january 21, 2005

op-ed columnist

dancing the war away

by bob herbert
even as president bush was taking the oath of office and delivering his inaugural address beneath the clear, cold skies of washington, the news wires were churning out stories about the tragic mayhem in iraq.
there is no end in sight to the carnage, which was unleashed nearly two years ago by president bush’s decision to launch this wholly unnecessary war, one of the worst presidential decisions in american history.

incredibly, with more than 1,360 american troops dead and more than 10,000 wounded, and with scores of thousands of iraqis dead and wounded, the president never once mentioned the word iraq in his inaugural address. he avoided all but the most general references to the war. lyndon johnson used to agonize over the war that unraveled his presidency. mr. bush, riding the crest of his re-election wave, seems not to be similarly bothered.

in january 1945, with world war ii still raging, franklin roosevelt insisted on a low-key inauguration. already gravely ill, he began his address by saying, “”mr. chief justice, mr. vice president, my friends, you will understand and, i believe, agree with my wish that the form of this inauguration be simple and its words brief.””

times have changed. president bush and his equally tone-deaf supporters spent the past few days partying hard while americans, iraqis and others continued to suffer and die in the iraq conflagration. nothing was too good for the princes and princesses of the new american plutocracy. tens of millions of dollars were spent on fireworks, cocktail receptions, gala dinners and sumptuous balls.

ten thousand people, including the president and laura bush, turned out wednesday night for the black tie and boots ball. according to the associated press, one of the guests, lorian sessions of san antonio, “”donned a new pair of black kangaroo boots, decorated with a white star and embroidery, with an aqua-colored mink wrap she bought on sale at saks.””

an article in the washington post mentioned a peace activist who complained that the money lavished on the balls would have been better spent on body armor for under-equipped troops in iraq.

as the well-heeled bush crowd was laughing and dancing in tuxedos and designer gowns, the situation in iraq was deteriorating to new levels of horror. the black tie and boots ball was held on the same day that 26 people were killed in five powerful car and truck bombs in baghdad.
with the elections just a week and a half away, american commanders, according to john f. burns of the times, are seeking “”to prepare public opinion in iraq and abroad for one of the bloodiest chapters in the war so far.””

a photo at the end of mr. burns’s article showed an iraqi national guard member carrying the remains of a suicide bomber in a garbage bag.

the disconnect between the over-the-top celebrations in washington and the hideous reality of iraq does not in any way surprise me. it’s exactly what we should expect from the president and his supporters, who seem always to exist in a fantasy realm far removed from such ugly realities as war and suffering. in that realm you can start wars without having to deal with the consequences of them. you don’t even have to pay for them. you can put them on a credit card.

people traveling in the real world may see iraq as a place where bombings, kidnappings and assassinations are an integral part of daily life; where police officers are blown to pieces as they line up for their pay; where innocent men, women and children are slain by the thousands for no good reason; where cities like falluja are leveled in order to save them; where america’s overwhelming superiority in firepower has not been enough to win the war; and where the upcoming elections seem very much like a joke since many of the candidates have to keep their identities secret and the locations of many polling places remain undisclosed.

people traveling in the real world may see iraq that w

the debt threat complicates tsunami disaster

by noreena hertz

after days of indecision, the g7, the world’s leading industrialized nations announced today that all tsunami afflicted countries would be eligible to have their debt repayments halted. thank goodness. how obscene it would have been to witness the aid that is now flowing into sri lanka, indonesia, and thailand flow immediately out again to the coffers of the same donors .

how unjust it would have been if these countries were thwarted from regaining their footing, tending their casualties, and burying their dead, because their scarce resources were being diverted into rich countries bank accounts.

such a development would be shocking but not surprising. because for most of the world’s poorest countries, that is the situation they find themselves in each and every day. while 155,000 people died in the tragic events of christmas day over 15,000 children die every single day in sub saharan africa from poverty related diseases, their governments unable to do anything meaningful to treat them, because they are paying out $30 million dollars each and every day to the world bank, the imf and rich world creditor nations. for every one dollar that is given to that region in aid one and a half dollars goes out to cover debt repayments.

“”what’s good for thailand must be good for tanzania

what is good for thailand must be good for tanzania. an african death must be weighted as highly as an asian one. the principle that countries in need should not have to service their debts must be applied evenly.

and this is the moment to add this call to the debt motarorium now being applied in asia. with the g7’s finance ministers meeting in early february, and debt relief on their agenda, this is the time to demand a principled and more universal approach to the issue. an approach that recognizes explicitly that countries must not have to prioritize debt service repayments over their ability to meet their citizens most basic needs.

no country in need wherever it is.

more debt relief needed for poor countries

but let’s not stop there. let’s seize this moment when debt cancellation is on the global political agenda, and call for more: for the cancellation of debts not only when a country cannot afford to repay them, but also when it shouldn’t have to. again a situation where we have a recent precedent to fall on.

the united states led the call for the cancellation of iraqã­s debts last month, basically because the loans the iraqi people were having to service had been racked up by a tyrannical and corrupt dictator. but we don’t have to look hard to find despots with similar profiles: marcos of the philippines, abacha of nigeria, mobutu of zaire, the military junta of argentina, and the apartheid regime of south africa were all lent tens of billions of dollars which present day generations in the countries they once ruled over have to now pay for.

if the iraqi people are no longer to have to pay for the knives that saddam used to slaughter them, then neither should the congolese, the nigerians, the argentineans, the filipinos, nor the south africans have to pay for monies borrowed by their former dictators.

decoupling debt

and lets also take this rare moment when the world is united in grief and mourning to call for a decoupling of debt relief from harmful economic conditions.

currently, even if a country is eligible to get some of its debts cancelled, this won’t actually take effect unless they agree to follow the world bank and imfs strict rules. rules like demands to slash public expenditure. which when a country is poor means in practice fewer children being sent to school, less families with access to healthcare, women having to trudge 10 miles to collect water because no monies are spent on water delivery, and girls in contexts where no monies are invested in sanitation having to pee in the bushes at night, in the process taking their chances that they will not be attacked or raped.

washington (reuters) – the washington redskins lost their final home football game before the u.s. presidential election on sunday — and that’s great news for democratic sen. john kerry and bad news for president bush.

in every presidential election since 1936, the redskins’ last home game has accurately predicted the winner. if they win, the incumbent president’s party wins. if they lose, the challenger wins.

the redskins lost to green bay 28-14 and kerry quickly celebrated.

“”i think it’s a good tradition to follow,”” kerry told reporters on his campaign plane. “”i think the country should stay with tradition, don’t you?””

civilian death toll in iraq exceeds 100,000
thu 28 october, 2004 20:14

by patricia reaney

london (reuters) – tens of thousands of iraqis have been killed in violence since the u.s.-led invasion last year, american public health experts have calculated in a report that estimates there were 100,000 “”excess deaths”” in 18 months.

the rise in the death rate was mainly due to violence and much of it was caused by u.s. air strikes on towns and cities.

“”making conservative assumptions, we think that about 100,000 excess deaths, or more have happened since the 2003 invasion of iraq,”” said les roberts of the johns hopkins bloomberg school of public health in a report published online by the lancet medical journal.

“”the use of air power in areas with lots of civilians appears to be killing a lot of women and children,”” roberts told reuters.

london (reuters) – the united states has failed to guard against torture and inhuman behavior since launching its “”war on terror”” after sept. 11, 2001, amnesty international said wednesday in a report just days before the u.s. election.

the rights group called on president bush and his democratic challenger john kerry to promise to take prompt action to address the issue head on if elected on nov. 2.

it condemned bush’s response to the 2001 attacks on u.s. cities, saying it had resulted in an “”iconography of torture, cruelty and degradation.””

amnesty’s report accused washington of stepping onto a “”well-trodden path of violating basic rights in the name of national security or ‘military necessity’.””

