. Political Compliance
Strategies is led by Susan Arceneaux, who was the treasurer of a
political action committee associated with former House Majority Leader
Dick Armey, a Texas Republican. The company now oversees the group's
books and prepares required government reports. Swift Boat Veterans for
Truth was registered with the IRS on April 23. Its early expenditures
included money for a Dallas-area private investigator, Tom Rupprath.
Hoffmann said Rupprath's job was to find vets and collect their stories
so that a single account could be presented to the public. "If everyone
was saying something different it could be confusing. We wanted one
version of the truth," Hoffmann said. Eighteen veterans showed up at the
May 4 news conference at the National Press Club organized by Spaeth,
and 177 others added their names to the letter challenging Kerry.
Disappointed by the scant coverage from the national media, the steering
committee - which still has weekly phone conference calls - decided to
raise money for a TV ad campaign. O'Neill said he asked two big donors
for money. Texan Harlan Crow, a trustee of the George Bush Presidential
Library Fund, which honors the current president's father, gave $25,000.
Bob J. Perry, a major GOP donor in Texas and a friend of Karl Rove,
Bush's top political adviser, gave $100,000 on June 30, according to a
financial report. Later, O'Neill said, Perry doubled his donation.
Back to Archive Index
|
|
Send
questions, comments, etc. to
 |
18-19 September 2004
No, the final
verdict will be whether Bush gets away with it on November 2
Iraq Had No WMD: The Final Verdict
Julian Borger
The Guardian, 18 September 2004
EXCERPT: The comprehensive 15-month search for weapons of mass
destruction in Iraq has concluded that the only chemical or
biological agents that Saddam Hussein's regime was working on before
last year's invasion were small quantities of poisons, most likely
for use in assassinations. A draft of the Iraq Survey Group's final
report circulating in Washington found no sign of the alleged
illegal stockpiles that the US and Britain presented as the
justification for going to war, nor did it find any evidence of
efforts to reconstitute Iraq's nuclear weapons programme. It also
appears to play down an interim report which suggested there was
evidence that Iraq was developing "test amounts" of ricin for use in
weapons. Instead, the ISG report says in its conclusion that there
was evidence to suggest the Iraqi regime planned to restart its
illegal weapons programmes if UN sanctions were lifted. Charles
Duelfer, the head of the ISG, has said he intends to deliver his
final report by the end of the month. It is likely to become a
heated issue in the election campaign. President George Bush now
admits that stockpiles have not been found in Iraq but claimed as
recently as Thursday that "Saddam Hussein had the capability of
making weapons, and he could have passed that capability on to the
enemy". The draft Duelfer report, according to the New York Times,
finds no evidence of a capability, but only of an intention to
rebuild that capability once the UN embargo had been removed and
Iraq was no longer the target of intense international scrutiny.
Syria: Yet Another US
"Enemy" to Muddy the Middle East Waters
By Saul Landau and Farrah Hansen
ZNet, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: Those invaders of Iraq are at it again. Vice President Dick
Cheney and Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, and their neo con
staff led by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Under
Secretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith, have conjured up
another villain: Syria. They want to punish Bashar Al-Assad¹s regime
for Saddam-like crimes weapons of mass destruction and fomenting
terrorism. Although, their aggressive verbal assault might have as
its real design the deflection of criticism over spying and leaking
from the Vice President¹s office. Justice Department investigators
focus on Cheney¹s top aides as likely culprits who fed journalist
Robert Novak the name of undercover CIA operative Valerie Plame.
When Novak "outed" her, Plame abandoned her mission and career. The
Bushies thus showed other potential truth-tellers the high cost of
"embarrassing" the Administration by telling the truth. Plame¹s
husband, Ambassador Joseph Wilson, had publicly demolished Cheney¹s
"Saddam tried to buy uranium in Africa" story. More recently, the
FBI has named a Cheney aide and members of the American Israel
Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) as involved in spying for Israel.
This Israeli lobby that claims to represent the Jewish population
has for decades distracted attention away from Israeli aggression
and manipulation of US policies by accusing Israel¹s unfriendly
neighbors of terrorism --first Iraq, now Syria and Iran.
Aljazeera Slams Rumsfeld 'Terror'
Slur
Aljazeera.net, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Aljazeera has categorically rejected US Defence Secretary
Donald Rumsfeld's charge that journalists receive tip-offs from
"terrorists" of impending attacks on Iraq, singling out the channel.
Rumsfeld was quoted on Wednesday as calling Aljazeera a
"Johnny-on-the-spot" and saying: "It is striking that from time to
time at least there is a journalist - quote unquote - standing
around taking pictures of [attacks]." Aljazeera's media spokesman
Jihad Ballout dismissed Rumsfeld's remarks as "innuendo", saying the
channel considered such statements "to be potential safety risks to
all journalists who put their lives on the line in pursuit of the
truth". Rumsfeld had said: "Sometimes journalists just happen to be
there [at the scene]. But we know for a fact that other times the
terrorists have told journalists - and I use the word inadvisedly,
quote unquote journalists - they've told journalists where they are
going to be and what they're going to do. And the journalists have
been there." Ballout said such statements "unduly obstructs freedom
of the press".
Torture for Profit
Private contractors face legal
action for crimes in Abu Ghraib
By David Phinney
CorpWatch, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Employees of two high-profile defense contractors are
accused of involvement in close to one third of the torture and
abuse incidents cited in a recent Army investigation of Abu Ghraib
prison in Iraq. In late August, following release of the report,
Defense department officials turned over the names of six CACI
International Inc. and Titan Corporation employees to the U.S.
Justice department for possible prosecution. But efforts to hold
private contract employees truly accountable may fall short due to
untested laws on contractor accountability and a U.S. administration
that critics say has repeatedly redefined torture in its 'war on
terror' and in the war on Iraq.... Army investigators found evidence
that these contract employees violently assaulted prisoners,
demanded that prisoners be forced into unauthorized stress positions
and threatened prisoners with dogs. It also documents allegations of
rape by one witness who told investigators of a civilian, believed
to be a translator who was wearing a military uniform.
The Origins of Terror
WWI is profoundly responsible
for the world as it is today
By Sunanda K. Datta-Ray
The Telegraph (Calcutta) via ZNet, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: The carnage billed as the war to end all wars, which began
90 years ago this month, bears a profound responsibility for the
world as it is today. Arab discontent, Israeli bullying, the menace
of terrorism and Iraq's anguish can all be traced to World War I,
which reinforced and legitimized imperialism although Mohandas
Karamchand Gandhi urged Indians to go to Britain's rescue in her
"hour of need" because "the gateway to our freedom is situated on
French soil". He was not alone in professing touching loyalty.
