Are they still smoking whatever they were puffing last fall? ...
From Oct '03 Cavuto on Business: Can Arnold Save the Golden State?
Neil Cavuto: He wanted it, now he's got it. Arnold Schwarzenegger (search) said he'd take on California's problems. Now he'll get his chance. So what should he do first to fix the world's 5th largest economy? Jack Welch, you came into General Electric years ago. A huge company with money problems, similar to what Schwarzenegger is walking into. What should Arnold do?
Jack Welch: He needs to capitalize on the success he had with the election. I hope there are good young stars on his team. I like the diversity on his team. He has to lay out his issues, but he better not go near taxes.
Neil Cavuto: He seems to have put himself in a box by saying he can do this buy cutting through waste and fraud without hiking taxes. Can he?
Meredith Whitney: California mirrors a lot of what happened in corporate America, where the idea was why hire one guy when you can hire one guy and five guys to watch that one guy. Arnold needs to cut costs. The state is spending money like it still has revenues coming in during the height of the bull market back 1999 and 2000.
Neil Cavuto: The governor doesn't have a great deal of power in that state, right Jim?
Jim Rogers: That's right. The democrats control the state congress and they are waiting for him so they can hack him out at the knees. Jack is right. He has to come in strong with his vision, but he has to have more than just vision. If they go back to what they had expended in 1998 or 1999, there would be no problems. The Democrats, under Gray Davis, shot spending through the roof.
Gregg Hymowitz: Arnold's charisma is only going to get him so far. Any budget or tax bills need to be passed by 2/3 of the legislature. As Jim said before the legislature is controlled by the Democrats. He's already said he's not going to cut education and education is 50 percent of the budget. Ultimately, the guy is going to have to raise taxes. And by the way Jack, in 1967 Governor Reagan raised taxes. In 1991, Governor Wilson raised taxes. And in 2003 or 2004 Governor Schwarzenegger will raise taxes.
Jack Welch: That's your answer for everything Gregg.
Jim Rogers: Gregg, you said Arnold said he won't cut back education. I don't want Arnold to cut back on education but if he cuts back the education bureaucracy, we don't need all these bureaucrats.
Gregg Hymowitz: You can't cut that much. The most aggressive analysts say the most you may be able to cut would be about $5 million. You're facing a $10 billion budget deficit. That's as large as the aggregate deficits of the other 49 states.
Neil Cavuto: Let's say that Arnold does do what Jack wants him to do. What do investors buy in that environment?
Meredith Whitney: I think a pure play is California Municipal bonds. I don't own them though.
Jim Rogers: I would also buy California bonds. It's the only thing you can buy. Just because California is getting better doesn't mean you should buy stocks. I would buy municipal bonds, but I wouldn't have them for very long. I would sell them into a rally.
Gregg Hymowitz: In order for California to improve, Silicon Valley will have to improve. And if that happens, I own and like Microsoft (MSFT). Although, I think Microsoft will rally before California improves. Also, I didn't hear Jack comment when I mentioned two very well known Republicans who raised taxes in California. One of which is, I'm sure one of Jack's idols, President Reagan.
Jim Rogers: Gregg, raising taxes has never made an economy get better.
Gregg Hymowitz: Balancing budgets makes economies better. I don't see how you don't agree with that. "
... well, one of 'em nailed it. Amen, Gregg. Sadly, I doubt the gullible fools that swallowed that line even remember what they ate.
Saturday, June 05, 2004
Thursday, June 03, 2004
Wednesday, June 02, 2004
Enron screwed us, Ashcroft covered it up
Ashcroft had these recordings for THREE YEARS and what has Big John done? Nada, of course. Why doesn't he just hang a "BOHICA, California" sign on the Hoover Bldg?
"According to the Snohomish County Public Utility District, which obtained audiotapes of trader conversations from the Justice Department and transcribed them, traders openly discussed creating congestion on transmission lines, taking generating units offline to pump up electricity prices and overall manipulation of the California power market.
For example, in one transcript a trader asks about "all the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers of California."
To which the Enron trader responds, "Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to (expletive) vote on the butterfly ballot."
Conversations that involve Forney, Belden and Richter appear throughout the transcripts.
In one of those transcripts, a trader says to Richter, "So, uh, somebody's figured out how to set congestion?"
Richter: "Well, we ... we can set it if we want. I mean, it's not a hard game to do ..."
In another, an Enron trader identified as David discusses shutting down a steamer from a generating unit to increase prices.
"I was wondering, um, the demand out there is er ... there's not much, ah, demand for power at all and we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?
"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another trader says.
"If we shut it down, could you bring it back up in three — three or four hours, something like that?" David asks.
"Oh, yeah," the other trader says.
"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK," David says.
Eric Christensen, a lawyer for the utility district, said it is seeking to convince a FERC administrative law judge that Enron should be ordered to surrender as much as $2 billion in unjust profits.
www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-06-02-enron_x.htm
"According to the Snohomish County Public Utility District, which obtained audiotapes of trader conversations from the Justice Department and transcribed them, traders openly discussed creating congestion on transmission lines, taking generating units offline to pump up electricity prices and overall manipulation of the California power market.
For example, in one transcript a trader asks about "all the money you guys stole from those poor grandmothers of California."
To which the Enron trader responds, "Yeah, Grandma Millie, man. But she's the one who couldn't figure out how to (expletive) vote on the butterfly ballot."
Conversations that involve Forney, Belden and Richter appear throughout the transcripts.
In one of those transcripts, a trader says to Richter, "So, uh, somebody's figured out how to set congestion?"
Richter: "Well, we ... we can set it if we want. I mean, it's not a hard game to do ..."
In another, an Enron trader identified as David discusses shutting down a steamer from a generating unit to increase prices.
"I was wondering, um, the demand out there is er ... there's not much, ah, demand for power at all and we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer, how long would it take to get it back up?
"Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and off every hour. Let's put it that way," another trader says.
"If we shut it down, could you bring it back up in three — three or four hours, something like that?" David asks.
"Oh, yeah," the other trader says.
"Well, why don't you just go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK," David says.
Eric Christensen, a lawyer for the utility district, said it is seeking to convince a FERC administrative law judge that Enron should be ordered to surrender as much as $2 billion in unjust profits.
www.usatoday.com/money/industries/energy/2004-06-02-enron_x.htm
Tuesday, June 01, 2004
Educated Shia Condemn Sadrists
From free Iraqi press ...
"Radical movement’s attacks on senior clergy seen as contradicting calls for unity.
By Hussein Ali in Baghdad (ICR No. 64, 25-May-04)
While charismatic preacher Muqtada al-Sadr might be a hero to a good number of young and poor Shia for his defiance of the Coalition, many of their older and middle-class co-religionists condemn his movement for causing divisions within their community.
In particular, middle-class Shia object to the movement's newspaper al-Hawza, whose closure helped trigger an April uprising across Iraq.
Ever since Coalition troops shut down the title in late March, curious Iraqis have snapped up back issues of what was formerly a fairly limited-circulation weekly.
Reading through them, they claim to have discovered attacks on senior scholars, which they say contradict Sadr’s public calls for Shia unity.
"When we started reading the back issues, we found many strange things written between the lines," said surgeon Ahmed Nasser, 45. "I found that it seeks disunity among Shia…There is a big contrast between what is published in the paper, and what [the Sadrists] declare on TV."
Kadhim Haider, 39, a teacher at al-Khowarnek secondary school, keeps a clipping of an article which suggests that many senior clergy are foreigners who do not take an interest in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
"The basements of Najaf, cool in the summer and warm in winter, house scholars who are Persian, Afghani, and Pakistani, along with Iraqis who prefer not to appear in front of the public," the article says.
Several of Iraq's senior scholars - including Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Sayydi Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani – are foreigners.
For some Shia, such criticism of senior clergy justifies the US crackdown on the Sadr militants and their newspaper.
"The Shia benefit from the closure of the paper as it writes against our Marjeeya[ religious leadership],” said Ali Jaffar, 35, an engineer.
"Muqtada's followers claim that they are [loyal] to the marjaeya in Najaf, but they write the opposite in their newspaper."
Although hostility to al-Hawza is most marked among professional Shia, some working class members of the faith also support the closure of the title.
"If the paper was still issued, it might cause a civil war among the Shia themselves," said a day labourer. "It is great to have the paper closed. We thank the occupying forces."
http://iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_64_4_eng.txt
..hoodathunkit????
"Radical movement’s attacks on senior clergy seen as contradicting calls for unity.
By Hussein Ali in Baghdad (ICR No. 64, 25-May-04)
While charismatic preacher Muqtada al-Sadr might be a hero to a good number of young and poor Shia for his defiance of the Coalition, many of their older and middle-class co-religionists condemn his movement for causing divisions within their community.
In particular, middle-class Shia object to the movement's newspaper al-Hawza, whose closure helped trigger an April uprising across Iraq.
Ever since Coalition troops shut down the title in late March, curious Iraqis have snapped up back issues of what was formerly a fairly limited-circulation weekly.
Reading through them, they claim to have discovered attacks on senior scholars, which they say contradict Sadr’s public calls for Shia unity.
"When we started reading the back issues, we found many strange things written between the lines," said surgeon Ahmed Nasser, 45. "I found that it seeks disunity among Shia…There is a big contrast between what is published in the paper, and what [the Sadrists] declare on TV."
Kadhim Haider, 39, a teacher at al-Khowarnek secondary school, keeps a clipping of an article which suggests that many senior clergy are foreigners who do not take an interest in the lives of ordinary Iraqis.
"The basements of Najaf, cool in the summer and warm in winter, house scholars who are Persian, Afghani, and Pakistani, along with Iraqis who prefer not to appear in front of the public," the article says.
Several of Iraq's senior scholars - including Iranian-born Grand Ayatollah Sayydi Ali al-Husseini al-Sistani – are foreigners.
For some Shia, such criticism of senior clergy justifies the US crackdown on the Sadr militants and their newspaper.
"The Shia benefit from the closure of the paper as it writes against our Marjeeya[ religious leadership],” said Ali Jaffar, 35, an engineer.
"Muqtada's followers claim that they are [loyal] to the marjaeya in Najaf, but they write the opposite in their newspaper."
Although hostility to al-Hawza is most marked among professional Shia, some working class members of the faith also support the closure of the title.
"If the paper was still issued, it might cause a civil war among the Shia themselves," said a day labourer. "It is great to have the paper closed. We thank the occupying forces."
http://iwpr.net/index.pl?archive/irq/irq_64_4_eng.txt
..hoodathunkit????
Police adviser: Snafu in Najaf
CNN.com - Police adviser: Snafu in Najaf - May 31, 2004: "BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- An American adviser said the U.S. Army 'dropped the ball' by providing inadequate accommodations for Iraqi police officers who were to begin joint patrols with coalition troops in Najaf on Sunday.
About 100 police officers arrived in Najaf on Saturday to help calm the Shiite Muslim holy city, which has been besieged by fighting between U.S. forces and a militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
But when coalition troops arrived the next day to begin the joint patrols, the Iraqis were gone.
The Iraqis left their posts because they felt they received second-class treatment when they arrived from Baghdad, the American adviser said Monday.
The U.S. adviser said no sleeping arrangements had been made for the Iraqis, they had no personal gear for their duties or changes of clothes, and they were given military rations for meals that included pork. Muslims are forbidden to eat pork.
'They were not even given a mattress to sleep on,' the adviser said. 'The U.S. Army really dropped the ball here.'
... we're getting to the "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" point
About 100 police officers arrived in Najaf on Saturday to help calm the Shiite Muslim holy city, which has been besieged by fighting between U.S. forces and a militia loyal to radical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr.
But when coalition troops arrived the next day to begin the joint patrols, the Iraqis were gone.
The Iraqis left their posts because they felt they received second-class treatment when they arrived from Baghdad, the American adviser said Monday.
The U.S. adviser said no sleeping arrangements had been made for the Iraqis, they had no personal gear for their duties or changes of clothes, and they were given military rations for meals that included pork. Muslims are forbidden to eat pork.
'They were not even given a mattress to sleep on,' the adviser said. 'The U.S. Army really dropped the ball here.'
... we're getting to the "never miss an opportunity to miss an opportunity" point
They told his mother yesterday
on Memorial Day. Single mom Karen Ballard's only child, Ken, taken out by small arms fire. His tank company was on extended tour operating in Kufa. 77 days to go.
The brass hats and Guys in Ties continue to screw up their jobs and get our kids killed. It's time to declare victory and set the pullout date.
Sunday, May 30, 2004
Mission Accomplished
The bad guys chalk up another one...
"May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabian security forces stormed a housing compound in the Persian Gulf city of Khobar, freeing hostages held by militants who were surrounded after a shooting spree yesterday, a U.S. embassy spokesman said.
The troops this morning rescued 25 hostages at the Oasis compound, a residential complex for foreign workers, Agence France- Presse reported. Nine of the captives were killed when they tried to escape during the night, the news service said, citing one of the former hostages.
The U.S. embassy in the capital, Riyadh, called on its nationals to leave the country. ``It's the bad guys that choose the time-table,'' embassy spokesman Bob Keith said.
The departure of foreigners would rob Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, of workers it relies on to provide technical and managerial expertise for its oil industry and other businesses."
... when do we get off the oil crack pipe?
"May 30 (Bloomberg) -- Saudi Arabian security forces stormed a housing compound in the Persian Gulf city of Khobar, freeing hostages held by militants who were surrounded after a shooting spree yesterday, a U.S. embassy spokesman said.
The troops this morning rescued 25 hostages at the Oasis compound, a residential complex for foreign workers, Agence France- Presse reported. Nine of the captives were killed when they tried to escape during the night, the news service said, citing one of the former hostages.
The U.S. embassy in the capital, Riyadh, called on its nationals to leave the country. ``It's the bad guys that choose the time-table,'' embassy spokesman Bob Keith said.
The departure of foreigners would rob Saudi Arabia, the world's largest oil producer, of workers it relies on to provide technical and managerial expertise for its oil industry and other businesses."
... when do we get off the oil crack pipe?
Thursday, May 27, 2004
The first step: admit you have a problem
Key neo-con takes the first step:
"Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz admitted today what everyone has known for months: The United States underestimated the determination of Saddam Hussein and his intelligence service to resist the occupation in Iraq. Wolfowitz said, “I would say of all the things that were underestimated, the one that almost no one that I know of predicted was to properly estimate the resilience of the regime that had abused this country for 35 years.”
This is an extraordinarily important statement. Wolfowitz is one of the key American strategists. Until Wolfowitz-and by implication Rumsfeld-publicly acknowledged their miscalculation of the regime’s resilience, there was no possibility of a serious adjustment of strategy. That and the admission that the United States did not know how many troops would be required and for how long set the two poles in place for a strategic re-evaluation. Having been wrong about the enemy’s capabilities and intentions, prior strategic estimates are out the window. There is no valid forecast at this point. In the world of strategy, the lack of a forecast on something as basic as troop levels means there must be a comprehensive review. No one can argue any longer that what the United States is doing is working. That opens the door to the inevitable strategic re-evaluation.
While Wolfowitz’s statement finally opens the door to the future, we will permit ourselves one final look at the past. Wolfowitz said that almost no one he knew “properly” estimated the level of resistance. That is certainly true, if by “properly” you mean describing the nature of the guerrilla war"
--STRATFOR.COM
Monday, May 24, 2004
Warnings ignored, says retired Marine
Retired Marine Gen. Anthony Zinni wondered aloud yesterday how Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld could be caught off guard by the chaos in Iraq that has killed nearly 100 Americans in recent weeks and led to his announcement that 20,000 U.S. troops would be staying there instead of returning home as planned.
"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
...I'd just like to ask Rummy, "How's that working for ya?"
And now I hear Gen Karpinski has been suspended. Got the word by email. BOHICA, baby
"I'm surprised that he is surprised because there was a lot of us who were telling him that it was going to be thus," said Zinni, a Marine for 39 years and the former commander of the U.S. Central Command. "Anyone could know the problems they were going to see. How could they not?"
...I'd just like to ask Rummy, "How's that working for ya?"
And now I hear Gen Karpinski has been suspended. Got the word by email. BOHICA, baby
Saturday, May 22, 2004
Hook, Line, & Sinker ?
hooo, boy, anybody got a shot of this twerp sitting in the gallery for the State of the Union? -- musta been '03:
WASHINGTON -- The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.
"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.
The Information Collection Program also "kept the Iranians informed about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other sensitive information, he said. The program has received millions of dollars from the U.S. government over several years.
An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel."
