Monday, November 15, 2004
The CIA Purge. With so many CIA regulars infuriated over the Iraq invasion intelligence flap, there’s much discontent as the Administration’s boy, Porter Goss, takes over. But since the cover story is that poor Bush was done in by the inept CIA analysis of intelligence, they claim that they need reliable (yes-)men at all levels. So, expect much more skewing of intelligence or whatever else is necessary. Hope to hear from Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid on this one.
The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources."The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Electoral Cheating: The six prominent members of Congress who called for an investigation are Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Holt (D-NJ), Nadler (D-NY), Scott (D-VA), Watt (D-NC) and Wexler (D-FL). They have demanded that the U.S. General Accounting Office:
Circulating these past days has been an article that maintains that Kerry is more involved than has been previously thought.
As Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who has been about the only mainstream journalist to actually follow up on the many serious problems with regard to the integrity of the election, has pointed out, a concession speech, in effect, means nothing. It is not legally binding.
So, if you were thinking like a Bush goon, you would expect that either Kerry would stand up to the mischief that went on, not conceding in the meantime, and so your booby trap would work perfectly, or that he would just give up and let it go, as wimpy Democrats are prone to do.
But John Kerry chose a smarter course. Ask yourself the question, what if John Kerry were to do both, concede publicly but, at the same time, look into every instance of mischief, and see if in fact the election was fair or fixed.
This would be a no lose situation for him. The booby trap set up for him would become irrelevant, as he would have done the right thing for the nation, not putting it into turmoil while its troops are in battle.
But at the same time, he is still just as free to look into any voting irregularities as he would have been had he not conceded. Even better, he could do it without the press going insane and the nation being kept on tension-creating edge. All of the lawyers he could have sent to look into things still could be sent to look into things, and if the election is truly called into question, he could then, with ample justification so as to make it legitimate, come out publicly and retract his concession. It is the prosecutor, also one of Kerry’s previous jobs, who knows well enough to thoroughly prepare and investigate his case be leveling charges. You may have a real hunch that someone is responsible for a murder, but until you believe you can win that case in court, you do not make the allegation. http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm
Conservative Dominance in the Senate: LA Times notes:
That changing of the guard is part of a broader trend emerging from the election that helps explain why the Senate — like the greater political landscape — has become so polarized. Many centrists are leaving Congress; unvarnished conservatives are arriving in their place.The retirement of Breaux and several other Southern Democrats depletes even further the dwindling ranks of lawmakers inclined to work across party lines. They are being replaced largely by a younger generation of Republicans, schooled in a more uncompromising form of conservatism. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate14nov14,0,1645680.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Replacing Gonzales is…Brett Kavenaugh…who is?
Bush’s alleged choice as White House counsel, Kavanaugh ‘rings no bells’, I’m sure, but he was a regular on Kenneth Starr's impeachment team and apparently wrote the portion of the Starr report that outlined Starr's reasons for Congress to impeach Clinton in 1998.
AARP: Mixed bag, as they plan to “oppose” the not-yet-detailed Bush plan, but they buy into the Bush language, no longer referring to such change as ‘privatization.’
Gearing up for battle over the future of Social Security, AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, said Thursday that it opposed President Bush's plan to divert some payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. But it supports new incentives for private accounts that supplement Social Security.
Working closely with Congress and the White House, AARP helped shape legislation adding drug benefits to Medicare last year. Social Security is an even bigger issue, politically and financially, and lawmakers said Congress was unlikely to make major changes in Social Security over the organization's objections.
Marie F. Smith, president of the organization, said, "AARP adamantly opposes replacing any part of Social Security with individual accounts.'' But Ms. Smith added that the group supported incentives for people to establish personal retirement accounts in addition to Social Security.
John C. Rother, the organization's policy director, said, "We favor private accounts when they are in addition to Social Security, but not as a substitute.''
The fight over Social Security, pitting Mr. Bush's vision of an "ownership society" against the Democrats' determination to preserve a cornerstone of the New Deal, is reflected in a battle over the proper terminology.
