Critics to Bush Administration:
"You got to change your evil ways...
baby..
before they stop lovin' you....
Oh, wait...
they never loved you to begin with..
Whoa, dudes, like...
you've really got to change."
Who's Sordid Now?
By Paul Krugman
NY Times
Published: September 30, 2003
".....the cost of the occupation is exploding, and military experts warn that our army is dangerously overcommitted. Yet officials are still allowing Iraqi reconstruction to languish, and the disaffection of the Iraqi public to grow, while they steer choice contracts to their friends. What makes you think they will ever change their ways?"
From Eschaton blog: "Who Burned Valerie Plame?"
"Pass the popcorn and get out the handcuffs. This is going to be fun."
Atrios
Paradise Gained?
Robert Kagan explores the widening gap between the United States and Europe
By Matthew Guarnieri and John H. Jernigan
Harvard Political Review OnLine
"It is time to stop pretending that Europeans and Americans share a common view of the world, or even that they occupy the same world."
Robert Kagan
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Do you believe the Europeans have been able to develop a utopian world view, (at least one that does not require them to exercise power abroad), only because America has been protecting them from the "dangers of the real world" for so long? This is the way Neo-Conservative Robert Kagan thinks. His views deserve a good thorough reading, in my opinion. We cannot make judgements until we understand howthe Neocon mind works, can we?
From the book:
"The United States, in short, solved the Kantian paradox for the Europeans. Kant had argued that the only solution to the immoral horrors of the Hobbesian world was the creation of a world government. But he also feared that the "state of universal peace" made possible by world government would be an even greater threat to human freedom than the Hobbesian international order, inasmuch as such a government, with its monopoly of power, would become "the most horrible despotism." How nations could achieve perpetual peace without destroying human freedom was a problem Kant could not solve. But for Europe the problem was solved by the United States. By providing security from outside, the United States has rendered it unnecessary for Europe's supranational government to provide it. Europeans did not need power to achieve peace and they do not need power to preserve it.
The current situation abounds in ironies. Europe's rejection of power politics, its devaluing of military force as a tool of international relations, have depended on the presence of American military forces on European soil. Europe's new Kantian order could flourish only under the umbrella of American power exercised according to the rules of the old Hobbesian order. American power made it possible for Europeans to believe that power was no longer important. And now, in the final irony, the fact that United States military power has solved the European problem, especially the "German problem," allows Europeans today to believe that American military power, and the "strategic culture" that has created and sustained it, are outmoded and dangerous.
Most Europeans do not see the great paradox: that their passage into post-history has depended on the United States not making the same passage. Because Europe has neither the will nor the ability to guard its own paradise and keep it from being overrun, spiritually as well as physically, by a world that has yet to accept the rule of "moral consciousness," it has become dependent on America's willingness to use its military might to deter or defeat those around the world who still believe in power politics."
Situation Excellent, I Am Attacking
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 24 September 2003
"That's the spirit, George. If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through."
-- General Sir Anthony Cecil Hogmanay Melchett, 'Blackadder Goes Forth'
There is not enough grammar in the entirety of the English language to describe the incredible international humiliation that has befallen the United States of America. That this humiliation was brought down upon the American people by the man supposedly in charge of the country is, in all honesty, no big surprise for those who have been watching this all unfold. The layers of crushing embarrassment have been building like river sediment for months upon months upon months. On Tuesday, however, George W. Bush managed to completely obliterate the hard-won standing the United States has earned within the global community.
Never mind that the Iraqi seat was filled at the United Nations by none other than the crawling kingsnake himself, Ahmad Chalabi. Chalabi has been cheerleading for war in Iraq for years, and became a boon companion of Donald Rumsfeld and the other neocon hawks who cobbled the war together with a tapestry of lies and fear-mongering. He was, in fact, Rumsfeld's hand-picked leader-in-waiting of Iraq as early as 1997. Chalabi was convicted of 32 counts of bank fraud and sentenced to 22 years imprisonment by a Jordanian court in 1992, and yet this hand-picked sock puppet was George W. Bush's chosen exemplar of a free and democratic Iraq. If you want to know one big reason why the mainstream media reported so long and so erroneously about Iraq's weapons capabilities, look to Chalabi, who was the main source for New York Times reporter Judy Miller's horribly inaccurate reporting on the matter. Where the Times goes, the others will follow. Thank you, Ahmad. I hope the chair is comfortable. You are no more deserving of its accommodation than the vile people who occupied it before you.