The Defense Department this week halted payment of $340,000 a month to Chalabi's program. Chalabi had long been the favorite of the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Intelligence sources say Chalabi himself has passed on sensitive U.S. intelligence to the Iranians.
www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uschal0522,0,7406020,print.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
......and:
"At a hearing on Capitol Hill, some Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed puzzlement over the latest turn of events regarding Chalabi.
"We support our troops, and we support you gentlemen -- it's your civilian bosses in the Pentagon I'm increasingly worried about," Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said to Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and two other senior officers testifying before the panel. "This seems to be a substantial development in the war, when one of the most highly paid and trusted advisers may have deliberately misled our nation for months and years and some of our officials may have swallowed it hook, line and sinker."
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46417-2004May21?
WASHINGTON -- The Defense Intelligence Agency has concluded that a U.S.-funded arm of Ahmed Chalabi's Iraqi National Congress has been used for years by Iranian intelligence to pass disinformation to the United States and to collect highly sensitive American secrets, according to intelligence sources.
"Iranian intelligence has been manipulating the United States through Chalabi by furnishing through his Information Collection Program information to provoke the United States into getting rid of Saddam Hussein," said an intelligence source Friday who was briefed on the Defense Intelligence Agency's conclusions, which were based on a review of thousands of internal documents.
The Information Collection Program also "kept the Iranians informed about what we were doing" by passing classified U.S. documents and other sensitive information, he said. The program has received millions of dollars from the U.S. government over several years.
An administration official confirmed that "highly classified information had been provided [to the Iranians] through that channel."
The Defense Department this week halted payment of $340,000 a month to Chalabi's program. Chalabi had long been the favorite of the Pentagon's civilian leadership. Intelligence sources say Chalabi himself has passed on sensitive U.S. intelligence to the Iranians.
www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/nation/ny-uschal0522,0,7406020,print.story?coll=ny-top-span-headlines
......and:
"At a hearing on Capitol Hill, some Democratic members of the House Armed Services Committee expressed puzzlement over the latest turn of events regarding Chalabi.
"We support our troops, and we support you gentlemen -- it's your civilian bosses in the Pentagon I'm increasingly worried about," Rep. Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) said to Air Force Gen. Richard B. Myers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and two other senior officers testifying before the panel. "This seems to be a substantial development in the war, when one of the most highly paid and trusted advisers may have deliberately misled our nation for months and years and some of our officials may have swallowed it hook, line and sinker."
www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46417-2004May21?
Friday, May 21, 2004
As Cos tells it, we ain't learnt nuthin yet
The Washington Post
May 21, 2004
Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks at a Constitution Hall bash in Washington commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. To everyone's astonishment, laughter and applause, Cosby mocked everything from urban fashion to black spending and speaking habits.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal," he said Monday night. "These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids - $500 sneakers for what?
"And they won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.' ...
"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English," he said. "I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't.' 'Where you is.' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"
When Cosby finally concluded, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw came to the podium looking stone-faced. Shaw told the crowd that most people on welfare are not African-American, and many of the problems his organization has addressed in the black community were not self-inflicted.
... How's that working for ya?
May 21, 2004
Bill Cosby was anything but politically correct in his remarks at a Constitution Hall bash in Washington commemorating the 50th anniversary of the Brown vs. Board of Education decision. To everyone's astonishment, laughter and applause, Cosby mocked everything from urban fashion to black spending and speaking habits.
"Ladies and gentlemen, the lower economic people are not holding up their end in this deal," he said Monday night. "These people are not parenting. They are buying things for kids - $500 sneakers for what?
"And they won't spend $200 for 'Hooked on Phonics.' ...
"They're standing on the corner and they can't speak English," he said. "I can't even talk the way these people talk: 'Why you ain't.' 'Where you is.' ... And I blamed the kid until I heard the mother talk. And then I heard the father talk. ... Everybody knows it's important to speak English except these knuckleheads. ... You can't be a doctor with that kind of crap coming out of your mouth!"
When Cosby finally concluded, Howard University President H. Patrick Swygert, NAACP President Kweisi Mfume and NAACP legal defense fund head Theodore Shaw came to the podium looking stone-faced. Shaw told the crowd that most people on welfare are not African-American, and many of the problems his organization has addressed in the black community were not self-inflicted.
... How's that working for ya?
Since credibility is so scarce on both sides
I'm suffering from sodium overdose with the grains of salt I have to consume. Seven enlisted soldiers thought it might be fun to fuck with the prisoners. Yeah, right. A wedding near the Syrian border was attacked ... or was it a terrorist waystation? A good analysis of the conflicting accounts:
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108505314871225337
Still, some reports are credible. I had coffee with a local reporter a couple of weeks ago. Her colleague recently back from Iraq had gotten word that their translator and his 4 year-old son had been assassinated in their home a few days after they left. The wife was not home, and has been evacuated to Europe.
We need to (1) train an Iraqi army and (2) get the hell out ASAP. (That first part is optional.)
http://belmontclub.blogspot.com/2004_05_01_belmontclub_archive.html#108505314871225337
Still, some reports are credible. I had coffee with a local reporter a couple of weeks ago. Her colleague recently back from Iraq had gotten word that their translator and his 4 year-old son had been assassinated in their home a few days after they left. The wife was not home, and has been evacuated to Europe.
We need to (1) train an Iraqi army and (2) get the hell out ASAP. (That first part is optional.)
Monday, May 17, 2004
How you can tell the terrorists are winning
Terrorists are Winning Dept (courtesy of This Is True) ...
#1 The Office of Foreign Assets
Control, the division of the U.S. Treasury Department that has been
tasked with tracking down and freezing the financial assets of
terrorists, has admitted it only has four full-time agents working on
the task. By comparison, it has 21 full-time agents investigating
violations of the U.S.'s economic embargo on Cuba. (AP)
#2 Girl Scout troops in Martin County, Fla.,
decided to have a Mother's Day "scavenger hunt" at the Treasure Coast
Square Mall. Fathers would accompany their daughters and go "window
shopping" for items on the hunt list, marking them off as they spotted
them, and then shop for a nice present for Mom when they were done. At
least 150 father/daughter pairs signed up, but mall management wouldn't
allow the hunt, citing "security" concerns in the post-9/11 world.
"Since Sept. 11, we have looked at our security procedures very
closely," said mall spokeswoman Rachelle Crain. First, "How do we know
they're Girl Scouts?" she said of the uniformed 5- to 18-year-old
girls. But, more importantly, "Our enhanced security prohibits us from
hosting events that allow participants to wander freely around the mall
area." (Stuart News)
#1 The Office of Foreign Assets
Control, the division of the U.S. Treasury Department that has been
tasked with tracking down and freezing the financial assets of
terrorists, has admitted it only has four full-time agents working on
the task. By comparison, it has 21 full-time agents investigating
violations of the U.S.'s economic embargo on Cuba. (AP)
#2 Girl Scout troops in Martin County, Fla.,
decided to have a Mother's Day "scavenger hunt" at the Treasure Coast
Square Mall. Fathers would accompany their daughters and go "window
shopping" for items on the hunt list, marking them off as they spotted
them, and then shop for a nice present for Mom when they were done. At
least 150 father/daughter pairs signed up, but mall management wouldn't
allow the hunt, citing "security" concerns in the post-9/11 world.
"Since Sept. 11, we have looked at our security procedures very
closely," said mall spokeswoman Rachelle Crain. First, "How do we know
they're Girl Scouts?" she said of the uniformed 5- to 18-year-old
girls. But, more importantly, "Our enhanced security prohibits us from
hosting events that allow participants to wander freely around the mall
area." (Stuart News)
Charities May Not Engage in Political Campaign Activities
Much as I would love to see a cardinal or two take one in the shorts for this, the chances of the IRS going after the Catholic Church (or at least after their profits) are just about zero unless Il Papa has Kerry excommunicated ...
Charities May Not Engage in Political Campaign Activities:
IR-2004-59, April 28, 2004
WASHINGTON пїЅ Charities should be careful that their efforts to educate voters comply with the Internal Revenue Code requirements concerning political campaign activities, the tax agency said today in a presidential election-year advisory.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.
These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).
Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity."
Charities May Not Engage in Political Campaign Activities:
IR-2004-59, April 28, 2004
WASHINGTON пїЅ Charities should be careful that their efforts to educate voters comply with the Internal Revenue Code requirements concerning political campaign activities, the tax agency said today in a presidential election-year advisory.
Organizations described in section 501(c)(3) of the Code that are exempt from federal income tax are prohibited from participating or intervening in any political campaign on behalf of, or in opposition to, any candidate for public office. Charities, educational institutions and religious organizations, including churches, are among those that are tax-exempt under this code section.
These organizations cannot endorse any candidates, make donations to their campaigns, engage in fund raising, distribute statements, or become involved in any other activities that may be beneficial or detrimental to any candidate. Even activities that encourage people to vote for or against a particular candidate on the basis of nonpartisan criteria violate the political campaign prohibition of section 501(c)(3).
Whether an organization is engaging in prohibited political campaign activity depends upon all the facts and circumstances in each case. For example, organizations may sponsor debates or forums to educate voters. If the debate or forum shows a preference for or against a certain candidate, however, it becomes a prohibited activity."
Friday, May 14, 2004
Republican Case for Kerry
Essentially the Republican Case for Kerry is three-fold:
1. FAITH-BASED FISCAL POLICY: Mountainous deficits extended over enough years eventually have long term consequences. Not only do interest rates rise, the payments on the national debt will rise to truly ruinous levels. (Granted this is a shared problem with Congress, but Bush has not shown the slightest understanding of economic fundamentals.)
2. FAITH-BASED FOREIGN POLICY: In two years we managed to piss away in less than two years the largest store of international goodwill ever gifted to a nation. Regardless of whether you see the Iraq War as a worthwhile endeavor, the willful disregard of dissenting voices in the Pentagon and the clear absence of thoughtful planning should tell you that a regime change is needed here.
3. ONE-PARTY RULE: Despite the surge of satisfaction at seeing the Dimmocreeps tossed out on their keisters, we're already seeing the effects of unrestrained GOP rule in terms of budgets (the GOP Congressional budget proposal provides an even bigger deficit than Bush's!), corporate welfare programs like the Medicare drug plan, congressional oversight of the executive branch (which admittedly has improved considerably of late), and court appointments -- given Four More Years, we'll have to deal with 3 more Scalia clones looking down from the bench for THIRTY MORE. That kind of imbalance is inherently dangerous to a pluralistic society.
1. FAITH-BASED FISCAL POLICY: Mountainous deficits extended over enough years eventually have long term consequences. Not only do interest rates rise, the payments on the national debt will rise to truly ruinous levels. (Granted this is a shared problem with Congress, but Bush has not shown the slightest understanding of economic fundamentals.)
2. FAITH-BASED FOREIGN POLICY: In two years we managed to piss away in less than two years the largest store of international goodwill ever gifted to a nation. Regardless of whether you see the Iraq War as a worthwhile endeavor, the willful disregard of dissenting voices in the Pentagon and the clear absence of thoughtful planning should tell you that a regime change is needed here.
3. ONE-PARTY RULE: Despite the surge of satisfaction at seeing the Dimmocreeps tossed out on their keisters, we're already seeing the effects of unrestrained GOP rule in terms of budgets (the GOP Congressional budget proposal provides an even bigger deficit than Bush's!), corporate welfare programs like the Medicare drug plan, congressional oversight of the executive branch (which admittedly has improved considerably of late), and court appointments -- given Four More Years, we'll have to deal with 3 more Scalia clones looking down from the bench for THIRTY MORE. That kind of imbalance is inherently dangerous to a pluralistic society.
Thursday, May 13, 2004
None dare speak its name
The prosecutor of the '93 WTC bombinb, Andy McCarthy observes it isn't a War on Terror. "Terrorism is not an enemy. It is a method...You cannot, and you do not, make war on a method. War is made on an identified — and identifiable — enemy.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam"
Not just in Gaza but far beyond the reach of Hamas & Hezbollah, Muslim kids everywhere are being indoctrinated in this madness. McCarthy does not overstate the case when he says "a five-year-old Muslim boy has already gotten a sizable dose of the venom that is found in the madrassas and the Arabic media.
I can assure you that that five-year-old kid does not hate American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. He does not hate the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What he hates is Jews. What he hates is Americans. It is in the water he drinks and the air he breathes."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200405130837.asp
And for whatever reasons, the danger is virtually ignored by our media. It will probably take something worse than 9-11 to wake us up.
In the here and now, that enemy is militant Islam"
Not just in Gaza but far beyond the reach of Hamas & Hezbollah, Muslim kids everywhere are being indoctrinated in this madness. McCarthy does not overstate the case when he says "a five-year-old Muslim boy has already gotten a sizable dose of the venom that is found in the madrassas and the Arabic media.
I can assure you that that five-year-old kid does not hate American foreign policy in the Persian Gulf. He does not hate the intractable nature of the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. What he hates is Jews. What he hates is Americans. It is in the water he drinks and the air he breathes."
http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200405130837.asp
And for whatever reasons, the danger is virtually ignored by our media. It will probably take something worse than 9-11 to wake us up.
Wednesday, May 12, 2004
Stan Goff: 'Hold on to your humanity: An open letter to GIs in Iraq'
From last November, worth another look ...
Stan Goff: 'Hold on to your humanity: An open letter to GIs in Iraq': "refuse illegal orders, and orders to abuse or attack civilians are illegal. Ordering you to keep silent about these crimes is also illegal.
I can tell you, without fear of legal consequence, that you are never under any obligation to hate Iraqis, you are never under any obligation to give yourself over to racism and nihilism and the thirst to kill for the sake of killing, and you are never under any obligation to let them drive out the last vestiges of your capacity to see and tell the truth to yourself and to the world. You do not owe them your souls."
Stan Goff: 'Hold on to your humanity: An open letter to GIs in Iraq': "refuse illegal orders, and orders to abuse or attack civilians are illegal. Ordering you to keep silent about these crimes is also illegal.
I can tell you, without fear of legal consequence, that you are never under any obligation to hate Iraqis, you are never under any obligation to give yourself over to racism and nihilism and the thirst to kill for the sake of killing, and you are never under any obligation to let them drive out the last vestiges of your capacity to see and tell the truth to yourself and to the world. You do not owe them your souls."
Rose colored lenses at Merrill
What are these guys smoking?
"We think that policymakers will eventually boost the federal funds rate by 75 basis points to 1.75%. The moves are likely to come in increments of 25 basis points, in our view, and they will probably be "measured" (i.e., they won't occur at successive meetings).
Our work shows that the Fed under Chairman Alan Greenspan has not begun to raise rates until at least one million jobs have been created in a four-month span. The economy is now closing in fast on that metric; 708,000 net jobs were created in the February-April period. If the economy adds 300,000 or so jobs in May, the Fed could pull the tightening trigger at the June meeting and use Greenspan's semiannual testimony before Congress to explain the rate hike and to provide some hints about the future path of tightening.
The report for April showed healthy gains in employment, as well as increases in overall aggregate hours worked (0.3%) and earnings (0.3%). The increase of 288,000 in non-farm jobs for April followed upwardly revised readings of 337,000 for March (a revision of +29,000) and 83,000 (+37,000) for February. Because revisions tend to be pro-cyclical (i.e., if employment is rising, revisions are on the upside, and vice versa), the upward revisions support the case that the labor market is improving.
Because the funds rate tends to rise sharply during Fed tightening cycles, the yield curve tends to flatten. On average, there has been a 50% flattening in the slope of the yield curve (10-year — federal funds). The current spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the funds rate is about 350 basis points. If an average cycle were to materialize, the slope would be cut to 175 basis points, implying that the 10-year note would end up yielding about 5.25%. "
... I'll put it on the line now: the Fed goes for at least double that meagre 3/4% and the 10-yr tops out over 6% in 2-3 years. Odds anyone?
"We think that policymakers will eventually boost the federal funds rate by 75 basis points to 1.75%. The moves are likely to come in increments of 25 basis points, in our view, and they will probably be "measured" (i.e., they won't occur at successive meetings).
Our work shows that the Fed under Chairman Alan Greenspan has not begun to raise rates until at least one million jobs have been created in a four-month span. The economy is now closing in fast on that metric; 708,000 net jobs were created in the February-April period. If the economy adds 300,000 or so jobs in May, the Fed could pull the tightening trigger at the June meeting and use Greenspan's semiannual testimony before Congress to explain the rate hike and to provide some hints about the future path of tightening.
The report for April showed healthy gains in employment, as well as increases in overall aggregate hours worked (0.3%) and earnings (0.3%). The increase of 288,000 in non-farm jobs for April followed upwardly revised readings of 337,000 for March (a revision of +29,000) and 83,000 (+37,000) for February. Because revisions tend to be pro-cyclical (i.e., if employment is rising, revisions are on the upside, and vice versa), the upward revisions support the case that the labor market is improving.