Britain's prime minister, Herbert Asquith, received a telegram that
read, "Do not worry, England, Barbados is behind you." But if the
war betrayed promises, exemplified duplicity and set horrendous
precedents, Woodrow Wilson's vision also sparked the twin hopes of
economic globalization and an equitable new world order.
17 September 2004
Far Graver than Vietnam
Most senior US military officers
now believe the war on Iraq has turned into a disaster on an
unprecedented scale
By Sidney Blumenthal
The Guardian (UK), 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: 'Bring them on!" President Bush challenged the early Iraqi
insurgency in July of last year. Since then, 812 American soldiers
have been killed and 6,290 wounded, according to the Pentagon.
Almost every day, in campaign speeches, Bush speaks with bravado
about how he is "winning" in Iraq. "Our strategy is succeeding," he
boasted to the National Guard convention on Tuesday. But, according
to the US military's leading strategists and prominent retired
generals, Bush's war is already lost. Retired general William Odom,
former head of the National Security Agency, told me: "Bush hasn't
found the WMD. Al-Qaida, it's worse, he's lost on that front. That
he's going to achieve a democracy there? That goal is lost, too.
It's lost." He adds: "Right now, the course we're on, we're
achieving Bin Laden's ends." Retired general Joseph Hoare, the
former marine commandant and head of US Central Command, told me:
"The idea that this is going to go the way these guys planned is
ludicrous. There are no good options. We're conducting a campaign as
though it were being conducted in Iowa, no sense of the realities on
the ground. It's so unrealistic for anyone who knows that part of
the world. The priorities are just all wrong." ... General Odom
remarked that the tension between the Bush administration and the
senior military officers over Iraqi was worse than any he has ever
seen with any previous government, including Vietnam.
SEE ALSO:
This Is Bush's Vietnam
By BOB HERBERT
NYT, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: Wars are all about chaos and catastrophes, death and
suffering, and lifelong grief, which is why you should go to war
only when it's absolutely unavoidable. Wars tear families apart as
surely as they tear apart the flesh of those killed and wounded.
Since we learned nothing from Vietnam, we are doomed to repeat its
agony, this time in horrifying slow-motion in Iraq. Three more
marines were killed yesterday in Iraq. Kidnappings are commonplace.
The insurgency is growing and becoming more sophisticated, which
means more deadly. Ordinary Iraqis are becoming ever more enraged at
the U.S. When the newscaster David Brinkley, appalled by the carnage
in Vietnam, asked Lyndon Johnson why he didn't just bring the troops
home, Johnson replied, "I'm not going to be the first American
president to lose a war. George W. Bush is now trapped as tightly in
Iraq as Johnson was in Vietnam. The war is going badly. The
president's own intelligence estimates are pessimistic. There is no
plan to actually win the war in Iraq, and no willingness to concede
defeat. I wonder who the last man or woman will be to die for this
colossal mistake.
President Was Told in July of
Civil War Risk in Iraq
Intelligence report adds weight to criticism of White House
Gary Younge in New York
The Guardian, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: President George Bush was warned in July that Iraq could
descend into all-out civil war, according to a classified estimate
which summarised the views of a number of US intelligence agencies.
Even the best-case scenario for Iraq is a political, economic and
security situation described as tenuous. The National Intelligence
Estimate predicts three possible scenarios: tenuous stability,
political fragmentation, or civil war. The 50-page document,
prepared in July before the latest upsurge in violence brought a
sharp increase in Iraqi civilians killed and attacks on American
troops, has yet to be officially released. A spokesman for the
national security council, Scott McCormack, confirmed its existence
and remained upbeat, but refused to discuss the details.
New Iraq Attacks Are More
Sophisticated
By KIM HOUSEGO
SeattlePI.com, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: The scale and sophistication of militant attacks in Iraq
are steadily increasing, with coordinated strikes and complicated
ambushes that increasingly hit their targets, officials and analysts
said Wednesday. The spike in bloodshed - more than 200 dead in four
days - has stifled American hopes that the transfer of sovereignty
and the prospect of a democratic vote in four months could take the
steam out of the uprising and pave the way for a reduction in U.S.
troops. Instead, there are signs the Americans and their Iraqi
allies are facing an enemy more determined than ever. Insurgents
have learned from past mistakes and shifted strategy, cooperating
more closely with each other and devising new ways to put their
relatively simple arsenal to treacherous use.
Sistani Insists on Elections in
January or February
Juan Cole
Informed Comment, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: Al-Zaman: Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani called on
Wednesday for general elections to be held at the scheduled time
(January 2005). He made the statement during a meeting of the Shiite
leadership held in his office in Najaf. Present were Muhammad Said
al-Hakim, Bashir Najafi, and Ishaq al-Fayyad in adition to Abdul
Aziz al-Hakim, the leader of the Supreme Council for Islamic
Revolution in Iraq. Sistani underlined the necessity of "tossing out
conflicts and emphasizing a closing of ranks, as well as
intensifying efforts to create complete national unity in order to
confront the danger that menaces the country." Sistani called on the
caretaker Iraqi government to take measures to release prisoners
whose guilt has not been established, and to work to rebuild the
cities that were damaged by the acts of violence and clashes. He
asked for compensation to be given to those harmed, especially in
the city of Najaf. He also called on the government to "treat
problems with calm and wisdom instead of resorting to violence."
(All this according to Deutsche Press Agentur). Al-Hayat says
Sistani called on Allawi to "stop the bloodbath." He further
insisted on more popular participation and on "filling in the gaps
in the laws governing elections and parties" that were enacted by US
civil administrator Paul Bremer and his appointed Interim Governing
Council.
There are rumors that PM Iyad Allawi had wanted to storm the shrine
of Ali in late August, and had been displeased with Sistani's
intervention to promote a non-violent end of the crisis.
In fact, the Iraqi government did let 750 prisoners go from Abu
Ghuraib Prison as part of a commitment to process the prisoners
there one way or another.
Sistani's quite resonable demand for elections is nevertheless among
the greatest dangers facing the Allawi government and the Americans.
It will be extremely difficult actually to hold the elections on
time. But Sistani believes only such elections can produce a
legitimate government, and he already accepted a six-month delay. If
the elections are not held, and if Sistani begins to fear they won't
be held soon, he may well call the masses into the streets. That
could lead to an overthrow of Allawi and an expulsion of the
Americans. Keep your eye on February and March of 2005.