Never mind that the entire United Nations may as well not have shown up in the first place. The pitch and tenor of Bush's speech was not aimed at that body. It was directed at the mainstream American media, whose reporting on these matters has been about as sharp as a sack of wet mice. Yet even to that tone-deaf receiver, Bush failed to complete the pass. He meandered off into a free-association rant about sex slaves, somehow forgetting that his own citizens were waiting to hear how he was going to get them out of the mess he so brazenly threw them in to. Certainly, the matter of international slavery in the 21st century is of deadly importance, but what connection it has to the blood-and-guts catastrophe unfolding in the Middle East is still hovering somewhere in space.
Never mind that in the first ten words of his speech, George W. Bush once again tried to connect the nation of Iraq to the attacks of September 11th. He failed to explain how a nation under near-total occupation before the war, crushed by sanctions, devoid of weapons of any merit whatsoever, unable to even launch a fighter aircraft in its own airspace, and completely lacking in any connections to Osama bin Laden or al Qaeda, could have managed to challenge the most powerful nation on the face of the earth. These are mere details. Bush chose instead to hew close to the bones of our beloved dead, to use them again as an excuse and as cover for his terrible mistakes, lies and mismanagement. The Iraq-9/11 connection has been so thoroughly debunked that Bush himself was forced recently to publicly denounce it, while claiming shock that anyone would think he'd try to make such a connection. Yet there he stood before the judgment of the world, coughing up the same old hairball on their carpet.
Never mind the rank absurdity of it all. There is an old story of a French officer who, when thrown into an impossible battle, sent a communiqué to his commanders: "Hard pressed on my right. My center is yielding. Impossible to maneuver. Situation excellent, I am attacking!" That sad chestnut was on display before the United Nations on Tuesday, with George W. Bush and the United States of America standing in for the officer. Bush was at the United Nations for one reason: He got his country into terrible trouble, in defiance of virtually the entire international community, and was forced to come begging for help. An ounce of contrition would have furthered the cause of actually helping to repair the devastation in Iraq. An ounce of contrition would have shown America to be the humble nation Bush promised us way back in 2000. An ounce of contrition would almost certainly have motivated the U.N. to leave aside wrangling, roll up its sleeves, and begin to repair the damage that has been done. That ounce was not offered, and the jut-jawed whipsaw President barefaced his way through what could have been the most hopeful moment the Iraqi people have seen in 100 years. Situation excellent, I am attacking.
Never mind the 26,000 liters of anthrax, the 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin, the 500 tons of sarin and mustard gas and VX gas, the 30,000 munitions capable of deploying this red death, the mobile biological weapons labs, and the infamous 'yellow-cake' uranium from Niger, that has so fantastically failed to materialize. All of this is sitting on a White House web page called 'Disarm Saddam Hussein.' This was the argument, the reason for war. None of it exists in any coherent state. The administration's own hired-gun weapons inspector, Dr. David Kay, has been tearing through Iraq to find all of these horrors promised by Bush and the gang. His report, saying pointedly that the stuff isn't there, was ready to be released on September 15th, but was promptly buried by the administration.
Never mind all that. It comes down to this.
Over the last 227 years, the United States of America went from a brawling, rebellious infant to the greatest democracy in the universe. This nation spent oceans of blood, sweat and tears to earn the respect of the world. Too often, it abused that respect by abusing the world, but always managed to regain its standing within the global community by the sheer force of its goodness, its ideals, and its willingness to help other nations in need. When the attacks of September 11th came, that global community responded to our essential goodness by embracing us with a passionate ferocity that has no precedent in the annals of human history. That standing is dust now, ground under the heels of a pack of ideological extremists who would wrap the world in flames if it profited them a few more ducats. The world sees this, and has seen it for some time now. The United Nations was used on Tuesday as a prop for a failing President's Fox newsbite writ large. It is a shame and a scandal and a disaster beyond description that this great nation has fallen so very low.