Because the funds rate tends to rise sharply during Fed tightening cycles, the yield curve tends to flatten. On average, there has been a 50% flattening in the slope of the yield curve (10-year — federal funds). The current spread between the 10-year Treasury yield and the funds rate is about 350 basis points. If an average cycle were to materialize, the slope would be cut to 175 basis points, implying that the 10-year note would end up yielding about 5.25%. "
... I'll put it on the line now: the Fed goes for at least double that meagre 3/4% and the 10-yr tops out over 6% in 2-3 years. Odds anyone?
Monday, May 10, 2004
And we're going to entrust our future to these clowns?
Diebold insider memos reveal the rot:
"Subject: RE: alteration of Audit Log in Access
From: "Ken Clark"
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:55:02 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to:
Its a tough question, and it has a lot to do with perception. Of course everyone knows
perception is reality.
Right now you can open GEMS' .mdb file with MS-Access, and alter its contents. That
includes the audit log. This isn't anything new. ... Now, where the perception comes in is that its right now very *easy* to change the
contents. Double click the .mdb file. Even technical wizards at Metamor (or Ciber, or
whatever) can figure that one out."
... and this gem:
Fw: Battery Status & Charging---and too much bull!!
To:
Subject: Fw: Battery Status & Charging---and too much bull!!
From: "Mike"
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:57:40 -0500
It does not matter whether we get anything certified or not, if we can't even get the foundation of Global stable.
This company is a mess! We should stop development on all new, and old products and concentrate on
making them stable instead of showing vaporware. Selling a new account will only load more crap on an
already over burdened entity.
Everyone is waiting for Diebold to come and save us. What do you think Diebold will say when they see what a
mess everything is, or more to the point what Global has not shown them, or maybe it will not matter at that time,
hmmm...
Every time I look at the support list there is another sales person or manager screaming we can't go forward
without having to fix this or to fix that. You are taxing the development team beyond what they can handle. This
is not there problem, it is yours.
Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other
company that has been so miss managed. I see blame being put on anything that moves.
Communication does not exist! All I here from upper management is "That’s fine, he or she will be removed".
Upper management seems to think they know what is going on. They are to caught up in to much politics, and to
much self importance, to even realize that there are employees watching them, waiting for some direction... We
have allot of bright people in Global, why is it so hard to get things right....
I just received a call from Ingrid, she says she is tired of getting calls from clients asking for help. No one at
Global is giving them the time of day. Ingrid is the only name I will use in this conversation. I have had calls from
other ex-employees stating the same thing.
We have a management team that is so redundant, it is pathetic, and yet we don't have enough employees to get
the work done. Wake up! We keep loosing good people, and yet management does not see this, or more to the
point, "just keep everything going, Diebold is coming and everything will be fine". Bull!!
My views are my views only. If you wish to fire me for speaking the truth, bring it on... or fix this crap. The
employees of this company are watching, waiting to see if you are the leaders that will keep them going, or the
pathetic fools that will drive this company into the ground. I believe Global has great products, great ideas, great
people, just get things right and we will be the best.
http://americanapologyshirt.com/diebold.pdf
... How's that working for ya?
"Subject: RE: alteration of Audit Log in Access
From: "Ken Clark"
Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2001 09:55:02 -0700
Importance: Normal
In-reply-to:
Its a tough question, and it has a lot to do with perception. Of course everyone knows
perception is reality.
Right now you can open GEMS' .mdb file with MS-Access, and alter its contents. That
includes the audit log. This isn't anything new. ... Now, where the perception comes in is that its right now very *easy* to change the
contents. Double click the .mdb file. Even technical wizards at Metamor (or Ciber, or
whatever) can figure that one out."
... and this gem:
Fw: Battery Status & Charging---and too much bull!!
To:
Subject: Fw: Battery Status & Charging---and too much bull!!
From: "Mike"
Date: Sat, 20 Oct 2001 10:57:40 -0500
It does not matter whether we get anything certified or not, if we can't even get the foundation of Global stable.
This company is a mess! We should stop development on all new, and old products and concentrate on
making them stable instead of showing vaporware. Selling a new account will only load more crap on an
already over burdened entity.
Everyone is waiting for Diebold to come and save us. What do you think Diebold will say when they see what a
mess everything is, or more to the point what Global has not shown them, or maybe it will not matter at that time,
hmmm...
Every time I look at the support list there is another sales person or manager screaming we can't go forward
without having to fix this or to fix that. You are taxing the development team beyond what they can handle. This
is not there problem, it is yours.
Elections are not rocket science. Why is it so hard to get things right! I have never been at any other
company that has been so miss managed. I see blame being put on anything that moves.
Communication does not exist! All I here from upper management is "That’s fine, he or she will be removed".
Upper management seems to think they know what is going on. They are to caught up in to much politics, and to
much self importance, to even realize that there are employees watching them, waiting for some direction... We
have allot of bright people in Global, why is it so hard to get things right....
I just received a call from Ingrid, she says she is tired of getting calls from clients asking for help. No one at
Global is giving them the time of day. Ingrid is the only name I will use in this conversation. I have had calls from
other ex-employees stating the same thing.
We have a management team that is so redundant, it is pathetic, and yet we don't have enough employees to get
the work done. Wake up! We keep loosing good people, and yet management does not see this, or more to the
point, "just keep everything going, Diebold is coming and everything will be fine". Bull!!
My views are my views only. If you wish to fire me for speaking the truth, bring it on... or fix this crap. The
employees of this company are watching, waiting to see if you are the leaders that will keep them going, or the
pathetic fools that will drive this company into the ground. I believe Global has great products, great ideas, great
people, just get things right and we will be the best.
http://americanapologyshirt.com/diebold.pdf
... How's that working for ya?
More Cons Getting Restless
BeYOOtifull...
Conservatives Restive About Bush Policies
Fresh Initiatives Sought On Iraq, Domestic Issues
By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 10, 2004
After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.
The centerpiece of President Bush's foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.
Conservatives have become unusually restive. Last Tuesday, columnist George F. Will sharply criticized the administration's Iraq policy, writing: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts." Two days earlier, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."
The complaints about Bush's Iraq policy are relatively new, but they are in some ways similar to long-standing criticism about Bush's domestic policies. In a book released earlier this year, former Bush Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill described Bush as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people" and said policymakers put politics before sound policy judgments.
Echoing a criticism leveled by former Bush aide John J. DiIulio Jr., who famously described "Mayberry Machiavellis" running the White House, O'Neill said "the biggest difference" between his time in government in the 1970s and in the Bush administration "is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl [Rove], Dick [Cheney], [Bush communications strategist] Karen [Hughes] and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics."
Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, said the criticism by O'Neill, Will and Kagan has a common thread: a concern that the administration is "using an old playbook" and not coming up with bold enough ideas, whether the subject is entitlement reform or pacifying Iraq. Conservative intellectuals "are saying, 'Don't do things half way,' " he said.
"It's the exhaustion of power," said a veteran of conservative think tanks who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Ideology has confronted reality, and ideology has bent. On the domestic side, it has bent in terms of the expansion of the government embodied in the Medicare prescription-drug law. On the foreign policy side, it has bent because of what has transpired in the last few weeks in Fallujah."
A Bush spokesman quarreled with that notion, saying there has been no let-up in Bush's policymaking. "We are marching ahead," said the spokesman, Trent Duffy, pointing to Bush's plans for community-college-based job training, space exploration and modernizing health records. "He's continuing to push the policies that have made the country better and stronger."
Part of the current perception of policy fatigue in the White House is a reflection of the political calendar: With a presidential election approaching, there is little possibility that the closely split Congress will enact serious legislation this year regardless of what the White House proposes. "It's a combination of how very challenging it is to move anything in the Senate these days, and it is an election year," said one former Bush aide, who like some of the conservatives interviewed for this article declined to be identified to avoid offending the White House.
But conservative policy experts and a number of former Bush administration officials say there are more systemic reasons for the policy sclerosis. For three years, the president pushed policies conceived during his 2000 campaign for the White House, but with most of those ideas either enacted or stalled, policymaking has run out of steam, they said.
Bush has also discouraged the sort of free-wheeling policy debates that characterized previous administrations, and he relies on a top-down management style that has little use for "wonks" in the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, many of the top domestic policy experts in the Bush White House have moved on to other jobs; in many cases they have been replaced by subordinates with much less experience in governing.
Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said policy ideas typically bubble up from experts deep inside federal agencies, who put together working groups, draft white papers, sell their wares in the marketplace of ideas and hope White House officials act on their suggestions. In this case, ideas are hatched in the White House, for political or ideological reasons, then are thrust on the bureaucracy, "not for analysis, but for sale," Bartlett said.
The result is a White House that has become unimaginative with domestic policy and, in foreign policy, has struggled to develop new policies to adapt to changing circumstances in Iraq, according to several conservatives.
"In Iraq, you don't see the thinking, 'Things have not happened as we had planned. What do we do now?' " said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, who last week organized a Cato forum entitled "The Triumph of the Hacks?"
Richard W. Rahn, a prominent Republican economist, excoriated the administration's telecommunications, antitrust and international economic policies in a Washington Times column April 30 along similar lines. "From the beginning of the Bush administration, sympathetic, experienced economists have warned its officials about the need to avoid some obvious mistakes," he wrote. "Unfortunately, these warnings have gone unheeded."
In an interview, Rahn said he has grown concerned over what he sees as "a lack of vision and policy consistency" in the Bush administration. "I mean, we knew where [President Ronald] Reagan was heading; at times there were deviations from the path, but we knew what it was all about," he said. In contrast, he said, now "there doesn't seem to be a clear policy vision."
Some attribute the policy lethargy to personnel changes, particularly on the domestic side. For example, three veterans of previous White Houses with lengthy experience in Washington have left their policymaking roles; their successors, though capable, have significantly less policymaking experience.
Joshua B. Bolten, the deputy chief of staff for policy, has been replaced by Harriet Miers, a Texas lawyer and former chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Jay Lefkowitz, director of the Domestic Policy Council, has been replaced by Kristen Silverberg, who was a young aide to Bolten. And Lawrence B. Lindsey was replaced as top economic adviser by investment banker Stephen Friedman.
Likewise, John Bridgeland, a former director of the Domestic Policy Council, was replaced as director of Bush's USA Freedom Corps initiative by Desiree Sayle, the former director of correspondence in the White House. And public-policy professor DiIulio was replaced as chief of Bush's "faith-based" initiative by Jim Towey, who had ties to the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Leading experts in welfare and health policy have left the White House and been replaced by less experienced hands.
"It would be fair to say the policy shop is less policy-oriented in its apparatus and more administratively managed," said a Republican with close ties to the White House.
In interviews, former officials of the current and three previous administrations described Bush's domestic policy team as unusually green -- particularly compared with Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. At the Cato forum last week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum said Rove is "the top hack and the top wonk" in the White House.
"I don't think he should be the most important wonk in the White House," said Bruce Reed, former domestic policy chief to Bill Clinton and author of an article about how policy "wonks" had been bested by political "hacks" in the current White House. "Every White House takes on the enthusiasms and the interests of the president, and most of the time this president seems to take more joy in the politics than in the policy."
Defenders of the Bush policymaking apparatus agree that the volume of policymaking has diminished significantly from 2001 and 2002, when the White House was fighting for passage of policies developed during the presidential campaign, such as tax cuts and education accountability. But they say the cause is outside the administration.
Frum said much of the policy energy has been channeled into fighting terrorism at home and abroad because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "On the most critical issue of our time, they have been bold, creative, and in some cases, they have shocked the intelligentsia with their assertiveness," he said.
Whatever the cause, conservatives say the remedy to policy malaise won't come until the election. Conservative strategist Jeffrey Bell said the big items on the policy agenda -- such as an overhaul of Social Security -- are necessarily on hold as Bush fights for reelection. "He's having to defend the forward motion he's already had," Bell said. "Reagan in '84 was the same way. People who thought Reagan's creative period was going to end after '83 were wrong. I think Bush will be the same way."
В© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Conservatives Restive About Bush Policies
Fresh Initiatives Sought On Iraq, Domestic Issues
By Dana Milbank and Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writers
Monday, May 10, 2004
After three years of sweeping actions in both foreign and domestic affairs, the Bush administration is facing complaints from the conservative intelligentsia that it has lost its ability to produce fresh policies.
The centerpiece of President Bush's foreign policy -- the effort to transform Iraq into a peaceful democracy -- has been undermined by a deadly insurrection and broadcast photos of brutality by U.S. prison guards. On the domestic side, conservatives and former administration officials say the White House policy apparatus is moribund, with policies driven by political expediency or ideological pressure rather than by facts and expertise.
Conservatives have become unusually restive. Last Tuesday, columnist George F. Will sharply criticized the administration's Iraq policy, writing: "This administration cannot be trusted to govern if it cannot be counted on to think and, having thought, to have second thoughts." Two days earlier, Robert Kagan, a neoconservative supporter of the Iraq war, wrote: "All but the most blindly devoted Bush supporters can see that Bush administration officials have no clue about what to do in Iraq tomorrow, much less a month from now."
The complaints about Bush's Iraq policy are relatively new, but they are in some ways similar to long-standing criticism about Bush's domestic policies. In a book released earlier this year, former Bush Treasury secretary Paul H. O'Neill described Bush as "a blind man in a room full of deaf people" and said policymakers put politics before sound policy judgments.
Echoing a criticism leveled by former Bush aide John J. DiIulio Jr., who famously described "Mayberry Machiavellis" running the White House, O'Neill said "the biggest difference" between his time in government in the 1970s and in the Bush administration "is that our group was mostly about evidence and analysis, and Karl [Rove], Dick [Cheney], [Bush communications strategist] Karen [Hughes] and the gang seemed to be mostly about politics."
Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation, said the criticism by O'Neill, Will and Kagan has a common thread: a concern that the administration is "using an old playbook" and not coming up with bold enough ideas, whether the subject is entitlement reform or pacifying Iraq. Conservative intellectuals "are saying, 'Don't do things half way,' " he said.
"It's the exhaustion of power," said a veteran of conservative think tanks who spoke on condition of anonymity. "Ideology has confronted reality, and ideology has bent. On the domestic side, it has bent in terms of the expansion of the government embodied in the Medicare prescription-drug law. On the foreign policy side, it has bent because of what has transpired in the last few weeks in Fallujah."
A Bush spokesman quarreled with that notion, saying there has been no let-up in Bush's policymaking. "We are marching ahead," said the spokesman, Trent Duffy, pointing to Bush's plans for community-college-based job training, space exploration and modernizing health records. "He's continuing to push the policies that have made the country better and stronger."
Part of the current perception of policy fatigue in the White House is a reflection of the political calendar: With a presidential election approaching, there is little possibility that the closely split Congress will enact serious legislation this year regardless of what the White House proposes. "It's a combination of how very challenging it is to move anything in the Senate these days, and it is an election year," said one former Bush aide, who like some of the conservatives interviewed for this article declined to be identified to avoid offending the White House.
But conservative policy experts and a number of former Bush administration officials say there are more systemic reasons for the policy sclerosis. For three years, the president pushed policies conceived during his 2000 campaign for the White House, but with most of those ideas either enacted or stalled, policymaking has run out of steam, they said.
Bush has also discouraged the sort of free-wheeling policy debates that characterized previous administrations, and he relies on a top-down management style that has little use for "wonks" in the federal bureaucracy. At the same time, many of the top domestic policy experts in the Bush White House have moved on to other jobs; in many cases they have been replaced by subordinates with much less experience in governing.
Bruce Bartlett, a conservative economist with the National Center for Policy Analysis, said policy ideas typically bubble up from experts deep inside federal agencies, who put together working groups, draft white papers, sell their wares in the marketplace of ideas and hope White House officials act on their suggestions. In this case, ideas are hatched in the White House, for political or ideological reasons, then are thrust on the bureaucracy, "not for analysis, but for sale," Bartlett said.
The result is a White House that has become unimaginative with domestic policy and, in foreign policy, has struggled to develop new policies to adapt to changing circumstances in Iraq, according to several conservatives.
"In Iraq, you don't see the thinking, 'Things have not happened as we had planned. What do we do now?' " said David Boaz, executive vice president of the libertarian Cato Institute, who last week organized a Cato forum entitled "The Triumph of the Hacks?"
Richard W. Rahn, a prominent Republican economist, excoriated the administration's telecommunications, antitrust and international economic policies in a Washington Times column April 30 along similar lines. "From the beginning of the Bush administration, sympathetic, experienced economists have warned its officials about the need to avoid some obvious mistakes," he wrote. "Unfortunately, these warnings have gone unheeded."