“”the war mentality the government has adopted has not been matched with a commitment to the laws of war and it has discarded fundamental human rights principles along the way,”” it said.

at best, washington was guilty of setting conditions for torture and cruel treatment by lowering safeguards and failing to respond adequately to allegations of abuse, it said.

at worst, it had authorized interrogation techniques which flouted its international obligation to reject torture and ill-treatment under any circumstances.

a republican senator for kerry

‘frightened to death’ of bush

by marlow w. cook
special to the courier-journal

i shall cast my vote for john kerry come nov 2.㊠i have been, and will continue to be, a republican. but when we as a party send the wrong person to the white house, then it is our responsibility to send him home if our nation suffers as a result of his actions. i fall in the category of good conservative thinkers, like george f. will, for instance, who wrote: “”this administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and having thought, to have second thoughts.””

i say, well done george will, or, even better, from the mouth of the numero uno of conservatives, william f. buckley jr.: “”if i knew then what i know now about what kind of situation we would be in, i would have opposed the war.””

first, let’s talk about george bush’s moral standards. in 2000, to defeat sen. john mccain, r-ariz. ã‘ a man who was shot down in vietnam and imprisoned for over five years ã‘ they used carl rove’s “”east texas special.”” they started the rumor that he was gay, saying he had spent too much time in the hanoi hilton. they said he was crazy. they said his wife was on drugs. then, to top it off, they spread pictures of his adopted daughter, who was born in bangladesh and thus dark skinned, to the sons and daughters of the confederacy in rural south carolina.

to show he was not just picking on republicans, he went after sen. max cleland from georgia, a democrat seeking re-election. bush henchmen said he wasn’t patriotic because cleland did not agree 100 percent on how to handle homeland security. they published his picture along with cuba’s castro, questioning cleland’s patriotism and commitment to america’s security. never mind that his republican challenger was a vietnam deferment case and cleland, who had served in vietnam, came home in a wheel chair having lost three limbs fighting for his country. anyone who wants to win an election and control of the legislative body that badly has no moral character at all.

we know his father got him in the texas air national guard so he would not have to go to vietnam. the religious right can have him with those moral standards. we also have vice president dick cheney, who deferred his way out of vietnam because, as he says, he “”had more important things to do.””

i have just turned 78. during my lifetime, we have sent 31,377,741 americans to war, not including whatever will be the final figures for the iraq fiasco. of those, 502,722 died and 928,980 came home without legs, arms or what have you.

those wars were to defend freedom throughout the free world from communism, dictators and tyrants. now americans are the aggressors ã‘ we start the wars, we blow up all the infrastructure in those countries, and then turn around and spend tax dollars denying our nation an excellent education system, medical and drug programs, and the list goes on. …

i hope you all have noticed the bush administration’s style in the campaign so far. all negative, trashing sen. john kerry, sen. john edwards and democrats in general. not once have they said what they have done right, what they have done wrong or what they have not done at all.

lyndon johnson said america could have guns and butter at the same time. this administration says you can have guns, butter and no taxes at the same time. god help us if we are not smart enough to know that is wrong, and we live by it to our peril. we in this nation have a serious problem. its almost worse than terrorism: we are broke. our government is borrowing a billion dollars a day. they are now borrowing from the government pension program, for apparently they have gotten as much out of the social security trust as it can take. our house and senate announce weekly grants for every kind of favorite local programs to save legislative seats, and it’s all borrowed money.

if you listened to the president confirming the value of our war with iraq, you heard him

new york times

john kerry for president

october 17, 2004

senator john kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to george w. bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. but over the last year we have come to know mr. kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. we like what we’ve seen. he has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

we have been impressed with mr. kerry’s wide knowledge and clear thinking – something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two minute debate light. he is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. and while mr. kerry’s service in vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. he strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core. â¥

there is no denying that this race is mainly about mr. bush’s disastrous tenure. nearly four years ago, after the supreme court awarded him the presidency, mr. bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

mr. bush installed john ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. he sent the senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. he moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. he threw the government’s weight against efforts by the university of michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

when the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing’s war against taxing the wealthy. as a result, money that could have been used to strengthen social security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. no child left behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

if mr. bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which republicans and democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. christie whitman, the former new jersey governor chosen to run the environmental protection agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists mr. bush and vice president dick cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. the result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection. â¥

the president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on sept. 11, 2001. with the grieving country united behind him, mr. bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. the only limit was his imagination.

he asked for another tax cut and the war against iraq.

the president’s refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. mr. bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the medicare drug bill. he also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for america’s security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation’s ports still goes uninspected.

along with the invasion of afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, mr. bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hal

“” mary cheney is openly gay, and mr. cheney talks about her when it is politically advantageous – say, once every four years. in davenport, iowa, last august, when asked about gay marriages, the vice president said, “”lynne and i have a gay daughter, so it’s an issue our family is very familiar with.”” so mr. kerry and mr. edwards can’t be accused of invading the cheneys’ privacy; there’s no privacy to be invaded.””

-new york times, october 16, 2004

why this republican ex-governor will be voting for kerry

elmer l. andersen, former republican governor of minnesota
minneapolis star tribune
wednesday 13 october 2004

㊔”ãŠthroughout my tenure and beyond as the 30th governor of this state, i have been steadfastly aligned — and until recently, proudly so — with the minnesota republican party.

it dismays me, therefore, to have to publicly disagree with the national republican agenda and the national republican candidate but, this year, i must.

the two “”say no to bush”” signs in my yard say it all.

the present republican president has led us into an unjustified war — based on misguided and blatantly false misrepresentations of the threat of weapons of mass destruction. the terror seat was afghanistan. iraq had no connection to these acts of terror and was not a serious threat to the united states, as this president claimed, and there was no relation, it’s now obvious, to any serious weaponry. although saddam hussein is a frightful tyrant, he posed no threat to the united states when we entered the war. george w. bush’s arrogant actions to jump into iraq when he had no plan how to get out have alienated the united states from our most trusted allies and weakened us immeasurably around the world.

also, if there as well had been proper and careful coordination of services and intelligence on sept. 11, 2001, that horrific disaster might also have been averted. but it was a separate event from this brutal mess of a war, and the disingenuous linking of the wholly unrelated situation in iraq to 9/11 by this administration is not supported by the facts.

sen. john kerry was correct when he said that seemingly it is only bush and dick cheney who still believe their own spin. both men spew outright untruths with evangelistic fervor. for bush — a man who chose to have his father help him duck service in the military during the vietnam war — to disparage and cast doubt on the medals kerry won bravely and legitimately in the conflict of battle is a travesty.

for cheney to tell the hand-picked, like-minded republican crowds in des moines last month that to vote for john kerry could mean another attack like that of 9/11 is reprehensible. moreover, such false statements encourage more terrorist attacks rather than prevent them.

a far smaller transgression, but one typical of his stop-at-nothing tactics, was cheney’s assertion in last wednesday’s vice-presidential debate that he’d never met sen. john edwards until that night. the next day — and the media must stay ever-vigilant at fact-checking the lies of this ticket — news reports, to the contrary, showed four video clips of edwards and cheney sitting next to each other during the past five years.

in both presidential debates, kerry has shown himself to be of far superior intellect and character than bush. he speaks honestly to the american people, his ethics are unimpeachable and, clearly, with 20 respected years in the senate, he has far better credentials to lead the country than did bush when he was elected four years ago. and a far greater depth of understanding of domestic and foreign affairs to do it now.

not that the sitting president has ever really been at the helm.

i am more fearful for the state of this nation than i have ever been — because this country is in the hands of an evil man: dick cheney. it is eminently clear that it is he who is running the country, not george w. bush.

bush’s phony posturing as cocksure leader of the free world — symbolized by his victory symbol on the aircraft carrier and “”mission accomplished”” statement — leave me speechless. the mission had barely been started, let alone finished, and 18 months later it still rages on. his ongoing “”no-regrets,”” no-mistakes stance and untruths on the war — as well as on the floundering economy and bush administration joblessness — also disappoint and worry me.

liberal republicans of my era and mind-set used to have a humane and reasonable platform

ap-
rumsfeld, during a question-and-answer session before the council on foreign relations, had been asked to explain the connection between saddam hussein and osama bin laden’s al qaeda network – one of the u.s. arguments for launching a war on iraq.

he replied: “”to my knowledge, i have not seen any strong, hard evidence that links the two.””

why i will vote for john kerry for president
by john eisenhower
the manchester union leader

tuesday 28 september 2004

the presidential election to be held this coming nov. 2 will be one of extraordinary importance to the future of our nation. the outcome will determine whether this country will continue on the same path it has followed for the last 3? years or whether it will return to a set of core domestic and foreign policy values that have been at the heart of what has made this country great.

now more than ever, we voters will have to make cool judgments, unencumbered by habits of the past. experts tell us that we tend to vote as our parents did or as we “”always have.”” we remained loyal to party labels. we cannot afford that luxury in the election of 2004. there are times when we must break with the past, and i believe this is one of them.

as son of a republican president, dwight d. eisenhower, it is automatically expected by many that i am a republican. for 50 years, through the election of 2000, i was. with the current administrationã•s decision to invade iraq unilaterally, however, i changed my voter registration to independent, and barring some utterly unforeseen development, i intend to vote for the democratic presidential candidate, sen. john kerry.

the fact is that todayã•s “”republican”” party is one with which i am totally unfamiliar. to me, the word “”republican”” has always been synonymous with the word “”responsibility,”” which has meant limiting our governmental obligations to those we can afford in human and financial terms. todayã•s whopping budget deficit of some $440 billion does not meet that criterion.

responsibility used to be observed in foreign affairs. that has meant respect for others. america, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance. recent developments indicate that the current republican party leadership has confused confident leadership with hubris and arrogance.

in the middle east crisis of 1991, president george h.w. bush marshaled world opinion through the united nations before employing military force to free kuwait from saddam hussein. through negotiation he arranged for the action to be financed by all the industrialized nations, not just the united states. when kuwait had been freed, president george h. w. bush stayed within the united nations mandate, aware of the dangers of occupying an entire nation.

today many people are rightly concerned about our precious individual freedoms, our privacy, the basis of our democracy. of course we must fight terrorism, but have we irresponsibly gone overboard in doing so? i wonder. in 1960, president eisenhower told the republican convention, “”if ever we put any other value above (our) liberty, and above principle, we shall lose both.”” i would appreciate hearing such warnings from the republican party of today.

the republican party i used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility, which included balancing the budget whenever the state of the economy allowed it to do so. the eisenhower administration accomplished that difficult task three times during its eight years in office. it did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich. republicans disliked taxes, of course, but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keep the nationã•s financial structure sound.

the republicans used to be deeply concerned for the middle class and small business. todayã•s republican leadership, while not solely accountable for the loss of american jobs, encourages it with its tax code and heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor.

sen. kerry, in whom i am willing to place my trust, has demonstrated that he is courageous, sober, competent, and concern

today, ãŠkerry and edwards received the endorsement of gw bushs crawford, texas hometown newspaper, the lone star iconoclast. the editor, mr. leon smith, is also the publisher of the clifton record which endorsed george w. bush and dick cheney in 2000. ãŠ

2004 iconoclast presidential endorsement

few americans would have voted for george w. bush four years ago if he had promised that, as president, he would:

-empty the social security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash social security benefits.

