Friday, September 10, 2004
“News organizations should not mix with political campaigns. Even opinionated commentators like myself must refrain from actively helping someone get elected. That would be an abuse of my power. News agencies should not ally with politicians in any way. That’s what happens in totalitarian countries.“ - Bill O'Reilly, September 8, 2004
No, he wasn’t talking about Fox; He actually was referring to CNN!
And just what are you doing to mark National Preparedness Month? Learn more from Tom Ridge at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3991
Health Care: Insurance Premiums up more than 11% ...amongst the many markers of a failed health care system. Also:.
The cumulative effect of rising health care costs is taking a toll on workers: There are at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than there were in 2001, according to the survey of 3,017 companies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_re_us/health_care_costs
What’s Happening, Iran
UK sets Iran deadline to end nuclear bomb work. The Guardian reports on European efforts to deal with Iran’s development of a nuclear capacity.
The British government yesterday set a November ultimatum for Iran to suspend all activities linked to production of a nuclear bomb - a deadline that effectively marks the failure of more than a year of negotiations between Tehran and the European troika of Britain, France and Germany.
Refusal by Iran to comply would produce a new Middle East crisis in which the issue would almost certainly be referred to the United Nations security council, which could opt for punitive action.
Although the deadline is designed to pile pressure on Iran, the early signs from Tehran are that the theocratic regime is unwilling to comply unconditionally and that it is seeking major concessions from the west in return, including a trade agreement and transfer of civil nuclear technology. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1300271,00.html
What’s Happening, Russia: Pre-emptive Doctrine Endorsed
A top Russian general has warned Russia could launch preemptive strikes on terror bases anywhere in the world as a $15m bounty was placed on the heads of two top Chechen rebels involved in last week's deadly school siege. "We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region" in the world, Russian Chief of Staff General Yury Baluyevsky said outside a meeting with US General James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.
Baluyevsky noted that the doctrine of preventive military action against terror targets had been spelled out publicly before and said such steps were only an "extreme measure" that did not include use of nuclear force.
His remarks nonetheless reflected a hardening mood in Moscow a day after a television network aired video footage of scared children and parents sitting in the school gym in southern Beslan as masked militants rigged bombs over their heads. http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,10707990,00.html
Bush, Sharon, Putin: Allied Against Islamic Terrorism?
The always thoughtful Naomi Klein explains
Let me be absolutely clear: by Likudisation I do not mean that key members of the Bush administration are working for the interests of Israel at the expense of US interests. What I mean is that on September 11, George Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his role as "war president". He found that philosophy in the Likud doctrine, handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks ensconced in the White House. In the three years since, the Bush White House has applied this logic with chilling consistency to its global war on terror - complete with the pathologising of the "Muslim mind". It was the guiding philosophy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may well extend to Iran and Syria. It's not simply that Bush sees America's role as protecting Israel from a hostile Arab world. It's that he has cast the US in the same role in which Israel casts itself, facing the same threat. In this narrative, the US is fighting a never-ending battle for its survival against irrational forces that seek its total extermination.
And now the Likudisation narrative has spread to Russia. In that same meeting with journalists, Putin made it clear he sees the drive for Chechen independence as the spearhead of a strategy by Chechen Islamists, helped by foreign fundamentalists, to undermine Russia by stirring up its Muslim population. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5012729-103677,00.html
What’s Happening, Indonesia:
The bombing there outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta is reported to be the work of Malaysian Azahari Husin, dubbed the “Demolition Man” by local papers, suspected of being Jemaah Islamiah’s top bomb maker. The Australian government issued a statement that it was sure that the bombing had nothing to do with its support of the Iraq.
Bill Moyers’ NOW on 9/11
The program has but 2 months left, then it goes to ½ hour and right-wing stuff moves in. So, treasure the remaining episodes.
This one- in Greater Boston Friday at 8, Sunday at 11AM and 6PM- addresses 9/11- the lack of serious planning and preparation for a terrorist attack and then the panicky, counter-productive reaction to the attack. The report will at least mention some of the damning (and rarely underscored) points of the 9/11 Commission- that Cheney ordered the shoot-down of planes without talking to Bush, that Rumsfeld was out of the loop, that planes were belatedly scrambled, but weren’t sure what they were doing (including one pilot who thought he was responding to a cruise missile attack from Russia.) Condi Rice will be shown to be the incompetent security chief that she’s been.
“We’re attacking them there so we won’t have to fight them here.”
That’s the Bush line of the last two weeks. As with so many others, it might be effective, but it’s wildly off the mark, as our attacks “there” motivate- and recruit- radical Islamists to attack us wherever. Similar sentiments come from one Ivan Eland.
The continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has inflamed radical Islamic passions all over the world—bringing in money and recruits—and could lead Islamists to further attack the U.S. homeland. Al Qaeda has been more active since September 11 than it was beforehand. Al Qaeda could very well try to inflict as much pain on the United States as the Chechens recently did on the Russians. What happened in Russia should be a warning to the United States.
In sum, although savage attacks against civilians should never be condoned, the harsh reality is that Russia, Israel, and the United States must expect further attempts by Islamist terrorists to attack their soil until the underlying cause of the terrorism is removed. That underlying cause is “infidel” meddling in and occupation of Islamic lands. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1360
Kerry:
Trails in polls ranging from 2 to 9 points, with some outliers. He can win, but only if he has a steady strong message- if he consistently and repetitively attacks the failures of the Bush-Cheney group, especially targeting Bush as a failure in the so-called ‘war on terror’, and how they have consistently mislead us, deceived us, lied to us. Paul Krugman, forever a blunt truth-teller, addresses the latter point.
It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.
It's the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10krugman.html?hp
No-Showing the National Guard: The Usual Penalty
Writes one Tom Moore of Hurricane, West Virginia:
After seeing the latest info on Shrub's guard service I just have to comment. I was in the WV Air National Guard in the early 70's. At the same time Shrub was pulling his no show performance, we had a young enlisted man who didn't show up for drills for about eight months. He was arrested, handcuffed and escorted to base by Army MP's. Then they court marshalled him, activated him and transferred him to the Army for the rest of his enlistment. I guess it pays to have political connections. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
Election Year and The Environment:
Kerry’s record is vastly superior to Bush, the issue is important and should be a winner. But, he says little. Why? Undoubtedly, Kerry dares not risk offending the very powerful fossil fuel interests. He is especially cognizant of the coal industry and possibilities of winning West Virginia, and thus talks up the oxymoron “clean coal”.
There’s also the failures of the press- which in part reflect the dumbing-down of the public- in ignoring the issue. Robert Kennedy, Jr, environmentalist, addresses the press’s failings.
"The press won't cover climate change; It's not fast-breaking. They will cover security issues. You have to frame an issue in terms of security…
During the Gore campaign, people were complaining that he wasn't talking about the environment. But I talked to the Gore campaign and they said, 'We're talking ourselves blue in the face about it. It has no traction in the press.' They want to cover the political battle -- the red states vs. the blue states. And if you look, that's what they're covering now.
"Kerry's basically reduced to fighting a battle of platitudes because that's the only thing the American press now understands. The entire White House press corps should all drink poison Kool-Aid. That's the only way that they could bring dignity and integrity back to journalism. They are not journalists; they are stenographers for White House press flacks." http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/09/10/kerry/index.html
Political Effectiveness: To Demonstrate, or Not to Demonstrate?
How to be politically effective? I have weighed in on this at various times. Based on the sense that these are extraordinary times, I’ve argued that we need to move out of our comfort zones, doing only what’s familiar, that comes easily. We know that middle aged folk are terribly familiar with demonstrations; they are winsomely social and terribly familiar. But, are they effective? Are they the best use of our time. I have long had my strong doubts. Here, Matt Taibbi of the NY Press registers his similar opinion.
There was a time when mass protests were enough to cause Johnson to give up the Oval Office and cause Richard Nixon to spend his nights staring out his window in panic. No more. We have a different media now, different and more sophisticated law-enforcement techniques and, most importantly, a different brand of protestor.