In an interview, Rahn said he has grown concerned over what he sees as "a lack of vision and policy consistency" in the Bush administration. "I mean, we knew where [President Ronald] Reagan was heading; at times there were deviations from the path, but we knew what it was all about," he said. In contrast, he said, now "there doesn't seem to be a clear policy vision."
Some attribute the policy lethargy to personnel changes, particularly on the domestic side. For example, three veterans of previous White Houses with lengthy experience in Washington have left their policymaking roles; their successors, though capable, have significantly less policymaking experience.
Joshua B. Bolten, the deputy chief of staff for policy, has been replaced by Harriet Miers, a Texas lawyer and former chairman of the Texas Lottery Commission. Jay Lefkowitz, director of the Domestic Policy Council, has been replaced by Kristen Silverberg, who was a young aide to Bolten. And Lawrence B. Lindsey was replaced as top economic adviser by investment banker Stephen Friedman.
Likewise, John Bridgeland, a former director of the Domestic Policy Council, was replaced as director of Bush's USA Freedom Corps initiative by Desiree Sayle, the former director of correspondence in the White House. And public-policy professor DiIulio was replaced as chief of Bush's "faith-based" initiative by Jim Towey, who had ties to the president's brother, Florida Gov. Jeb Bush. Leading experts in welfare and health policy have left the White House and been replaced by less experienced hands.
"It would be fair to say the policy shop is less policy-oriented in its apparatus and more administratively managed," said a Republican with close ties to the White House.
In interviews, former officials of the current and three previous administrations described Bush's domestic policy team as unusually green -- particularly compared with Bush's top political adviser, Karl Rove. At the Cato forum last week, former Bush speechwriter David Frum said Rove is "the top hack and the top wonk" in the White House.
"I don't think he should be the most important wonk in the White House," said Bruce Reed, former domestic policy chief to Bill Clinton and author of an article about how policy "wonks" had been bested by political "hacks" in the current White House. "Every White House takes on the enthusiasms and the interests of the president, and most of the time this president seems to take more joy in the politics than in the policy."
Defenders of the Bush policymaking apparatus agree that the volume of policymaking has diminished significantly from 2001 and 2002, when the White House was fighting for passage of policies developed during the presidential campaign, such as tax cuts and education accountability. But they say the cause is outside the administration.
Frum said much of the policy energy has been channeled into fighting terrorism at home and abroad because of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. "On the most critical issue of our time, they have been bold, creative, and in some cases, they have shocked the intelligentsia with their assertiveness," he said.
Whatever the cause, conservatives say the remedy to policy malaise won't come until the election. Conservative strategist Jeffrey Bell said the big items on the policy agenda -- such as an overhaul of Social Security -- are necessarily on hold as Bush fights for reelection. "He's having to defend the forward motion he's already had," Bell said. "Reagan in '84 was the same way. People who thought Reagan's creative period was going to end after '83 were wrong. I think Bush will be the same way."
В© 2004 The Washington Post Company
Friday, May 07, 2004
The first one to say "Manhattan Project for Energy Independence" gets a million votes
"Oil is a resource in finite supply; no major oil fields have been found since 1976, and experts suspect that there are no more to find. Some analysts argue that world production is already at or near its peak, although most say that technological progress, which allows the further exploitation of known sources like the Canadian tar sands, will allow output to rise for another decade or two. But the date of the physical peak in production isn't the really crucial question.
The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? ...
During the 1980's, oil consumption dropped around the world as the delayed effects of the energy crisis led to the use of more fuel-efficient cars, better insulation in homes and so on. Although economic growth led to a gradual recovery, as late as 1993 world oil consumption was only slightly higher than it had been in 1979. In the United States, oil consumption didn't regain its 1979 level until 1997.
Since then, however, world demand has grown rapidly: the daily world consumption of oil is 12 million barrels higher than it was a decade ago, roughly equal to the combined production of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It turns out that America's love affair with gas guzzlers, shortsighted as it is, is not the main culprit: the big increases in demand have come from booming developing countries. China, in particular, still consumes only 8 percent of the world's oil but it accounted for 37 percent of the growth in world oil consumption over the last four years. ...
So what should we be doing? Here's a hint: We can neither drill nor conquer our way out of the problem. Whatever we do, oil prices are going up. What we have to do is adapt. " - Paul Krugman
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
The question, instead, is when the trend in oil prices will turn decisively upward. That upward turn is inevitable as a growing world economy confronts a resource in limited supply. But when will it happen? ...
During the 1980's, oil consumption dropped around the world as the delayed effects of the energy crisis led to the use of more fuel-efficient cars, better insulation in homes and so on. Although economic growth led to a gradual recovery, as late as 1993 world oil consumption was only slightly higher than it had been in 1979. In the United States, oil consumption didn't regain its 1979 level until 1997.
Since then, however, world demand has grown rapidly: the daily world consumption of oil is 12 million barrels higher than it was a decade ago, roughly equal to the combined production of Saudi Arabia and Iran. It turns out that America's love affair with gas guzzlers, shortsighted as it is, is not the main culprit: the big increases in demand have come from booming developing countries. China, in particular, still consumes only 8 percent of the world's oil but it accounted for 37 percent of the growth in world oil consumption over the last four years. ...
So what should we be doing? Here's a hint: We can neither drill nor conquer our way out of the problem. Whatever we do, oil prices are going up. What we have to do is adapt. " - Paul Krugman
www.nytimes.com/2004/05/07/opinion/07KRUG.html
Thursday, May 06, 2004
A jolly good republican time: rape, murder, and the ever-popular sexual humiliation
From Limbaugh, yesterday:
"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?"
... can you imagine the vitriol that hypocritical sumbitch would be spewing if a Democrat were running things?
"This is no different than what happens at the Skull and Bones initiation and we're going to ruin people's lives over it and we're going to hamper our military effort, and then we are going to really hammer them because they had a good time. You know, these people are being fired at every day. I'm talking about people having a good time, these people, you ever heard of emotional release? You of heard of need to blow some steam off?"
... can you imagine the vitriol that hypocritical sumbitch would be spewing if a Democrat were running things?
Wednesday, May 05, 2004
Hasta la Vista to $9 Billion
The news last fall:
"The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.
It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.
Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.
How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.
While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1004-05.htm
... How's that working for ya so far? Now fast forward and, oh look! ... " it appears that Schwarzenegger’s staff is also operating under a veil of secrecy. On April 27, Schwarzenegger’s aides released a letter the governor wrote to Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, in which Schwarzenegger called for the state to return to a fully competitive, deregulated electricity market. A copy of the letter can be found at http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release/PUC_Letter.pdf
In a teleconference with reporters Wednesday, April 28, to discuss the plan, one of Schwarzenegger’s aides (who instructed reporters that his name could not be used for attribution) was asked who advised Gov. Schwarzenegger on his energy plan.
The aide refused to disclose the names of the individuals the governor met with nor would he say how many meetings took place before Schwarzenegger formulated an energy policy. The aide would only say that the governor had “many, many” meetings with consumer groups, legislators and experts in the energy sector.
But officials with three of California’s most prominent consumer rights groups, all of whom spent the past four years at the forefront debate surrounding the state’s energy issues, said they never met with Gov. Schwarzenegger or anyone from his staff to discuss the governor’s future electricity plans for the state.
“We never met with him, never,” said Bob Finkelstein, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco based consumer. “Either somebody in (Schwarzenegger’s) office decided they knew what the consumer groups were going to say about his plan or the governor came to the conclusion that he didn’t care about consumers.”
Finkelstein said consumer groups are wary of Schwarzenegger’s energy plan because it calls for a complete return to retail competition, which was supposed to reduce electricity costs for consumers and businesses, but ended up costing the state as much as $70 billion due to a flawed design that allowed energy companies to manipulate the market.
“It’s almost 10 years to the day since we unleashed competition in California,” Finkelstein said. “If we do it again following the same pattern history will repeat itself and we can’t afford to do that again.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0503-09.htm
"The wannabe governor has yet to deny that on May 17, 2001, at the Peninsula Hotel in Los Angeles, he had consensual political intercourse with Enron chieftain Kenneth Lay. Also frolicking with Arnold and Ken was convicted stock swindler Mike Milken.
Now, thirty-four pages of internal Enron memoranda have just come through this reporter's fax machine tell all about the tryst between Maria's husband and the corporate con men. It turns out that Schwarzenegger knowingly joined the hush-hush encounter as part of a campaign to sabotage a Davis-Bustamante plan to make Enron and other power pirates then ravaging California pay back the $9 billion in illicit profits they carried off.
Here's the story Arnold doesn't want you to hear. The biggest single threat to Ken Lay and the electricity lords is a private lawsuit filed last year under California's unique Civil Code provision 17200, the "Unfair Business Practices Act." This litigation, heading to trial now in Los Angeles, would make the power companies return the $9 billion they filched from California electricity and gas customers.
It takes real cojones to bring such a suit. Who's the plaintiff taking on the bad guys? Cruz Bustamante, Lieutenant Governor and reluctant leading candidate against Schwarzenegger.
Now follow the action. One month after Cruz brings suit, Enron's Lay calls an emergency secret meeting in L.A. of his political buck-buddies, including Arnold. Their plan, to undercut Davis (according to Enron memos) and "solve" the energy crisis -- that is, make the Bustamante legal threat go away.
How can that be done? Follow the trail with me.
While Bustamante's kicking Enron butt in court, the Davis Administration is simultaneously demanding that George Bush's energy regulators order the $9 billion refund. Don't hold your breath: Bush's Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is headed by a guy proposed by … Ken Lay."
http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1004-05.htm
... How's that working for ya so far? Now fast forward and, oh look! ... " it appears that Schwarzenegger’s staff is also operating under a veil of secrecy. On April 27, Schwarzenegger’s aides released a letter the governor wrote to Michael Peevey, president of the California Public Utilities Commission, in which Schwarzenegger called for the state to return to a fully competitive, deregulated electricity market. A copy of the letter can be found at http://www.governor.ca.gov/govsite/pdf/press_release/PUC_Letter.pdf
In a teleconference with reporters Wednesday, April 28, to discuss the plan, one of Schwarzenegger’s aides (who instructed reporters that his name could not be used for attribution) was asked who advised Gov. Schwarzenegger on his energy plan.
The aide refused to disclose the names of the individuals the governor met with nor would he say how many meetings took place before Schwarzenegger formulated an energy policy. The aide would only say that the governor had “many, many” meetings with consumer groups, legislators and experts in the energy sector.
But officials with three of California’s most prominent consumer rights groups, all of whom spent the past four years at the forefront debate surrounding the state’s energy issues, said they never met with Gov. Schwarzenegger or anyone from his staff to discuss the governor’s future electricity plans for the state.
“We never met with him, never,” said Bob Finkelstein, the executive director of The Utility Reform Network, a San Francisco based consumer. “Either somebody in (Schwarzenegger’s) office decided they knew what the consumer groups were going to say about his plan or the governor came to the conclusion that he didn’t care about consumers.”
Finkelstein said consumer groups are wary of Schwarzenegger’s energy plan because it calls for a complete return to retail competition, which was supposed to reduce electricity costs for consumers and businesses, but ended up costing the state as much as $70 billion due to a flawed design that allowed energy companies to manipulate the market.
“It’s almost 10 years to the day since we unleashed competition in California,” Finkelstein said. “If we do it again following the same pattern history will repeat itself and we can’t afford to do that again.”
http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0503-09.htm
From a former chief of Anesthesiology
My cousin writes "as one who has spent my life looking at the healthcare system from "inside" my views may be biased - but I truly blieve they are fairly clear on what the MAIN problem with our healthcare is. I have had the opportunity to sit on the board of a Liability Insurance Company and I have dealth with many "Third Party" companies who's stated goal is to provide "insurance" for the general public (ie, to spread the risk equally among a large number of people.)
I know that without a doubt the true goal of medical insurance companies is not to provide coverage for the health care costs of the general public (their policy holders.) It is rather to generate as large a profit for their share holders as possible - which means to pay out as little as possible for health care. I have first hand knowledge directly from the "horses mouth" that if their payouts exceed 15% annually they feel they have miscalculated and they adjust their premiums up and their payment schedule down. How else do the insurance companies live in tall steel and glass buildings on high dollar real estate and pay outrageous salaries and bonuses to their executives?
And of course - they are in bed with the government so that the rules and regulations which "control" their behavior work in their favor. The man on the street has little if any control over the operation of a health insurance companies policies and procedures. Certainly the medical community - widely viewed by the public as making a fortune from their sick patients - has no control over the insurance companies; in fact they are cut annually to the point that many medical services are now delivered by paramedical personell rather than by physicians as in the past - all in the name of cost cutting.
When money talks people listen. What money? Your money which is in the accounts of the insurance companies. Who does it talk to? The government. Who listens? The government - and they respond by protecting the insurance companies - not the individual who has an illness and generates the expenditure of health care dollars. That person is "the enemy." You and me !"
[rant ends] ... and beyond that, about all you can say is "we have the best government money can buy !"
I know that without a doubt the true goal of medical insurance companies is not to provide coverage for the health care costs of the general public (their policy holders.) It is rather to generate as large a profit for their share holders as possible - which means to pay out as little as possible for health care. I have first hand knowledge directly from the "horses mouth" that if their payouts exceed 15% annually they feel they have miscalculated and they adjust their premiums up and their payment schedule down. How else do the insurance companies live in tall steel and glass buildings on high dollar real estate and pay outrageous salaries and bonuses to their executives?
And of course - they are in bed with the government so that the rules and regulations which "control" their behavior work in their favor. The man on the street has little if any control over the operation of a health insurance companies policies and procedures. Certainly the medical community - widely viewed by the public as making a fortune from their sick patients - has no control over the insurance companies; in fact they are cut annually to the point that many medical services are now delivered by paramedical personell rather than by physicians as in the past - all in the name of cost cutting.
When money talks people listen. What money? Your money which is in the accounts of the insurance companies. Who does it talk to? The government. Who listens? The government - and they respond by protecting the insurance companies - not the individual who has an illness and generates the expenditure of health care dollars. That person is "the enemy." You and me !"
[rant ends] ... and beyond that, about all you can say is "we have the best government money can buy !"
Tuesday, May 04, 2004
Vanishing Votes
On October 29, 2002, George W. Bush signed the Help America Vote Act (HAVA). Hidden behind its apple-pie-and-motherhood name lies a nasty civil rights time bomb.
First, the purges. In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, more than half--about 54 percent--are black or Hispanic. You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there's no argument that this electoral racial pogrom ordered by Jeb Bush's operatives gave the White House to his older brother. HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters. Specifically, every state must, by the 2004 election, imitate Florida's system of computerizing voter files. The law then empowers fifty secretaries of state--fifty Katherine Harrises--to purge these lists of "suspect" voters.
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast
First, the purges. In the months leading up to the November 2000 presidential election, Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris, in coordination with Governor Jeb Bush, ordered local election supervisors to purge 57,700 voters from the registries, supposedly ex-cons not allowed to vote in Florida. At least 90.2 percent of those on this "scrub" list, targeted to lose their civil rights, are innocent. Notably, more than half--about 54 percent--are black or Hispanic. You can argue all night about the number ultimately purged, but there's no argument that this electoral racial pogrom ordered by Jeb Bush's operatives gave the White House to his older brother. HAVA not only blesses such purges, it requires all fifty states to implement a similar search-and-destroy mission against vulnerable voters. Specifically, every state must, by the 2004 election, imitate Florida's system of computerizing voter files. The law then empowers fifty secretaries of state--fifty Katherine Harrises--to purge these lists of "suspect" voters.
www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040517&s=palast
Sunday, May 02, 2004
how terrorism is seen by Islam
When a mother and four children shot dead in Gaza, it's an "heroic operation"
From Islam Online:
"Palestinian Fighters Kill Five Israeli Settlers
GAZA CITY, May 2 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Five Israeli settlers were killed Sunday, May 2, and three soldiers injured in a Palestinian resistance attack on an Israeli settlement in occupied southern Gaza.
Two Palestinian fighters disguised as shepherds ambushed two cars of Israeli settlers near the Kissufim road, which leads to the major Gush Katif settlement bloc, witnesses told IslamOnline.net.
The Palestinian resistance groups Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees claimed the attack.
Earlier, media outlets said the operation was claimed Hamas’ armed wing Ezzudin Al-Qassam Brigades, which later denied responsibility, but praised the "heroic operation".
www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/02/article06.shtml
Oh, and let's not forget their mission statement:
"Our Mission:
To create a unique, global Islamic site on the Internet that provides services to Muslims and non-Muslims in several languages. To become a reference for everything that deals with Islam, its sciences, civilization and nation. To have credibility in content, distinction in design, and a sharp and balanced vision of humanity and current events. "
... How's that working for ya, Muslims?