The White House dislikes the word "privatization,'' which it sees as a misleading and imprecise way to describe Mr. Bush's ideas for Social Security. Democrats insist that the term is accurate.
E-mail messages circulated within AARP in recent weeks indicated that the group would avoid the word whenever possible.
One message, by an editor of an AARP magazine, says, "There is a new forbidden word at AARP: Social Security privatization.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/politics/12benefit.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=
What’s Happening, Iraq: Fallujah victory, vs Spreading Violence. Depends on what newspaper you read. From the Independent (GB):
Violence erupts across Iraq and aid agencies warn of disaster as US declares battle of Fallujah is over
The United States and Iraq's interim government claimed yesterday that the battle for Fallujah was over, with 1,000 insurgents killed and the rebel stronghold effectively pacified after six days of fighting.
But even as the victory was being declared, wide-spread violence erupted throughout the rest of the country, with parts of Mosul passing into the hands of insurgents, forcing the American military to detach and rush part of its Fallujah force to the northern city. There was also street fighting in Baghdad, where mortar rounds were fired at the Green Zone, the heavily barricaded heart of US power in Iraq, and heavy fighting in the town of Yusufiyah, south of the capital. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=582727
Fallujah Victory vs Spreading Violence, II- From Pepe Escobar:
Once again the US has been caught in a giant spider's web. Fallujah now is a network: it's Baghdad, Ramadi, Samarra, Latifiyah, Kirkuk, Mosul. Streets on fire, everywhere: Hundreds, thousands of Fallujahs - the Mesopotamian echo of a thousand Vietnams. The Iraqi resistance has even regained control of a few Baghdad neighborhoods.
Baghdad residents say there are practically no US troops around, even as regular explosions can be heard all over the city. Baghdad sources confirm to Asia Times Online that the mujahideen now control parts of the southern suburb of ad-Durha, as well as Hur Rajab, Abu Ghraib, al-Abidi, as-Suwayrah, Salman Bak, Latifiyah and Yusufiyah - all in the Greater Baghdad area. This would be the first time since the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, that the resistance has been able to control these neighborhoods. www.atimes.com
Casualties: Fuzzy math, again. CNN quoted the Department of Defense as reporting 31 US soldiers had died this week, but then, apparently, the internet struck. Antiwar.com posted that 55 Americans had died, and additional deaths were then cited by the DoD.
In a flurry of weekend press releases, the Department of Defense named another 23 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. These deaths bring the total killed since Nov. 8 to 55. Such facts may conflict with "official numbers" released to the unquestioning media. However, in an apparent response to this article, the DoD is now reporting that 38 US troops have died in Fallujah. The discrepancy in numbers may stem from unreported deaths. We will only know after the troops' names are officially released.
The 50-plus killed this week is indicative of a growing insurgency likely to spread to previously peaceful cities. Over twenty of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, Mosul, Abu Gharb, and Babli province (just south of Baghdad). This indicates that the violence is only spreading. Although the military concedes that "winning" in Fallujah won't quell the insurgency, they continue to pursue policies that suppose there exists a static number of Iraqis willing to fight the occupation: if they could only kill them all, democracy and calm would flourish. Of course, it is more likely that these incursions will create more insurgency. http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/?articleid=3977
Civilian casualties, especially in Fallujah, remain unclear. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1350926,00.html
Elections to be Delayed? Hardly surprising; Announcing them for January always was targeted at the U.S. electorate.
Iraq's deputy prime minister has indicated for the first time that the much-heralded elections due in January could be derailed by the country's violent insurgency.
Barham Salih said the authorities were determined to hold the vote, but admitted they would have to assess the security situation nearer the time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1351481,00.html
Blair Replicates Bush Campaign: Love that 9/11
Tony Blair has decided to confront opponents of the Iraq war head on by placing the "war on terror" at the heart of Labour's campaign in the coming general election.
The Prime Minister has privately admitted that attempts to "move on" from Iraq are doomed to failure. He has ordered a new "twin-track" strategy for the election, expected this spring, based on the themes of "opportunity and security".