-cut medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans benefits and military pay. ãŠ

-eliminate overtime pay for millions of americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

-give tax cuts to businesses that sent american jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

-give away billions of tax dollars in government contracts without competitive bids.

– involve this country in a deadly and highly questionable war, and

– take a budget surplus and turn it into the worst deficit in the history of the united states, creating a debt in just four years that will take generations to repay.

these were elements of an agenda that surfaced only after he took office. ãŠthe publishers of the iconoclast endorsed bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda. ãŠtoday, we are endorsing his opponent, john kerry, based not only on the things that bush has delivered, but also on the vision of a return to normality that kerry says our country needs. four items trouble us the most about the bush administration: his initiatives to disable the social security system, the deteriorating state of the american economy, a dangerous shift away from the basic freedoms established by our founding fathers, and his continuous mistakes regarding terrorism and iraq.

president bush has announced plans to change the social security system as we know it by privatizing it, which when considering all the tangents related to such a change, would put the entire economy in a dramatic tailspin. ãŠ

the social security trust fund actually lends money to the rest of the government in exchange for government bonds, which is how the system must work by law, but how do you later repay social security while you are running a huge deficit? its impossible, without raising taxes sometime in the future or becoming fiscally responsible now. social security money is being used to escalate our deficit ãŠand, at the same time, mask a much larger government deficit, instead of paying down the national debt, which would be a proper use, to guarantee a future gain.

privatization is problematic in that it would subject social security to the ups, downs, and outright crashes of the stock market. it would take millions in brokerage fees and commissions out of the system, and, unless we have assurance that the ivan boeskys and ken lays of the world will be caught and punished as a deterrent, subject both the market and the social security fund to fraud and market manipulation, not to mention devastate and ruin multitudes of american families that would find their lives lost to starvation, shame, and isolation. ãŠ

kerry wants to keep social security, which each of us already owns. he says that the program is manageable, since it is projected to be solvent through 2042, with use of its trust funds. this would give ample time to strengthen the economy, reduce the budget deficit the bush administration has created, and, therefore, bolster the program as needed to fit ever changing demographics.

our senior citizens depend upon social security. bushs answer is radical and uncalled for, and would result in chaos as americans have never experienced.ãŠ
do we really want to risk the future of social security on bush by spinning the wheel of uncertainty?
in those dark hours after the world trade center attacks, americans rallied together with a new sense of patriotism. we were ready to follow bushs lead thr

“”we’re not in lake wobegon anymore””

by garrison keillor

something has gone seriously haywire with the republican party. once, it was the party of pragmatic main street businessmen in steel-rimmed spectacles who decried profligacy and waste, were devoted to their communities and supported the sort of prosperity that raises all ships.

they were good hearted people who vanquished the gnarlier elements of their party, the paranoid roosevelt-haters, the flat earthers and prohibitionists, the antipapist antiforeigner element.
the genial eisenhower was their man, a genuine american hero of d-day, who made it ok for reasonable people to vote republican.
he brought the korean war to a stalemate, produced the interstate highway system, declined to rescue the french colonial army in vietnam, and gave us a period of peace and prosperity, in which (oddly) american arts and letters flourished and higher education burgeoned and there was a degree of plain decency in the country.

fifties republicans were giants compared to today’s.
richard nixon was the last republican leader to feel a christian obligation toward the poor. in the years between nixon and newt gingrich, the party migrated southward down the twisting trail of rhetoric and sneered at the idea of public service and became the scourge of liberalism, the great crusade against the sixties, the death star of government, a gang of pirates that diverted and fascinated the media by their sheer chutzpah, such as the misty-eyed flag-waving of ronald reagan who, while george mcgovern flew bombers in world war ii, took a pass and made training films in long beach.

the nixon moderate vanished like the passenger pigeon, purged by a legion of angry white men who rose to power on pure punk politics. “”bipartisanship is another term of date rape,”” says grover norquist, the sid vicious of the gop. “”i don’t want to abolish government. i simply want to reduce it to the size where i can drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.”” the boy has oedipal problems and government is his daddy.

the party of lincoln and liberty was transmogrified into the party of hairy backed swamp developers and corporate shills, faith based economists, fundamentalist bullies with bibles, christians of convenience, freelance racists, misanthropic frat boys, shrieking midgets of am radio, tax cheats, nihilists in golf pants, brownshirts in pinstripes, sweatshop tycoons, hacks, fakirs, aggressive dorks, lamborghini libertarians, people who believe neil armstrong’s moonwalk was filmed in roswell, new mexico, little honkers out to diminish the rest of us, newt’s evil spawn and their etch-a-sketch president, a dull and rigid man suspicious of the free flow of information and of secular institutions, whose philosophy is a jumble of badly sutured body parts trying to walk. republicans: the no.1 reason the rest of the world thinks we’re deaf, dumb and dangerous.

rich ironies abound! lies pop up like toadstools in the forest! wild swine crowd round the public trough! outrageous gerrymandering! pocket lining on a massive scale! paid lobbyists sit in committee rooms and write legislation to alleviate the suffering of billionaires!

hypocrisies shine like cat turds in the moonlight! o mark twain, where art thou at this hour? arise and behold the gilded age reincarnated gaudier than ever, upholding great wealth as the sure sign of divine grace.

here in 2004, george w. bush is running for reelection on a platform of tragedy – ãŠthe single greatest failure of national defense in our history, the attacks of 9/11 in which 19 men with box cutters put this nation into a tailspin, a failure the details of which the white house fought to keep secret even as it ran the country into hock up to the hubcaps, thanks to generous tax cuts for the well-fixed, hoping to lead us into a box canyon of debt that will render government impotent, even as we engage in a war against a small country that was undertaken for the president’s personal satisfaction but sold to th

documents suggest special treatment for bush in guard
by katharine q. seelye and ralph blumenthal

published: september 9, 2004

washington, sept. 8 – president bush’s vietnam-era service in the national guard came under renewed scrutiny on wednesday as newfound documents emerged from his squadron commander’s file that suggested favorable treatment.

at the same time, a once powerful texas democrat came forward to say that he had “”abused my position of power”” by helping mr. bush and others join the guard.

democrats also worked to stoke the issue with a new advertisement by a texas group that featured a former lieutenant colonel, bob mintz, who said he never saw mr. bush in the period he transferred from the texas air national guard to the alabama air national guard.

the documents, obtained by the “”60 minutes”” program at cbs news from the personal files of the late lt. col. jerry b. killian, mr. bush’s squadron commander in texas, suggest that lieutenant bush did not meet his performance standards and received favorable treatment.

one document, a “”memo to file”” dated may 1972 , refers to a conversation between colonel killian and lieutenant bush when they “”discussed options of how bush can get out of coming to drill from now through november,”” because the lieutenant “”may not have time.””

the memo said the commander had worked to come up with options, “”but i think he’s also talking to someone upstairs.””

colonel killian wrote in another report, dated aug. 1, 1972, that he ordered lieutenant bush “”suspended from flight status”” because he failed to perform to standards of the air force and texas air national guard and “”failure to meet annual physical examination (flight) as ordered.””

colonel killian also wrote in a memo that his superiors were forcing him to give lieutenant bush a favorable review, but that he refused.

“”i’m having trouble running interference and doing my job,”” he wrote.

separately, former lt. gov. ben barnes of texas voiced regret for what he said was helping the privileged escape service in vietnam.