From Islam Online:
"Palestinian Fighters Kill Five Israeli Settlers
GAZA CITY, May 2 (IslamOnline.net & News Agencies) - Five Israeli settlers were killed Sunday, May 2, and three soldiers injured in a Palestinian resistance attack on an Israeli settlement in occupied southern Gaza.
Two Palestinian fighters disguised as shepherds ambushed two cars of Israeli settlers near the Kissufim road, which leads to the major Gush Katif settlement bloc, witnesses told IslamOnline.net.
The Palestinian resistance groups Islamic Jihad and the Popular Resistance Committees claimed the attack.
Earlier, media outlets said the operation was claimed Hamas’ armed wing Ezzudin Al-Qassam Brigades, which later denied responsibility, but praised the "heroic operation".
www.islam-online.net/English/News/2004-05/02/article06.shtml
Oh, and let's not forget their mission statement:
"Our Mission:
To create a unique, global Islamic site on the Internet that provides services to Muslims and non-Muslims in several languages. To become a reference for everything that deals with Islam, its sciences, civilization and nation. To have credibility in content, distinction in design, and a sharp and balanced vision of humanity and current events. "
... How's that working for ya, Muslims?
The Kurds are to the rest of Iraq as Democrats are to Republicans (USATODAY poll)
holding absolutely opposite views of the US from the rest of Iraq, and if things run true to form, they'll get screwed again before this is over...
USATODAY.com:
a. The U.S. is very serious about improving the economic lot of the Iraqis
B = Baghdad
Sh = Shi’ite areas
Su = Sunni areas
K = Kurdish areas
NK = Non-Kurdish areas
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 54 74 64 56 * 62
Agree 37 16 27 31 98 27
b. U.S. is very serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 50 74 56 54 * 58
Agree 37 14 30 30 98 28
c. U.S. will allow Iraqis to design their own political future as they see fit without direct u.s. influence
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 57 76 68 61 2 65
Agree 28 10 16 20 92 18
d. U.S. is completely serious about preserving the political and geographical unity of Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 51 72 61 53 1 59
Agree 33 10 20 29 96 23
e. If the U.S. were to pull out its troops any time soon, Iraq will fall into anarchy
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 44 41 56 43 5 50
Agree 41 43 29 34 92 33
f. A civil war will not happen in Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 24 23 24 29 21 25
Agree 58 56 64 44 66 57
g. The old regime has been smashed forever
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 5 5 3 7 1 6
Agree 86 89 91 78 98 85
h. The U.S. will not leave Iraq unless it is forced to do by force by the Iraqis
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 28 16 18 14 88 19
Agree 55 69 63 58 7 62
USATODAY.com:
a. The U.S. is very serious about improving the economic lot of the Iraqis
B = Baghdad
Sh = Shi’ite areas
Su = Sunni areas
K = Kurdish areas
NK = Non-Kurdish areas
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 54 74 64 56 * 62
Agree 37 16 27 31 98 27
b. U.S. is very serious about establishing a democratic system in Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 50 74 56 54 * 58
Agree 37 14 30 30 98 28
c. U.S. will allow Iraqis to design their own political future as they see fit without direct u.s. influence
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 57 76 68 61 2 65
Agree 28 10 16 20 92 18
d. U.S. is completely serious about preserving the political and geographical unity of Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 51 72 61 53 1 59
Agree 33 10 20 29 96 23
e. If the U.S. were to pull out its troops any time soon, Iraq will fall into anarchy
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 44 41 56 43 5 50
Agree 41 43 29 34 92 33
f. A civil war will not happen in Iraq
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 24 23 24 29 21 25
Agree 58 56 64 44 66 57
g. The old regime has been smashed forever
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 5 5 3 7 1 6
Agree 86 89 91 78 98 85
h. The U.S. will not leave Iraq unless it is forced to do by force by the Iraqis
Total B Sh Su K NK
Disagree 28 16 18 14 88 19
Agree 55 69 63 58 7 62
The Fog of War Commercials
Kerry may have voted to drop weapon programs but Cheney was the stone killer assassin...
"The Bush team is trying to undermine Mr. Kerry's personal military record as a campaign asset by painting him as an opponent of a strong military. More specifically, the Republicans have accused Mr. Kerry of trying to kill the very weapons that are essential to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. At best, these charges are rather sloppy interpretations of complicated votes on military budgets. At worst, they are flat wrong. All are sad examples of the sort of election-year gimmickry that makes it hard for members of Congress to vote responsibly on military spending, lest they be denounced as opponents of a strong national defense.
The most glaring flaw in the Bush-Cheney assault is that the bulk of the votes for which Mr. Kerry is being castigated were cast in the early and mid-1990's, when there was a bipartisan consensus in Washington for slashing the huge Reagan-era military budgets to reflect the post-Soviet world. Mr. Cheney actually got the ball rolling by pushing through the biggest military spending cuts in a generation as defense secretary for the first President Bush. At the time, Mr. Cheney's aides liked to brag that, like Nixon going to China, the staunchly conservative Wyoming Republican had the necessary credibility to make those cuts.
•
In 1990, Mr. Cheney's first budget canceled, among other things, production of the M-1 tank and the Bradley fighting vehicle, and made big cuts in the F-18 fighter. That makes President Bush's newest commercial seem particularly cynical. It shows weapons disappearing from Iraq while actors in uniform watch in dismay, and an announcer accuses Mr. Kerry of trying to kill these very programs. The same commercial says Mr. Kerry "opposed" the B-2 stealth bomber, a relic of the cold war that was supposed to fly over Russia and blow up anything left after the missiles were fired. Mr. Kerry may have been less a fan of the B-2 than Mr. Cheney was, but the vice president cut production of that multibillion-dollar plane by 45 percent in his first year at the Pentagon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/opinion/02SUN1.html?ex=1084161600&en=df82ee4e75670602&ei=5065
"The Bush team is trying to undermine Mr. Kerry's personal military record as a campaign asset by painting him as an opponent of a strong military. More specifically, the Republicans have accused Mr. Kerry of trying to kill the very weapons that are essential to the troops in Iraq and Afghanistan. At best, these charges are rather sloppy interpretations of complicated votes on military budgets. At worst, they are flat wrong. All are sad examples of the sort of election-year gimmickry that makes it hard for members of Congress to vote responsibly on military spending, lest they be denounced as opponents of a strong national defense.
The most glaring flaw in the Bush-Cheney assault is that the bulk of the votes for which Mr. Kerry is being castigated were cast in the early and mid-1990's, when there was a bipartisan consensus in Washington for slashing the huge Reagan-era military budgets to reflect the post-Soviet world. Mr. Cheney actually got the ball rolling by pushing through the biggest military spending cuts in a generation as defense secretary for the first President Bush. At the time, Mr. Cheney's aides liked to brag that, like Nixon going to China, the staunchly conservative Wyoming Republican had the necessary credibility to make those cuts.
•
In 1990, Mr. Cheney's first budget canceled, among other things, production of the M-1 tank and the Bradley fighting vehicle, and made big cuts in the F-18 fighter. That makes President Bush's newest commercial seem particularly cynical. It shows weapons disappearing from Iraq while actors in uniform watch in dismay, and an announcer accuses Mr. Kerry of trying to kill these very programs. The same commercial says Mr. Kerry "opposed" the B-2 stealth bomber, a relic of the cold war that was supposed to fly over Russia and blow up anything left after the missiles were fired. Mr. Kerry may have been less a fan of the B-2 than Mr. Cheney was, but the vice president cut production of that multibillion-dollar plane by 45 percent in his first year at the Pentagon."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/02/opinion/02SUN1.html?ex=1084161600&en=df82ee4e75670602&ei=5065
Friday, April 30, 2004
NYT picks up on HUMV vulnerability
Sounds like they made the fatal error of believing their own propaganda ...
"It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of ambushes and urban firefights these troops are now caught up in and against which tanks and armored personnel carriers afford the best protection.
That costly miscalculation has left American soldiers in their thin-skinned Humvees nearly defenseless against the rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and AK-47 rifle fire they face almost daily. While political spokesmen have played down the seriousness of the fighting that has killed 126 Americans just this month, field commanders have been pleading desperately for more armor.
This week, the Pentagon finally ordered that thousands of armored vehicles be sent to Iraq, from 70-ton Abrams tanks to lighter and faster Bradley and Stryker combat vehicles, plus an armored version of the Humvee, whose production is now being accelerated. Every effort must be made to speed the movement of this badly needed equipment to minimize future American casualties.
The Defense Department now tries to justify its earlier mistake of leaving the heavy armor behind by arguing that tankbound soldiers are poorly suited to engaging with the Iraqi civilian population and winning hearts and minds. True enough, but having the tanks on hand would not have prevented such efforts in more secure areas, and would have saved lives in battle zones like Falluja and Najaf.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/opinion/30FRI1.html?ex=1083988800&en=20e96e98038bbe46&ei=5065
"It's hard to imagine what the Pentagon was thinking when it told the American Army and Marine replacement divisions bound for Iraq earlier this year to leave their tanks and other heavily armored vehicles behind. American military planners seem to have ignored evidence that armed resistance to the occupation was far from suppressed. As a result, they failed to anticipate the kinds of ambushes and urban firefights these troops are now caught up in and against which tanks and armored personnel carriers afford the best protection.
That costly miscalculation has left American soldiers in their thin-skinned Humvees nearly defenseless against the rocket-propelled grenades, roadside bombs and AK-47 rifle fire they face almost daily. While political spokesmen have played down the seriousness of the fighting that has killed 126 Americans just this month, field commanders have been pleading desperately for more armor.
This week, the Pentagon finally ordered that thousands of armored vehicles be sent to Iraq, from 70-ton Abrams tanks to lighter and faster Bradley and Stryker combat vehicles, plus an armored version of the Humvee, whose production is now being accelerated. Every effort must be made to speed the movement of this badly needed equipment to minimize future American casualties.
The Defense Department now tries to justify its earlier mistake of leaving the heavy armor behind by arguing that tankbound soldiers are poorly suited to engaging with the Iraqi civilian population and winning hearts and minds. True enough, but having the tanks on hand would not have prevented such efforts in more secure areas, and would have saved lives in battle zones like Falluja and Najaf.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/30/opinion/30FRI1.html?ex=1083988800&en=20e96e98038bbe46&ei=5065
You think Iraqis POWs have it bad?
Take a look at the CA youth correctional authority.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/01/eveningnews/main609909.shtml
There again, the guards complain "The guard's union says the tape shows only one side of the story and was released to "generate sensational headlines" to an unknowing public.
"I don't think they understand the level of violence we deal with every day -- the stress"
... boo-f***ing-hoo.
www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/04/01/eveningnews/main609909.shtml
There again, the guards complain "The guard's union says the tape shows only one side of the story and was released to "generate sensational headlines" to an unknowing public.
"I don't think they understand the level of violence we deal with every day -- the stress"
... boo-f***ing-hoo.
Thursday, April 29, 2004
Generals fiddle while soldiers burn
Putting aside whose ribbons got tossed on the lawn in the last millenium for just a moment, there's this nagging Iraq thing...
'a classic example of leadership negligence is our soldiers' current chariot, the Humvee.
As early as Oct. 3, 1993, the Ranger fight in downtown Mogadishu demonstrated the added value of armored Humvees. Subsequent shoot'em-ups in ex-Yugoslavia proved once again how effectively this rugged vehicle protects our grunts.
Yet the high brass, from SecDef Bill Cohen to Donald Rumsfeld to almost a generation of generals, never bothered to adjust their budgets to buy more armored Humvees. And today, troops are being killed and wounded in Iraq and Afghanistan because there aren't enough of these bullet-and-shrapnel-stoppers to go around.
Why is the armored Humvee in such short supply when after-action reports have been shouting its praises since 1993?
For sure, there's been no shortage of cash. Since the need for these obviously essential lifesavers became apparent, the Pentagon has ordered more than $5 trillion of toys ...
Long before Saddam's statue came toppling down in Baghdad a year ago this month, it should have been clear to any career officer with any knowledge of guerrilla warfare that we were about to find ourselves smack in the middle of an insurgent war and needed armored vehicles to more adequately protect our warriors.
But the Pentagon's Cheap Charlie estimate back then was that a mere 235 armored Humvees would do just peachy-keen for the occupation phase of our misadventure in Iraq. Now, after 720-plus dead and thousands of wounded and hundreds of Humvees destroyed or damaged the same geniuses have suddenly concluded that we need more than 5,000 armored Humvees.
The brass' lame excuse is that they didn't expect things to turn violent in Iraq. And considering it took months for Rumsfeld to finally admit that our forces were engaged in a guerrilla war, upping the Humvee order early on might have interfered with the all-pervasive miasma of denial - and who knows how many precious careers.
Americans losing patience with W & Faith-Based Foreign Policy but GOP comforted by Nader candidacy
VOANews.com: "Less than half of those surveyed, 47 percent, say the United States did the right thing by taking military action in Iraq. That number is down from 58 percent in March and 63 percent back in December.
The poll by The New York Times and CBS News measures Mr. Bush's approval rating at 46 percent, down five percent from the same poll in March and down more than 20 percent from a year ago.
The drop comes after a month of attacks and clashes in Iraq that have killed at least 125 U.S. military personnel.
Like other polls, the new survey shows a close race between Mr. Bush and his main challenger in the November election, Democrat John Kerry.
Asked who they would vote for if the election were held today, 46 percent of registered voters said they would vote for Mr. Kerry, 44 percent for Mr. Bush.
When independent candidate Ralph Nader was factored into the race, Mr. Bush came out slightly ahead"
The poll by The New York Times and CBS News measures Mr. Bush's approval rating at 46 percent, down five percent from the same poll in March and down more than 20 percent from a year ago.
The drop comes after a month of attacks and clashes in Iraq that have killed at least 125 U.S. military personnel.
Like other polls, the new survey shows a close race between Mr. Bush and his main challenger in the November election, Democrat John Kerry.
Asked who they would vote for if the election were held today, 46 percent of registered voters said they would vote for Mr. Kerry, 44 percent for Mr. Bush.
When independent candidate Ralph Nader was factored into the race, Mr. Bush came out slightly ahead"
Poll: Iraqis Impatient With U.S. Presence
It's time to set a date for departure.
AP Wire | 04/29/2004 | Poll: Iraqis Impatient With U.S. Presence: "57 percent said they would like to see coalition troops leave 'immediately, within the next few months,' while 36 percent said they would like to see those troops stay longer.
Despite the reservations, Iraqis have mixed feelings about the effects of the U.S. led invasion.
_Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they have faced since then.
_Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same.
Burkholder said the trend in Baghdad, where Gallup polled last August and September, reflects a drop in attitudes about U.S. troops.
Last August, almost six in 10 Iraqis said they had a positive view of how U.S. troops are behaving. Now, residents of Baghdad view U.S. soldiers negatively, by almost 8-1.
Only a quarter of Iraqis said attacks on U.S. troops are completely unjustified. Less than a third of Iraqis said the attacks are completely or somewhat justified from a moral standpoint. Another one in five said those attacks are sometimes justified.
Seven in 10 in the poll said they view the U.S. presence as an occupation and not a liberation."
AP Wire | 04/29/2004 | Poll: Iraqis Impatient With U.S. Presence: "57 percent said they would like to see coalition troops leave 'immediately, within the next few months,' while 36 percent said they would like to see those troops stay longer.
Despite the reservations, Iraqis have mixed feelings about the effects of the U.S. led invasion.
_Six in 10 say ousting Saddam Hussein was worth the hardships they have faced since then.
_Half said they are better off since Saddam was ousted, while 25 percent said they are doing about the same.
Burkholder said the trend in Baghdad, where Gallup polled last August and September, reflects a drop in attitudes about U.S. troops.
Last August, almost six in 10 Iraqis said they had a positive view of how U.S. troops are behaving. Now, residents of Baghdad view U.S. soldiers negatively, by almost 8-1.
Only a quarter of Iraqis said attacks on U.S. troops are completely unjustified. Less than a third of Iraqis said the attacks are completely or somewhat justified from a moral standpoint. Another one in five said those attacks are sometimes justified.
Seven in 10 in the poll said they view the U.S. presence as an occupation and not a liberation."
Wednesday, April 28, 2004
Mission Accomplished.
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=1848793
... How's that working for ya?
What are Bush's core values?