A moment will come on January 20th, 2005. It will be cold in Washington D.C. A man who is not George W. Bush will raise his hand and swear and oath to preserve, protect and defend the United States of America. The words "So help me God" will be snatched by the wind and carried across seas and mountains to the furthest corners of the planet. When that happens, all of the Earth will be joined together in the deepest and most profound exhalation of relief. When that happens, George W. Bush will have become in his absence what he completely failed to be with his presence: A uniter.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Rivers Pitt is the Managing Editor of truthout.org. He is a New York Times and international best-selling author of three books - "War On Iraq," available from Context Books, "The Greatest Sedition is Silence," available from Pluto Press, and "Our Flag, Too: The Paradox of Patriotism," available in August from Context Books.
If Cheney didn't know Joe Wilson
a couple of Sundays ago, He's Going to Know Him NOW!
CIA seeks probe of White House
Agency asks Justice to investigate leak of employee’s identity
See Josh Marshall's astute commentary at his website.
If John Ashcroft doesn't see this through, there is no CIA agent who will ever feel safe working for the vindictive Bush administration again.
~~~~~~~~
See Iddybud's blog from July 27: http://iddybud.blogspot.com/2003_07_27_iddybud_archive.html#105969918879522636
~~~~~~~~
SEE RELATED BUZZFLASH EDITORIAL
Left-Handed Compliments-
Can Progressives Love a Military Man?
Richard Goldstein / Village Voice
September 24 - 30, 2003
DON'T MISS THIS ARTICLE.
"We have to do whatever we can to get rid of Bush.
I would vote for Zilla the Gorilla" in order to accomplish that. ..."
Rita Haley, president of the New York City chapter of the National Organization for Women
Bush lies contributed to death of Jesus, says father
From Guardian UK:
"...The father of a soldier killed in Iraq accused President George Bush yesterday of being responsible for his son's death. Fernando Suarez, whose 20-year-old son, Jesus, was one of the first fatalities, said: "My son died because Bush lied."
~ ~ ~
"....In another sign of the growing protest movement, the father of two soldiers serving in Iraq used a full page advertisement in yesterday's New York Times to demand the sacking of the US defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld.
The ad accused President Bush and his administration of misleading the public about weapons of mass destruction."
View ad in pdf
From TomPaine.com:
A Nation With Questions
by Robert C. Byrd-
Democratic Senator from West Virginia.
The Senate Appropriations Committee opened hearings into the President's request for $87 billion for the military and for Iraqi reconstruction on September 22, 2003. Senator Byrd, the lead Democrat on the committee, made this opening statement.
"Have we not learned the lessons of our own past?"
Sen Robert Byrd
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Also from TomPaine.com:
A New Moment For Progressives
by John Podesta
-The body of a memo sent to "Leaders of the Progressive Community" on Sept. 22, 2003.-
"..One would think that confronted with an $8 trillion turnaround and a request for an additional $87 billion for Iraq, the Administration would, in the interest of the country, change its path and reconsider its failed economic policy, especially its top rate tax cuts, which are helping send the federal deficit out of control..."
"..At the center of the progressive response are three issues, now symbolically powerful, that give progressives the force to define the future debate -- the Iraq request, the jobless recovery, and exploding deficits.."
"..This is a moment for progressives to pose bold alternatives consistent with the need for leadership, responsibility and the right priorities..."
The Other Lies of George Bush
by David Corn
An article adapted from the new book, "The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception"
(Crown Publishers).
"..George W. Bush is a liar.
He has lied large and small, directly and by omission.
His Iraq lies have loomed largest..."
"..Throughout his campaign for the presidency and his years in the White House, Bush has mugged the truth in many other areas to advance his agenda..."
"..While politicians are often derided as liars, this charge should be particularly stinging for Bush..."
"..This country has a lot to deal with. Lies from the White House poison the debates that must occur if Americans are going to confront and overcome the challenges of this century at home and abroad...Presidential lying, in fact, threatens the country. To render informed and wise choices about the crucial and complicated controversies of the day, people need truthful information... "
"..The future of the United States remains in the hands of a dishonest man."