“”i’m not particularly proud of what i did,”” said mr. barnes, who in the 1960’s was speaker of the texas house at 26 and lieutenant governor at 30. “”while i understand why parents wanted to shield their sons from danger, i abused my position of power by helping only those who knew me or had access to me.””

mr. barnes, 66, said in a interview with the new york times that he had intervened to get mr. bush, as well as other well-connected young men, into the guard in 1968. he made similar comments on “”60 minutes”” on wednesday.

pentagon releases bush’s long-sought military records
by elisabeth bumiller

published: september 8, 2004

washington, sept. 7 – after saying for months that all relevant documents about president bush’s service in the texas air national guard had been made public, the bush administration released what it called newly found records on tuesday night.

white house and pentagon officials said the documents were released in response to a request by the associated press under the freedom of information act. but neither the white house nor the pentagon could entirely explain why the documents had not been made public in february, when the white house released a two-inch stack of paper related to mr. bush’s guard service that administration officials said represented everything that existed.

the release of the documents came as a new democratic group, texas for truth, said it would start running a television commercial this week questioning mr. bush’s national guard attendance. the commercial features bob mintz, a lieutenant colonel in the alabama air national guard, who served at a montgomery, ala., base and says that he never saw mr. bush there, even though he was actively looking for him.

the latest national guard records do not place mr. bush in alabama during the time in dispute.

the associated press reported that the records also show that mr. bush’s last flight was in april 1972, which would be consistent with previously released pay records showing that mr. bush had a lapse of guard duty between april and october of that year.

democrats say that mr. bush has never adequately explained his absence from the guard and that he was able to make up his duty without recriminations because of his family connections.

rescued swift-boat vet campaigns in w.va. for kerry ãŠ
by paul j. nyden
west virginia gazette
thursday 02 september 2004

the man who john kerry pulled from a river in vietnam in march 1969 came to west virginia on wednesday and denounced ads questioning kerryã•s heroism as lies.

ã’people are angry at the bush administration,ã“ jim rassmann said. ã’and a lot of veterans are offended by the swift-boat ad controversy. what is being said in these ads is absolutely not true.ã“

the group called swift board veterans for truth, financed by backers of president bush, has run ads attacking kerry on television stations in west virginia, ohio and pennsylvania. they question whether kerry deserved the medals he received in vietnam, and say kerry dishonored his fellow soldiers when he returned to the united states and protested the vietnam war.

ã’when i saw the ads, my first reaction was extreme disappointment,ã“ rassmann said. ã’they all served this country faithfully. when they first came out with their story, i said, ã”why?ã• they were calling john kerry a liar, a traitor. they were saying the same about me.

rassmann says kerry rescued him, under gunfire, from the bay hap river in south vietnam on march 13, 1969. kerry received a bronze star for valor and a purple heart for a wound that day, and a citation signed by u.s. navy vice admiral elmo zumwalt.

ã’if it wasnã•t for john kerry, iã•d be dead meat,ã“ rassmann said, recalling his rescue after a mine exploded under his boat and blew him into the water.

ã’i want people to know john kerry performed admirably, intelligently and courageously,ã“ he told the group in charleston. ã’that is the kind of courage we want in a leader.ã“

he also criticized delegates at this weekã•s republican national convention who mocked kerry by wearing ã’phony bandages with purple hearts. that discredits everyone who served in our military.ã“

as he walked toward the west virginia memorial, one of the first people rassmann met was bill boggs, a major in the u.s. armyã•s fifth special forces group who supervised rassmann and kerry.

boggs, who lives in salem, harrison county, called himself a ã’repentant republican.ã“

ã’i voted for bush in 2000. i thought he would bring something new to our country,ã“ boggs said. ã’but he has shown no leadership. his policies have ended up creating more terrorists.ã“

rassmann and boggs, who was wearing a green beret, said they had not seen each other since they served together in vietnam.

subject: fw: the seattle times has always been the right wing paper–8.27.04

editorial

kerry for president

four years ago, this page endorsed george w. bush for president. we cannot do so again ã‘ because of an ill-conceived war and its aftermath, undisciplined spending, a shrinkage of constitutional rights and an intrusive social agenda.

the bush presidency is not what we had in mind. our endorsement of john kerry is not without reservations, but he is head and shoulders above the incumbent.

the first issue is the war. when the bush administration began beating the drums for war on iraq, this page said repeatedly that he had not justified it. when war came, this page closed ranks, wanting to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt. the troops deserved it. in hindsight, their commander in chief did not.

the first priority of a new president must be to end the military occupation of iraq. this will be no easy task, but kerry is more likely to do it ã‘ and with some understanding of middle eastern realities ã‘ than is bush.

the election of kerry would sweep away neoconservative war intellectuals who drive policy at the white house and pentagon. it would end the back-door draft of american reservists and the use of american soldiers as imperial police. it would also provide a chance to repair america’s overseas relationships, both with governments and people, particularly in the world of islam.

a less belligerent, more-intelligent foreign policy should cause less anger to be directed at the united states. a political change should allow americans to examine the powers they have given the federal government under the patriot act, and the powers the president has claimed by executive order.

this page had high hopes for president bush regarding taxing and spending. we endorsed his cut in income taxes, expecting that it would help business and discipline new public spending. in the end, there was no discipline in it. in control of the senate, the house and the presidency for the first time in half a century, the republicans have had a celebration of spending.

kerry has made many promises, and might spend as much as bush if given a congress under the control of democrats. he is more likely to get a divided government, which may be a good thing.

bush was also supposed to be the candidate who understood business. in some ways he has, but he has been too often the candidate of big business only. he has sided with pharmaceutical companies against drug imports from canada.

in our own industry, the bush appointees on the federal communications commission have pushed to relax restrictions on how many tv stations, radio stations and newspapers one company may own. in an industry that is the steward of the public’s right to speak, this is a threat to democracy itself ã‘ and kerry has stood up against it.

bush talked like the candidate of free trade, a policy the pacific northwest relies upon. he turned protectionist on steel and canadian lumber. admittedly, kerry’s campaign rhetoric is even worse on trade. but for the previous 20 years, kerry had a strong record in support of trade, and we have learned that the best guide to what politicians do is what they have done in the past, not what they say.

on some matters, we always had to hold our noses to endorse bush. we noted four years ago that he was too willing to toss aside wild nature, and to drill in the arctic national wildlife refuge. we still disagree. on clean air, forests and fish, we generally side with kerry.

we also agree with sen. kerry that social security should not offer private accounts.

four years ago, we stated our profound disagreement with bush on abortion, and then in one of his first acts as president, he moved to reinstate a ban on federal money for organizations that provide information about abortions overseas. we disagree also with bush’s ban on federal money for research using any new lines of stem cells.

there is in these positions a presidential blending

where is the shame?
by bob herbert

published: august 27, 2004

max cleland, minus the three limbs he lost in vietnam, showed up in his wheelchair outside president bush’s ranch in crawford, tex., on wednesday to suggest that the president take the simple and decent step of condemning the slime that is being spread by bush supporters against the war record of john kerry.

he didn’t get very far. the president was busy vacationing and had neither the time nor the inclination to meet with mr. cleland, a former u.s. senator who was himself the target of vicious, unconscionable attacks by the g.o.p. slime machine when he ran for re-election in georgia in 2002.

later, at a press conference under the hot crawford sun, mr. cleland told reporters: “”the question is, where is george bush’s honor? where is his shame?””

mr. cleland reminded reporters of the scurrilous attacks by bush forces against senator john mccain in the republican presidential primary in 2000 and said: “”keep in mind, this president has gone after three vietnam veterans in four years. that’s got to stop.””

in what is surely the most important election of the last half-century, we seem trapped in the politics of the madhouse. what is incredible is that these attacks on men who served not just honorably, but heroically, are coming from a hawkish party that is controlled by an astonishing number of men who sprinted as far from the front lines as they could when they were of fighting age and their country was at war.

among them:

mr. bush himself, the nation’s commander in chief and the biggest hawk of all. he revels in the accouterments of combat. the story was somewhat different when he was 22 years old and eligible for combat himself. he managed to get into the cushy confines of the texas air national guard at the height of the vietnam war in 1968 – a year in which more than a half-million american troops were in the war zone and more than 14,000 were killed.

the story gets murky after that. we know the future president breezed off at some point to work on a political campaign in alabama, skipped a required flight physical in 1972 and was suspended from flying. he supported the war in vietnam but was never in any danger of being sent there.

vice president dick cheney, another fierce administration hawk. mr. cheney asked for and received five deferments when he was eligible for the draft. he told senators at a confirmation hearing in 1989, “”i had other priorities in the 60’s than military service.”” many draft age americans had similar priorities – getting an education, getting married and starting a family.

attorney general john ashcroft. he is reported to have said, “”i would have served, if asked.”” but with the war raging in vietnam, he received six student deferments and an “”occupational deferment”” based on the essential nature of a civilian job at southwest missouri state university – teaching business law to undergraduates.

paul wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary and a fanatical hawk on iraq. he was not fanatical about vietnam and escaped the draft with student deferments.

there are many others.

i would like to see at least some of these men, in keeping with their positions as leaders of a great nation, stand up and say it is wrong – just wrong – to try and reap a cheap political gain by defacing the sacrifices of individuals like john kerry, john mccain and max cleland, who put themselves in mortal danger in the service of their country.

it’s one thing to decline to serve. it’s quite another to throw mud at those who did serve – or to remain silent as allies hurl the mud.

i’ve interviewed several soldiers and marines who have suffered grave wounds in iraq, including the loss of limbs. a permanent place of honor should be reserved for them in the pantheon of american heroes. the idea that someone some years from now may trash their service for political gain is beyond disgusting.

george w. bush ought to call off his dogs. the one thing we ought to be able to do in

abc news-the democratic campaign also expected to burnish its economic credentials with a letter from 10 nobel prize winning economists, who together said, “”president bush and his administration have embarked on a reckless and extreme course that endangers the long-term economic health of our nation.””

senior republican congressman breaks ranks on iraq

bereuter calls war ‘a mistake’

lincoln, nebraska (ap) — a top republican congressman has broken from his party in the final days of his house career, saying he believes the u.s. military assault on iraq was unjustified and the situation there has deteriorated into “”a dangerous, costly mess.””