Protests can now be ignored because our media has learned how to dismiss them, because our police know how to contain them, and because our leaders now know that once a protest is peacefully held and concluded, the protestors simply go home and sit on their asses until the next protest or the next election. They are not going to go home and bomb draft offices, take over campuses, riot in the streets. Instead, although there are many earnest, involved political activists among them, the majority will simply go back to their lives, surf the net and wait for the ballot. Which to our leaders means that, in most cases, if you allow a protest to happen… Nothing happens. http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=11002
Speaking of Efficiency and Effectiveness: Calling Talk Radio
Some of you know of my enthusiasm about calling conservative Talk Radio. It’s hard to over-praise the efficiency and power of the method, having hundreds of thousands of listeners hear progressive points effectively presented in a forum usually dominated by right-wing views.
Talk Radio is an effective grass roots tool that can be used by those willing to challenge the reigning dogma and to inspire people to do something. It is also very efficient because it reaches a very large audience.
More at http://www.fairnessintaxes.org/pages/talkradio.html
Let me know if you’re interested. It’s great fun, as well.
"During the 2000 campaign, when Bush said he was against nation building, I didn't realize he meant only our nation." – Al Franken
-R
No, he wasn’t talking about Fox; He actually was referring to CNN!
And just what are you doing to mark National Preparedness Month? Learn more from Tom Ridge at http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/display?content=3991
Health Care: Insurance Premiums up more than 11% ...amongst the many markers of a failed health care system. Also:.
The cumulative effect of rising health care costs is taking a toll on workers: There are at least 5 million fewer jobs providing health insurance in 2004 than there were in 2001, according to the survey of 3,017 companies by the Kaiser Family Foundation and the Health Research and Educational Trust. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&e=2&u=/ap/20040909/ap_on_re_us/health_care_costs
What’s Happening, Iran
UK sets Iran deadline to end nuclear bomb work. The Guardian reports on European efforts to deal with Iran’s development of a nuclear capacity.
The British government yesterday set a November ultimatum for Iran to suspend all activities linked to production of a nuclear bomb - a deadline that effectively marks the failure of more than a year of negotiations between Tehran and the European troika of Britain, France and Germany.
Refusal by Iran to comply would produce a new Middle East crisis in which the issue would almost certainly be referred to the United Nations security council, which could opt for punitive action.
Although the deadline is designed to pile pressure on Iran, the early signs from Tehran are that the theocratic regime is unwilling to comply unconditionally and that it is seeking major concessions from the west in return, including a trade agreement and transfer of civil nuclear technology. http://www.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,,1300271,00.html
What’s Happening, Russia: Pre-emptive Doctrine Endorsed
A top Russian general has warned Russia could launch preemptive strikes on terror bases anywhere in the world as a $15m bounty was placed on the heads of two top Chechen rebels involved in last week's deadly school siege. "We will take steps to liquidate terror bases in any region" in the world, Russian Chief of Staff General Yury Baluyevsky said outside a meeting with US General James Jones, NATO's supreme allied commander for Europe.
Baluyevsky noted that the doctrine of preventive military action against terror targets had been spelled out publicly before and said such steps were only an "extreme measure" that did not include use of nuclear force.
His remarks nonetheless reflected a hardening mood in Moscow a day after a television network aired video footage of scared children and parents sitting in the school gym in southern Beslan as masked militants rigged bombs over their heads. http://www.news.com.au/common/printpage/0,6093,10707990,00.html
Bush, Sharon, Putin: Allied Against Islamic Terrorism?
The always thoughtful Naomi Klein explains
Let me be absolutely clear: by Likudisation I do not mean that key members of the Bush administration are working for the interests of Israel at the expense of US interests. What I mean is that on September 11, George Bush went looking for a political philosophy to guide him in his role as "war president". He found that philosophy in the Likud doctrine, handed to him ready-made by the ardent Likudniks ensconced in the White House. In the three years since, the Bush White House has applied this logic with chilling consistency to its global war on terror - complete with the pathologising of the "Muslim mind". It was the guiding philosophy in Afghanistan and Iraq, and may well extend to Iran and Syria. It's not simply that Bush sees America's role as protecting Israel from a hostile Arab world. It's that he has cast the US in the same role in which Israel casts itself, facing the same threat. In this narrative, the US is fighting a never-ending battle for its survival against irrational forces that seek its total extermination.
And now the Likudisation narrative has spread to Russia. In that same meeting with journalists, Putin made it clear he sees the drive for Chechen independence as the spearhead of a strategy by Chechen Islamists, helped by foreign fundamentalists, to undermine Russia by stirring up its Muslim population. http://www.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,5012729-103677,00.html
What’s Happening, Indonesia:
The bombing there outside the Australian embassy in Jakarta is reported to be the work of Malaysian Azahari Husin, dubbed the “Demolition Man” by local papers, suspected of being Jemaah Islamiah’s top bomb maker. The Australian government issued a statement that it was sure that the bombing had nothing to do with its support of the Iraq.
Bill Moyers’ NOW on 9/11
The program has but 2 months left, then it goes to ½ hour and right-wing stuff moves in. So, treasure the remaining episodes.
This one- in Greater Boston Friday at 8, Sunday at 11AM and 6PM- addresses 9/11- the lack of serious planning and preparation for a terrorist attack and then the panicky, counter-productive reaction to the attack. The report will at least mention some of the damning (and rarely underscored) points of the 9/11 Commission- that Cheney ordered the shoot-down of planes without talking to Bush, that Rumsfeld was out of the loop, that planes were belatedly scrambled, but weren’t sure what they were doing (including one pilot who thought he was responding to a cruise missile attack from Russia.) Condi Rice will be shown to be the incompetent security chief that she’s been.
“We’re attacking them there so we won’t have to fight them here.”
That’s the Bush line of the last two weeks. As with so many others, it might be effective, but it’s wildly off the mark, as our attacks “there” motivate- and recruit- radical Islamists to attack us wherever. Similar sentiments come from one Ivan Eland.
The continued occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan has inflamed radical Islamic passions all over the world—bringing in money and recruits—and could lead Islamists to further attack the U.S. homeland. Al Qaeda has been more active since September 11 than it was beforehand. Al Qaeda could very well try to inflict as much pain on the United States as the Chechens recently did on the Russians. What happened in Russia should be a warning to the United States.
In sum, although savage attacks against civilians should never be condoned, the harsh reality is that Russia, Israel, and the United States must expect further attempts by Islamist terrorists to attack their soil until the underlying cause of the terrorism is removed. That underlying cause is “infidel” meddling in and occupation of Islamic lands. http://www.independent.org/newsroom/article.asp?id=1360
Kerry:
Trails in polls ranging from 2 to 9 points, with some outliers. He can win, but only if he has a steady strong message- if he consistently and repetitively attacks the failures of the Bush-Cheney group, especially targeting Bush as a failure in the so-called ‘war on terror’, and how they have consistently mislead us, deceived us, lied to us. Paul Krugman, forever a blunt truth-teller, addresses the latter point.
It's the dishonesty, stupid. The real issue in the National Guard story isn't what George W. Bush did three decades ago. It's the recent pattern of lies: his assertions that he fulfilled his obligations when he obviously didn't, the White House's repeated claims that it had released all of the relevant documents when it hadn't.
It's the same pattern of dishonesty, this time involving personal matters that the public can easily understand, that some of us have long seen on policy issues, from global warming to the war in Iraq. On budget matters, which is where I came in, serious analysts now take administration dishonesty for granted. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/10/opinion/10krugman.html?hp
No-Showing the National Guard: The Usual Penalty
Writes one Tom Moore of Hurricane, West Virginia:
After seeing the latest info on Shrub's guard service I just have to comment. I was in the WV Air National Guard in the early 70's. At the same time Shrub was pulling his no show performance, we had a young enlisted man who didn't show up for drills for about eight months. He was arrested, handcuffed and escorted to base by Army MP's. Then they court marshalled him, activated him and transferred him to the Army for the rest of his enlistment. I guess it pays to have political connections. http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3449870/
Election Year and The Environment:
Kerry’s record is vastly superior to Bush, the issue is important and should be a winner. But, he says little. Why? Undoubtedly, Kerry dares not risk offending the very powerful fossil fuel interests. He is especially cognizant of the coal industry and possibilities of winning West Virginia, and thus talks up the oxymoron “clean coal”.