1. Robin Hood had it backwards
2. What's good for Halliburton and Enron are good for America
3. Tax and spend bad, Borrow and spend good
4. Faith-based Fiscal and Foreign Policies are the best policies
5. When in doubt, ask Dick
2. What's good for Halliburton and Enron are good for America
3. Tax and spend bad, Borrow and spend good
4. Faith-based Fiscal and Foreign Policies are the best policies
5. When in doubt, ask Dick
Monday, April 26, 2004
Iraq - AlQ linked again
Note the salient passage: "The head of the group, Azmi Jayousi, said that he ... met him again in Iraq without giving any dates..." [but most likely during 2002] "I pledged allegiance to Zarqawi and after the fall of Afghanistan I met him again in Iraq"
Jordanian Militants Shown Confessing on State TV
Reuters
Monday, April 26, 2004; 4:23 PM
By Suleiman al-Khalidi
AMMAN, Jordan (Reuters) - Jordanian state television aired Monday what it said were confessions by captured militants tied to al Qaeda who said they had planned deadly chemical attacks that could have killed thousands of people.
Authorities had already reported the plot earlier this month, but the confessions shown on a prime-time broadcast provided further details of the planned attacks.
The arrested militants, who included Syrians, said they were ordered by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, accused by Washington of being a top al Qaeda supporter, to attack targets that included the heavily fortified U.S. embassy and intelligence headquarters.
The head of the group, Azmi Jayousi, said that he first met Zarqawi during his training in an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and met him again in Iraq without giving any dates.
"I pledged allegiance to Zarqawi and after the fall of Afghanistan I met him again in Iraq," said Jayousi, who had clearly identifiable bruises on his face and palm.
"Zarqawi commissioned me to go to Jordan to wage military action," Jayousi said in the 20-minute broadcast where he calmly recounted how he carefully planned with his accomplices the chemical attacks using trucks.
Jayousi said he set up a chemical factory near the northern city of Irbid, close to the Syrian border, and received $170,000 in financing and logistic aid along with fake passports and forged banknotes from Suleiman Darwish, an alleged Zarqawi aide living in Syria.
Another captured militant shown on television was a Syrian national, Annas Sheikh Amin, 18, who said he went to Afghanistan where he was trained at a Qaeda camp before heading to Jordan.
Jordanian Hussein Sharif said he was driven by a fervent belief that the attacks would promote the cause of Muslims. "I agreed to this operation because I thought it would serve Islam," a bearded Sharif said.
Jayousi said he planned the attack with trucks laden with 20 tons of explosives. King Abdullah said after the arrest of the group earlier this month that it had had saved "thousands of lives"
В© 2004 Reuters
Jordanian Militants Shown Confessing on State TV
Reuters
Monday, April 26, 2004; 4:23 PM
By Suleiman al-Khalidi
AMMAN, Jordan (Reuters) - Jordanian state television aired Monday what it said were confessions by captured militants tied to al Qaeda who said they had planned deadly chemical attacks that could have killed thousands of people.
Authorities had already reported the plot earlier this month, but the confessions shown on a prime-time broadcast provided further details of the planned attacks.
The arrested militants, who included Syrians, said they were ordered by Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, accused by Washington of being a top al Qaeda supporter, to attack targets that included the heavily fortified U.S. embassy and intelligence headquarters.
The head of the group, Azmi Jayousi, said that he first met Zarqawi during his training in an al Qaeda camp in Afghanistan and met him again in Iraq without giving any dates.
"I pledged allegiance to Zarqawi and after the fall of Afghanistan I met him again in Iraq," said Jayousi, who had clearly identifiable bruises on his face and palm.
"Zarqawi commissioned me to go to Jordan to wage military action," Jayousi said in the 20-minute broadcast where he calmly recounted how he carefully planned with his accomplices the chemical attacks using trucks.
Jayousi said he set up a chemical factory near the northern city of Irbid, close to the Syrian border, and received $170,000 in financing and logistic aid along with fake passports and forged banknotes from Suleiman Darwish, an alleged Zarqawi aide living in Syria.
Another captured militant shown on television was a Syrian national, Annas Sheikh Amin, 18, who said he went to Afghanistan where he was trained at a Qaeda camp before heading to Jordan.
Jordanian Hussein Sharif said he was driven by a fervent belief that the attacks would promote the cause of Muslims. "I agreed to this operation because I thought it would serve Islam," a bearded Sharif said.
Jayousi said he planned the attack with trucks laden with 20 tons of explosives. King Abdullah said after the arrest of the group earlier this month that it had had saved "thousands of lives"
В© 2004 Reuters
Sunday, April 25, 2004
Kahn Job: Bush Spiked Probe of Pakistan's Dr. Strangelove
On November 7, 2001, BBC TV and the Guardian of London reported that the Bush
Administration thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Kahn who confessed to selling atomic
secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.
The Bush Administration has expressed shock at the disclosures that Pakistan, our ally
in the war on terror, has been running a nuclear secrets bazaar. In fact, according to
the British News Team sources', Bush did not know of these facts because, shortly after
his inauguration, his National Security Agency defectively stymied the probe of Kahn
Research Laboratories. CIA and other agents could not investigate the spread of Islamic
Bombs through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia.
According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush Administration
Spike of the investigation of Dr. Kahn's Lab followed from a wider policy of protecting
key Saudi Arabians including the Bin Laden Family. [Greg Palast]
Administration thwarted investigations of Dr. A.Q. Kahn who confessed to selling atomic
secrets to Libya, North Korea, and Iran.
The Bush Administration has expressed shock at the disclosures that Pakistan, our ally
in the war on terror, has been running a nuclear secrets bazaar. In fact, according to
the British News Team sources', Bush did not know of these facts because, shortly after
his inauguration, his National Security Agency defectively stymied the probe of Kahn
Research Laboratories. CIA and other agents could not investigate the spread of Islamic
Bombs through Pakistan because funding appeared to originate in Saudi Arabia.
According to both sources and documents obtained by the BBC, the Bush Administration
Spike of the investigation of Dr. Kahn's Lab followed from a wider policy of protecting
key Saudi Arabians including the Bin Laden Family. [Greg Palast]
Who downsized the DoD?
Hint: not BC
President Bush in his State of the Union address on January 28, 1992:
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles…..The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. "
Dick Cheney, secretary of defense, testifying before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on January 31, 1992.
"Overall, since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion ….And now we’re adding to that another $50 billion….
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements….You’ve directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s and F-16s – all great systems….but we have enough of them. "
Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, January 31,1992, testified about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of “major reductions” in fighter wings and strategic bombers.
President Bush in his State of the Union address on January 28, 1992:
"After completing 20 planes for which we have begun procurement, we will shut down further production of the B-2 bomber. We will cancel the small ICBM program. We will cease production of new warheads for our sea-based ballistic missiles. We will stop all new production of the Peacekeeper [MX] missile. And we will not purchase any more advanced cruise missiles…..The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office. "
Dick Cheney, secretary of defense, testifying before the Senate Armed
Services Committee on January 31, 1992.
"Overall, since I’ve been Secretary, we will have taken the five-year defense program down by well over $300 billion ….And now we’re adding to that another $50 billion….
Congress has let me cancel a few programs. But you’ve squabbled and sometimes bickered and horse-traded and ended up forcing me to spend money on weapons that don’t fill a vital need in these times of tight budgets and new requirements….You’ve directed me to buy more M-1s, F-14s and F-16s – all great systems….but we have enough of them. "
Gen. Colin Powell, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, at the same hearings, January 31,1992, testified about plans to cut Army divisions by one-third, Navy aircraft by one-fifth, and active armed forces by half a million men and women, to say noting of “major reductions” in fighter wings and strategic bombers.
Friday, April 23, 2004
Rummy's attempted coverup busted
Make Them Accountable: The Deleted Text
The Pentagon removed the following text from Bob Woodward's Oct. 23 interview with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before posting the transcript on the Web:
"Rumsfeld: I remember meeting with the Vice President and I think [Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words at some point we had had enough of a signal from the President that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen.
Q: Do you remember when that was?
Rumsfeld: I do not. But I can't tell you who it was but I remember it was the Vice President, Dick Myers and me.
Q: [Was] that when Myers gave the briefing to Bandar in Cheney's office because I think you were there.
Rumsfeld: When was that?
Q: I have the date -- it was in February I think or maybe it was late January"
The Pentagon removed the following text from Bob Woodward's Oct. 23 interview with Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld before posting the transcript on the Web:
"Rumsfeld: I remember meeting with the Vice President and I think [Gen. Richard B. Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff] and I met with a foreign dignitary at one point and looked him in the eye and said you can count on this. In other words at some point we had had enough of a signal from the President that we were able to look a foreign dignitary in the eye and say you can take that to the bank this is going to happen.
Q: Do you remember when that was?
Rumsfeld: I do not. But I can't tell you who it was but I remember it was the Vice President, Dick Myers and me.
Q: [Was] that when Myers gave the briefing to Bandar in Cheney's office because I think you were there.
Rumsfeld: When was that?
Q: I have the date -- it was in February I think or maybe it was late January"
Thursday, April 22, 2004
Never Again, FLA style
FLORIDA VOTING RIGHTS LAWSUIT SETTLED;
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND TO MONITOR STATE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF LANDMARK AGREEMENT
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) joined other civil rights organizations in announcing the settlement of a landmark class action lawsuit stemming from the 2000 presidential election. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of African-American and Haitian-American Floridians who were unable to vote in that election, and named as defendants the state of Florida, seven Florida counties, and a private company that did work for the state.
"We are very pleased with the settlement, but we recognize it will require monitoring and diligence on the part of local and national civil rights organizations," stated LDF President and Director-Counsel Elaine R. Jones. "LDF is not prepared to walk away from the table on this - we will continue to make sure that the favorable terms negotiated actually benefit Florida voters."
The lawsuit, N.A.A.C.P. et al. v. Smith and Kast et al., was filed in January 2001. It sought substantial changes in voter registration and election day practices that the plaintiffs claimed unfairly impacted black voters. The settlement requires the state or state agencies to take concrete steps to improve the voting process, including:
Help identify eligible voters who were removed from the voter rolls in error so that they may be restored, and implement new procedures to help prevent similar mistakes from happening in the future;
Assess and recommend improvements in training for poll workers and staffing at polling places;
Ensure that elections are administered properly, including the fair distribution of equipment, resources, technology, and staffing at polling places;
Study and report to the Legislature on ways to strengthen election administration throughout the state; and
Notify voters that they can register to vote and change registration information at DMV and Children's Services offices.
http://www.naacpldf.org/whatsnew/wn_doc_ldf_florida_voting.html
NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE FUND TO MONITOR STATE'S IMPLEMENTATION OF LANDMARK AGREEMENT
The NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) joined other civil rights organizations in announcing the settlement of a landmark class action lawsuit stemming from the 2000 presidential election. The lawsuit was filed on behalf of thousands of African-American and Haitian-American Floridians who were unable to vote in that election, and named as defendants the state of Florida, seven Florida counties, and a private company that did work for the state.
"We are very pleased with the settlement, but we recognize it will require monitoring and diligence on the part of local and national civil rights organizations," stated LDF President and Director-Counsel Elaine R. Jones. "LDF is not prepared to walk away from the table on this - we will continue to make sure that the favorable terms negotiated actually benefit Florida voters."
The lawsuit, N.A.A.C.P. et al. v. Smith and Kast et al., was filed in January 2001. It sought substantial changes in voter registration and election day practices that the plaintiffs claimed unfairly impacted black voters. The settlement requires the state or state agencies to take concrete steps to improve the voting process, including:
Help identify eligible voters who were removed from the voter rolls in error so that they may be restored, and implement new procedures to help prevent similar mistakes from happening in the future;
Assess and recommend improvements in training for poll workers and staffing at polling places;
Ensure that elections are administered properly, including the fair distribution of equipment, resources, technology, and staffing at polling places;
Study and report to the Legislature on ways to strengthen election administration throughout the state; and
Notify voters that they can register to vote and change registration information at DMV and Children's Services offices.
http://www.naacpldf.org/whatsnew/wn_doc_ldf_florida_voting.html
Saturday, April 10, 2004
"I L-O-V-E This Woman!"
OK, maybe that's a bit strong, but you gotta admit this is great stuff...
"One observer likens the Bush economy to the guy who maxed his credit cards, pawned his property, and mortgaged his house and now has "a big wad of walking around money." It is amazing that we haven’t seen more in the media about the financial mess we are in. An unnecessary mess, one created by the very Republican Party once known as conservative, meaning among other things, "restrained in style," "moderate," "cautious."
The mess, in simple terms, is reflected in the fact that Merrill Lynch recently initiated a new monthly report entitled "The Overseas-Funding-of-America Report." The November 27th issue states "It is amazing how many investors still have no idea that America today is more dependent on the rest of the world for capital than at any time in the past fifty years. The US is running a record current account deficit of the order of 5% of GDP and this has to be funded by saving from the rest of the world." Concern about the state of the United States economy has significantly increased during the George W. Bush era, and replacement of Treasury secretaries has done little to reassure serious observers or participants.
A swaggering cowboy with wads of cash eager to buy his friends another couple of rounds doesn’t fit with my image of conservative. Or Webster’s. Things do change. But Republicans today, whether due to party loyalty or really low collective self-esteem, seem afraid to stand up and call out the federal sins of greed, gluttony and sloth.
Domestically, these three sins continue to be embraced lovingly by President Bush and the Republican Congress. This unseemly festival has created a major personal and philosophical challenge for individual Republicans, as they consider the ramifications of another George W. Bush presidency."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski58.html
"One observer likens the Bush economy to the guy who maxed his credit cards, pawned his property, and mortgaged his house and now has "a big wad of walking around money." It is amazing that we haven’t seen more in the media about the financial mess we are in. An unnecessary mess, one created by the very Republican Party once known as conservative, meaning among other things, "restrained in style," "moderate," "cautious."
The mess, in simple terms, is reflected in the fact that Merrill Lynch recently initiated a new monthly report entitled "The Overseas-Funding-of-America Report." The November 27th issue states "It is amazing how many investors still have no idea that America today is more dependent on the rest of the world for capital than at any time in the past fifty years. The US is running a record current account deficit of the order of 5% of GDP and this has to be funded by saving from the rest of the world." Concern about the state of the United States economy has significantly increased during the George W. Bush era, and replacement of Treasury secretaries has done little to reassure serious observers or participants.
A swaggering cowboy with wads of cash eager to buy his friends another couple of rounds doesn’t fit with my image of conservative. Or Webster’s. Things do change. But Republicans today, whether due to party loyalty or really low collective self-esteem, seem afraid to stand up and call out the federal sins of greed, gluttony and sloth.
Domestically, these three sins continue to be embraced lovingly by President Bush and the Republican Congress. This unseemly festival has created a major personal and philosophical challenge for individual Republicans, as they consider the ramifications of another George W. Bush presidency."
http://www.lewrockwell.com/kwiatkowski/kwiatkowski58.html
Stratfor: Tenet shoulda fallen on his sword
They don't blame W for pre-911, just for not cleaning house afterwards...
"There are two charges that can be legitimately leveled against
George W. Bush. The first is that, in spite of knowing that the
Clinton policy on Iraq was ineffective, he neither ended the
containment of Hussein nor moved to destroy him. Bush carried on
Clinton's policies unchanged. The second charge is that Bush did
not increase the level of effort taken to destroy al Qaeda, but
essentially followed the Clinton administration's policy of
watching and hoping for a low-risk, low-cost moment to act -- a
moment that Osama bin Laden was too smart to give them.
In our view, the most serious charge that can be made against
Bush is not that he continued -- unchanged -- key Clinton
policies before Sept. 11, but that he did not drastically reshape
his administration for war after Sept. 11. He left in place the
man who was responsible for the failure to understand, locate and
destroy al Qaeda under President Bill Clinton and inexplicably
left him and others in place, even after his failures became
manifest on -- and after -- Sept. 11.
This was, in our view, a serious error in judgment. It may be an
unforgivable one. But to hold Bush's eight months in office as
having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence than
Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the Carter and
Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging militant
Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning."
"There are two charges that can be legitimately leveled against
George W. Bush. The first is that, in spite of knowing that the
Clinton policy on Iraq was ineffective, he neither ended the
containment of Hussein nor moved to destroy him. Bush carried on
Clinton's policies unchanged. The second charge is that Bush did
not increase the level of effort taken to destroy al Qaeda, but
essentially followed the Clinton administration's policy of
watching and hoping for a low-risk, low-cost moment to act -- a
moment that Osama bin Laden was too smart to give them.
In our view, the most serious charge that can be made against
Bush is not that he continued -- unchanged -- key Clinton
policies before Sept. 11, but that he did not drastically reshape
his administration for war after Sept. 11. He left in place the
man who was responsible for the failure to understand, locate and
destroy al Qaeda under President Bill Clinton and inexplicably
left him and others in place, even after his failures became
manifest on -- and after -- Sept. 11.