Justifying killing journalists, quote-unquote
Rumsfeld Claims Media are
Receiving Terror Tip-offs
US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld says
journalists have received tip-offs from terrorists of impending
attacks in Iraq, singling out Al-Jazeera television as
"Johnny-on-the-spot a little too often for my taste".
AFP via ABC News, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Rumsfeld gave no specifics or evidence to back up the
accusation, which he made during a talk to troops at Fort Campbell,
Kentucky, home of the army's 101st Airborne Division. His comments
came just two days after a journalist, Mazen al-Tomaisi, who worked
for Saudi television and the Arabic news channel Al Arabiya was
killed when a US helicopter fired on a crowd that had gathered
around a bomb-struck US armoured vehicle in Baghdad. Referring to
suicide attacks and roadside bombings, Mr Rumsfeld said "it is
striking that from time to time at least there is a journalist,
quote-unquote, standing around taking pictures of it." "It isn't
every time and it isn't most times," he said. "But it is sometimes,
sometimes I suspect it happens because it is serendipidity, they
just happen to be there. "But we know for a fact that other times
the terrorists have told journalists and I use the word inadvisedly,
quote-unquote journalists, they've told journalists where they are
going to be and what they are going to do. "And the journalists have
been there. And over and over and over again we've see that Middle
Eastern television station Al-Jazeera that seems to have a wonderful
way of being Johnny-on-the-spot a little too often for my taste," he
said. The Iraqi government banned Al-Jazeera from operating in Iraq
on August 5, charging that its coverage was inciting violence.
Earlier this month, the government extended the ban and sealed the
Qatar-based television station's Baghdad office.
Green Zone Is ‘No Longer Totally
Secure’
By James Drummond and Steve Negus in Baghdad
Financial Times, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: US military officers in Baghdad have warned they cannot
guarantee the security of the perimeter around the Green Zone, the
headquarters of the Iraqi government and home to the US and British
embassies, according to security company employees. At a briefing
earlier this month, a high-ranking US officer in charge of the
zone's perimeter said he had insufficient soldiers to prevent
intruders penetrating the compound's defences. The US major said it
was possible weapons or explosives had already been stashed in the
zone, and warned people to move in pairs for their own safety. The
Green Zone, in Baghdad's centre, is one of the most fortified US
installations in Iraq. Until now, militants have not been able to
penetrate it. But insurgency has escalated this week, spreading to
the centre of Baghdad. The zone is home to several thousand Iraqis,
and on Sunday it came under the heaviest attack since it was
established. Up to 60 unexploded rockets were found inside its
perimeters after a five-hour barrage. On Tuesday, a car bomb outside
a Baghdad police station killed 47 people, and 12 members of the
police and their driver were shot dead in Baquba. The attack was the
worst in the city for several months. The violence in Iraq continued
on Wednesday when 10 Iraqis were killed in clashes with US troops
using artillery in Ramadi, west of Baghdad. The decapitated bodies
of three men, believed to be Arab kidnap victims, were separately
found on a highway north of Baghdad. The US military defended the
actions of its helicopter gunship pilots, who killed at least a
dozen Iraqi civilians who were surrounding a disabled Bradley
armoured fighting vehicle in Baghdad's Haifa street on Sunday. US
military officials said the Kiowa helicopters, which fired into a
crowd, were shooting in self-defence and had not violated US rules
of engagement.
New Charges Raise Questions on
Abuse at Afghan Prisons
By CARLOTTA GALL and DAVID ROHDE
NYT, 17 September 2004
EXCERPT: Sgt. James P. Boland, a reserve military police
soldier from Cincinnati, watched as a subordinate beat an Afghan
prisoner, Mullah Habibullah, 30, the brother of a former Taliban
commander, according to a military charge sheet released recently.
The report also said that Sergeant Boland shackled an Afghan named
Dilawar, chaining his hands above his shoulders, and denied medical
care to the man, a 22-year-old taxi driver, whose family said he had
never spent a night away from his mother and father before being
taken to the American air base at Bagram, 40 miles north of Kabul.
The two detainees died there within a week of each other in December
2002.
Now, 21 months later, the Army has charged Sergeant Boland with
assault and other crimes and investigators are recommending that two
dozen other American soldiers face criminal charges, including
negligent homicide, or other punishments for abuses that occurred
more than a year before the scandal at the Abu Ghraib prison in
Iraq.
Far from settling the cases, the charges raise new questions about
who authorized the harsh interrogation methods used in Afghanistan
and about the contradictory statements made by American military
officials who, when questioned shortly after the men's deaths, said
they had died of natural causes.
Press Reports on U.S. Casualties: About 17,000
Short, UPI Says
By Mark Benjamin
UPI, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Nearly 17,000 service members medically evacuated
from Iraq and Afghanistan are absent from public Pentagon casualty
reports commonly cited by newspapers, according to military data
reviewed by United Press International. Most don't fit the
definition of casualties, according to the Pentagon, but a veterans'
advocate said they should all be counted.
The Pentagon has reported 1,019 dead and 7,245 wounded from Iraq.
The military has evacuated 16,765 individual service members from
Iraq and Afghanistan for injuries and ailments not directly related
to combat, according to the U.S. Transportation Command, which is
responsible for the medical evacuations. Most are from Operation
Iraqi Freedom. The Pentagon's public casualty reports, available at
www.defenselink.mil, list only service members who died or were
wounded in action. The Pentagon's own definition of a war casualty
provided to UPI in December describes a casualty as, "Any person who
is lost to the organization by having been declared dead, duty
status/whereabouts unknown, missing, ill, or injured." The casualty
reports do list soldiers who died in non-combat-related incidents or
died from illness. But service members injured or ailing from the
same non-combat causes (the majority that appear to be "lost to the
organization") are not reflected in those Pentagon reports.
In a statement Wednesday, the Pentagon gave a different definition
that included casualty descriptions by severity and type and said
most medical evacuations did not count. "The great majority of
service members medically evacuated from Operation Iraqi Freedom are
not casualties, by either Department of Defense definitions or the
common understanding of the average newspaper reader." It cited such
ailments as "muscle strain, back pain, kidney stones, diarrhea and
persistent fever" as non-casualty evacuations. "Casualty reports
released to the public are generally confined to fatalities and
those wounded in action," the statement said.
A veterans' advocate said the Pentagon should make a full reporting
of the casualties, including non-combat ailments and injuries. "They
are still casualties of war," said Mike Schlee, director of the
National Security and Foreign Relations Division at the American
Legion. "I think we have to have an honest disclosure of what the
short- and long-term casualties of any conflict are."