There’s also the failures of the press- which in part reflect the dumbing-down of the public- in ignoring the issue. Robert Kennedy, Jr, environmentalist, addresses the press’s failings.
"The press won't cover climate change; It's not fast-breaking. They will cover security issues. You have to frame an issue in terms of security…
During the Gore campaign, people were complaining that he wasn't talking about the environment. But I talked to the Gore campaign and they said, 'We're talking ourselves blue in the face about it. It has no traction in the press.' They want to cover the political battle -- the red states vs. the blue states. And if you look, that's what they're covering now.
"Kerry's basically reduced to fighting a battle of platitudes because that's the only thing the American press now understands. The entire White House press corps should all drink poison Kool-Aid. That's the only way that they could bring dignity and integrity back to journalism. They are not journalists; they are stenographers for White House press flacks." http://www.salon.com/tech/feature/2004/09/10/kerry/index.html
Political Effectiveness: To Demonstrate, or Not to Demonstrate?
How to be politically effective? I have weighed in on this at various times. Based on the sense that these are extraordinary times, I’ve argued that we need to move out of our comfort zones, doing only what’s familiar, that comes easily. We know that middle aged folk are terribly familiar with demonstrations; they are winsomely social and terribly familiar. But, are they effective? Are they the best use of our time. I have long had my strong doubts. Here, Matt Taibbi of the NY Press registers his similar opinion.
There was a time when mass protests were enough to cause Johnson to give up the Oval Office and cause Richard Nixon to spend his nights staring out his window in panic. No more. We have a different media now, different and more sophisticated law-enforcement techniques and, most importantly, a different brand of protestor.
Protests can now be ignored because our media has learned how to dismiss them, because our police know how to contain them, and because our leaders now know that once a protest is peacefully held and concluded, the protestors simply go home and sit on their asses until the next protest or the next election. They are not going to go home and bomb draft offices, take over campuses, riot in the streets. Instead, although there are many earnest, involved political activists among them, the majority will simply go back to their lives, surf the net and wait for the ballot. Which to our leaders means that, in most cases, if you allow a protest to happen… Nothing happens. http://www.nypress.com/print.cfm?content_id=11002
Speaking of Efficiency and Effectiveness: Calling Talk Radio
Some of you know of my enthusiasm about calling conservative Talk Radio. It’s hard to over-praise the efficiency and power of the method, having hundreds of thousands of listeners hear progressive points effectively presented in a forum usually dominated by right-wing views.
Talk Radio is an effective grass roots tool that can be used by those willing to challenge the reigning dogma and to inspire people to do something. It is also very efficient because it reaches a very large audience.
More at http://www.fairnessintaxes.org/pages/talkradio.html
Let me know if you’re interested. It’s great fun, as well.
"During the 2000 campaign, when Bush said he was against nation building, I didn't realize he meant only our nation." – Al Franken
-R
Wednesday, September 08, 2004
The country is ‘obsessed’ with this election….understandably
Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited. –Jimmy Carter letter to Zell Miller http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3535-2004Sep7.html
Repubs to Keeps Dems on the Defensive: The Fall Agenda
This sounds promising. Flag burning, tort reform, the Pledge of Allegiance… all the important issues Americans care about.
The pace of legislative action is likely to quicken in the next several weeks, said Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, but "most of it will be carefully packaged, focus-group-tested, window-dressing stuff designed to appeal to swing voters in closely contested congressional races, such as they exist."He predicted that the Republican leadership would bring bills to the floor "for the sole purpose of embarrassing or flushing out the Democrats on emotive or wedge issues. Between now and election day, the action on Capitol Hill will be more symbolic than substantive."Already, House Republicans are planning to bring up the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, according to Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). And one House Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the leadership planned to schedule a bill to keep the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-congress7sep07,1,6550588,print.story?coll=la-home-politics
Medicare Scandal: Update.
Recall: Bush fella deliberately supplied false info to Congress and the public prior to passing vaunted Medicare prescription drug bill. Some justice, though odd how an individual is made accountable. Just who told him to lie to Congress?
The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government, federal investigators said Tuesday.
The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said Mr. Scully had threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary, in violation of an explicit provision of federal appropriations law.
Accordingly, they said, federal money could not be used to pay Mr. Scully's salary after he began making the threats to the actuary in May 2003.
The conclusion came in a formal legal opinion by the accountability office, an investigative arm of Congress formerly known as the General Accounting Office. The agency applied its interpretation of the law to factual findings previously made by the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Bush administration did not quarrel with those facts, but said on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to compel the disclosure of data over objections from the executive branch. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08medicare.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position
The Botched Occupation Peter Galbraith, NY Review of Books essay. Good on the reality of Allawi, the expectable fragmenting of Iraq, and the royal incompetence of the Bush Administration:
The Bush administration's recruitment of staff for the CPA is one of the great scandals of the American occupation, although it has so far received little attention from the press. Republican political connections counted for far more than professional competence, relevant international experience, or knowledge of Iraq. In May, The Washington Post ran an account of three young people recruited for service in the CPA by e-mail, without interviews, security clearances, or relevant experience. They ended up responsible for spending Iraq's budget; because they knew little about the country or about financial procedures, they did so slowly. The failure to spend money was of course the source of enormous frustration to jobless Iraqis and undoubtedly produced recruits for the insurgency. According to the Post, the threesome, who included the daughter of a prominent conservative activist, had never applied to go to Iraq and could not figure out how they were selected. Finally they realized that the one thing they had in common was that they had applied for jobs at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which had kept their resumes on file. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17406
Iraqi Deaths:
At Sheik Omar Clinic, a big book records 10,363 violent deaths in Baghdad and nearby towns since the war began last year — deaths caused by car bombs, clashes between Iraqis and coalition forces, mortar attacks, revenge killings and robberies.
While America mourns the deaths of more than 1,000 of its sons and daughters in the Iraq campaign, the U.S. toll is far less than the Iraqi. No official, reliable figures exist for the whole country, but private estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 killed since the United States invaded in March 2003
"During Saddam's days killings were silent. Now the killing is done openly and loudly," said Ghali Karim Hassan, who lost his 31-year-old son, Ghaidan, last April. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_deaths
Iran: [from Power and News Interest Report] It's on people's minds, including Rummy's
Iran has been the instigator of the present surge in tensions, taking advantage of the military and diplomatic vulnerabilities of the United States that were revealed by Washington's campaign for regime change in Iraq. Despite deep internal divisions in Iran over the vision of its future (Western or Islamic), all of its significant political forces are nationalist, uniting on the premise that any foreign attempts to change the Iranian regime and forfeit the revolution (however its meaning is interpreted) are unwelcome, indeed, intolerable, and are to be firmly resisted.
Political forces in Iran are also at one in the belief that the country should pursue a policy of enhancing its military machine to make it an effective deterrent against external attack, and expanding its influence as a regional power in all directions. Tehran's bid to alter the regional balance of power in its favor is evidenced by its increasing defiance of international controls over its nuclear program and its financial and probably military support of a wide spectrum of Shi'a movements and factions in southern Iraq. http://www.pinr.com
LA Times editorial on Guantanamo- a bit late, but on target:” Too bad they have eliminated their Opinion section from their (good) Sunday edition.
”The Bush administration is ignoring, if not defying outright, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that all terror suspects must be able to challenge their imprisonment. The opening round of detainee military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay last week resembled something between a Mel Brooks farce and the kangaroo courts of former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Maybe Captain Kangaroo courts. The proceedings didn't look anything like justice, military or otherwise. Meanwhile, two U.S. citizens still sit in military brigs, isolated from their lawyers and months if not years away from the hearings the high court says they deserve….” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-detainees2sep02 ,1,394 86.story
Russia’s Chechen Problem
Putin is trying to take a page from the Bush “playbook.” He insists that the schoolhouse attack is not part of his Chechen problem, but rather is part of the fight against “international terrorism”. Doesn’t sound like its playing well in Mother Russia.
Media tentativeness. They just can’t say that Bush lies. This NY Times report looked at the Acceptance Speech and was characteristically kind. The readers have to read all and make their own conclusions.
President Bush’s acceptance speech last night included assertions about his accomplishments and Senator John Kerry's past statements and voting patterns that were at best selective, and in some cases challenged by the historical record.