This was, in our view, a serious error in judgment. It may be an
unforgivable one. But to hold Bush's eight months in office as
having been more responsible for al Qaeda's emergence than
Clinton's eight years in office -- not to mention the Carter and
Reagan administrations' responsibility for encouraging militant
Islam -- strikes us as strange reasoning."
Friday, April 09, 2004
It's not time to leave, but it's about time we set a time to leave
We need to set a date for our departure (preferably after the current unpleasantness settles down) and put that silent majority of decent Iraqis on notice that we're about done doing the heavy lifting for them. We'll happily train and equip whoever volunteers in the interim. They can either stand up and defend their freedom or go back to being oppressed by another bunch of thugs.
...hey! ugotta problem widdat?
...hey! ugotta problem widdat?
Rice vs Clarke Testimony --poll shows GOP closed ranks
and closed minds...
Rice Testimony: "Republicans, by a 70% to 12% margin, have a favorable opinion of Rice. Democrats are evenly divided, with 35% holding a favorable opinion and 37% an unfavorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either major party have a generally positive view of Rice--44% favorable, 26% unfavorable.
As for Clarke, Democrats are divided--36% have a favorable opinion of him and 28% hold an unfavorable view. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Clarke while just 10% have a favorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either party hold views similar to Democrats--37% favorable, 28% unfavorable."
Democrats are as open minded as independents, at least on this critical matter
Rice Testimony: "Republicans, by a 70% to 12% margin, have a favorable opinion of Rice. Democrats are evenly divided, with 35% holding a favorable opinion and 37% an unfavorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either major party have a generally positive view of Rice--44% favorable, 26% unfavorable.
As for Clarke, Democrats are divided--36% have a favorable opinion of him and 28% hold an unfavorable view. Sixty-five percent (65%) of Republicans have an unfavorable opinion of Clarke while just 10% have a favorable opinion. Those not affiliated with either party hold views similar to Democrats--37% favorable, 28% unfavorable."
Democrats are as open minded as independents, at least on this critical matter
Thursday, April 08, 2004
Amazing what a couple dozen body bags will do to invertebrates
CalPundit notes
"Conservatives are starting to jump ship:
The war has become the long slog that some Republicans feared. Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.
...."How do you know, come June 30, that a civil war will not occur?" [Senator Richard] Lugar said on Voice of America radio. "After all, the coalition has not disarmed all of these militia that these religious groups have in various places. They still are armed and apparently ready to fight."
Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."
...."I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O’Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator repeatedly called the current conflict a "second war in Iraq."
....[Joe] Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."
....Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told CNN Tuesday that the Bush administration has "few good options" left regarding Iraq. The implication: the White House has dug a ditch that it possibly cannot get out of without getting its hands dirty.
I agree with Hagel: I frankly don't see what we can do at this point. War supporters can cover their ears and chant "electric grid" all day long, but it won't change the reality on the ground. If we back off, we're doomed, and if we start blowing up mosques right and left we're also doomed. Either way Iraq becomes the West Bank except with a lot more people and plenty of porous borders.
And despite the ineffectual protests from the antiwar crowd, George Bush has planned the entire Iraq war from beginning to end and has gotten everything from Congress he's asked for. If it had worked out he would have gotten all the credit, but now that it's going to hell there's no one else to blame.
Although I have a funny feeling that won't keep his supporters from trying.
POSTSCRIPT: It's all such a damn shame, it really is. I honestly don't know if anyone could have made it work, but it was Bush's Pollyanna view toward the postwar rebuilding that turned me against the war in the first place, and it's become more obvious with every passing month that this was indeed his Achilles' heel."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
"Conservatives are starting to jump ship:
The war has become the long slog that some Republicans feared. Since Sunday, 32 Americans have been killed in fighting across Iraq. American body bags are on the front page of major U.S. newspapers.
...."How do you know, come June 30, that a civil war will not occur?" [Senator Richard] Lugar said on Voice of America radio. "After all, the coalition has not disarmed all of these militia that these religious groups have in various places. They still are armed and apparently ready to fight."
Usually loyal pundits are speaking out, too. Conservative columnist George Will wrote in The Washington Post on Wednesday, "U.S. forces in Iraq are insufficient."
...."I'm not buying this 'Iraqis are on the American side' right now," Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly said on the Tuesday night broadcast of "The O’Reilly Factor." The leading conservative commentator repeatedly called the current conflict a "second war in Iraq."
....[Joe] Scarborough: "Do we need more troops in Iraq? Hell, yes, we do. ... Should June 30 handover date to the Iraqis be extended? You can bet your life on it ... because creating this false deadline in time for a presidential election is no way to win a war."
....Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel of Nebraska told CNN Tuesday that the Bush administration has "few good options" left regarding Iraq. The implication: the White House has dug a ditch that it possibly cannot get out of without getting its hands dirty.
I agree with Hagel: I frankly don't see what we can do at this point. War supporters can cover their ears and chant "electric grid" all day long, but it won't change the reality on the ground. If we back off, we're doomed, and if we start blowing up mosques right and left we're also doomed. Either way Iraq becomes the West Bank except with a lot more people and plenty of porous borders.
And despite the ineffectual protests from the antiwar crowd, George Bush has planned the entire Iraq war from beginning to end and has gotten everything from Congress he's asked for. If it had worked out he would have gotten all the credit, but now that it's going to hell there's no one else to blame.
Although I have a funny feeling that won't keep his supporters from trying.
POSTSCRIPT: It's all such a damn shame, it really is. I honestly don't know if anyone could have made it work, but it was Bush's Pollyanna view toward the postwar rebuilding that turned me against the war in the first place, and it's become more obvious with every passing month that this was indeed his Achilles' heel."
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/
Wednesday, April 07, 2004
looking for a smoking gun?
First I've heard of this, looking for corroboration ...
A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar
Part 1: 'Independent' commission
If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.
In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.
A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.
Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.
In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.
Get Osama bin Laden
On August 22, 2001, Asia Times Online reported Get Osama! Now! Or else ...
On September 9, the legendary "Lion of the Panjshir", Ahmed Shah Masoud, the key Northern Alliance commander, was assassinated by two suicide bombers posing as journalists in his base in northern Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance tells Washington that the ISI may be involved. Masoud himself had told this correspondent, two weeks before he was killed, of the incestuous link between bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI. A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, with heavy involvement by Abdul Sayyaf, an Afghan mujahideen commander very close to the ISI and the Saudis. From Washington's perspective, this was also a gift. Masoud was the crucial Afghan nationalist leader, supported by Russia and Iran; after the Taliban being smashed he would never have accepted a feeble, US-sponsored, Hamid Karzai-style government.
On September 10, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the Mahmoud visit to the United States "triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council". If he'd been to the National Security Council, he had certainly met Rice. Mahmoud did meet with his counterpart, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet. Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had been in Islamabad in May, when Tenet had "unusually long" meetings with Musharraf. Armitage for his part has countless friends in the Pakistani military and the ISI. Mahmoud also met a number of high officials at the White House and the Pentagon and had a crucial meeting with Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs. Rice maintains she did not meet Mahmoud then.
On the morning of September 11, Mahmoud was having a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with Graham and Goss. Goss spent as many as 10 years working on numerous CIA clandestine operations. He is very close to Vice President Dick Cheney. It's interesting to note that two weeks ago Goss suggested to the Justice Department to bring perjury charges against the new Cheney nemesis, Clarke. As it is widely known, Graham and Goss were co-heads of the joint House-Senate investigation that proclaimed there was "no smoking gun" as far as President George W Bush having any advance knowledge of September 11.
According to the Washington Post, and also to sources in Islamabad, the Mahmoud-Graham-Goss meeting lasted until the second plane hit Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. Graham later said they were talking about terrorism coming from Afghanistan, which means they were talking about bin Laden.
Pakistani intelligence sources told Asia Times Online that on the afternoon of September 11 itself, as well as on September 12 and 13, Armitage met with Mahmoud with a stark choice: either Pakistan would help the US against al-Qaeda, or it would be bombed back to the Stone Age. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented an ultimatum in the form of seven US demands. Pakistan accepted all of them. One of the demands was for Musharraf to send Mahmoud to Kandahar again and force the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Mahmoud knew in advance Mullah Omar would refuse. But when he went to Kandahar the Taliban leader said he would accept, as long as the Americans proved bin Laden was responsible for September 11. There was no proof, and Afghanistan was bombed anyway, a policy already decided well in advance.
It's important to remember than on September 13 Islamabad airport was shut down - allegedly because of threats against Pakistan's strategic assets. On September 14, Islamabad declared total support for the US: the airport was immediately reopened. Mahmoud remained in Washington until September 16 - when the war on Afghanistan was more than programmed, and Pakistan was firmly in the "with us" and not the "against us" column.
Million-dollar questions remain. Did Mahmoud know when and how the attacks of September 11 would happen? Did Musharraf know? Could the Bush administration have prevented September 11? It's hard to believe high echelons of the CIA and FBI were not aware of the direct link between the ISI and alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta.
On October 7, Mahmoud was demoted from the ISI. By that time, Washington obviously knew of the connection between Mahmoud, Saeed Sheikh and Mohamed Atta: the FBI knew it. The official version is that Mahmoud was sacrificed because he was too close to the Taliban - which, it is never enough to remind, are a cherished creature of the ISI. Two other ISI big shots, Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz Khan and Chief of General Staff Mohammed Yousouf, are also demoted along with Mahmoud. Saeed Sheikh was under orders to Khan.
The fact remains that even with this Musharraf-conducted purge of the ISI elite, the bulk of ISI officers remained, and still are, pro-Taliban. Other former ISI directors living in Pakistan, such as the colorful, outspoken Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, did not "disappear" and always renew their support for the Taliban. But as Asia Times Online has reported, Mahmoud did disappear. He lives in near seclusion in Rawalpindi. And he is definitely not talking. Graham and Goss may not be interested in talking to him either. Because he may be the ultimate September 11 smoking gun.
Conclusion
The Karl Rove-designed campaign to re-elect Bush is in essence anchored on September 11. The Republican convention in New York will happen in the first week of September. Bush's speech will be on September 2 - to force the connection with the three-year commemoration of September 11.
This whole affair is not about whether Clarke committed "perjury"; whether Rice was really up to her job; or whether George W Bush knew something and then "forgot" about it. The families of September 11 victims, US public opinion, the demonized Islamic world, the whole world for that matter, all everybody wants to know is what really happened on September 11. The only party that does not seem interested in getting to the bottom of it is the Bush administration. The official fable of 19 kamikaze Arabs turning Boeings into missiles with military precision, armed only with box cutters and a few flight lessons and directed from an Afghan cave by a satellite phone-shy bin Laden simply does not hold. The commission is not asking the really hard questions. Here are just a few - and they are far from being the most embarrassing.
1) The "stand down" order: Why, despite more than an hour's warning that an attack was happening, were no F-16s protecting US airspace? Documents easily available online reveal why the Pentagon could not act: because of bureaucracy. Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) claim it took 25 minutes after the transponder was shut down to learn that Flight 11 - which hit World Trade Center Tower 1 - was hijacked? Why did fighters not take off from Andrews Air Force base just outside Washington to protect the Pentagon?
2) The pre-September 11 suspicious stock option trades in American Airlines and United Airlines were never fully investigated. Who profited?
3) What happened to the FBI investigation into flight schools - when it was proved that at least five of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military schools?
4) Why did Bush keep reading a pet-goat story for more than half an hour after the first WTC hit, and 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him there had been an attack?
5) What really happened to Flight 93? An Associated Press story last August quoting a congressional report said the FBI suspected the plane was crashed on purpose. The FBI has a flight-simulation video of what happened: the video - as well as the black box - remain top secret. And as far as four "indestructible" black boxes are concerned, how come none were found, unlike Mohammed Atta's intact passport lying in the WTC rubble?
6) Why have no scientific experts examined the physical and mathematical evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have possibly "disappeared" without a trace after hitting the Pentagon? For the most exhaustive and practically incontrovertible analysis available on the net, see this report.
7) What remains of the very tight 1980s bin Laden-ISI-CIA connection? How much did the CIA know about what the ISI was up to? And how much did the ISI know about what al-Qaeda was up to?
8) What does Rice really know about the very close relations between Mahmoud and the top echelons of the Bush administration?
The genie - the crucial information - is still in the bottle.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
A real smoking gun
By Pepe Escobar
Part 1: 'Independent' commission
If the 9-11 Commission is really looking for a smoking gun, it should look no further than at Lieutenant-General Mahmoud Ahmad, the director of the Pakistani Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI) at the time.
In early October 2001, Indian intelligence learned that Mahmoud had ordered flamboyant Saeed Sheikh - the convicted mastermind of the kidnapping and killing of Wall Street Journal reporter Daniel Pearl - to wire US$100,000 from Dubai to one of hijacker Mohamed Atta's two bank accounts in Florida.
A juicy direct connection was also established between Mahmoud and Republican Congressman Porter Gross and Democratic Senator Bob Graham. They were all in Washington together discussing Osama bin Laden over breakfast when the attacks of September 11, 2001, happened.
Mahmoud's involvement in September 11 might be dismissed as only Indian propaganda. But Indian intelligence swears by it, and the US Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) has confirmed the whole story: Indian intelligence even supplied Saeed's cellular-phone numbers. Nobody has bothered to check what really happened. The 9-11 Commission should pose very specific questions about it to FBI director Robert Mueller when he testifies this month.
In December 2002, Graham said he was "surprised at the evidence that there were foreign governments involved in facilitating the activities of at least some of the [September 11] terrorists in the United States ... It will become public at some point when it's turned over to the archives, but that's 20 or 30 years from now." He could not but be referring to Pakistan and Mahmoud. If Mahmoud was really involved in September 11, this means the Pakistani ISI -"the state within the state" - knew all about it. And if the intelligence elite in Pakistan knew it, an intelligence elite in Saudi Arabia knew it, as well as an intelligence elite in the US.
Get Osama bin Laden
On August 22, 2001, Asia Times Online reported Get Osama! Now! Or else ...
On September 9, the legendary "Lion of the Panjshir", Ahmed Shah Masoud, the key Northern Alliance commander, was assassinated by two suicide bombers posing as journalists in his base in northern Afghanistan. The Northern Alliance tells Washington that the ISI may be involved. Masoud himself had told this correspondent, two weeks before he was killed, of the incestuous link between bin Laden and al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the ISI. A 2002 Asia Times Online investigation would later establish that Masoud was killed as a gift from al-Qaeda to the Taliban, with heavy involvement by Abdul Sayyaf, an Afghan mujahideen commander very close to the ISI and the Saudis. From Washington's perspective, this was also a gift. Masoud was the crucial Afghan nationalist leader, supported by Russia and Iran; after the Taliban being smashed he would never have accepted a feeble, US-sponsored, Hamid Karzai-style government.
On September 10, the Pakistani daily The News reported that the Mahmoud visit to the United States "triggered speculation about the agenda of his mysterious meetings at the Pentagon and National Security Council". If he'd been to the National Security Council, he had certainly met Rice. Mahmoud did meet with his counterpart, Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) director George Tenet. Tenet and Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage had been in Islamabad in May, when Tenet had "unusually long" meetings with Musharraf. Armitage for his part has countless friends in the Pakistani military and the ISI. Mahmoud also met a number of high officials at the White House and the Pentagon and had a crucial meeting with Marc Grossman, the under secretary of state for political affairs. Rice maintains she did not meet Mahmoud then.
On the morning of September 11, Mahmoud was having a breakfast meeting at the Capitol with Graham and Goss. Goss spent as many as 10 years working on numerous CIA clandestine operations. He is very close to Vice President Dick Cheney. It's interesting to note that two weeks ago Goss suggested to the Justice Department to bring perjury charges against the new Cheney nemesis, Clarke. As it is widely known, Graham and Goss were co-heads of the joint House-Senate investigation that proclaimed there was "no smoking gun" as far as President George W Bush having any advance knowledge of September 11.
According to the Washington Post, and also to sources in Islamabad, the Mahmoud-Graham-Goss meeting lasted until the second plane hit Tower 2 of the World Trade Center. Graham later said they were talking about terrorism coming from Afghanistan, which means they were talking about bin Laden.