The Resort to Force
By Noam Chomsky
TomDispatch.com. 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: As Colin Powell explained the National Security Strategy (NSS)
of September 2002 to a hostile audience at the World Economic Forum,
Washington has a ``sovereign right to use force to defend
ourselves'' from nations that possess WMD and cooperate with
terrorists, the official pretexts for invading Iraq. The collapse of
the pretexts is well known, but there has been insufficient
attention to its most important consequence: the NSS was effectively
revised to lower the bars to aggression. The need to establish ties
to terror was quietly dropped. More significant, Bush and colleagues
declared the right to resort to force even if a country does not
have WMD or even programs to develop them. It is sufficient that it
have the ``intent and ability'' to do so. Just about every country
has the ability, and intent is in the eye of the beholder. The
official doctrine, then, is that anyone is subject to overwhelming
attack. Colin Powell carried the revision even a step further. The
president was right to attack Iraq because Saddam not only had
``intent and capability'' but had ``actually used such horrible
weapons against his enemies in Iran and against his own people''--
with continuing support from Powell and his associates, he failed to
add, following the usual convention. Condoleezza Rice gave a similar
version. With such reasoning as this, who is exempt from attack?
Small wonder that, as one Reuters report put it, ``if Iraqis ever
see Saddam Hussein in the dock, they want his former American allies
shackled beside him.''
Sharon Repudiates the Road Map
Juan Cole
Informed Comment, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon in remarks on Wednesday
repudiated the American-sponsored "road map" to a peace process
between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Sharon insists on acting
unilaterally, intends to occupy the Palestinian population
indefinitely, and intends to permanently incorporate much of the
West Bank, conquered in 1967, into Israel, while leaving the
Palestinian population stateless. They lack so much as a passport or
a country, many of their children are hungry, unemployment is
astronomical, and their lives are ruined by a dense network of
Israeli roads and checkpoints that make it difficult even just to go
to the hospital.
I am sure that most Americans are not even aware that Palestinians
live under Israeli military occupation and that every day
Palestinian territory shrinks as it is stolen by fanatical Israeli
colonists. These fanatics do not differ in any obvious way from the
French colonists in Algeria, which the French also proclaimed
"French soil." But colonialism is just another word for grand
larceny. (Most Americans would be appalled if the United States
suddenly chased all the Iraqis out of Baghdad and brought in
Americans to permanently take over their apartments and other
property, instead. But that is an exact analogy for how the Israelis
are behaving.)
Bush Administration Debates
Strike on 'Nuclear Iran'
By Guy Dinmore
Financial Times, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: The Bush administration's warnings that it will not
"tolerate" a nuclear-armed Iran have opened up a lively policy
debate in Washington over the merits of military strikes against the
Islamic republic's nuclear programme. Analysts close to the
administration say military options are under consideration, but
have not reached a level of seriousness that indicate the US is
preparing actual action. When asked, senior officials repeat that
President George W. Bush is removing no option from the table - but
that he believes the issue can be solved by diplomatic means.
Diplomacy on Wednesday appeared stalled. The US and its European
allies on the board of the International Atomic Energy Agency
continued to wrangle over the wording of a resolution on Iran which
insists it has no intention of using its advanced civilian programme
to make a bomb. Gary Schmitt, executive director of the Project for
the New American Century (PNAC), a neo-conservative think-tank, says
that with "enough intelligence and spadework", the US could "do a
good job" of slowing Iran's programme for a while. But, he cautions,
the Bush administration would need a "game plan" for the aftermath.
That long-term approach is lacking, analysts say, and has floundered
in the debate over "regime change".
UN Warns of Population
Explosion, Cites US Policies
The population of developing
countries will soar unless donors give more funds to reproductive
health programs, a UN Population Fund report says
BBCNews, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: The world's 50 poorest countries will triple in size by
2050, surging to 1.7 billion people, it predicts. Donors have been
giving only half the funds pledged at a conference in Cairo in 1994,
UNFPA told BBC News Online. The money is used for programmes
supporting women's rights and health care in the developing world.
UNFPA's State of the World Population 2004 report examines progress
made since Cairo, when wealthy countries pledged to give an annual
$6.1bn to the fund. William Ryan, the report's author, told BBC News
Online that although developing countries were making great strides
to tackle the problems of a growing population, the fund was $3bn
short. "Without access to health services and education the
population will continue to increase, above all in the poorest
countries," he said. By 2050, UNFPA says, there will be 8.9 billion
people sharing the planet, a slight decrease from earlier official
predictions. The US - the fund's largest donor - has blocked its
donations to the body for the past three years. The Bush
administration froze $34m in funding, citing allegations that the
UNFPA was involved in forced abortions in China - a charge
consistently denied by the organisation. "We note that with an
additional $34m we could help provide family planning to thousands
of women who need it," Mr Ryan said.
16 September 2004
Mockery made of Bush's claim of UN authority
for war
Iraq War Was Illegal and
Breached UN Charter, says Annan
Ewen MacAskill and Julian Borger in Washington
The Guardian, 16 September 2004
EXCERPT: The United Nations secretary general, Kofi Annan, declared
explicitly for the first time last night that the US-led war on Iraq
was illegal. Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by
the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding
charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last
night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied:
"Yes, if you wish." He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated
it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view
and from the charter point of view it was illegal." Mr Annan has
until now kept a tactful silence and his intervention at this point
undermines the argument pushed by Tony Blair that the war was
legitimised by security council resolutions. Mr Annan also
questioned whether it will be feasible on security grounds to go
ahead with the first planned election in Iraq scheduled for January.
"You cannot have credible elections if the security conditions
continue as they are now," he said. His remarks come amid a marked
deterioration of the situation on the ground, an upsurge of violence
that has claimed 200 lives in four days and raised questions over
the ability of the interim Iraqi government and the US-led coalition
to maintain control over the country. ...Mr Annan said the security
council had warned Iraq in resolution 1441 there would be
"consequences" if it did not comply with its demands. But he said it
should have been up to the council to determine what those
consequences were.
Enough Said
"There was absolutely no debate in the normal sense. There are only
six or eight of them [in the Bush administration] who make the
decisions, and they only talk to each other. And if you disagree
with them in public, they'll come after you, the way they did with
Shinseki."