Not surprisingly, they were also challenged by the Kerry campaign, which refuted some of Mr. Bush's accusations and pleaded guilty with an explanation to others.
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT "Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts," Mr. Bush said halfway through his speech, taking on his opponent, but not with the ferocity that Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, did on Wednesday night. He added, "I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare."
FACT The reform was an overwhelmingly Republican initiative, with only 16 Democrats voting for it in the House, and 11 in the Senate. Mr. Kerry was on the campaign trail and did not vote on Mr. Bush's favored version of the Medicare plan, but he is on record as being opposed to it, saying it benefited drug companies at the expense of the elderly. Mr. Kerry, like most other Democrats, favored a more ambitious plan.
Mr. Kerry does oppose health savings accounts, which are tax-free vehicles for people to set aside money for medical expenses. Mr. Bush and other Republicans see them as a way to give people control over medical insurance, but Democrats and consumer groups say they are mostly an option for healthy, affluent people. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03facts.html
The Timing is Familiar. And I don’t blame the AP
AP: 'U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000 mark' ... 4:27 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004
AP: 'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election' ... 4:40 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004
Assault Weapons: We Shall Return…next week! Another helpful move by the Repubs.
Gun manufacturers are gearing up for the scheduled expiration next week of a 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons and are taking orders for semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines that may soon become legal again, according to a report released yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3707-2004Sep7.html
Gore on Bush. Refreshingly blunt. From the New Yorker
The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.
“I’m not of the school that questions his intelligence,” Gore went on. “There are different kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It’s astonishing to me that he’d spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.”http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact
The Man In Charge: Slime from Cheney re Kerry and Terrorism
If we don’t vote for Bush-Cheney, we die.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html
Bush and the National Guard: “Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.” Bush, to Tim Russert, 2/7/04
Just one of them lies…
Texans for Truth Target Bush
They’ve got a 30 second ad. Viewable at link-. http://texansfortruth.com/
Barnes: Delayed from Sunday:
CBS’ Dan Rather talked w/ former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, about the role Barnes says he played in getting President George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard -- and why he now regrets it. T’was on 60 Minutes II. The media noted it en avance; we'll see re follow-up.
Yet, the Repubs were ready, and had a massive p.r. piece that ripped Barnes on their web site…which, of course, should be fact-checked. http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4625
And, the Globe front-paged their Spotlight report on Bush not fulfilling his obligations. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard?mode=PF
For those who missed it: Bush on OBGYN’s:
The man supposedly in charge speaks out:
President Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." http://news1.iwon.com/odd/article/id/425718oddlyenough09-07-2004::09:32reuters.html
Al Franken: His Radio show- http://www.airamericaradio.com/ 12 –3PM -is a wondrous blend of humor, political acumen and (appropriate) anger. One hour of it is now shown on the Sundance cable station, three times a day (10AM, 7PM, 11:30PM).
Polls: Others are not as bad as Time/Newsweek which had Bush up 11%
*Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll: Bush 47%, Kerry 47%
*RCP Poll Average: Bush 50%, Kerry 45%
*Electoral College Snapshot (270 Needed to Win)
*Electoral Vote Predictor: Bush 275, Kerry 237
*Intrade State Futures: Bush 284, Kerry 254
*ICR poll, With Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush:46, Kerry: 46, Nader: 4.
Without Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush 48, Kerry 47.
*Zogby:
The latest Zogby Interactive poll still shows Mr. Kerry well ahead, leading in 12 of the 16 battlegrounds in Zogby's twice-a-month polls. But Mr. Bush took the lead in two states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- since the poll conducted a week before his convention. And there are other signs of strength for the president.
All told, Mr. Bush's numbers improved in 12 of the 16 states, most notably Tennessee. That state, which has been volatile in prior polls, gave the president a 9.6-point lead. In the mid-August poll, Mr. Kerry was up 1.9 points.
Still, Mr. Kerry picked up ground in Minnesota, Washington, Michigan and New Mexico. His leads in the latter two states moved outside of the margin of error. In Washington, his lead has been outside of the margin in every poll since early June. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an0907.html
Bill Maher on Bush (HBO) He’s not my favorite, but this was worthy:
And finally, New Rule: You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a f___-up by a guy on vacation. Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that classroom and protect those kids from Chechen rebels. But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness.
-R
Zell, I have known you for forty-two years and have, in the past, respected you as a trustworthy political leader and a personal friend. But now, there are many of us loyal Democrats who feel uncomfortable in seeing that you have chosen the rich over the poor, unilateral preemptive war over a strong nation united with others for peace, lies and obfuscation over the truth, and the political technique of personal character assassination as a way to win elections or to garner a few moments of applause. These are not the characteristics of great Democrats whose legacy you and I have inherited. –Jimmy Carter letter to Zell Miller http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3535-2004Sep7.html
Repubs to Keeps Dems on the Defensive: The Fall Agenda
This sounds promising. Flag burning, tort reform, the Pledge of Allegiance… all the important issues Americans care about.
The pace of legislative action is likely to quicken in the next several weeks, said Patrick Basham, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, but "most of it will be carefully packaged, focus-group-tested, window-dressing stuff designed to appeal to swing voters in closely contested congressional races, such as they exist."He predicted that the Republican leadership would bring bills to the floor "for the sole purpose of embarrassing or flushing out the Democrats on emotive or wedge issues. Between now and election day, the action on Capitol Hill will be more symbolic than substantive."Already, House Republicans are planning to bring up the constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, according to Stuart Roy, spokesman for House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas). And one House Republican aide, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the leadership planned to schedule a bill to keep the phrase "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-congress7sep07,1,6550588,print.story?coll=la-home-politics
Medicare Scandal: Update.
Recall: Bush fella deliberately supplied false info to Congress and the public prior to passing vaunted Medicare prescription drug bill. Some justice, though odd how an individual is made accountable. Just who told him to lie to Congress?
The Bush administration illegally withheld data from Congress on the cost of the new Medicare law, and as a penalty, the former head of the Medicare agency, Thomas A. Scully, should repay seven months of his salary to the government, federal investigators said Tuesday.
The investigators, from the Government Accountability Office, said Mr. Scully had threatened to fire the chief Medicare actuary, in violation of an explicit provision of federal appropriations law.
Accordingly, they said, federal money could not be used to pay Mr. Scully's salary after he began making the threats to the actuary in May 2003.
The conclusion came in a formal legal opinion by the accountability office, an investigative arm of Congress formerly known as the General Accounting Office. The agency applied its interpretation of the law to factual findings previously made by the inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services.
The Bush administration did not quarrel with those facts, but said on Tuesday that it was unconstitutional for Congress to compel the disclosure of data over objections from the executive branch. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/08/politics/08medicare.html?hp=&pagewanted=print&position
The Botched Occupation Peter Galbraith, NY Review of Books essay. Good on the reality of Allawi, the expectable fragmenting of Iraq, and the royal incompetence of the Bush Administration:
The Bush administration's recruitment of staff for the CPA is one of the great scandals of the American occupation, although it has so far received little attention from the press. Republican political connections counted for far more than professional competence, relevant international experience, or knowledge of Iraq. In May, The Washington Post ran an account of three young people recruited for service in the CPA by e-mail, without interviews, security clearances, or relevant experience. They ended up responsible for spending Iraq's budget; because they knew little about the country or about financial procedures, they did so slowly. The failure to spend money was of course the source of enormous frustration to jobless Iraqis and undoubtedly produced recruits for the insurgency. According to the Post, the threesome, who included the daughter of a prominent conservative activist, had never applied to go to Iraq and could not figure out how they were selected. Finally they realized that the one thing they had in common was that they had applied for jobs at the conservative Heritage Foundation, which had kept their resumes on file. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17406
Iraqi Deaths:
At Sheik Omar Clinic, a big book records 10,363 violent deaths in Baghdad and nearby towns since the war began last year — deaths caused by car bombs, clashes between Iraqis and coalition forces, mortar attacks, revenge killings and robberies.