The long version:
"Bangladesh, Though Friendly to United States,
Remains Firmly Against Sending
Peacekeepers to Iraq"
The short version:
"Sorry, Charlie"
"....the government [of Bangladesh] fears it would lose public support if it were to send peacekeepers to Iraq, political scientist Badruddin Umar said.
Bangladeshis will not "approve sending our troops to Iraq under the present circumstances," Umar said."
Howard Dean to America: "Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz Must Go"
".....For officials at the highest levels of this Administration to exploit the emotions of the American people regarding the attacks of September 11 to achieve their political objectives is unacceptable....."
".....Americans are contemplating the President’s request for $87 billion -- and wondering why they are being stuck with the bill. They are asking why they will be asked to sacrifice so much to pay it, while the wealthiest in our society continue to reap the benefits of the President’s tax cuts...."
".....our soldiers continue to fight the fight virtually alone because this Administration has damaged our relationships with our friends and allies to such a degree that most are not willing to commit meaningful numbers of troops or financial contributions to what they view as America’s misadventure. The President’s speech before the United Nations did nothing but perpetuate his foreign policy of petulance...."
"....To succeed, we will need the assistance of our allies and the international institutions that this Administration has so recklessly alienated. To rebuild those relationships, credibility must be restored to every aspect of the operation.
Until we have new leadership at the Department of Defense, that credibility will be nearly impossible to achieve. Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz must go."
Bush at U.N.: Simplistic 'us vs. them' speech skirts
question: Why do they fight?
September 26, 2003
By John Adams
Commentary in Syracuse Post Standard
It is not surprising that the president found few friends at the United Nations. President Bush's speech missed the mark - its "us versus them" rhetoric of division and confrontation is too simplistic to win adherents who are not already in accord with his vision.
The president's use of the rhetoric ofpolarization positions us against "them" without stopping to consider what it is that drives people to terror - to suicide, to apparently diabolical acts of violence against other human beings.
His rhetoric creates a divide that sets out to eliminate the middle ground where negotiation, dialogue or further conversation can take place.
Somebody needs to ask the terrorists what they want. Do we know what they want? Does anybody know what they want?
By asking their apparent leaders this question and listening to their answers, we may at least be reminded of what they're fighting for so we may better understand what we're fighting for.
I challenge President Bush to ask the terrorists the "what" questions. These questions need not be seen as the opening gambit in a spin toward appeasement, but as an attempt to get the terrorists to elaborate their visions of the better world their acts of terror seek to create - the good they hope to accomplish.
What good can possibly come of terrorism? I, for one, want to know their answer.
John Adams, a visiting professor of rhetoric and communications at Hamilton College, spent 10 years as a professor at Syracuse University and also taught at Empire State College.
Copyright 2003 Syracuse Post Standard
The Matrix of Ignorance--
Unplugging the Sixty-Nine Percent
By Gary Leupp
".....Two years after 9-11, 69% of Americans surveyed said they believed that it was at least likely that Saddam Hussein was involved in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon.
I shouldn't be surprised. National Geographic reports that 85% of young Americans (18-24) cannot identify Iraq, Afghanistan or Israel on an unmarked map. 56% cannot find the Indian subcontinent, dangling there so conspicuously into none other than the Indian Ocean. Only 19% can name four countries that acknowledge having nuclear weapons. Fortunately, a whopping 70% can identify the Pacific Ocean, but that's probably just because it's the biggest thing on the planet....."
"....These numbers are not just embarrassing but dangerous, because in such a sea of ignorance swim Bush's neocons, buoyed by it, empowered by it to send U.S. troops to their deaths in a war to conquer and occupy a nation that had nothing to do with 9-11.....But the only way to maintain adequate domestic support for the ongoing war in Iraq is to promote that fiction, which means to deliberately and cynically exploit ignorance...."
Edward Said Obituary
"No one today is purely one thing. Labels like Indian, or woman, or Muslim, or American are no more than starting points, which if followed into actual experience for one moment are quickly left behind."