--
An unnamed U.S. military planner quoted in James Fallows'
Atlantic cover story, "Bush's Lost Year." (subscription
required)
Courtesy of Mother Jones News
U.S. Intelligence Shows Pessimism
on Iraq's Future
By DOUGLAS JEHL
NYT, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: A classified National Intelligence Estimate prepared for
President Bush in late July spells out a dark assessment of
prospects for Iraq, government officials said Wednesday. The
estimate outlines three possibilities for Iraq through the end of
2005, with the worst case being developments that could lead to
civil war, the officials said. The most favorable outcome described
is an Iraq whose stability would remain tenuous in political,
economic and security terms. "There's a significant amount of
pessimism," said one government official who has read the document,
which runs about 50 pages. The officials declined to discuss the key
judgments - concise, carefully written statements of intelligence
analysts' conclusions - included in the document. The intelligence
estimate, the first on Iraq since October 2002, was prepared by the
National Intelligence Council and was approved by the National
Foreign Intelligence Board under John E. McLaughlin, the acting
director of central intelligence. Such estimates can be requested by
the White House or Congress, but this one was initiated by the
intelligence council under George J. Tenet, who stepped down as
director of central intelligence on July 9, the government officials
said. As described by the officials, the pessimistic tone of the new
estimate stands in contrast to recent statements by Bush
administration officials, including comments on Wednesday by Scott
McClellan, the White House spokesman, who asserted that progress was
being made. ...The committee's ranking Democrat, Senator Joseph R.
Biden Jr. of Delaware, one of the harshest critics of the Iraq
policies, was far more outspoken. "The president has frequently
described Iraq as, quote, 'the central front of the war on terror,'
" Mr. Biden went on. "Well by that definition, success in Iraq is a
key standard by which to measure the war on terror. And by that
measure, I think the war on terror is in trouble."
Slippage of Control in Iraq Makes
a Mockery of Power Hand-Over
COLIN FREEMAN
The Scotsman, 15 September 2004
Courtesy of Informed Comment
EXCERPT: Two months ago, amid the kind of secrecy more normally
associated with Saddam’s illicit arms deals, the US authorities in
Baghdad formally handed over power to the fledgling Iraqi
government. The ceremony, amid the formidable security of the Green
Zone, was done two days ahead of schedule in a bid to wrongfoot
insurgents - for whom, it was claimed, it would provide the key
rallying moment for a final, last-gasp offensive. Today, with both
Ayad Allawi's new government and its coalition backers losing
control of the country, it is hard to imagine why anybody bothered
with such constitutional conjuring. ...Worse still, even with what
now seem to be periodic lulls and highs, the scale of armed
resistance seems to grow. The fact that US troops regularly give the
enemy an easy hiding - killing scores, sometimes hundreds at a time
- is no comfort. It merely shows that no matter how high the
casualty rates, there is a seemingly bottomless supply of newcomers
coming in. And all the time, as occupying armies have known for
centuries, the resistance is learning from its mistakes. To see how
the situation has deteriorated one only needs to be reminded of the
bullish confidence of coalition commanders in Iraq a year ago. Back
then reporters were admonished if they talked of "no-go zones": the
coalition presence, and with it the rule of law, extended to every
corner of the country. Nowadays, by comparison, even British troops
in the relatively quiet southern sector have all but conceded
certain hostile towns. The prospect of a "super rogue state", as
raised in recent days by Iraq’s new UN ambassador Samir Sum-aida'ie,
is no longer a distant nightmare but an approaching possibility.
WH statement was a key diplomatic phrase
indicating that Bush was giving a green light to Putin's move away
from democracy
Powell Offers New Criticism of
Putin Limits on Reforms
By STEVEN R. WEISMAN
NYT, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: Secretary of State Colin L. Powell expressed concern on
Tuesday over President Vladimir V. Putin's recent action to
consolidate his power in Russia, declaring that Mr. Putin was
"pulling back" on democratic reforms in the name of fighting
terrorism. In guarded comments that nonetheless amounted to the most
explicit criticism of Mr. Putin by the Bush administration in some
time and were more critical than the initial White House
statement on Monday that his actions were an internal Russian matter,
Mr. Powell said he intended to take up the administration's concerns
in meetings with Russian leaders, perhaps with Foreign Minister
Sergey Lavrov at the United Nations next week. [BWUSA emphasis]
SEE ALSO:
AUDIO LINK
On Russia
NPR's Diane Rehm Show, 15 September 2004
President Vladimir Putin has called for a major overhaul of Russia's
political process in response to the threat of terrorism. We'll talk
about his proposal and shifts in the U.S.- Russian relations.
Listen now.
Guests:
Stephen F. Cohen, professor of Russian studies, New York
University and author of "America and the Tragedy of Post-Communist
Russia"
Michael McFaul, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.
SEE ALSO:
The Price to Pay for Bush's Blind
Eye to Russia
MoJo Blog, MotherJones.com, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: If you can ignore the delusions about democracy in Iraq (Pentagon
advisers are to blame, are they?), Kagan has a point. Bush's
blind eye towards Putin just doesn't make any sense -- strategic or
otherwise. Over at the American Prospect, Matthew Yglesias
suggests that Bush doesn't really care all that much about
spreading democracy, or is too lazy to do anything about it.
Taking Dives for the Bush Mob
by David Corn
The Nation via Common Dreams, 14 September 2004
I used to have sympathy for Colin Powell, the supposed adult among
the neocon kindergartners who pushed this nation into war in Iraq.
Now I see him merely as a boxer who has taken one too many dives.
And he has been doing so to protect a no-good mob. ...Powell is
quite useful for Bush. He plays the role of the administration's
reasonable man. He comes out and says there was no direct connection
between Iraq and the terrorists of 9/11 (undermining Cheney's
repeated suggestions such a link existed). He says Kerry would deal
with the terrorism in a "robust" fashion (undercutting Cheney's
charge that the United States would be hit again by terrorists
should Kerry be elected). Asked if he would have supported the
invasion of Iraq had he known there were no WMD stockpiles there, he
says, maybe, maybe not (distancing himself slightly from the Bush
line). But he refuses to concede that he and the Bush administration
misrepresented the case for war. "I'm disappointed; I'm not
pleased"--that's all he says about the misleading intelligence on
Iraq's WMDs that he infamously cited at his prewar briefing of the
UN Security Council. (When it comes to Iran's nuclear program,
Powell notes that the Bush administration is working closely with
the International Atomic Energy Agency to prevent Iran from
developing nuclear weapons. He does not remind the audience that the
administration he serves trashed the IAEA when the IAEA was
conducting inspections in Iraq during the months before the
invasion.)