While America mourns the deaths of more than 1,000 of its sons and daughters in the Iraq campaign, the U.S. toll is far less than the Iraqi. No official, reliable figures exist for the whole country, but private estimates range from 10,000 to 30,000 killed since the United States invaded in March 2003
"During Saddam's days killings were silent. Now the killing is done openly and loudly," said Ghali Karim Hassan, who lost his 31-year-old son, Ghaidan, last April. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=4&u=/ap/20040908/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraqi_deaths
Iran: [from Power and News Interest Report] It's on people's minds, including Rummy's
Iran has been the instigator of the present surge in tensions, taking advantage of the military and diplomatic vulnerabilities of the United States that were revealed by Washington's campaign for regime change in Iraq. Despite deep internal divisions in Iran over the vision of its future (Western or Islamic), all of its significant political forces are nationalist, uniting on the premise that any foreign attempts to change the Iranian regime and forfeit the revolution (however its meaning is interpreted) are unwelcome, indeed, intolerable, and are to be firmly resisted.
Political forces in Iran are also at one in the belief that the country should pursue a policy of enhancing its military machine to make it an effective deterrent against external attack, and expanding its influence as a regional power in all directions. Tehran's bid to alter the regional balance of power in its favor is evidenced by its increasing defiance of international controls over its nuclear program and its financial and probably military support of a wide spectrum of Shi'a movements and factions in southern Iraq. http://www.pinr.com
LA Times editorial on Guantanamo- a bit late, but on target:” Too bad they have eliminated their Opinion section from their (good) Sunday edition.
”The Bush administration is ignoring, if not defying outright, the U.S. Supreme Court's ruling that all terror suspects must be able to challenge their imprisonment. The opening round of detainee military tribunals at Guantanamo Bay last week resembled something between a Mel Brooks farce and the kangaroo courts of former Ugandan dictator Idi Amin. Maybe Captain Kangaroo courts. The proceedings didn't look anything like justice, military or otherwise. Meanwhile, two U.S. citizens still sit in military brigs, isolated from their lawyers and months if not years away from the hearings the high court says they deserve….” http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/opinion/la-ed-detainees2sep02 ,1,394 86.story
Russia’s Chechen Problem
Putin is trying to take a page from the Bush “playbook.” He insists that the schoolhouse attack is not part of his Chechen problem, but rather is part of the fight against “international terrorism”. Doesn’t sound like its playing well in Mother Russia.
Media tentativeness. They just can’t say that Bush lies. This NY Times report looked at the Acceptance Speech and was characteristically kind. The readers have to read all and make their own conclusions.
President Bush’s acceptance speech last night included assertions about his accomplishments and Senator John Kerry's past statements and voting patterns that were at best selective, and in some cases challenged by the historical record.
Not surprisingly, they were also challenged by the Kerry campaign, which refuted some of Mr. Bush's accusations and pleaded guilty with an explanation to others.
PRESIDENT'S STATEMENT "Senator Kerry opposed Medicare reform and health savings accounts," Mr. Bush said halfway through his speech, taking on his opponent, but not with the ferocity that Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator Zell Miller, Democrat of Georgia, did on Wednesday night. He added, "I brought Republicans and Democrats together to strengthen Medicare."
FACT The reform was an overwhelmingly Republican initiative, with only 16 Democrats voting for it in the House, and 11 in the Senate. Mr. Kerry was on the campaign trail and did not vote on Mr. Bush's favored version of the Medicare plan, but he is on record as being opposed to it, saying it benefited drug companies at the expense of the elderly. Mr. Kerry, like most other Democrats, favored a more ambitious plan.
Mr. Kerry does oppose health savings accounts, which are tax-free vehicles for people to set aside money for medical expenses. Mr. Bush and other Republicans see them as a way to give people control over medical insurance, but Democrats and consumer groups say they are mostly an option for healthy, affluent people. http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/03/politics/campaign/03facts.html
The Timing is Familiar. And I don’t blame the AP
AP: 'U.S. death toll in Iraq passes 1,000 mark' ... 4:27 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004
AP: 'Ridge: Terrorists hope to disrupt election' ... 4:40 PM, Sept. 7th, 2004
Assault Weapons: We Shall Return…next week! Another helpful move by the Repubs.
Gun manufacturers are gearing up for the scheduled expiration next week of a 10-year-old federal ban on assault weapons and are taking orders for semiautomatic rifles and high-capacity ammunition magazines that may soon become legal again, according to a report released yesterday. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3707-2004Sep7.html
Gore on Bush. Refreshingly blunt. From the New Yorker
The real distinction of this Presidency is that, at its core, he is a very weak man. He projects himself as incredibly strong, but behind closed doors he is incapable of saying no to his biggest financial supporters and his coalition in the Oval Office. He’s been shockingly malleable to Cheney and Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz and the whole New American Century bunch. He was rolled in the immediate aftermath of 9/11. He was too weak to resist it.
“I’m not of the school that questions his intelligence,” Gore went on. “There are different kinds of intelligence, and it’s arrogant for a person with one kind of intelligence to question someone with another kind. He certainly is a master at some things, and he has a following. He seeks strength in simplicity. But, in today’s world, that’s often a problem. I don’t think that he’s weak intellectually. I think that he is incurious. It’s astonishing to me that he’d spend an hour with his incoming Secretary of the Treasury and not ask him a single question. But I think his weakness is a moral weakness. I think he is a bully, and, like all bullies, he’s a coward when confronted with a force that he’s fearful of. His reaction to the extravagant and unbelievably selfish wish list of the wealthy interest groups that put him in the White House is obsequious. The degree of obsequiousness that is involved in saying ‘yes, yes, yes, yes, yes’ to whatever these people want, no matter the damage and harm done to the nation as a whole—that can come only from genuine moral cowardice. I don’t see any other explanation for it, because it’s not a question of principle. The only common denominator is each of the groups has a lot of money that they’re willing to put in service to his political fortunes and their ferocious and unyielding pursuit of public policies that benefit them at the expense of the nation.”http://www.newyorker.com/fact/content/?040913fa_fact
The Man In Charge: Slime from Cheney re Kerry and Terrorism
If we don’t vote for Bush-Cheney, we die.
Vice President Dick Cheney on Tuesday warned Americans about voting for Democratic Sen. John Kerry, saying that if the nation makes the wrong choice on Election Day it faces the threat of another terrorist attack.
The Kerry-Edwards campaign immediately rejected those comments as "scare tactics" that crossed the line.http://abcnews.go.com/wire/Politics/ap20040907_956.html
Bush and the National Guard: “Well, I was going to Harvard Business School and worked it out with the military.” Bush, to Tim Russert, 2/7/04
Just one of them lies…
Texans for Truth Target Bush
They’ve got a 30 second ad. Viewable at link-. http://texansfortruth.com/
Barnes: Delayed from Sunday:
CBS’ Dan Rather talked w/ former Texas House Speaker and Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes, a Democrat, about the role Barnes says he played in getting President George W. Bush into the Texas Air National Guard -- and why he now regrets it. T’was on 60 Minutes II. The media noted it en avance; we'll see re follow-up.
Yet, the Repubs were ready, and had a massive p.r. piece that ripped Barnes on their web site…which, of course, should be fact-checked. http://www.gop.com/RNCResearch/Read.aspx?ID=4625
And, the Globe front-paged their Spotlight report on Bush not fulfilling his obligations. http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/08/bush_fell_short_on_duty_at_guard?mode=PF
For those who missed it: Bush on OBGYN’s:
The man supposedly in charge speaks out:
President Bush offered an unexpected reason on Monday for cracking down on frivolous medical lawsuits: "Too many OB-GYNs aren't able to practice their love with women all across this country." http://news1.iwon.com/odd/article/id/425718oddlyenough09-07-2004::09:32reuters.html
Al Franken: His Radio show- http://www.airamericaradio.com/ 12 –3PM -is a wondrous blend of humor, political acumen and (appropriate) anger. One hour of it is now shown on the Sundance cable station, three times a day (10AM, 7PM, 11:30PM).
Polls: Others are not as bad as Time/Newsweek which had Bush up 11%
*Rasmussen Presidential Tracking Poll: Bush 47%, Kerry 47%
*RCP Poll Average: Bush 50%, Kerry 45%
*Electoral College Snapshot (270 Needed to Win)
*Electoral Vote Predictor: Bush 275, Kerry 237
*Intrade State Futures: Bush 284, Kerry 254
*ICR poll, With Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush:46, Kerry: 46, Nader: 4.