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=582748
Roe v Wade: Michael Kinsley
But has anybody read the 2004 Republican platform on abortion? It doesn't merely call for reversal of Roe v. Wade. It calls for "legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children," and for judges who believe likewise. If fetuses are "persons" under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons "equal protection of the law," abortion will be illegal whether a state or Congress wants to legalize it or not. More than that: There could be no legal distinction between the rights of fetuses and the rights of human beings after birth. So, just for example, a woman who procured an abortion would have to be prosecuted as if she had hired a gunman to murder her child. The doctor would have to be treated like the gunman. If the state had a death penalty, it would have to apply to both. And the party that now controls all three branches of government says this is already the case. Legislation is only needed to "make it clear," and judges are needed who will enforce it.
But no "activism," please. The Republican Party can't stand that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46798-2004Nov12?language=printer
Honoring Rush Limbaugh: Here’s your chance. Random, I know…
On Friday, November 19, the Claremont Institute will honor Rush Limbaugh with the Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner in Los Angeles at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel. Mr. Limbaugh will be the main speaker for the evening. A reception is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. and dinner will begin at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $250 each, or $500 for preferred seating. Tables of 10 are available for $2,500, $5,000, or $10,000. You may register online using this secure form or by calling Nancy Padilla at (909) 621-6825, x132. http://www.claremont.org/
[The mission of The Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.]
Arafat:
A thought. It’s at least discomforting to remember that Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s chilling to recall that Henry Kissinger did as well. Since our world feels so upside down, reality so twisted, maybe we should anticipate Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and Towel Snapper #1 sharing a Nobel if there’s a next phase of “Middle East Peace?”
-R
The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources."The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda." http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uscia1114,0,707331.story?coll=ny-top-headlines
Electoral Cheating: The six prominent members of Congress who called for an investigation are Representatives Conyers (D-MI), Holt (D-NJ), Nadler (D-NY), Scott (D-VA), Watt (D-NC) and Wexler (D-FL). They have demanded that the U.S. General Accounting Office:
Circulating these past days has been an article that maintains that Kerry is more involved than has been previously thought.
As Keith Olbermann of MSNBC, who has been about the only mainstream journalist to actually follow up on the many serious problems with regard to the integrity of the election, has pointed out, a concession speech, in effect, means nothing. It is not legally binding.
So, if you were thinking like a Bush goon, you would expect that either Kerry would stand up to the mischief that went on, not conceding in the meantime, and so your booby trap would work perfectly, or that he would just give up and let it go, as wimpy Democrats are prone to do.
But John Kerry chose a smarter course. Ask yourself the question, what if John Kerry were to do both, concede publicly but, at the same time, look into every instance of mischief, and see if in fact the election was fair or fixed.
This would be a no lose situation for him. The booby trap set up for him would become irrelevant, as he would have done the right thing for the nation, not putting it into turmoil while its troops are in battle.
But at the same time, he is still just as free to look into any voting irregularities as he would have been had he not conceded. Even better, he could do it without the press going insane and the nation being kept on tension-creating edge. All of the lawyers he could have sent to look into things still could be sent to look into things, and if the election is truly called into question, he could then, with ample justification so as to make it legitimate, come out publicly and retract his concession. It is the prosecutor, also one of Kerry’s previous jobs, who knows well enough to thoroughly prepare and investigate his case be leveling charges. You may have a real hunch that someone is responsible for a murder, but until you believe you can win that case in court, you do not make the allegation. http://www.moderateindependent.com/v2i21election.htm
Conservative Dominance in the Senate: LA Times notes:
That changing of the guard is part of a broader trend emerging from the election that helps explain why the Senate — like the greater political landscape — has become so polarized. Many centrists are leaving Congress; unvarnished conservatives are arriving in their place.The retirement of Breaux and several other Southern Democrats depletes even further the dwindling ranks of lawmakers inclined to work across party lines. They are being replaced largely by a younger generation of Republicans, schooled in a more uncompromising form of conservatism. http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-senate14nov14,0,1645680.story?coll=la-home-headlines
Replacing Gonzales is…Brett Kavenaugh…who is?