Pakistani intelligence sources told Asia Times Online that on the afternoon of September 11 itself, as well as on September 12 and 13, Armitage met with Mahmoud with a stark choice: either Pakistan would help the US against al-Qaeda, or it would be bombed back to the Stone Age. Secretary of State Colin Powell presented an ultimatum in the form of seven US demands. Pakistan accepted all of them. One of the demands was for Musharraf to send Mahmoud to Kandahar again and force the Taliban to extradite bin Laden. Mahmoud knew in advance Mullah Omar would refuse. But when he went to Kandahar the Taliban leader said he would accept, as long as the Americans proved bin Laden was responsible for September 11. There was no proof, and Afghanistan was bombed anyway, a policy already decided well in advance.
It's important to remember than on September 13 Islamabad airport was shut down - allegedly because of threats against Pakistan's strategic assets. On September 14, Islamabad declared total support for the US: the airport was immediately reopened. Mahmoud remained in Washington until September 16 - when the war on Afghanistan was more than programmed, and Pakistan was firmly in the "with us" and not the "against us" column.
Million-dollar questions remain. Did Mahmoud know when and how the attacks of September 11 would happen? Did Musharraf know? Could the Bush administration have prevented September 11? It's hard to believe high echelons of the CIA and FBI were not aware of the direct link between the ISI and alleged chief hijacker Mohammed Atta.
On October 7, Mahmoud was demoted from the ISI. By that time, Washington obviously knew of the connection between Mahmoud, Saeed Sheikh and Mohamed Atta: the FBI knew it. The official version is that Mahmoud was sacrificed because he was too close to the Taliban - which, it is never enough to remind, are a cherished creature of the ISI. Two other ISI big shots, Lieutenant-General Mohammed Aziz Khan and Chief of General Staff Mohammed Yousouf, are also demoted along with Mahmoud. Saeed Sheikh was under orders to Khan.
The fact remains that even with this Musharraf-conducted purge of the ISI elite, the bulk of ISI officers remained, and still are, pro-Taliban. Other former ISI directors living in Pakistan, such as the colorful, outspoken Lieutenant-General Hamid Gul, did not "disappear" and always renew their support for the Taliban. But as Asia Times Online has reported, Mahmoud did disappear. He lives in near seclusion in Rawalpindi. And he is definitely not talking. Graham and Goss may not be interested in talking to him either. Because he may be the ultimate September 11 smoking gun.
Conclusion
The Karl Rove-designed campaign to re-elect Bush is in essence anchored on September 11. The Republican convention in New York will happen in the first week of September. Bush's speech will be on September 2 - to force the connection with the three-year commemoration of September 11.
This whole affair is not about whether Clarke committed "perjury"; whether Rice was really up to her job; or whether George W Bush knew something and then "forgot" about it. The families of September 11 victims, US public opinion, the demonized Islamic world, the whole world for that matter, all everybody wants to know is what really happened on September 11. The only party that does not seem interested in getting to the bottom of it is the Bush administration. The official fable of 19 kamikaze Arabs turning Boeings into missiles with military precision, armed only with box cutters and a few flight lessons and directed from an Afghan cave by a satellite phone-shy bin Laden simply does not hold. The commission is not asking the really hard questions. Here are just a few - and they are far from being the most embarrassing.
1) The "stand down" order: Why, despite more than an hour's warning that an attack was happening, were no F-16s protecting US airspace? Documents easily available online reveal why the Pentagon could not act: because of bureaucracy. Why did the North American Aerospace Defense Command (NORAD) claim it took 25 minutes after the transponder was shut down to learn that Flight 11 - which hit World Trade Center Tower 1 - was hijacked? Why did fighters not take off from Andrews Air Force base just outside Washington to protect the Pentagon?
2) The pre-September 11 suspicious stock option trades in American Airlines and United Airlines were never fully investigated. Who profited?
3) What happened to the FBI investigation into flight schools - when it was proved that at least five of the 19 hijackers were trained in US military schools?
4) Why did Bush keep reading a pet-goat story for more than half an hour after the first WTC hit, and 15 minutes after Chief of Staff Andrew Card told him there had been an attack?
5) What really happened to Flight 93? An Associated Press story last August quoting a congressional report said the FBI suspected the plane was crashed on purpose. The FBI has a flight-simulation video of what happened: the video - as well as the black box - remain top secret. And as far as four "indestructible" black boxes are concerned, how come none were found, unlike Mohammed Atta's intact passport lying in the WTC rubble?
6) Why have no scientific experts examined the physical and mathematical evidence that a Boeing 757 could not have possibly "disappeared" without a trace after hitting the Pentagon? For the most exhaustive and practically incontrovertible analysis available on the net, see this report.
7) What remains of the very tight 1980s bin Laden-ISI-CIA connection? How much did the CIA know about what the ISI was up to? And how much did the ISI know about what al-Qaeda was up to?
8) What does Rice really know about the very close relations between Mahmoud and the top echelons of the Bush administration?
The genie - the crucial information - is still in the bottle.
(Copyright 2004 Asia Times Online)
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Front_Page/FD08Aa01.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
It's not quite making them pay for the bullet ...
THE CRADLE OF COMMON LAW: When suspects are convicted of a crime and, after years in prison, are proven to be innocent, how does society repay them for their incarceration? The U.K.'s Home Secretary, David Blunkett, has an idea of what to do: charge the former prisoners for food and board -- at least 3,000 pounds (US$5,430) per year for the prisoners' "saved living expenses" during their time in stir. A spokesman for the Home Office said the concept "takes into account the range of costs the prisoner might have incurred had they not been imprisoned," adding "Morally, this is reasonable and appropriate." It's not a proposal: the government has already sent bills to some freed prisoners. A spokesman for the Scottish Miscarriage of Justice Organisation called the program a way to "punish people for having the audacity to be innocent." (Glasgow Sunday Herald) ...And the world thinks America is contemptible? (This Is True)
...so, who's for resurrecting Debtor's Prison?
...so, who's for resurrecting Debtor's Prison?
Monday, April 05, 2004
The fault lies not among our stars...
"Americans share with the English that conscientious befuddlement, that sanguine, profitable naivete, which has let the English make wars and build empires and plot whole continents like kitchen gardens-all the time ignoring the cost in human terms because they knew that the fellahin and the dukawallahs, and even the homegrown workers and soldiers of their adventure, had sacrificed themselves proudly in a common cause, and not out of poverty or desperation or surrender. England is America’s lesson in an imperial liberalism worn like horse blinkers against the disconcerting truth of why people work and suffer. -- Jane Kramer
...ugotta problem widdat?
...ugotta problem widdat?
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Adventures in Iraq VI -- we HAD a plan
Turns out there WAS planning for post-war Iraq but the folks that brought us the Bad Intel Lab (aka OSP) chose to ignore them and bet the house on Chalabi ...
'The Bush administration planned for the invasion of Iraq, but not for its post-war occupation. That assertion has been repeated so often by the president's critics that it has become a political clichГ©. But it is not correct.
There was plenty of planning for the post-war occupation at senior levels throughout government, says Col. Tom Gross, who was chief planner for Lt. General Jay M. Garner, director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, and then-chief of staff for Ambassador Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator.
'There was a plan,' said Gross, who is retiring from the military. 'The administration chose not to accept it. Their plan was to put [Iraqi exile] Ahmed Chalabi in charge and run with it.'
www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10182
...Fail to plan, plan to fail
'The Bush administration planned for the invasion of Iraq, but not for its post-war occupation. That assertion has been repeated so often by the president's critics that it has become a political clichГ©. But it is not correct.
There was plenty of planning for the post-war occupation at senior levels throughout government, says Col. Tom Gross, who was chief planner for Lt. General Jay M. Garner, director of the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance, and then-chief of staff for Ambassador Paul Bremer, Coalition Provisional Authority administrator.
'There was a plan,' said Gross, who is retiring from the military. 'The administration chose not to accept it. Their plan was to put [Iraqi exile] Ahmed Chalabi in charge and run with it.'
www.tompaine.com/feature2.cfm/ID/10182
...Fail to plan, plan to fail
Saturday, April 03, 2004
These guys have chutzpah
What a howl: Powell goes "we got fooled by bad intel" :
Saturday, April 3, 2004
(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday some of his dramatic testimony to the U.N. Security Council weeks before the Iraq war was based on "flawed sources" and appeared not to be "solid."
... knowing full well they they BUILT the Bad Intel Lab (aka Office of Special Plans) themselves:
"after September 11 terrorist attacks, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith started cooking intelligence to meet the needs of the radically new foreign and military policy that included regime change in Iraq as its top priority.
To bolster the Iraq war party, they needed intelligence that would persuade the U.S. public and policymakers that Saddam Hussein’s regime should be one of the first targets of the war on terrorism. Convinced that the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the State Department would not provide them with type of alarmist threat assessments necessary to justify a preventive war, they created their own tightly controlled intelligence operation at the top levels of the Pentagon bureaucracy.
The day after the September 11 attacks Wolfowitz authorized the creation of an informal team focused on ferreting out damaging intelligence about Iraq. This loosely organized team soon became the Office of Special Plans (OSP)"
rightweb.irc-online.org/govt/osp.php
The real fools are the 49% of red state voters that are bound to vote for these cretins come hell or high water (and lets not mention taxes shall we?)
Saturday, April 3, 2004
(CNN) -- U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell said Friday some of his dramatic testimony to the U.N. Security Council weeks before the Iraq war was based on "flawed sources" and appeared not to be "solid."
... knowing full well they they BUILT the Bad Intel Lab (aka Office of Special Plans) themselves:
"after September 11 terrorist attacks, Paul Wolfowitz and Douglas Feith started cooking intelligence to meet the needs of the radically new foreign and military policy that included regime change in Iraq as its top priority.
To bolster the Iraq war party, they needed intelligence that would persuade the U.S. public and policymakers that Saddam Hussein’s regime should be one of the first targets of the war on terrorism. Convinced that the CIA, Defense Intelligence Agency (DIA), and the State Department would not provide them with type of alarmist threat assessments necessary to justify a preventive war, they created their own tightly controlled intelligence operation at the top levels of the Pentagon bureaucracy.
The day after the September 11 attacks Wolfowitz authorized the creation of an informal team focused on ferreting out damaging intelligence about Iraq. This loosely organized team soon became the Office of Special Plans (OSP)"
rightweb.irc-online.org/govt/osp.php
The real fools are the 49% of red state voters that are bound to vote for these cretins come hell or high water (and lets not mention taxes shall we?)
Friday, April 02, 2004
Quote of the Week
"'All great things have violent beginnings,' [said Jim].
'There aren't any beginnings,' Burton said. 'Nor any
ends. It seems to me that man has engaged in a blind
and fearful struggle out of a past he can't remember,
into a future he can't forsee nor understand. And man
has defeated every obstacle, every enemy except one.
He cannot win over himself.'
-John Steinbeck, 'In Dubious Battle'"
'There aren't any beginnings,' Burton said. 'Nor any
ends. It seems to me that man has engaged in a blind
and fearful struggle out of a past he can't remember,
into a future he can't forsee nor understand. And man
has defeated every obstacle, every enemy except one.
He cannot win over himself.'
-John Steinbeck, 'In Dubious Battle'"
W Withholds Clinton-Era Papers From 9/11 Commission
VOANews.com: "The commission investigating the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks says it wants to know why the Bush administration has withheld documents from the files of former President Bill Clinton.
A lawyer for Mr. Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, says Bush aides have turned over only a quarter of the 11,000 pages that Mr. Clinton was ready to offer the commission. The lawyer says that as a result, the commission may not have a complete picture of the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
A spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, says the panel is negotiating with the White House to determine what documents have been held back and why. He says the White House may have 'good reasons' for its decision."
... Yeah, reasons like "we'll look awfully stupid if we let you compare our counterterrorism approach to theirs."
A lawyer for Mr. Clinton, Bruce Lindsey, says Bush aides have turned over only a quarter of the 11,000 pages that Mr. Clinton was ready to offer the commission. The lawyer says that as a result, the commission may not have a complete picture of the Clinton administration's anti-terrorism efforts.
A spokesman for the commission, Al Felzenberg, says the panel is negotiating with the White House to determine what documents have been held back and why. He says the White House may have 'good reasons' for its decision."
... Yeah, reasons like "we'll look awfully stupid if we let you compare our counterterrorism approach to theirs."
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Meanwhile, back at the touchscreen voting booth
If you listen real close, you can hear 'em typing in there ...
"By now we know that touchscreen voting machines are suspect. They can be tampered with by determined folks, potentially changing an election. And most of them appear to be incapable of supporting effective vote recounts, even if those recounts are mandated by law... ("We know that requirement was always in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), but we talked you out of it, right?") and asking for more money -- lots more money -- to add printers to their touchscreen machines.
BUT!...
Jed Rothwell, fresh from a day working the polls as a voting clerk, writes, "Meg Smothers of the League of Women Voters recently said that Georgia has 28,000 voting machines, and it would cost $15 million to retrofit them with printers to produce receipts. Yet these machines already have printers. They produce a paper receipt at the end of the day showing the vote tallies... The printer and paper are located on the right side of the machine, under a locked metal cover. It would be a simple matter to fabricate a new metal equipment cover with an outlet above the printer, that would print a receipt for the voter. Based on the retail cost of similar metal computer equipment cases available in any computer store, this should cost approximately $30 per machine, not $500. The programming change would be trivial."
To Diebold, of course, no programming change is trivial. How could it be, since they forgot to offer up the services of the printer already inside the voting machines they build?
One receipt per machine is better than nothing. In theory it would allow authorities to find vote tallies that were changed after the receipt was printed (after the polls were closed). But that's if the receipt printer was even used. ... In California the printer output from each machine is supposed to be posted at the polling place for a week. Apparently such posting is the exception, not the norm. The receipt is supposed to be printed BEFORE results are sent electronically to a central counting system. This, too, seems to be rarely done."
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040311.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
"By now we know that touchscreen voting machines are suspect. They can be tampered with by determined folks, potentially changing an election. And most of them appear to be incapable of supporting effective vote recounts, even if those recounts are mandated by law... ("We know that requirement was always in the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), but we talked you out of it, right?") and asking for more money -- lots more money -- to add printers to their touchscreen machines.
BUT!...
Jed Rothwell, fresh from a day working the polls as a voting clerk, writes, "Meg Smothers of the League of Women Voters recently said that Georgia has 28,000 voting machines, and it would cost $15 million to retrofit them with printers to produce receipts. Yet these machines already have printers. They produce a paper receipt at the end of the day showing the vote tallies... The printer and paper are located on the right side of the machine, under a locked metal cover. It would be a simple matter to fabricate a new metal equipment cover with an outlet above the printer, that would print a receipt for the voter. Based on the retail cost of similar metal computer equipment cases available in any computer store, this should cost approximately $30 per machine, not $500. The programming change would be trivial."
To Diebold, of course, no programming change is trivial. How could it be, since they forgot to offer up the services of the printer already inside the voting machines they build?
One receipt per machine is better than nothing. In theory it would allow authorities to find vote tallies that were changed after the receipt was printed (after the polls were closed). But that's if the receipt printer was even used. ... In California the printer output from each machine is supposed to be posted at the polling place for a week. Apparently such posting is the exception, not the norm. The receipt is supposed to be printed BEFORE results are sent electronically to a central counting system. This, too, seems to be rarely done."
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040311.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
You think WHO is gonna win?
The market for election futures rates W over Kerry 51.5-47.6
128.255.244.60/quotes/66.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
128.255.244.60/quotes/66.html
...ugotta problem widdat?
Outsourcing got you down?
Cringely blames VC gutlessness for delaying the next tech boom
"Here is my solution to adding jobs to the jobless recovery, to bringing Silicon Valley back to life, and to taking outsourcing and offshoring off the front page. Next week, Every venture capital firm in America should take five percent of its available funds and invest that money with best deals they’ve all had sitting on their desks for months. It doesn’t matter what the startups are. Give them the darned money, which I calculate to be about $5 billion spread across a thousand new companies. It isn’t tax money, government money, money taken away from education or Medicare. Its just money that was already intended for high-tech investment -- money that probably would have been lost anyway. INVEST IT! Stop trying to pretend you are so smart or that your input and board membership really makes a difference (it doesn’t -- you heard it here first) and write the checks."
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040226.html
"Here is my solution to adding jobs to the jobless recovery, to bringing Silicon Valley back to life, and to taking outsourcing and offshoring off the front page. Next week, Every venture capital firm in America should take five percent of its available funds and invest that money with best deals they’ve all had sitting on their desks for months. It doesn’t matter what the startups are. Give them the darned money, which I calculate to be about $5 billion spread across a thousand new companies. It isn’t tax money, government money, money taken away from education or Medicare. Its just money that was already intended for high-tech investment -- money that probably would have been lost anyway. INVEST IT! Stop trying to pretend you are so smart or that your input and board membership really makes a difference (it doesn’t -- you heard it here first) and write the checks."
www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/pulpit20040226.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)