Without Nader, among 'likely voters': Bush 48, Kerry 47.
*Zogby:
The latest Zogby Interactive poll still shows Mr. Kerry well ahead, leading in 12 of the 16 battlegrounds in Zogby's twice-a-month polls. But Mr. Bush took the lead in two states -- Arkansas and Tennessee -- since the poll conducted a week before his convention. And there are other signs of strength for the president.
All told, Mr. Bush's numbers improved in 12 of the 16 states, most notably Tennessee. That state, which has been volatile in prior polls, gave the president a 9.6-point lead. In the mid-August poll, Mr. Kerry was up 1.9 points.
Still, Mr. Kerry picked up ground in Minnesota, Washington, Michigan and New Mexico. His leads in the latter two states moved outside of the margin of error. In Washington, his lead has been outside of the margin in every poll since early June. http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/info-battleground04-an0907.html
Bill Maher on Bush (HBO) He’s not my favorite, but this was worthy:
And finally, New Rule: You can't run on a mistake. Franklin Roosevelt didn't run for re-election claiming Pearl Harbor was his finest hour. Abe Lincoln was a great president, but the high point of his second term wasn't theater security. 9/11 wasn't a triumph of the human spirit. It was a f___-up by a guy on vacation. Now, don't get me wrong, Mr. President. I'm not blaming you for 9/11. We have blue-ribbon commissions to do that. And I'm not saying there was anything improper about your immediate response to the attacks. Someone had to stay in that classroom and protect those kids from Chechen rebels. But by the looks of your convention, you'd think that the worst thing that ever happened to us was the best thing that ever happened to you. You just can't keep celebrating the deadliest attack ever as if it's your personal rendezvous with greatness.
-R
Monday, September 06, 2004
The Commissions
No tyrannical father presiding over an intimidated household was ever tiptoed around with greater caution than is the figure of President George W. Bush in the Senate Intelligence Committee's fat report of its investigation into the scary stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction cited by the President as all the justification he needed for going to war in Iraq. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17413
So begins Thomas Powers’ review essay on the Senate Intelligence Commission. Indeed, both Commissions wound up tiptoeing around Bush- not out of politeness, but due to ‘power considerations.’ Powers helps us address our current predicament: The Bush misdeeds have been so numerous, so dire, that the public denies and the opponents and the media cringe from making basic criticisms, such as ‘You’re destroying the environment; You lied us into a catastrophic war. You don’t deserve re-election; in fact, you should be impeached.’
Powers lays out what the Commission found to be the ‘errors’:
The basic sin came in many varieties—ignoring evidence, misrepresenting evidence, exaggerating evidence, overstating the evidence, going beyond the evidence, interpreting some evidence as strong when it was weak, sometimes even reaching conclusions without any real evidence at all. The report reaches 117 separate conclusions about the October 2002 NIE and other matters relating to prewar intelligence about Iraq, and it is fair to say that almost every one contains a more or less stinging rebuke of the CIA. The report does not say, but unmistakably implies with persuasive detail, that the exaggerations, overstatements, and misreadings of the CIA's estimate writers all fail in one direction—describing Iraq as more dangerous than it really was.
But, he reasons, you can’t ask the CIA to stand up to its boss, the President.
Asking CIA analysts if they have been cooking the books while their bosses sit in the room reminds me of those well-meaning Western lefties who paid visits in the 1930s to prisoners in the Soviet gulag and returned with assurances that the prisoners all agreed the food was great and they were getting plenty of outdoor exercise. Understanding how the CIA came up with its "high confidence" NIE requires the Senate to connect the dots, but it shouldn't be hard. There are only two—the White House and the CIA. Which way does the committee think the influence runs? But the Senate Intelligence Committee has declined to hazard a guess on this point, and its careful wording amounts at best to a Scotch verdict—not proven. But the rest of the report, with its numerous examples and close analysis of evidence used to build a case for war, raises troubling questions about the CIA's ability to dig in its heels when a president insists that a grab bag of ambiguous information is all he needs to prove a "gathering threat" or a "growing danger."
Where does that leave us? He notes the limits for this and other committees and poses the basic question:
Perhaps holding presidents accountable is more than any commission or Senate committee can fairly be asked to do; perhaps only the electorate can properly hold a president accountable. We shall see…
But the failure to act before September 11 and the unnecessary war with Iraq cannot fairly be blamed on intelligence organizations or anyone else. The White House is the problem, not for the first time. Iraq is President Bush's war. He insisted on it, and nothing can save us from the same again until we find the will to hold the President responsible.
Indeed, we shall see. Some backbone, please, Mr. Kerry?!
9/11 Commission. Another superb essay, this from veteran Washington observer Elizabeth Drew on the Administration’s interference with the 9/11 Commission.
We know about the non-cooperation, Bush refusing to testify under oath and only with Cheney present, etc. They also sought to browbeat the Commission, seeking to reshape the conclusions by taking out or inserting sentences/paragraphs. It’s a withering indictment, yet Drew, like others, lists her observations, but avoids the obvious conclusions as to the Administration’s behavior.
The administration fought the commission at nearly every turn—at first denying it sufficient funds, then opposing an extension of time, refusing it documents, trying to prevent Condoleezza Rice from testifying in public. The White House, in a preemptive move, told the commission that Bush would not testify under oath, and insisted that he appear along with Vice President Cheney. The main partisan division within the commission, I was told, was over how hard to press the White House for information that it was holding back. In its effort to achieve a unanimous, bipartisan report, the commission decided not to assign "individual blame" and avoided overt criticism of the President himself. Still, the report is a powerful indictment of the Bush administration for its behavior before and after the attacks of September 11.
In fact, the commission gives a devastating picture of the chaos within the Bush administration on the morning of the attacks, when the President famously remained in the Florida classroom for some five to seven minutes (according to the report) after learning of the second attack on the World Trade Center. But this is just one of several examples that morning of questionable judgment on the part of the President, as well as of the officials traveling with him, including his chief of staff, Andrew Card, and his political mentor, Karl Rove. Bush told the commission that he attributed the first crash, which he learned of before he entered the school classroom, to "pilot error," but this seems strange, since it is unlikely that a pilot would accidentally stray into a very tall, prominent building in a highly controlled air space on a clear autumn day. Subtly but damningly, the report makes it clear that after Bush left the classroom, "the focus was on the President's statement to the nation"—his "message"—rather than on taking charge of the nation's response to the attacks.
The White House, I was told, pressed for two things about these hours to be included in the final report. First, it wanted the commission to publish Bush's statement, as it did, that he remained in the classroom because he "felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening"—though the fact that a calamity had taken place wasn't exactly a secret. Second, the White House wanted the report to include Libby's description of Cheney's very quick decision—"in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing"—that United Flight 93, which was believed to be headed toward Washington, should be shot down. Some commissioners found this description hardly flattering, but at the Republicans' insistence it remained in the final report.
The White House was apparently so upset by the staff report's account of Cheney's deciding on his own to give the order to shoot down the planes that it overlooked the statement in another staff report, presented at the same time, that though there had been "contacts" between Iraq and al-Qaeda—involving al-Qaeda representatives seeking help from Iraq but not receiving it—"they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Once it received prominent attention in the press, this clear contradiction of one of the administration's principal arguments for going to war— which had been repeated only two days earlier by Cheney—could not be left unchallenged by the White House. Bush said that the staff report validated his claims of "ties" between Saddam and al-Qaeda. In a television interview the day after the staff report was published, Cheney attacked the press for reporting accurately what the commission had said. (One commissioner, Jim Thompson, made similar comments on Bill O'Reilly's show.) In the final report, the commission said there had been no "collaborative operational relationship." One commissioner told me the word "operational" was added for clarity; another said that it was intended to underscore the fact that Bush's and Cheney's assertions were wrong. In announcing on August 2 his proposals for acting on the commission's recommendations, Bush, ignoring the language of the report, repeated his vague claim that Saddam Hussein "had terrorist ties." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17390
Kerry Follow-up?