E Said
Edward Wadie Said, writer and academic, born November 1 1935;
died September 25 2003.
~~~~~~~~~
See: My Friend Edward
by Christopher Hitchens
Guardian
Dr. David Kelly: Laying the blame...
Richard Norton-Taylor, Ewen MacAskill and Vikram Dodd
Friday September 26, 2003
The Guardian UK
".....David Kelly's family delivered an excoriating attack on the government's treatment of the dead weapons expert yesterday, accusing it of duplicity and "a cynical abuse of power" which deserved "the strongest possible condemnation"...."
"...In his final submission to the inquiry, Jeremy Gompertz QC, counsel for the Kelly family, accused the government of making a "deliberate decision to use Dr Kelly as part of its strategy in its battle with the BBC". ....."
~~~~~~~~~~~~
See: The last desperate days of Dr David Kelly
Madison Capital Times Editorial:
Does Bush hate himself?
September 25, 2003
On the eve of George W. Bush's appearance before the United Nations, Republican National Committee Chairman Ed Gillespie found it necessary to attack the president's critics for engaging in what Gillespie called "political hate speech." He seemed in particular to be agitated by Democrat Howard Dean, who has not hesitated to say that Bush bungled both diplomatically and strategically in his rush to war with Iraq.
The problem with Gillespie's attack on Dean and other Democrats is that it came right before Bush finally took a little bit of their advice. If there has been one core theme of Dean's campaign, for instance, it has been that Bush needs to steer the United States back into a working relationship with the United Nations and traditional allies such as France and Germany.
Now that the Iraq invasion has "quagmire" written all over it, the president is making some tentative steps in the direction the Democrats have encouraged for months. In fact, some of the messages that Bush is now sending echo statements that, when Dean and others made them earlier, Gillespie and the Bush acolytes condemned as "naive" or even "unpatriotic."
This brings us to our question for Ed Gillespie: When President Bush says what Democrats have been saying all along, is he too engaging in political hate speech? Or is the president simply acknowledging a reality that has not yet dawned on Gillespie?
Copyright Madison Capitol Times 2003
US tried to plant WMDs, failed: Whistleblower
Daily Times Monitor
Friday, September 26, 2003
"According to a stunning report posted by a retired Navy Lt Commander and 28-year veteran of the Defense Department (DoD), the Bush administration’s assurance about finding weapons of mass destruction in Iraq was based on a Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) plan to “plant” WMDs inside the country. Nelda Rogers, the Pentagon whistleblower, claims the plan failed when the secret mission was mistakenly taken out by “friendly fire”, the Environmentalists Against War report....."
Iraq: Invasion That Will Live in Infamy
by Noam Chomsky
Dissident Voice
August 12, 2003
"....A reluctant US population had to be whipped to a proper mood of war fever. From September {2002} grim warnings were issued about the dire threat that Saddam posed to the US and his links to al-Qaida, with broad hints that he had been involved in the 9/11 attacks. Many of the charges that had been "dangled in front of [the media] failed the laugh test," commented the editor of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, "but the more ridiculous [they were,] the more the media strove to make whole-hearted swallowing of them a test of patriotism." The propaganda assault had its effects. Within weeks, a majority of Americans came to regard Saddam Hussein as an imminent threat to the US. Soon almost half believed that Iraq was behind the 9/11 terror. Support for the war correlated with these beliefs. The propaganda campaign was just enough to give the administration a bare majority in the mid-term elections, as voters put aside their immediate concerns and huddled under the umbrella of power in fear of a demonic enemy..."
BBC News: No WMD in Iraq, source claims
"The bottom line is that the team has found no weapons of mass destruction."
Andrew Neil
~~~~~~~~~~
US report to be inconclusive on search for Iraqi weapons
By Walter Pincus and Dana Priest, Washington Post, 9/25/2003
"....The weapons inspector, David Kay, is expected to present his report to Congress late next week -- an event that senior US officials had just weeks ago pointed to as providing a possible vindication for the administration's prewar claims that Iraq had stockpiles of chemical and biological weapons and had restarted its efforts to build a nuclear bomb.
But officials yesterday sought to play
d
o
w
n
expectations that Kay's report will contain any major revelations.