“”i’ve reached the conclusion, retrospectively, now that the inadequate intelligence and faulty conclusions are being revealed, that all things being considered, it was a mistake to launch that military action,”” rep. doug bereuter wrote in a letter to his constituents.

“”left unresolved for now is whether intelligence was intentionally misconstrued to justify military action,”” he said.

bereuter is a senior member of the house international relations committee and vice chairman of the house intelligence committee. he is stepping down after 13 terms to become the president of the asia foundation effective september 1.

the letter, sent to constituents who have contacted him about the war, was reported by the lincoln journal star in its wednesday editions.

in 2002, bereuter had spoken out in support of a house resolution authorizing the president to go to war.

president bush has continued to argue the war was justified because saddam represented a threat to the united states, his neighbors and the people of iraq.

in addition to “”a massive failure or misinterpretation of intelligence,”” bereuter said the bush administration made several other errors in going to war despite warnings about the consequences.

“”from the beginning of the conflict, it was doubtful that we for long would be seen as liberators, but instead increasingly as an occupying force,”” he said. “”now we are immersed in a dangerous, costly mess, and there is no easy and quick way to end our responsibilities in iraq without creating bigger future problems in the region and, in general, in the muslim world.””

bereuter said as a result of the war, “”our country’s reputation around the world has never been lower and our alliances are weakened.””

lincoln city council member jeff fortenberry, a republican, is facing off against democratic state sen. matt connealy to replace bereuter said.

bereuter declined to answer questions wednesday about the letter. his spokesman alan feyerherm said the congressman “”feels the letter speaks for itself.””

senator harkin: cheney’s comments ‘cowardly’
the associated press

monday 16 august 2004

des moines, iowa – vice president dick cheney’s questioning of john kerry’s war record and his ability to protect america is “”cowardly,”” sen. tom harkin said monday.

“”it just outrages me that someone who got five deferments during vietnam and said he had ‘other priorities’ at that time would say that,”” said the iowa democrat, a former navy fighter pilot.

“”they’re running scared because john kerry has a war record and they don’t,”” said harkin. “”what he (cheney) is doing and what he is saying is cowardly. the actions are cowardly.””

harkin, a 20-year veteran of the senate, was a navy flier from 1962-67, including stints at atsugi naval air station in japan and guantanamo bay. he served 1968-74 in the reserves.

he said cheney has little standing to question the war record of kerry, who was repeatedly wounded and decorated while serving as a swift boat commander in vietnam.

harkin said that it angered him to hear tough talk from cheney.

“”when i hear this coming from dick cheney, who was a coward, who would not serve during the vietnam war, it makes my blood boil,”” said harkin.

“”he’ll be tough, but he’ll be tough with someone else’s kid’s blood,”” said harkin.

harkin said he decided to speak out because republicans have a history of attacking on the issue of patriotism, including questioning the patriotism of former sen. max cleland, who lost both legs and an arm to a grenade in vietnam.

the new york times

august 5, 2004

op-ed contributor

chords for change

by bruce springsteen

a nation’s artists and musicians have a particular place in its social and political life. over the years i’ve tried to think long and hard about what it means to be american: about the distictive identity and position we have in the world, and how that position is best carried.
i’ve tried to write songs that speak to our pride and criticize our failures.

these questions are at the heart of this election: who we are, what we stand for, why we fight. personally, for the last 25 years i have always stayed one step away from partisan politics. instead, i have been partisan about a set of ideals: economic justice, civil rights, a humane foreign policy, freedom and a decent life for all of our citizens. this year, however, for many of us the stakes have risen too high to sit this election out.

through my work, i’ve always tried to ask hard questions. why is it that the wealthiest nation in the world finds it so hard to keep its promise and faith with its weakest citizens? why do we continue to find it so difficult to see beyond the veil of race? how do we conduct ourselves during difficult times without killing the things we hold dear? why does the fulfillment of our promise as a people always seem to be just within grasp yet forever out of reach?

i don’t think john kerry and john edwards have all the answers. i do believe they are sincerely interested in asking the right questions and working their way toward honest solutions. they understand that we need an administration that places a priority on fairness, curiosity, openness, humility, concern for all america’s citizens, courage and faith.

people have different notions of these values, and they live them out in different ways. i’ve tried to sing about some of them in my songs. but i have my own ideas about what they mean, too. that is why i plan to join with many fellow artists, including the dave matthews band, pearl jam, r.e.m., the dixie chicks, jurassic 5, james taylor and jackson browne, in touring the country this october. we will be performing under the umbrella of a new group called vote for change. our goal is to change the direction of the government and change the current administration come november.

like many others, in the aftermath of 9/11, i felt the country’s unity. i don’t remember anything quite like it. i supported the decision to enter afghanistan and i hoped that the seriousness of the times would bring forth strength, humility and wisdom in our leaders. instead, we dived headlong into an unnecessary war in iraq, offering up the lives of our young men and women under circumstances that are now discredited. we ran record deficits, while simultaneously cutting and squeezing services like afterschool programs. we granted tax cuts to the richest 1 percent (corporate bigwigs, well-to-do guitar players), increasing the division of wealth that threatens to destroy our social contract with one another and render mute the promise of “”one nation indivisible.””

it is through the truthful exercising of the best of human qualities – respect for others, honesty about ourselves, faith in our ideals – that we come to life in god’s eyes. it is how our soul, as a nation and as individuals, is revealed. our american government has strayed too far from american values. it is time to move forward. the country we carry in our hearts is waiting.

nancy reagan to bush: ‘we don’t support your re election’
by teresa hampton & william d. mctavish
capitol hill blue staff
jul 30, 2004, 08:12

the widow of former president, and republican icon, ronald reagan has told the gop she wants nothing to do with their upcoming national convention or the re-election campaign of president george w. bush.

nancy reagan turned down numerous invitations to appear at the republican national convention and has warned the bush campaign she will not tolerate any use of her or her late husbands words or images in the presidentã•s re election effort.

ã’mrs. reagan does not support president bushã•s re-election and neither to most members of the presidentã•s family,ã“ says a spokesman for the former first lady.

reaganã•s son, ron, spoke at the just-concluded democratic national convention and writes in next monthã•s esquire magazine that ã’george w. bush and his administration have taken normal mendacity to a startling new level far beyond lies of convenience. they traffic in big lies.ã“

ron reagan is joined by his sister patty in opposing bushã•s re-election effort. only brother michael reagan, a conservative talk show host, supports the president and claims ron is manipulating his mother.

unlike the other reagan children, michael is not reaganã•s biological child. he was adopted by reagan during the actorã•s first marriage to actress jane wyman and often complains that his stepmother, nancy, likes ron best.

ã’he is her favorite,ã“ michael reagan told fox news. ã’ron can do no wrong. i mean, basically that’s it, ron can do no wrong.ã“

ron, however, claims george w. bush has destroyed the republican party his father helped build.

ã’my father, acting roles excepted, never pretended to be anyone but himself,ã“ reagan writes in esquire. ã’his republican party, furthermore, seems a far cry from the current model, with its cringing obeisance to the religious right.ã“

the reagansã• split with bush and the party centers around stem cell research which many believe can help find a cure for alzheimerã•s, the disease that crippled president reagan in his final years. bush and the ultra conservative wing of the republican party oppose use of new stem cells. the reagans, with the exception of michael, support such use.

thereã•s more to the feud than that, however. nancy reagan has told close followers she believes bush and the current republican leadership have divided america with their extreme views. she has told republican leaders she wants nothing to do with the party or bush.

during the week of reaganã•s funeral, the former first lady ã’went ballisticã“ when she learned the bush campaign was test marketing new ads that used reaganã•s photos and speeches in an effort to show he supported bush and his re-election. she personally called republican party chief ed gillespie to demand the ads be destroyed.

republican strategists admit the ads were produced but never ran. they were pulled after scoring poorly with focus groups where viewers found them in ã’poor taste.ã“

ã’mrs. reagan doesnã•t care why the ads were pulled. she just wanted to make sure they never went on the air,ã“ says a spokesman for the first lady.

retired general: bush foreign policy a ‘national disaster’

(cnn) — a former air force chief of staff and one-time “”veteran for bush”” said saturday that america’s foreign relations for the first three years of president bush’s term have been “”a national disaster”” but that the president’s democratic rival was “”up to the task”” of rebuilding.

retired gen. tony mcpeak, the air force chief of staff during the first gulf war, delivered the democratic radio address supporting implementation of the 9/11 commission’s recommendations for national security.