The question is whether his midnight (tepid) speech marked a beginning of trying to win. The more sagacious pundits noted that his first opportunity would come Friday morning at 8:31AM when mediocre job stats were to be released. Indeed, the fact that less jobs were created (144,000) than are necessary to even keep up with population growth (150,000) was such an opportunity. He and his fellow Dems were hardly deafening. The media followed, as they basically only compared the figure to what economists had predicted (150,000). Then, he Kerry off Sunday… for his daughter’s birthday. Sweet, but sends a bad signal to his supporters.
Beyond Michael Moore: Bob Graham addresses the Saudi issue
So, now, retiring Sen. Bob Graham’s book, noted in the Miami Herald. Elsewhere? Anyone screaming about this?
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
California I: ‘Whatever it Takes’: We tend to frown on conspiratorial thoughts. But, the other way to look at it: the well-organized Republican Right will do, as the Bush text last week often noted, “whatever it takes” to hold power. So, in that vein, we should bear witness to stories such as the following:
In California the Republican governor has frozen election funds that would
normally be used "to train poll workers, educate voters or adequately monitor electronic voting systems." http://www.smdailyjournal.org/article.cfm?issue=09-02-04&storyID=34419
California, II: Arnold and Corporate America (cont.)
AP Exclusive: Chevron Influenced Schwarzenegger Reorganization Plan, Made Large Contributions
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plan to reorganize almost every aspect of state government was influenced significantly by oil and gas giant ChevronTexaco Corp., which managed to shape such key recommendations as the removal of restrictions on oil refineries.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040903/schwarzenegger_chevron_6.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: “Insurgents” of various stripes are all over the country, i.e. it’s a country-wide “insurgency” that leaves our troops in enclaves from which they periodically emerge to attack, aside from relying on bombing.
Over the past few months, insurgents in Samarra have deposed the U.S.-picked leaders and put to death people suspected of collaborating with them, making the northern Iraqi city the latest no-go zone for Iraqi and American troops. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_rebel_territory
Casualties: Worst yet: Not the sense we’ve gotten from the Conventions and the Media. And, the article below was written before 7 were announced as killed on Monday.
About 1,100 U.S. soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq during August, by far the highest combat injury toll for any month since the war began and an indication of the intensity of battles flaring in urban areas
U.S. medical commanders say the sharp rise in battlefield injuries reflects more than three weeks of fighting by two Army and one Marine battalion in the southern city of Najaf. At the same time, U.S. units frequently faced combat in a sprawling Shiite Muslim slum in Baghdad and in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, all of which remain under the control of insurgents two months after the transfer of political authority. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62425-2004Sep4.html
But, of course, in our 1984 world these casualties prove the Administration to be “successful, on the right track, etc.”, for it means that “we’re fighting the terrorists over there instead of over here.”
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: Not improving. From the BBC:
A top election observer body has said Afghanistan's security situation makes it impossible to monitor its first-ever polls, due in October.
In a report obtained by the BBC, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said it was not safe for "meaningful" monitoring.
The OSCE added that examining the elections too closely at this stage could actually undermine the process.
It also appears there will be few other monitors to fill the gap. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3617790.stm
What’s Happening, Australia: Docs protest the Invasion Lies:
Fifty-six of the nation's most eminent doctors will today drag Iraq back onto the election stage with an open letter accusing the Government of taking Australia to war on "false and misleading" grounds.
They will call on an incoming Howard or Latham government to make amends for a policy they see as immoral and a "tragic mistake", and for a war still killing and injuring Iraqis without an end in sight http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/04/1094234080677.html
Media Distort Jobs Report:
What else is new? As is well known, and as was noted above, the economy must produce 150,000 jobs each and every month, or on average, to keep up with population growth. August produced 144,000 in a recovery phase; that is not good economic news. But, CNN thought otherwise.
The report could give a lift to the Bush campaign, coming just hours after the Republicans renominated him. The president and his advisers like to point to the nearly 1.7 million jobs created since August 2003.
But the Kerry campaign notes that despite the recent job gains, the economy has still lost 1 million jobs since Bush took office in early 2001, meaning Bush is likely to become the first president since the Depression era's Herbert Hoover to complete his term with an overall drop in U.S. payrolls.
Roger Altman, senior economic advisor to Kerry, told CNNfn that even with the most recent gain, the administration's job performance has been weak.
"You need about 150,000 new jobs a month to keep even with growth in population," he said. "Taken in proper context, it's just not a very good record." http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/economy/jobless_august/index.htm?cnn=yes
Will SOMEONE in the media do the math? If each month should produce 150000 jobs, then Bush is not merely “minus 900,000 jobs”, but rather is almost 8 million behind where we’d hope to be.
-R
No tyrannical father presiding over an intimidated household was ever tiptoed around with greater caution than is the figure of President George W. Bush in the Senate Intelligence Committee's fat report of its investigation into the scary stories about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction cited by the President as all the justification he needed for going to war in Iraq. http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17413
So begins Thomas Powers’ review essay on the Senate Intelligence Commission. Indeed, both Commissions wound up tiptoeing around Bush- not out of politeness, but due to ‘power considerations.’ Powers helps us address our current predicament: The Bush misdeeds have been so numerous, so dire, that the public denies and the opponents and the media cringe from making basic criticisms, such as ‘You’re destroying the environment; You lied us into a catastrophic war. You don’t deserve re-election; in fact, you should be impeached.’
Powers lays out what the Commission found to be the ‘errors’:
The basic sin came in many varieties—ignoring evidence, misrepresenting evidence, exaggerating evidence, overstating the evidence, going beyond the evidence, interpreting some evidence as strong when it was weak, sometimes even reaching conclusions without any real evidence at all. The report reaches 117 separate conclusions about the October 2002 NIE and other matters relating to prewar intelligence about Iraq, and it is fair to say that almost every one contains a more or less stinging rebuke of the CIA. The report does not say, but unmistakably implies with persuasive detail, that the exaggerations, overstatements, and misreadings of the CIA's estimate writers all fail in one direction—describing Iraq as more dangerous than it really was.
But, he reasons, you can’t ask the CIA to stand up to its boss, the President.
Asking CIA analysts if they have been cooking the books while their bosses sit in the room reminds me of those well-meaning Western lefties who paid visits in the 1930s to prisoners in the Soviet gulag and returned with assurances that the prisoners all agreed the food was great and they were getting plenty of outdoor exercise. Understanding how the CIA came up with its "high confidence" NIE requires the Senate to connect the dots, but it shouldn't be hard. There are only two—the White House and the CIA. Which way does the committee think the influence runs? But the Senate Intelligence Committee has declined to hazard a guess on this point, and its careful wording amounts at best to a Scotch verdict—not proven. But the rest of the report, with its numerous examples and close analysis of evidence used to build a case for war, raises troubling questions about the CIA's ability to dig in its heels when a president insists that a grab bag of ambiguous information is all he needs to prove a "gathering threat" or a "growing danger."
Where does that leave us? He notes the limits for this and other committees and poses the basic question:
Perhaps holding presidents accountable is more than any commission or Senate committee can fairly be asked to do; perhaps only the electorate can properly hold a president accountable. We shall see…
But the failure to act before September 11 and the unnecessary war with Iraq cannot fairly be blamed on intelligence organizations or anyone else. The White House is the problem, not for the first time. Iraq is President Bush's war. He insisted on it, and nothing can save us from the same again until we find the will to hold the President responsible.
Indeed, we shall see. Some backbone, please, Mr. Kerry?!
9/11 Commission. Another superb essay, this from veteran Washington observer Elizabeth Drew on the Administration’s interference with the 9/11 Commission.
We know about the non-cooperation, Bush refusing to testify under oath and only with Cheney present, etc. They also sought to browbeat the Commission, seeking to reshape the conclusions by taking out or inserting sentences/paragraphs. It’s a withering indictment, yet Drew, like others, lists her observations, but avoids the obvious conclusions as to the Administration’s behavior.