In Washington, there has long been a debate within foreign policy
circles hostile to Bush and his war: is it better for Powell to be
in the administration or not? Does Powell occasionally apply the
brakes to the administration's recklessness? Is he a mature,
multilateralral influence? My view is that if there are benefits
from his tenure at the State, they are outweighed by an obvious
cost: how he helps the Bush bunch stay in power and, thus, enables
the neoconservatives. In the final weeks of the election, I expect
the public will see more of Powell than Wolfowitz. He will reassure.
He will have plausible-sounding explanations for the screw-ups. He
will offer soothing words about the "challenges" ahead. In doing all
this, he will be fronting for the neocons. And if Powell does his
job well, they will have more four more years to impose upon the
world their miscalculations. It seems Powell never grows tired of
kissing the mat for the Bush gang.
15 September 2004
"Ham-handed"
terrorist production policy
Air Power Gains Bigger Role in Iraq
By ROBERT BURNS
AP via Seattle PI, 13 September 2004
Courtesy of Informed Comment
EXCERPT: U.S. officials said Monday's attack "effectively and
accurately" targeted al-Zarqawi operatives and associates in a
building where they were meeting. A U.S. military statement said
innocent civilians were spared. But a Fallujah General Hospital
official said three houses had been destroyed and at least 20 people
were killed, including women and children. In the northern city of
Tal Afar, which also had fallen under the control of insurgents, a
U.S. airstrike last Thursday killed dozens of Iraqis. U.S. officials
said it was aimed at ridding the city of terrorists, and The New
York Times quoted the commander of U.S. forces in the Tal Afar area
as saying Iraqi and U.S. troops had entered the city on Sunday and
found the streets calm. A leading Shiite Muslim cleric, Abdel-Aziz
al-Hakim, criticized the use of heavy U.S. force in Tal Afar, saying
the Americans caused "catastrophes" that could have been avoided if
Iraqis had been in charge of security. Turkey urged the United
States to quickly end military operations in Tal Afar, saying
attacks have caused casualties of mostly ethnic Turks living there.
Loren Thompson, a defense analyst at the Arlington, Va.-based
Lexington Institute think tank, said Monday the Americans seem to
believe that airstrikes in Fallujah will wear down the insurgents
and buy time for U.S.-trained Iraqi security forces to prepare for a
ground assault in the weeks ahead. "But you have to wonder whether
we're radicalizing the Iraqi civilian population" in the meantime
amid claims - substantiated or not - that airstrikes are killing
innocent people, Thompson said.
AUDIO LINK
Security Seen Trumping Democratic Goals in Iraq
NPR's Morning Edition, 15September 2004
As violence continues to roil Iraq, many question whether planned
January elections are even feasible. Some analysts say the U.S. and
allied leaders have gradually compromised their commitment to
building a secular democracy in Iraq in favor of better security.
Hear NPR's Tom Gjelten.
SEE ALSO:
U.S. Seeks to Shift Rebuilding
Funds to Security
By RICHARD W. STEVENSON
NYT, 15 September 2004
EXCERPT: The Bush administration said Tuesday that it would shift
nearly 20 percent of its aid budget for Iraq out of reconstruction
projects and into security and short-term job-creation programs,
acknowledging that continued violence threatened its plans for
elections early next year.
C.I.A. Unit on bin Laden Is
Understaffed, a Senior Official Tells Lawmakers
By JAMES RISEN
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Three years after the Sept. 11 attacks on New York and the
Pentagon, the Central Intelligence Agency has fewer experienced case
officers assigned to its headquarters unit dealing with Osama bin
Laden than it did at the time of the attacks, despite repeated pleas
from the unit's leaders for reinforcements, a senior C.I.A. officer
with extensive counterterrorism experience has told Congress. The
bin Laden unit is stretched so thin that it relies on inexperienced
officers rotated in and out every 60 to 90 days, and they leave
before they know enough to be able to perform any meaningful work,
according to a letter the C.I.A. officer has written to the House
and Senate Intelligence Committees. "There has been no systematic
effort to groom Al Qaeda expertise" among C.I.A. officers since
Sept. 11, 2001, according to the letter, written by Michael F.
Scheuer, the former chief of the agency's bin Laden unit and the
author of a best-selling book that is critical of the Bush
administration's handling of the war on terror. Excerpts from Mr.
Scheuer's letter were read publicly by Senator Dianne Feinstein,
Democrat of California, on Tuesday at a Senate hearing on the
confirmation of Porter J. Goss as director of central intelligence.
Congressional officials later provided a copy of the letter to The
New York Times. ...In his letter, Mr. Scheuer the United States had
many more opportunities to kill or capture Osama bin Laden before
the Sept. 11 attacks than have ever been made public. From May 1998
to May 1999, Mr. Scheuer's wrote, "The C.I.A. officers working bin
Laden at headquarters and in the field gave the U.S. government
about 10 chances to capture bin Laden or kill him with military
means. In all instances, the decision was made that the
'intelligence was not good enough.' " Mr. Scheuer, a 22-year veteran
of the C.I.A., served as the first chief of the agency's bin Laden
unit from 1996 until 1999. This year, with the publication of his
book, "Imperial Hubris," which he wrote under the name Anonymous,
Mr. Scheuer has become the C.I.A.'s leading in-house critic. After
he granted news media interviews following the book's publication,
the C.I.A. curbed his access to the press. He initially wrote the
latest letter in May as an op-ed article. The C.I.A. refused to
clear it for publication, but allowed him to send it as a letter to
the Congressional oversight committees. In the letter, Mr. Scheuer
provides a number of new details about the history of the C.I.A.'s
counterterrorism operations before Sept. 11. For example, he said
that the C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit was ordered to be disbanded in the
spring of 1998, and that its operations were about to be folded into
a small branch office when the C.I.A. director, George J. Tenet,
found out about the proposed move. Mr. Tenet reversed the decision
just before the August 1998 attacks on two American embassies in
East Africa by Al Qaeda. Mr. Scheuer also said that in 1996, the
C.I.A.'s bin Laden unit obtained detailed information about Al
Qaeda's efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. He said that an
intelligence report on the matter was initially suppressed within
the C.I.A., and was later distributed in an abbreviated form. "Three
officers of the agency's bin Laden cadre protested this decision in
writing, and forced an internal review," Mr. Scheuer wrote. "It was
only after this review that this report was provided in full to
community leaders, analysts and policy makers."
AUDIO/VIDEO LINK
Responsibility goes to the very top
Chain of Command: The Road from 9/11 to Abu Ghraib
DemocracyNow!, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: (Interview with Seymour Hersh) In his book, Hersh writes
that at the height of the Abu Ghraib prison scandal in May 2004, a
Republican operative received the reassuring word that Vice
President Dick Cheney had taken control of the situation. The
operative "learned that Cheney had telephoned Rumsfeld with a simple
message: No resignations. We're going to hunker down and tough it
out." Hersh writes "Cheney's concern was not national security. This
was a political call - a reminder that the White House would seize
control of every crisis that could affect the re-election of George
Bush." [This is a "must hear' segment to understand the
significance of Abu Ghraib.]