“”as president, john kerry will not waste a minute in bringing action on the reforms urged by the 9/11 commission,”” mcpeak said of the massachusetts senator nominated by the democrats this week. “”and he will not rest until america’s defenses are strong.””

mcpeak, a former fighter pilot who campaigned for bob dole in 1996 as well as bush in 2000, said bush’s inability to craft a true allied coalition was a serious deficiency.

from the l.a times:
army stage-managed fall of hussein statue

as the iraqi regime was collapsing on april 9, 2003, marines converged on firdos square in central baghdad, site of an enormous statue of saddam hussein. it was a marine colonel ã‘ not joyous iraqi civilians, as was widely assumed from the tv images ã‘ who decided to topple the statue, the army report said. and it was a quick-thinking army psychological operations team that made it appear to be a spontaneous iraqi undertaking.

after the colonel ã‘ who was not named in the report ã‘ selected the statue as a “”target of opportunity,”” the psychological team used loudspeakers to encourage iraqi civilians to assist, according to an account by a unit member.

but marines had draped an american flag over the statue’s face.

“”we were thinking ㉠that this was just bad news,”” the member of the psychological unit said. “”we didn’t want to look like an occupation force, and some of the iraqis were saying, ‘no, we want an iraqi flag!’ “”

someone produced an iraqi flag, and a sergeant in the psychological operations unit quickly replaced the american flag.

ultimately, a marine recovery vehicle toppled the statue with a chain, but the effort appeared to be iraqi-inspired because the psychological team had managed to pack the vehicle with cheering iraqi children.

by andrea mitchell
correspondent
nbc news
updated: 9:03 a.m.ãŠet juneãŠ24, 2004

a career cia officer claims in a new book that america is losing the war on terror, in part because of the invasion of iraq, which, he says, distracted the united states from the war against terrorism and further fueled al-qaidaã•s struggle against the united states. the author, who writes as ã’anonymous,ã“ is a 22-year veteran of the cia and still works for the intelligence agency, which allowed him to publish the book after reviewing it for classified information.

in an interview with nbcã•s chief foreign affairs correspondent andrea mitchell, he calls the u.s. war in iraq a dream come true for osama bin laden, saying, ã’bin laden saw the invasion of iraq as a christmas gift he never thought heã•d get.ã“ by invading a country thatã•s regarded as the second holiest place in islam, he asserts, the bush administration inadvertently validated bin ladenã•s assertions that the united states intends a holy war against muslims.

in his book, titled “”imperial hubris,”” he calls the iraq invasion “”an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat,ã“ arguing against the concept of pre-emptive war put forward by president bush as justification for the iraq war.

the book also argues that the u.s. focus on bin laden as a terrorist is the wrong way to fight him and the wrong way to think of the foe. the real enemy, he asserts, is the radical form of islam that bin laden and his followers espouse. and he calls for escalating the level of violence in the war against al-qaida.

read the complete transcript of andrea mitchellã•s interview with anonymous below:

andrea mitchell: “”what is your background? how many years were you, are you in the agency?””

anonymous: “”well, i’ve been in the intelligence community for 22 years. my background is i was trained as a historian, british imperial history. but i’ve been here since 1982 and have had a very good career.””

mitchell: “”starting in 1996, the cia decided to create a station devoted to osama bin laden. why?””

anonymous: “”i think it was created because the intelligence community had turned up bits and pieces of information in multiple areas of the world, after the end of the afghan war, that indicated bin laden was involved in one way or another with various islamist groups who were opposing the egyptian government or the saudi government, the yemeni government. and it was decided to try to make a concerted effort against this individual, to see where it would lead, to see if he was either a spendthrift billionaire, or if he was a serious military-minded opponent of the united states. and that was, i think, the genesis of the effort.””

mitchell: “”now, you were placed in charge of this station, the first time that the cia developed a station just devoted to a man, to a person, not to a country.””

anonymous: “”that’s what i understand, yes.””

mitchell: “”you say in your new book that the united states is not making a dent in the war on terror against these foes. why do you think so?””

anonymous: “”well, i think we have made a dent in some areas. i think in the leadership, the first generation of al-qaida leadership, we’ve made a ã‘ certainly made a dent. america’s clandestine service has done a terrific job in that regard. but we are ã‘ we remain in a state of denial about the size of the organization we face, the multiple allies it has, and more importantly probably than anything, the genius of bin laden that’s behind the movement and the power of religion that motivates the movement. i think we are, for various reasons, loath to talk about the role of religion in this war. and it’s not to criticize one religion or another, but bin laden is motivated and his followers and his associates are motivated by what they believe their religion requires them to do. and until we accept that fact and stop identifying them as gangsters or terrorists or criminals, we’re very much behind the curve. their power will

bush v. kerry: where do they stand?
by all accounts, this novemberã•s presidential election will come down to two choices: president george w. bush and u.s. sen. john kerry. where do they stand on animal protection issues? while humane usa has not yet made an official endorsement in the race, we can identify some key similarities and differences between the candidatesã• records on animal welfare. both men are hunters and have recently gunned down birds such as mourning doves and quail, courting the votes of hunters who represent fewer than 5 percent of americans. president bush has hosted leaders of about 20 hunting organizations, including the safari club international, national rifle association, and u.s. sportsmenã•s alliance, at his ranch in crawford, texas, and as governor of texas, he was named ã’governor of the yearã“ by the safari club. the president has, however, been helpful on other animal issues: in december he signed into law the captive wildlife safety act, which bans the interstate and foreign commerce in tigers, lions, and other big cats for the exotic ã’petã“ trade. the bush administration has endorsed s. 736, the animal fighting prohibition enforcement act, which would authorize felony-level jail time for animal fighting and prohibit interstate commerce of cockfighting implements. and it appears that the white house is going to squash a u.s. fish and wildlife service proposal that would have reinterpreted the endangered species act to authorize the importation of endangered animals for zoos, circuses, and canned hunts.

john kerry has been a strong advocate and supporter of pro-animal legislation throughout his political career. he has regularly scored high ratings on the humane scorecard published by the humane society of the united states and the fund for animals, most recently scoring 100+ during the 108th congress. sen. kerry was the co-author with former sen. bob smith (r-nh) of the successful effort to halt an annual $2 million subsidy for the mink industryã‘terminating a taxpayer give-away to the corporate mink industry. kerry and smith shepherded this amendment through the senate during debate on the fiscal year 1995 agriculture appropriations act, and they have repelled subsequent efforts by legislators aligned with the mink industry to revive the taxpayer boondoggle. kerry has a notable record of co sponsoring animal friendly legislation, including support of measures to combat cockfighting, bear baiting, canned hunts, puppy mills, the bear parts trade, the exotic pet trade, steel-jawed leghold traps, and the abuse of ã’downedã“ livestock. kerry has also exerted leadership in securing important funds for animal protection. in recent years, he and senator rick santorum (r-pa) co-authored letters sent to the leaders of the senate subcommittee on agriculture appropriations to increase funding for existing animal protection laws, including the animal welfare act and the humane slaughter act. thanks in part to kerryã•s leadershipã‘and his collaboration with the powerful senior member of the appropriations committee, robert c. byrdã‘the congress has provided more than $26 million in new funds for animal protection programs in recent years.

stay tuned for more on the presidential race between now and november!

chickens come home to roost in louisiana senate race

the new york times recently reported that ã’cockfighting is now a political issue that might help determine control of the united states senate next year.ã“ thatã•s because humane usa has made u.s. rep. chris john (d-la), who is running for the seat being vacated by u.s. sen. john breaux, a prime target in this yearã•s election. chris john has established himself as the go-to guy in congress for the cockfighting community. louisiana is one of two states where cockfighting is legal, and john has long had ties to advocates of the practice. and when legislation to ban the interstate transport of fighting birds came up before the house agriculture committee, john tried to bottle it up. ã’let me be very clear about m

dubya’sãŠdilemma:ãŠdaddyãŠdoesn’tãŠsupportãŠtheãŠiraqãŠwar
by teresa hampton
editor, capitol hill blue
the iraqi war that has so divided americans is also causing a rift in the family of president george w. bush.

the presidentã•s father, george h.w. bush ã? 41st president of the united states ã? disagrees with his sonã•s decisions in the invasion and occupation of iraq, which is why the former president has not commented in public on the war.

ã’the president and i discuss the war privately,ã“ the elder bush said in an interview earlier this year. ã’that is the way it will remain.ã“

but sources close to the bush family say the elder bush thinks his son has mishandled the war in iraq.

ã’they disagree on the war,ã“ says a family confidante. ã’former president bush believes the u.s. should have sought more support before invading iraq and feels his son did not work hard enough to secure the support of allies.ã“

former president bush built an unprecedented coalition of allies, including countries in the middle east, for desert storm, the gulf war that ended iraqã•s invasion and occupation of kuwait. he also enjoyed support from the united nations. but his son invaded iraq without un support or the support of any prominent middle eastern nations.

sources also say the elder bush, who once headed the central intelligence agency, faults his son for pressuring the cia to provide hastily-prepared and faulty intelligence to support plans to invade iraq.

rumors of a rift between father and son have circulated in washington for months and white house watchers noted, with interest, the lack of public support from the elder bush for his sonã•s military action against iraq.