The administration fought the commission at nearly every turn—at first denying it sufficient funds, then opposing an extension of time, refusing it documents, trying to prevent Condoleezza Rice from testifying in public. The White House, in a preemptive move, told the commission that Bush would not testify under oath, and insisted that he appear along with Vice President Cheney. The main partisan division within the commission, I was told, was over how hard to press the White House for information that it was holding back. In its effort to achieve a unanimous, bipartisan report, the commission decided not to assign "individual blame" and avoided overt criticism of the President himself. Still, the report is a powerful indictment of the Bush administration for its behavior before and after the attacks of September 11.
In fact, the commission gives a devastating picture of the chaos within the Bush administration on the morning of the attacks, when the President famously remained in the Florida classroom for some five to seven minutes (according to the report) after learning of the second attack on the World Trade Center. But this is just one of several examples that morning of questionable judgment on the part of the President, as well as of the officials traveling with him, including his chief of staff, Andrew Card, and his political mentor, Karl Rove. Bush told the commission that he attributed the first crash, which he learned of before he entered the school classroom, to "pilot error," but this seems strange, since it is unlikely that a pilot would accidentally stray into a very tall, prominent building in a highly controlled air space on a clear autumn day. Subtly but damningly, the report makes it clear that after Bush left the classroom, "the focus was on the President's statement to the nation"—his "message"—rather than on taking charge of the nation's response to the attacks.
The White House, I was told, pressed for two things about these hours to be included in the final report. First, it wanted the commission to publish Bush's statement, as it did, that he remained in the classroom because he "felt he should project strength and calm until he could better understand what was happening"—though the fact that a calamity had taken place wasn't exactly a secret. Second, the White House wanted the report to include Libby's description of Cheney's very quick decision—"in about the time it takes a batter to decide to swing"—that United Flight 93, which was believed to be headed toward Washington, should be shot down. Some commissioners found this description hardly flattering, but at the Republicans' insistence it remained in the final report.
The White House was apparently so upset by the staff report's account of Cheney's deciding on his own to give the order to shoot down the planes that it overlooked the statement in another staff report, presented at the same time, that though there had been "contacts" between Iraq and al-Qaeda—involving al-Qaeda representatives seeking help from Iraq but not receiving it—"they do not appear to have resulted in a collaborative relationship."
Once it received prominent attention in the press, this clear contradiction of one of the administration's principal arguments for going to war— which had been repeated only two days earlier by Cheney—could not be left unchallenged by the White House. Bush said that the staff report validated his claims of "ties" between Saddam and al-Qaeda. In a television interview the day after the staff report was published, Cheney attacked the press for reporting accurately what the commission had said. (One commissioner, Jim Thompson, made similar comments on Bill O'Reilly's show.) In the final report, the commission said there had been no "collaborative operational relationship." One commissioner told me the word "operational" was added for clarity; another said that it was intended to underscore the fact that Bush's and Cheney's assertions were wrong. In announcing on August 2 his proposals for acting on the commission's recommendations, Bush, ignoring the language of the report, repeated his vague claim that Saddam Hussein "had terrorist ties." http://www.nybooks.com/articles/17390
Kerry Follow-up?
The question is whether his midnight (tepid) speech marked a beginning of trying to win. The more sagacious pundits noted that his first opportunity would come Friday morning at 8:31AM when mediocre job stats were to be released. Indeed, the fact that less jobs were created (144,000) than are necessary to even keep up with population growth (150,000) was such an opportunity. He and his fellow Dems were hardly deafening. The media followed, as they basically only compared the figure to what economists had predicted (150,000). Then, he Kerry off Sunday… for his daughter’s birthday. Sweet, but sends a bad signal to his supporters.
Beyond Michael Moore: Bob Graham addresses the Saudi issue
So, now, retiring Sen. Bob Graham’s book, noted in the Miami Herald. Elsewhere? Anyone screaming about this?
Two of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers had a support network in the United States that included agents of the Saudi government, and the Bush administration and FBI blocked a congressional investigation into that relationship, Sen. Bob Graham wrote in a book to be released Tuesday.The discovery of the financial backing of the two hijackers ''would draw a direct line between the terrorists and the government of Saudi Arabia, and trigger an attempted coverup by the Bush administration,'' the Florida Democrat wrote. http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/9584265.htm
California I: ‘Whatever it Takes’: We tend to frown on conspiratorial thoughts. But, the other way to look at it: the well-organized Republican Right will do, as the Bush text last week often noted, “whatever it takes” to hold power. So, in that vein, we should bear witness to stories such as the following:
In California the Republican governor has frozen election funds that would
normally be used "to train poll workers, educate voters or adequately monitor electronic voting systems." http://www.smdailyjournal.org/article.cfm?issue=09-02-04&storyID=34419
California, II: Arnold and Corporate America (cont.)
AP Exclusive: Chevron Influenced Schwarzenegger Reorganization Plan, Made Large Contributions
Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's ambitious plan to reorganize almost every aspect of state government was influenced significantly by oil and gas giant ChevronTexaco Corp., which managed to shape such key recommendations as the removal of restrictions on oil refineries.
http://biz.yahoo.com/ap/040903/schwarzenegger_chevron_6.html
What’s Happening, Iraq: “Insurgents” of various stripes are all over the country, i.e. it’s a country-wide “insurgency” that leaves our troops in enclaves from which they periodically emerge to attack, aside from relying on bombing.
Over the past few months, insurgents in Samarra have deposed the U.S.-picked leaders and put to death people suspected of collaborating with them, making the northern Iraqi city the latest no-go zone for Iraqi and American troops. http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=540&e=2&u=/ap/20040903/ap_on_re_mi_ea/iraq_rebel_territory
Casualties: Worst yet: Not the sense we’ve gotten from the Conventions and the Media. And, the article below was written before 7 were announced as killed on Monday.
About 1,100 U.S. soldiers and Marines were wounded in Iraq during August, by far the highest combat injury toll for any month since the war began and an indication of the intensity of battles flaring in urban areas
U.S. medical commanders say the sharp rise in battlefield injuries reflects more than three weeks of fighting by two Army and one Marine battalion in the southern city of Najaf. At the same time, U.S. units frequently faced combat in a sprawling Shiite Muslim slum in Baghdad and in the Sunni cities of Fallujah, Ramadi and Samarra, all of which remain under the control of insurgents two months after the transfer of political authority. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A62425-2004Sep4.html
But, of course, in our 1984 world these casualties prove the Administration to be “successful, on the right track, etc.”, for it means that “we’re fighting the terrorists over there instead of over here.”
What’s Happening, Afghanistan: Not improving. From the BBC:
A top election observer body has said Afghanistan's security situation makes it impossible to monitor its first-ever polls, due in October.
In a report obtained by the BBC, the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe said it was not safe for "meaningful" monitoring.
The OSCE added that examining the elections too closely at this stage could actually undermine the process.
It also appears there will be few other monitors to fill the gap. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/3617790.stm
What’s Happening, Australia: Docs protest the Invasion Lies:
Fifty-six of the nation's most eminent doctors will today drag Iraq back onto the election stage with an open letter accusing the Government of taking Australia to war on "false and misleading" grounds.
They will call on an incoming Howard or Latham government to make amends for a policy they see as immoral and a "tragic mistake", and for a war still killing and injuring Iraqis without an end in sight http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/04/1094234080677.html
Media Distort Jobs Report:
What else is new? As is well known, and as was noted above, the economy must produce 150,000 jobs each and every month, or on average, to keep up with population growth. August produced 144,000 in a recovery phase; that is not good economic news. But, CNN thought otherwise.
The report could give a lift to the Bush campaign, coming just hours after the Republicans renominated him. The president and his advisers like to point to the nearly 1.7 million jobs created since August 2003.
But the Kerry campaign notes that despite the recent job gains, the economy has still lost 1 million jobs since Bush took office in early 2001, meaning Bush is likely to become the first president since the Depression era's Herbert Hoover to complete his term with an overall drop in U.S. payrolls.
Roger Altman, senior economic advisor to Kerry, told CNNfn that even with the most recent gain, the administration's job performance has been weak.
"You need about 150,000 new jobs a month to keep even with growth in population," he said. "Taken in proper context, it's just not a very good record." http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/03/news/economy/jobless_august/index.htm?cnn=yes
Will SOMEONE in the media do the math? If each month should produce 150000 jobs, then Bush is not merely “minus 900,000 jobs”, but rather is almost 8 million behind where we’d hope to be.
-R