HEAR THAT??? NO WMDS!!!!!!!
From the Seattle Times:
A fly on the Oval Office wall
By Chuck Sigars
Karl Rove walks into the Oval Office.
"Good morning, Mr. President."
"Hey, Karly boy, what's shakin' besides you?"
Rove laughs politely. "The thing is, sir, I've been looking at some... uh, Mr. President?"
"Shoot, Rover. Let me have it."
"Sir, you're wearing the flight suit again."
"Glad to see you still got that 20/20, KV. You gotta problem with my wardrobe?"
"Uh, no, sir, it's just that — "
"I'm commander in chief, right?"
"Yes, sir, but — "
"I flew jets in the Air Force, didn't I?"
"Um, Air National Guard, yes, sir, not to nit — "
"I can wear whatever I want, can't I?"
"Of course, Mr. President, it's just that it's the fourth time this week, and — "
The president snaps his fingers. "Dang it, Karlito, don't knock it until you've tried it. Most comfortable clothes I've ever had. Thinking of ordering one for Jeb."
Rove sighs. "Anyway, sir, it's about the campaign."
"Is that today?"
"No, sir, I mean the 2004 campaign. Wesley Clark has just entered the race, and it's got me a little worried."
"I thought it was that Jimmy Dean guy from New Hampshire you were fretting about."
"Howard Dean, yes, sir, he's still ahead in the polls, but our internal numbers show that Clark outpolls everybody on the credibility question."
The president raises an eyebrow. "Even me?"
"We haven't run those numbers yet, but let me say, sir, that the American people find you very credible. Very credible indeed. It's just that Clark is sort of impressive. Rhodes scholar, first in his class at West Point — "
"What the hell did he go to West Point for?"
Rove clears his throat. "To, uh, be a soldier, Mr. President. Wesley Clark is a retired Army general."
"You telling me a general in the United States Army is a Democrat?"
"It surprised us, too, sir."
"Boy howdy." The president is silent for a few moments. "What kind of record does he have?"
"Well, sir, he was commander of our forces in Kosovo. And he was a commentator at CNN during the war."
"Iraq?" Rove nods. "For or agin?"
"Well, sir, he did raise some questions — "
"Dang, Karly, what are you worried about, son? Don't you know the American people were behind my war 110 percent? Haven't I fixed the economy and given the people their money back? Didn't I wipe the Taliban and Saddam off the face of the Earth and get revenge for 9-11? Lord, you need to relax."
"Um, those are all good points, sir, very good. It's just that the American public generally views Republicans as more trustworthy than Democrats when it comes to national security and military issues."
"Damn straight. What's your point?"
"Well, sir, it's early yet, but it might be a hard case to make that a four-star general is soft on defense. At least that's our thinking."
The president sits up straight. "Listen, Karlsbad. How many elections have I lost, huh? Answer me. How many elections have I lost?"
"Well, sir, if you count — "
"Presidential elections, Rover! How many dang presidential elections have I lost?"
Karl takes a deep breath. "Well, sir, in my opinion, none."
"Damn straight. I beat Clinton and I'll whup this Army dude or John Dean or whoever." The president stands up and walks to the window. "Karlos, the Lord led me here. You believe that, right?"
"Sir — "
"He's got his hand on my shoulder and a job for me to do. I have faith, K-man, faith with a capital 'F,' and you know I don't use the F-word lightly."
"No, sir."
He goes over and puts his arm around Rove. "What kind of name is Wesley, anyway? That sound like a presidential name to you? Sounds sort of like a sissy. Trust me, we know how to deal with sissies in Texas. Now y'all go crunch some numbers or whatever the hell you do and leave it to me, hear?"
Rove swallows hard, nods, and heads for the door. As he leaves, Donald Rumsfeld enters.
"Good morning, Mr. President."
"Rummy! How's the world?"
"Right on schedule, sir. By the way, great suit."
"Damn straight."
Chuck Sigars is a freelance writer living in Snohomish County
Copyright 2003 Seattle Times
William Safire Questions Clinton Motives in Backing Clark
Re: William Safire: Why have the Clintons anointed Wesley Clark?