ã’george h.w. bush is a pro,ã“ says darlene atkins, a former campaign worker for the elder bush. ã’he makes sure the facts are on his side before he moves.㊠it concerns him that his son did not exercise what he feels was appropriate caution before launching the war with iraq.ã“

bushã•s father has told republican leaders that he fears iraq will cost his son a second term in the white house, calling the war ã’his read-my-lips donnybrook,ã“ a reference to the elder bushã•s flip-flop on tax increases that many feel led to his defeat in the 1992 elections.

in addition, the former president has told his son that he ã’messed up big timeã“ in trying to tie saddam hussein to the 9/11 attacks against the united states. the elder bush points out that a state department assessment released after the september 11 attacks lists 45 countries (including the united states) where al-qaeda operated and notes that iraq was not one of those countries.

john mclaughlin, deputy director of the cia, told deputy defense secretary paul wolfowitz iraq was not on the list. a spokesman for the deputy secretary confirmed mclaughlinã•s briefing of wolfowitz.

9/11 panel finds no collaboration between iraq, al qaeda
findings contradict comments by cheney, bush

by dan eggen
washington post staff writer
wednesday, june 16, 2004; 9:00 am

there is “”no credible evidence”” that saddam hussein’s government in iraq collaborated with the al qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the united states, including the sept. 11, 2001 hijackings, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the hijacking plot.

although osama bin laden briefly explored the idea of forging ties with iraq in the mid-1990s, the terrorist leader was hostile to hussein’s secular government, and iraq never responded to requests for help in providing training camps or weapons, the panel’s report says.

the findings come in the wake of statements monday by vice president cheney that iraq had “”long-established ties”” with al qaeda, and comments by president bush yesterday backing up that assertion.

the conclusions provide the latest example of how the sept. 11 commission has become a political irritant for the bush administration. the 10-member bipartisan commission, initially opposed by the white house, has frequently feuded with the government over access to documents and witnesses and has issued findings sharply critical of the bush administration’s focus on terrorism prior to the sept. 11 attacks.

by ronald brownstein, times staff writer

washington ã‘ a group of 26 former senior diplomats and military officials, several appointed to key positions by republican presidents ronald reagan and george h.w. bush, plans to issue a joint statement this week arguing that president george w. bush has damaged america’s national security and should be defeated in november.

the group, which calls itself diplomats and military commanders for change, will explicitly condemn bush’s foreign policy, according to several of those who signed the document.

“”it is clear that the statement calls for the defeat of the administration,”” said william c. harrop, the ambassador to israel under president bush’s father and one of the group’s principal organizers.

those signing the document, which will be released in washington on wednesday, include 20 former u.s. ambassadors, appointed by presidents of both parties, to countries including israel, the former soviet union and saudi arabia.

others are senior state department officials from the carter, reagan and clinton administrations and former military leaders, including retired marine gen. joseph p. hoar, the former commander of u.s. forces in the middle east under president bush’s father. hoar is a prominent critic of the war in iraq.

some of those signing the document ã‘ such as hoar and former air force chief of staff merrill a. mcpeak ã‘ have identified themselves as supporters of sen. john f. kerry, the presumptive democratic presidential nominee. but most have not endorsed any candidate, members of the group said.

it is unusual for so many former high-level military officials and career diplomats to issue such an overtly political message during a presidential campaign.

a senior official at the bush reelection campaign said he did not wish to comment on the statement until it was released.

but in the past, administration officials have rejected charges that bush has isolated america in the world, pointing to countries contributing troops to the coalition in iraq and the unanimous passage last week of the u.n. resolution authorizing the interim iraqi government.

one senior republican strategist familiar with white house thinking said he did not think the group was sufficiently well-known to create significant political problems for the president.

the strategist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, also said the signatories were making an argument growing increasingly obsolete as bush leans more on the international community for help in iraq.

but those signing the document say the recent signs of cooperation do not reverse a basic trend toward increasing isolation for the u.s.

“”we just felt things were so serious, that america’s leadership role in the world has been attenuated to such a terrible degree by both the style and the substance of the administration’s approach,”” said harrop, who served as ambassador to four african countries under carter and reagan.

“”a lot of people felt the work they had done over their lifetime in trying to build a situation in which the united states was respected and could lead the rest of the world was now undermined by this administration ã‘ by the arrogance, by the refusal to listen to others, the scorn for multilateral organizations,”” harrop said.

jack f. matlock jr., who was appointed by reagan as ambassador to the soviet union and retained in the post by president bush’s father during the final years of the cold war, expressed similar views.

“”ever since franklin roosevelt, the u.s. has built up alliances in order to amplify its own power,”” he said. “”but now we have alienated many of our closest allies, we have alienated their populations. we’ve all been increasingly appalled at how the relationships that we worked so hard to build up have simply been shattered by the current administration in the method it has gone about things.””

the gop strategist noted that many of those involved in the document claimed their primary expertise in the middle east and suggested a principa

white house officials and cheney aide approved halliburton contract for $1.2 billion in iraq, pentagon says by erik eckholm

published: june 14, 2004

in the fall of 2002, in the preparations for possible war with iraq, the pentagon sought and received the assent of senior bush administration officials, including the vice president’s chief of staff, before hiring the halliburton company to develop secret plans for restoring iraq’s oil facilities, pentagon officials have told congressional investigators.

the newly disclosed details about pentagon contracting raise questions about assertions by mr. cheney and other administration officials that he knew nothing in advance of the halliburton contracts and that the decisions were made by career procurement specialists, without involvement by senior political appointees.

kevin kellems, a spokesman for the vice president, would not comment on the disclosure, except to say, “”we stand by our earlier statements on this matter.””

as american forces stormed into iraq in march 2003, halliburton’s role as an inside planner put it in place to receive, without open competition and in the shrouds of classified war planning, the major contract to carry out the oil strategy it secretly wrote months earlier. the deal yielded $2.4 billion in revenue. these oil and other war-related contracts with halliburton, an oil services company, have been contentious because of accusations of overcharging and waste, and because mr. cheney was formerly the company’s chief executive.

in a letter faxed sunday to mr. cheney and given to reporters, representative henry a. waxman, the minority leader of the panel, asked him for all records of his office’s communications on the oil contracts and for records of deputies committee meetings where the halliburton deals had been discussed.

“”these new disclosures appear to contradict your assertions that you were not informed about the halliburton contracts,”” mr. waxman, democrat of california, wrote. “”they also seem to contradict the administration’s repeated assertions that political appointees were not involved in the award of the contracts to halliburton.””

appearing on the nbc news program “”meet the press”” on sept. 14, 2003, mr. cheney said, “”and as vice president, i have absolutely no influence of, involvement of, knowledge of in any way, shape or form of contracts led by the corps of engineers or anybody else in the federal government.”” he referred to the army corps of engineers, which has managed oil infrastructure contracts.

asked if he had been aware of halliburton’s noncompetitive awards, mr. cheney said, “”i don’t know any of the details of the contract because i deliberately stayed away from any information on that.””

on march 8, 2003, the pentagon chose halliburton to carry out the plan for strengthening iraqi oil production. mr. cheney has denied any role in this contract, but critics have asked about a pentagon memo that described the plans as “”coordinated”” with his office.

the administration revealed the contract later that month, describing it as mainly a deal to put out oil-well fires. pentagon officials later revealed that it was much broader, and could involve billions of dollars. but they promised that it would be temporary and would be superseded by competitively bid contracts.

after repeated delays, the contracts were awarded on jan. 16, providing $1.2 billion to halliburton.

disenchanted bush voters consider crossing over
by elisabeth rosenthal

published: february 22, 2004

beachwood, ohio ã‘ in the 2000 presidential election, bill flanagan a semiretired newspaper worker, happily voted for george w. bush. but now, shaking his head, he vows, “”never again.””

“”the combination of lies and boys coming home in body bags is just too awful,”” mr. flanagan said, drinking coffee and reading newspapers at the local mall. “”i could vote for kerry. i could vote for any democrat unless he’s a real dummy.””

mr. flanagan is hardly alone, even though polls show that the overwhelming majority of republicans who supported mr. bush in 2000 will do so again in november. in dozens of random interviews around the country, independents and republicans who said they voted for mr. bush in 2000 say they intend to vote for the democratic presidential candidate this year. some polls are beginning to bolster the idea of those kind of stirrings among republicans and independents.

that could change, of course, once the bush campaign begins pumping millions of dollars into advertising and making the case for his re-election.

but even as democratic and republican strategists and pollsters warned that a shift could be transitory, they also said it could prove to be extraordinarily consequential in a year when each side is focused on turning out its most loyal voters.

“”the strong republicans are with him,”” a senior aide to senator john kerry said of mr. bush. “”but there are independent-minded republicans among whom he is having serious problems.””

“”with the nation so polarized,”” he added, “”the defections of a few can make a big difference.””

in the interviews, many of those potential “”crossover”” voters said they supported the invasion of iraq but had come to see the continuing involvement there as too costly and without clear objectives.

many also said they believed that the bush administration had not been honest about its reasons for invading iraq and were concerned about the failure to find unconventional weapons. some of these people described themselves as fiscal conservatives who were alarmed by deficit spending, combined with job losses at home. many are shocked to find themselves switching sides.

while sharing a sandwich at the stylish beachwood mall in this cleveland suburb, one older couple ã‘ a judge and a teacher ã‘ reluctantly divulged their secret: though they are stalwarts in the local republican party, they are planning to vote democratic this year.