SEE ALSO:
AUDIO
LINK
'Chain of Command'
Morning Edition,15 September 2004
Investigative reporter Seymour Hersh talks about his latest book
Chain of Command. Hersh says in the book that the Bush
Administration was privy to information as early as the fall of 2002
of abuse in the military prison system, most notably in Abu Ghraib
and Guantanamo Bay.
General Criticises Fallujah
Strategy
By Toby Harnden in Baghdad
Telegraph, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: A US Marine commander attacked his military and civilian
superiors yesterday for an initially over-aggressive and then
vacillating strategy towards the insurgent stronghold of Fallujah.
Lt Gen James Conway, who is relinquishing his command, said he had
not wanted to mount an offensive against the town after the killing
of four American defence contractors whose mutilated bodies were
hung from a bridge in April.
Lt Gen James Conway
"We felt that we probably ought to let the situation settle before
we appeared to be attacking out of revenge," he told reporters. "I
think we certainly increased the level of animosity that existed."
The ending of the offensive after three days, on the orders of the
White House according to military sources, and the deaths of six
marines, were also disastrous, he said. "When you order elements of
a marine division to attack a city, you need to understand what the
consequences will be and not perhaps vacillate in the middle of
something like that. Once you commit you have to stay committed."
U.S. Tribunal Could Lose Members
By Toni Locy
USA Today, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: President Bush's attempt to create a separate criminal
justice system for foreign terrorism suspects may have hit a
significant snag that could result in the replacement of more than
half of the first U.S. military tribunal convened since World War
II.
In documents filed Sept. 7 with the tribunal and obtained by USA
TODAY, Army Col. Robert Swann, the chief prosecutor, urged the
panel's presiding officer to "closely evaluate his own suitability
to serve" to determine whether "good cause exists for his removal."
Swann also said he "does not object" to efforts by
military-appointed defense attorneys to disqualify three other
tribunal members because of possible bias or conflicts of interest.
Military law analysts say that replacing the presiding officer, Army
Col. Peter Brownback, or other members of the six-man panel probably
would cause more delay and confusion in a process that has been
fraught with both.
14 September 2004
Car Bomb Kills at Least 47 at a
Police Headquarters in Baghdad
By EDWARD WONG
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: A car bomb exploded today outside a police headquarters in
a crowded district of Baghdad, killing at least 47 people and
wounding more than 90, an Interior Ministry official said. Hundreds
of recruits were lined up outside of the headquarters when the car
exploded. Bits of artillery shells, which had been packed inside the
vehicle, were strewn in the area. Pools of blood gathered in the
street and flesh clung to the pavement, the trees and the coils of
barbed wire strung around the station. The bomb went off near a
store where young people play video games and pool, and a restaurant
where early diners were apparently among those killed.
An angry crowd gathered at the scene, holding up jagged bits of the
shell and chanting "Bush is a dog!" They said American warplanes had
fired missiles. Not long after the early morning blast, another car
exploded in downtown Baghdad's Saadoun Street, apparently driven by
a suicide bomber who had intended to target a convoy of armored
vehicles used by foreign contractors, according to witnesses. It was
not immediately known whether there were casualties. The Iraqi
police fired into the air to disperse crowds who gathered at the
scene. The blasts were part of a continuing outbreak of violence
across the country as insurgents have attacked foreign forces, aid
agencies and the police and Iraqi security forces allied with the
new Iraqi government.
Today in Baquba, north of Baghdad, gunmen in two cars opened fire on
a van carrying policemen home from work, killing 11 officers and a
civilian, police and hospital officials said, according to The
Associated Press
Also in Baghdad today, the United States military announced that two
American soldiers had been killed and three wounded by insurgents
attacking with a homemade bomb and small-arms fire on Monday
afternoon, Agence France-Presse reported.
Raising the Pressure in Iraq
By DEXTER FILKINS
NYT, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: With four months to go before nationwide elections in
Iraq, the insurgency has grown more brazen and sophisticated,
prompting American commanders to begin a series of military
operations to regain control over large sections of the country lost
in recent months. But as the Americans and their allies raise the
pressure on the insurgents, they are rapidly finding themselves in
the classic dilemma faced by governments battling guerrilla
movements: ease up, and the insurgency may grow; crack down, and
risk losing the support of the population. The additional
quandary facing the Americans is the need to break the deadlock
before January, the self-imposed deadline for elections. On Sunday,
insurgents struck the Americans and their allies in the Iraqi
government in manifold ways: with suicide bombings, mortars and
rockets, many of them showing a careful aim. Some of those attacks
seemed intended not just to hurt the Americans but to provoke them
into overreacting and alienating ordinary Iraqis. How long the
Americans can stick to their newly aggressive strategy is open to
question: last April, as marines moved on Falluja, and Iraqi
casualties soared into the hundreds, the Americans called off the
attack and let a gang of insurgents take over. Even now, the
get-tough approach is showing signs of backfiring. On Sunday, when a
suicide bomber crippled an American personnel carrier, a gun battle
broke out, followed by an airstrike by two American helicopters. At
least 15 Iraqis died and 50 were wounded, including a
12-year-old-girl and a television journalist. Inside the grim and
chaotic wards of Baghdad's hospitals on Sunday, the Americans seemed
to have made more enemies than friends.
...The Americans have long hoped that democratic elections could
drain away the anti-American anger here, and help set the stage for
an eventual withdrawal. But American diplomats acknowledge that
holding elections in a town under insurgent control is probably
unrealistic. If elections were to go forward under such
circumstances anyway, a large number of Iraqi voters would probably
be unable to take part. "I could see circumstances where we can't do
Falluja," a Western diplomat said recently, referring to the
prospect of holding elections there. "But we will not let the
rejectionists in Iraq have a veto over the elections."
..."But Iraqis do not rely so much on these elections," Mr. Dhari
said. "The most important thing is for the Americans to assign a
date for their withdrawal. That is the only solution." The
Americans face a similar quandary in trying to hold elections in the
country's Shiite-dominated areas, where Mr. Sadr and his Mahdi Army
are still refusing to give up their guns.