For the sake of Democrat solidarity, which is sorely needed today, I think the Clintons are going to have to
answer to this one.
Snippy Safire is making some nasty accusations.
The question is: Are they true?
He HAS to ask these questions, in my opinion.
They're hanging in the air just waiting to be plucked and printed.
You decide. I can't tell you what to believe...I don't know myself.
I'll tell you one thing, though. For the many Howard Dean supporters, it puts the Clintons in a very dismal light.
The Clintons had best speak clearly in response to these allegations...and soon.
By the way, I give the Clintons the benefit of the doubt here.
Safire is almost a complete ass....one example-the obvious bias he has against Dean already:
"As expected, fickle media that had been entranced with Dean (Dr. Lose-the-War) dropped the cranky Vermonter like a cold couch potato and are lionizing Clinton's fellow Arkansan and fellow Rhodes Scholar."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
***UPDATE! THE CLINTONS HAVE SPOKEN!*****
Washington Post: Sen. Clinton Denies Backing Clark
".....Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) yesterday dismissed reports that she and her husband are the agents behind retired Army Gen. Wesley K. Clark's presidential candidacy, reiterated that she will not run in 2004 and pledged to work for the eventual Democratic nominee, saying the reelection of President Bush would be "an overwhelming setback for this country...."
"....Referring to an account by New York Times columnist William Safire that had sketched out such a scenario, she said, "That's an absurd feat of imagination."
I thought it was just me....
Audience Unmoved During Bush's Address at the U.N.
Once again, our President chose to deny reality. He allowed pride and dependence upon his old, worn-out defenses to cause him to fail to LEAD the world toward compromise. He spoke far more of 9-11, the Taliban, AIDS, Hamid Karzai, and child slavery, than he spent on the subject that was at the forefront of every person's mind...Iraq. He failed our troops in Iraq yesterday at the UN. I was utterly disappointed. I can imagine how families of the troops must have felt.
"...Despite good marks from many for his performance, Mr. Bush did not seem to have advanced his administration toward broadening support for a Security Council resolution to expand the United Nations role in Iraq, a step intended to get more foreign troops and more foreign money for rebuilding.
"He gave a very sincere speech, but I don't think there was anything new," said a diplomat here. "The situation in Iraq is getting more difficult every day, and so is the atmosphere at the United Nations....."
Then again, President Chirac showed he was steadfast in his belief, too. He has reality on his side, though.
"....President Jacques Chirac of France, appearing shortly after Mr. Bush at the General Assembly, was no less apologetic opposing the war than Mr. Bush had been in urging it. He called the divisions over the war one of the gravest threats to multilateral institutions like the United Nations in modern times....."
Judith Miller makes Jayson Blair look like a news editor's dream.
Miller is the Number-One Pentagon Hawk's Flack-Hack
and the latest NY Times-nightmare
IS NY TIMES CREDIBILITY DOWN THE TURDHOLE ON WMDs BECAUSE OF MILLER?
Excerpts from The Editor and Publisher
9-23-03
"....But as with many of Miller's speculative news reports, the Times as of this week has failed to follow up with admission of error or an accounting of new evidence. If informants' or defectors' revelations were news when Miller reported them, surely they should qualify as news if the government or the Times now believes they were disinformation. There has been no follow-up story that amends the record: say, a prominent piece entitled: "Times Erred in Suggesting That Iraq Posed Smallpox Threat."
When I interviewed military officials and journalists located in Iraq regarding the conduct of Miller during the quest for WMD, they did not mince words: "Nobody could stand her." She had an "imperious manner." "She's lucky we didn't shoot her." "She wore a uniform." "She had an exclusive deal with the Pentagon" -- which undoubtedly caused resentment all around......"
".....Did Miller break credible hard news -- or only flack for hawks in the government, an all-too-familiar role for her over the last two years as she wrote a batch of stories supporting allegations that Iraq was developing and producing chemical, biological, and nuclear weapons?...."
"....David Kay of the Iraqi Survey Group is back in this country providing an interim report to his superiors who continue to express confidence of major discoveries to come. Will Judith Miller be given the ISG beat at the Times rather than, say, a more balanced colleague such as James Risen? Has the Times conceded this territory to other news outlets, rather than take the WMD star role away from Miller?