“”i feel like a complete traitor, and if you’d asked me four months ago, the answer would have been different,”” said the judge, after assurances of anonymity. “”but we are really disgusted. it’s the lies, the war, the economy. we have very good friends who are staunch republicans, who don’t even want to hear the name george bush anymore.””

in 2000, mr. bush won here in ohio with 50 percent of the popular vote, as against 46.5 percent for al gore.

george meagher, a republican who founded and now runs the american military museum in charleston, s.c., said he threw his “”heart and soul”” into the bush campaign four years ago. he organized veterans to attend campaign events, including the campaign’s kickoff speech at the citadel. he even has photographs of himself and his wife with mr. bush.

“”given the outcome and how dissatisfied i am with the administration, it’s hard to think about now,”” he said. “”people like me, we’re all choking a bit at not supporting the president. but when i think about 500 people killed and what we’ve done to iraq. and what we’ve done to our country. i mean, we’re already $2 trillion in debt again.””

a nationwide cbs news poll released feb. 16 found that 11 percent of people who voted for mr. bush in 2000 now say they will vote for the democratic candidate this fall. but there was some falloff among those who voted against him as well. five percent of people who said they voted for mr. gore in 2000 say this time they will back mr. bush.

on individ

taking bush spin out of report that made bad into good health
by robert pear

published: february 22, 2004

washington, feb. 21 ã‘ the bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document.

“”there was a mistake made,”” tommy g. thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told congress last week. “”it’s going to be rectified.””

mr. thompson said that “”some individuals in the bush administration took it upon themselves”” to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data.

the reversal comes in response to concerns of democrats and the senate majority leader, bill frist, republican of tennessee. they are pushing separate bills to improve care for members of minorities.

president bush’s budget would cut spending for the training of health professionals and would eliminate a $34 million program that recruits blacks and hispanics for careers as doctors, nurses and pharmacists.

on wednesday, more than 60 influential scientists, including 20 nobel laureates, issued a statement criticizing what they described as the misuse of science by the administration to bolster its policies on the environment, arms control and public health.

representative henry a. waxman, democrat of california, said the changes in the report on health disparities were “”another example of the administration’s manipulation of science to fit its political goals.””

“”no data or statistics in the report were altered in any way whatsoever,”” dr. clancy said. but a close reading of the evolving report shows that some entries in statistical tables were deleted from the final version.

the final report acknowledges that “”some socioeconomic, racial, ethnic and geographic differences exist.”” it says, “”there is no implication that these differences result in adverse health outcomes or imply moral error or prejudice in any way.””

but dr. alan r. nelson, a former president of the american medical association, said a large body of evidence suggested that “”unconscious biases and stereotypes among physicians and nurses may play a role in causing racial and ethnic disparities.”” dr. nelson led a study of the issue by a committee of the national academy of sciences.

prof. m. gregg bloche of georgetown university, a member of the committee, said: “”the bush administration’s report does not fabricate data, but misrepresents the findings. it submerges evidence of profound disparities in an optimistic message about the overall excellence of this flawed republican health care system.””

dr. sally l. satel, a psychiatrist and scholar at the american enterprise institute, said that agreeing to issue the original report, “”secretary thompson succumbed to political pressure that was applied by republican members of congress who are identified with ethnic causes.”” critics, she said, have grossly exaggerated the significance of changes in the report.

among those who wanted to rewrite the report was arthur j. lawrence, a deputy assistant secretary of health and human services.

“”the present draft remains highly focused on the health care system’s supposed failings and flaws,”” mr. lawrence said in a memorandum to mr. thompson last fall. “”in short, the report lacks balance.””

mr. lawrence said that geography, income and other factors could be more important than race. for example, he said, whites in rural northern maine may have worse heart problems than blacks in big cities. in addition, he said, the report should place more emphasis on “”personal responsibility for one’s own health status”” and on “”problems with the medical malpractice\ system.””

the original version of the report included these statements, which were dropped from the final version:

⦔”we aspire to equality of opportunities for all our citizens. persistent disparities in health care are inconsistent with our core values.””

⦔”disparities come at a personal and societal pri

9/11 chair: attack was preventable
new york, dec. 17, 2003

(cbs) for the first time, the chairman of the independent commission investigating the sept. 11 attacks is saying publicly that 9/11 could have and should have been prevented by the bush administration, reports cbs news correspondent randall pinkston.

“”this is a very, very important part of history and we’ve got to tell it right,”” said thomas kean.

“”as you read the report, you’re going to have a pretty clear idea what wasn’t done and what should have been done,”” he said. “”this was not something that had to happen.””

appointed by the bush administration, kean, a former republican governor of new jersey, is now pointing fingers inside the administration and laying blame.

to find out who failed and why, the commission has navigated a political landmine, threatening a subpoena to gain access to the president’s top-secret daily briefs. those documents may shed light on one of the most controversial assertions of the bush administration – that there was never any thought given to the idea that terrorists might fly an airplane into a building.

“”i don’t think anybody could have predicted that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile,”” said national security adviser condoleeza rice on may 16, 2002.

“”how is it possible we have a national security advisor coming out and saying we had no idea they could use planes as weapons when we had fbi records from 1991 stating that this is a possibility,”” said kristen breitweiser, one of four new jersey widows who lobbied congress and the president to appoint the commission.

the widows want to know why various government agencies didn’t connect the dots before sept. 11, such as warnings from fbi offices in minnesota and arizona about suspicious student pilots.

“”if you were to tell me that two years after the murder of my husband that we wouldn’t have one question answered, i wouldn’t believe it,”” breitweiser said.

kean admits the commission also has more questions than answers.

asked whether we should at least know if people sitting in the decision-making spots on that critical day are still in those positions, kean said, “”yes, the answer is yes. and we will.””

house republicans bend the rules, press for votes during wee hours to escape the light of accountability
written by: u.s. congressman sherrod brown, a democrat from ohio, is the ranking member on the committee on energy and the commerce subcommittee on health.

never before has the house of representatives operated in such secrecy:

at 2:54 a.m. on a friday in march, the house cut veterans benefits by three votes.

at 2:39 a.m. on a friday in april, the house slashed education and health care by five votes.

at 1:56 a.m. on a friday in may, the house passed the leave no millionaire behind tax-cut bill by a handful of votes.

at 2:33 a.m. on a friday in june, the house passed the medicare privatization and prescription drug bill by one vote.

at 12:57 a.m. on a friday in july, the house eviscerated head start by one vote.

and then, after returning from summer recess, at 12:12 a.m. on a friday in october, the house voted $87 billion for iraq.

always in the middle of the night. always after the press had passed their deadlines. always after the american people had turned off the news and gone to bed.

what did the public see? at best, americans read a small story with a brief explanation of the bill and the vote count in saturday’s papers.

but what did the public miss? they didn’t see the house votes, which normally take no more than 20 minutes, dragging on for as long as an hour as members of the republican leadership trolled for enough votes to cobble together a majority.

they didn’t see gop leaders stalking the floor for whoever was not in line.
they didn’t see speaker dennis hastert and majority leader tom delay coerce enough republican members into switching their votes to produce the desired result.

in other words, they didn’t see the subversion of democracy.

and late last month, they did it again. the most sweeping changes to medicare in its 38-year history were forced through the house at 5:55 on a saturday morning.

the debate started at midnight. the roll call began at 3:00 a.m. most of us voted within the typical 20 minutes. normally, the speaker would have gaveled the vote closed. but not this time; the republican-driven bill was losing.

by 4 a.m., the bill had been defeated 216-218, with only one member, democrat david wu, not voting. still, the speaker refused to gavel the vote closed.

then the assault began.

hastert, delay, republican whip roy blount, ways and means chairman bill thomas, energy and commerce chairman billy tauzin – all searched the floor for stray republicans to bully.

i watched them surround cincinnati’s steve chabot, trying first a carrot, then a stick; but he remained defiant. next, they aimed at retiring michigan congressman nick smith, whose son is running to succeed him.
they promised support if he changed his vote to yes and threatened his son’s future if he refused. he stood his ground.

many of the two dozen republicans who voted against the bill had fled the floor. one republican hid in the democratic cloakroom.

by 4:30, the browbeating had moved into the republican cloakroom, out of sight of c-span cameras and the insomniac public.
republican leaders woke president george w. bush, and a white house aide passed a cell phone from one recalcitrant member to another in the cloakroom.

at 5:55, two hours and 55 minutes after the roll call had begun – twice as long as any previous vote in the history of the u.s. house of representatives – two obscure western republicans emerged from the cloakroom.
they walked, ashen and cowed, down the aisle to the front of the chamber, scrawled their names and district numbers on green cards to change their votes and surrendered the cards to the clerk.

the speaker gaveled the vote closed;
medicare privatization had passed.

you can do a lot in the middle of the night, under the cover of darkness.