Bush’s alleged choice as White House counsel, Kavanaugh ‘rings no bells’, I’m sure, but he was a regular on Kenneth Starr's impeachment team and apparently wrote the portion of the Starr report that outlined Starr's reasons for Congress to impeach Clinton in 1998.
AARP: Mixed bag, as they plan to “oppose” the not-yet-detailed Bush plan, but they buy into the Bush language, no longer referring to such change as ‘privatization.’
Gearing up for battle over the future of Social Security, AARP, the influential lobby for older Americans, said Thursday that it opposed President Bush's plan to divert some payroll taxes into private retirement accounts. But it supports new incentives for private accounts that supplement Social Security.
Working closely with Congress and the White House, AARP helped shape legislation adding drug benefits to Medicare last year. Social Security is an even bigger issue, politically and financially, and lawmakers said Congress was unlikely to make major changes in Social Security over the organization's objections.
Marie F. Smith, president of the organization, said, "AARP adamantly opposes replacing any part of Social Security with individual accounts.'' But Ms. Smith added that the group supported incentives for people to establish personal retirement accounts in addition to Social Security.
John C. Rother, the organization's policy director, said, "We favor private accounts when they are in addition to Social Security, but not as a substitute.''
The fight over Social Security, pitting Mr. Bush's vision of an "ownership society" against the Democrats' determination to preserve a cornerstone of the New Deal, is reflected in a battle over the proper terminology.
The White House dislikes the word "privatization,'' which it sees as a misleading and imprecise way to describe Mr. Bush's ideas for Social Security. Democrats insist that the term is accurate.
E-mail messages circulated within AARP in recent weeks indicated that the group would avoid the word whenever possible.
One message, by an editor of an AARP magazine, says, "There is a new forbidden word at AARP: Social Security privatization.'' http://www.nytimes.com/2004/11/12/politics/12benefit.html?oref=login&pagewanted=print&position=
What’s Happening, Iraq: Fallujah victory, vs Spreading Violence. Depends on what newspaper you read. From the Independent (GB):
Violence erupts across Iraq and aid agencies warn of disaster as US declares battle of Fallujah is over
The United States and Iraq's interim government claimed yesterday that the battle for Fallujah was over, with 1,000 insurgents killed and the rebel stronghold effectively pacified after six days of fighting.
But even as the victory was being declared, wide-spread violence erupted throughout the rest of the country, with parts of Mosul passing into the hands of insurgents, forcing the American military to detach and rush part of its Fallujah force to the northern city. There was also street fighting in Baghdad, where mortar rounds were fired at the Green Zone, the heavily barricaded heart of US power in Iraq, and heavy fighting in the town of Yusufiyah, south of the capital. http://news.independent.co.uk/world/middle_east/story.jsp?story=582727
Fallujah Victory vs Spreading Violence, II- From Pepe Escobar:
Once again the US has been caught in a giant spider's web. Fallujah now is a network: it's Baghdad, Ramadi, Samarra, Latifiyah, Kirkuk, Mosul. Streets on fire, everywhere: Hundreds, thousands of Fallujahs - the Mesopotamian echo of a thousand Vietnams. The Iraqi resistance has even regained control of a few Baghdad neighborhoods.
Baghdad residents say there are practically no US troops around, even as regular explosions can be heard all over the city. Baghdad sources confirm to Asia Times Online that the mujahideen now control parts of the southern suburb of ad-Durha, as well as Hur Rajab, Abu Ghraib, al-Abidi, as-Suwayrah, Salman Bak, Latifiyah and Yusufiyah - all in the Greater Baghdad area. This would be the first time since the fall of Baghdad on April 9, 2003, that the resistance has been able to control these neighborhoods. www.atimes.com
Casualties: Fuzzy math, again. CNN quoted the Department of Defense as reporting 31 US soldiers had died this week, but then, apparently, the internet struck. Antiwar.com posted that 55 Americans had died, and additional deaths were then cited by the DoD.