...Seated in his Baghdad office, Mr. Dhari, the Sunni cleric, said
that efforts to persuade Iraqis with the gun would ultimately fail,
as they did for the British after the World War I. "When you push
the Iraqi people, and you harm the Iraqi people, you will just cause
them to fight back harder," Mr. Dhari said. "The idea that force
will be enough to calm the Iraqis is a false dream." [BWUSA
emphasis]
SEE ALSO:
Key General Criticizes April
Attack In Fallujah
Abrupt Withdrawal Called Vacillation
By Rajiv Chandrasekaran
Washington Post, 13 September 2004
EXCERPT: The outgoing U.S. Marine Corps general in charge of western
Iraq said Sunday he opposed a Marine assault on militants in the
volatile city of Fallujah in April and the subsequent decision to
withdraw from the city and turn over control to a security force of
former Iraqi soldiers. That security force, known as the Fallujah
Brigade, was formally disbanded last week. Not only did the brigade
fail to combat militants, it actively aided them, surrendering
weapons, vehicles and radios to the insurgents, according to senior
Marine officers. Some brigade members even participated in attacks
on Marines ringing the city, the officers said.
'He's Just Sleeping, I Kept Telling Myself'
On Sunday, 13 Iraqis were killed and dozens
injured in Baghdad when US helicopters fired on a crowd of unarmed
civilians. G2
columnist Ghaith Abdul-Ahad, who was injured
in the attack, describes the scene of carnage - and
reveals just how lucky he was to walk away
The Guardian, 14 September 2004
GSN Quote of the Day
Global Security Newswire, 13 September 2004
What worries me most about the robust penetrator is that some idiot
might try to use it. -- --Rep. David Hobson (R-Ohio) on Bush
administration efforts to research a so-called "bunker buster"
nuclear weapon.
US Troops Face New Torture Claims
Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian, 14 September 2004
EXCERPT: Allegations that American soldiers routinely tortured and
maltreated detainees have emerged from a third Iraqi city, renewing
fears that abuse similar to that inflicted in Abu Ghraib jail in
Baghdad has been systematic and widespread.
American soldiers in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul beat and
stripped detainees, threatened sexual abuse and forced them to
listen to loud western music, according to statements seen by the
Guardian. Lawyers investigating the claims have sent details to the
Pentagon and the British Ministry of Defence and have demanded an
inquiry.
'Better to Fight Terrorists in
Iraq that Here at Home'
Josh Marshall
Talking Points Memo, 13 September 2004
EXCERPT: The only thing complicated about this argument is
calibrating a hierarchy of all the levels of foolishness it
embodies. Logically it is nonsensical; strategically it is moronic;
morally it is close to indefensible.
The key fallacy, as so many have pointed out, is the notion that
there are a finite number of 'terrorists' who we can kill and be
done with.
Added to this, is the idea -- as antiquated as it is ridiculous --
that fighting 'the terrorists' in Iraq prevents them from hitting us
in the United States. Have these fools heard about globalization?
Grant the false premise that the Iraqi insurgency is being run by
bin Laden. He can't spare a couple dozen jihadis to come over here
to spring another 9/11 on us? What about al Qaida demonstrates their
strategy of hitting us where our defenses are strongest?
As a TPM reader put it to me both hilariously and brilliantly more
than a year ago, this 'fly paper' thesis is like saying we're going
to build one super dirty hospital where we can fight the germs on
our own terms.
Clearly that analogy points in some uncomfortable directions. But
the salient point is clear: everyone who is not an utter fool knows
that the number of young and disaffected men in the Muslim world who
are potentially willing to take up arms against America is, for
practical geopolitical purposes, all but infinite. Killing those
already bent on suicide missions againt the US is undeniably a good
thing. But doing so in a way that is guaranteed to replace them with
ten new volunteers is the most foolish way to go about it. It is the
classic case of dousing the fire with gasoline.
Of course that leaves untended the fact the guerillas we're blowing
up in Iraq aren't the folks running the safe houses in Karachi and
Peshawar who constitute the real threat. Adrift as well is the
straightforward matter that turning Iraq into a killing field isn't
really compatible with making it into a redoubt of democracy,
prosperity and western values.
Knocking holes in this argument is really too easy and after a bit
beside the point. The real problem with this argument is its
proponents -- folks who seem inclined to put insipid wordplay above
the lives of American soldiers and marines, indeed, above against
the future security of the country itself.
A Plea for Help
By Spiros D - Baghdad
Straight Talk, 31 August 2004
Courtesy of ge
EXCERPT: I am a soldier stationed in Iraq concerned about the role
of private contractors in this war, and would like to ask for your
help. How can you who are way over there help me way over here?
Well, let me tell you how.
For those of you not aware, the US military is not the only US
organization that is functioning over here in Iraq. A large US
contractor called KBR (Kellog, Brown, and Root), a daughter company
of Halliburton (once run by VP Dick Cheney), is operating on every
US base in Iraq. KBR manages many of the solider services that we
have here on the base; things like running the food service, waste
disposal, pumping the latrines, laundry services, movement and
control, and the central distribution center. KBR is also scheduled
to take over all fuel hauling and freight hauling in general. When
things started to heat up earlier this year KBR put a hold on taking
over hauling operations. Now that things are seeming to come back
under some control KBR is looking at taking over again. Now I know
you are asking yourself what in the world this has to do with you.
Let me explain... KBR is now requesting, and the army is allowing,
US soldiers to ride "shot gun" in KBR convoys hauling KBR goods all
over Iraq. KBR is afraid to be out on the roads alone and want our
US soldiers to risk their lives riding shot gun for their missions.
KBR is currently staffed by mainly non US international personnel
along with a growing number of Iraqis. Most do not speak English,
none have had military training on defensive driving, proper convoy
operations, avoiding ambushes, navigating around IED's [hidden
roadside bombs], proper procedure for calling in support or medivac
or fire support, procedures to follow after taking enemy fire, the
list goes on. These drivers are simply paid drivers that are making
roughly 5 -8 times our wages and get paid whether the freight
arrives or not.
KBR is requesting that US soldiers risk their lives at the hands of
inexperienced and improperly trained individuals to provide them
with security. Now there is no doubt that we need to protect KBR's
missions but we have suggested and to date have been denied the
opportunity to run the convoys with properly modified and equipped
military vehicles.
We have suggested that we run in the convoys with every third
vehicle being a US Army gun truck with proper drivers and fire
support. With this arrangement KBR can still haul the freight in
their vehicles but we would run the mission and deal with any
situations as they develop the way we have been trained to. This is
the only way that most of us want the missions to be run, the others
are just afraid to be opposed to the decisions our leadership is
making.
Here is where you come in...
Back to Archive Index |