In a flurry of weekend press releases, the Department of Defense named another 23 U.S. soldiers killed in Iraq. These deaths bring the total killed since Nov. 8 to 55. Such facts may conflict with "official numbers" released to the unquestioning media. However, in an apparent response to this article, the DoD is now reporting that 38 US troops have died in Fallujah. The discrepancy in numbers may stem from unreported deaths. We will only know after the troops' names are officially released.
The 50-plus killed this week is indicative of a growing insurgency likely to spread to previously peaceful cities. Over twenty of the deaths occurred in Baghdad, Mosul, Abu Gharb, and Babli province (just south of Baghdad). This indicates that the violence is only spreading. Although the military concedes that "winning" in Fallujah won't quell the insurgency, they continue to pursue policies that suppose there exists a static number of Iraqis willing to fight the occupation: if they could only kill them all, democracy and calm would flourish. Of course, it is more likely that these incursions will create more insurgency. http://www.antiwar.com/ewens/?articleid=3977
Civilian casualties, especially in Fallujah, remain unclear. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1350926,00.html
Elections to be Delayed? Hardly surprising; Announcing them for January always was targeted at the U.S. electorate.
Iraq's deputy prime minister has indicated for the first time that the much-heralded elections due in January could be derailed by the country's violent insurgency.
Barham Salih said the authorities were determined to hold the vote, but admitted they would have to assess the security situation nearer the time. http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,2763,1351481,00.html
Blair Replicates Bush Campaign: Love that 9/11
Tony Blair has decided to confront opponents of the Iraq war head on by placing the "war on terror" at the heart of Labour's campaign in the coming general election.
The Prime Minister has privately admitted that attempts to "move on" from Iraq are doomed to failure. He has ordered a new "twin-track" strategy for the election, expected this spring, based on the themes of "opportunity and security".
http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=582748
Roe v Wade: Michael Kinsley
But has anybody read the 2004 Republican platform on abortion? It doesn't merely call for reversal of Roe v. Wade. It calls for "legislation to make it clear that the 14th Amendment's protections apply to unborn children," and for judges who believe likewise. If fetuses are "persons" under the 14th Amendment, which guarantees all persons "equal protection of the law," abortion will be illegal whether a state or Congress wants to legalize it or not. More than that: There could be no legal distinction between the rights of fetuses and the rights of human beings after birth. So, just for example, a woman who procured an abortion would have to be prosecuted as if she had hired a gunman to murder her child. The doctor would have to be treated like the gunman. If the state had a death penalty, it would have to apply to both. And the party that now controls all three branches of government says this is already the case. Legislation is only needed to "make it clear," and judges are needed who will enforce it.
But no "activism," please. The Republican Party can't stand that. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46798-2004Nov12?language=printer
Honoring Rush Limbaugh: Here’s your chance. Random, I know…
On Friday, November 19, the Claremont Institute will honor Rush Limbaugh with the Statesmanship Award at its annual Churchill Dinner in Los Angeles at the Millennium Biltmore Hotel. Mr. Limbaugh will be the main speaker for the evening. A reception is scheduled for 6:00 p.m. and dinner will begin at 7:00 p.m. Tickets are $250 each, or $500 for preferred seating. Tables of 10 are available for $2,500, $5,000, or $10,000. You may register online using this secure form or by calling Nancy Padilla at (909) 621-6825, x132. http://www.claremont.org/
[The mission of The Claremont Institute is to restore the principles of the American Founding to their rightful, preeminent authority in our national life.]
Arafat:
A thought. It’s at least discomforting to remember that Arafat won a Nobel Peace Prize. It’s chilling to recall that Henry Kissinger did as well. Since our world feels so upside down, reality so twisted, maybe we should anticipate Secretary of State Paul Wolfowitz and Towel Snapper #1 sharing a Nobel if there’s a next phase of “Middle East Peace?”
-R