So far the CIA is denying access to the ISG in the field, according to reporters with whom I have spoken. But Drogin, Gellman, and Linzer are on the case. The dog will bark, even if The New York Times fails to probe deeply and skeptically into what is bound to be a thick and complex Kay report......"
Howard Dean has turned the tables
on the "establishment Democrats"..
Progressives are seeing the wisdom of his campaign.
The mainstream media is just beginning to catch on.
Dont miss: The Progressive Case for Howard Dean
By Nico Pitney, AlterNet
August 12, 2003
Excerpt:
..."Surprisingly enough, one of the few prominent progressives to make a substantive link between Dean and Kucinich was Ralph Nader, who noted that Bush "is very vulnerable but not if you campaign the way the major candidates – except for Dean and Kucinich – are campaigning."
There is, in fact, good reason to believe that progressive supporters of Dean are well aware of his record, and are choosing to support him despite its flaws. As American Prospect senior editor Garance Franke-Ruta points out, "the most important part of the Dean message is that it makes supporters feel that they have the power to control their own destiny. ... This sense of renewed personal power and hope seemed more important to most posters [to Dean's weblog] than any specific policies that Dean supports or does not support, and few on the threads agreed wholeheartedly with the former governor on all his positions. Most recognized that he is a centrist who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal.".....
~~ 
~~
Dean, Driven by the Grass Roots
Bottom-Up Strategy May Turn Politics Upside Down
By Lois Romano
Washington Post Staff Writer
Monday, September 22, 2003; Page A01
Excerpt:
..."Political strategists say that what began in January as a quirky, long-shot Internet strategy to attract online supporters to the dark-horse candidate could revolutionize presidential politics by minimizing the importance of television media and empowering grass-roots organizers...
...."It's just extraordinary," said Dick Morris, a political consultant who advised Bill Clinton. "It's part of a new era -- back to basics. Howard Dean is using the Internet in an entirely guerrilla marketing approach. By this process, he's developed a massive grass-roots list. It's active and participatory, and people feel engaged. . . . You're brought in by friends and family. It's bottom-up, and people love that; they feel empowered.".....
**Thanks to members of the Syracuse for Dean Yahoo Message Group**
Drudge Report: FCC Chairman Michael Powell to join many other friends who want to "spend more time with the family" *wink*
Joining a few others like:
-Karen Hughes (White House aide)
-Paul O'Neill (Secretary of the Treasury)
-Thomas White (Army Secretary)
-Richard Perle (Chairman, Defense Policy Board)
-Jay Garner (Reconstruction/Iraq Humanitarian Aid)
-Barbara Bodine (US coord. for central Iraq)
-Ari Fleischer (White House press secretary)
-Christine Todd Whitman (EPA Administrator)
-Rand Beers (White House counterterrorism adviser)
-Rosario Marin (U.S. Treasurer)
-General Eric Shinseki (Chief of Staff, US Army)
-John Brady Kiesling (US Diplomat / Greece)
-Martin Sullivan (Bush cultural advisor)
-Eric Schaeffer (head of EPA Regulatory Enforcement)
-General Tommy Franks (Commander/CENTCOM)
-Mitch Daniels (OMB Director)
-Larry Lindsay (Bush Chief Economic Advisor)
-Steve Griles (Dep Int Secy--Well, not yet, but I'll bet he'll be gone soon...as Bill Moyers has said, Griles has more conflicts of interest than a dog has fleas.)
-John Brady Kiesling ( US Diplomat/Greece)
-Victoria Clarke (Pentagon spokesperson)
Very important information for all voters of New York State who are not currently registered Democrats:
You have until October 9th, 2003 to register as Democrat in order to be eligible to vote for your favorite Democratic candidate in the primary.
Go to NY State Board of Elections websitefor instruction.
Here is a clickable map to access information about your local county Board of Elections in NY State.
Dalai Lama Calls War
'Legalized Violence'
By Deepti Hajela / AP Writer
Sept 21, 2003
NEW YORK (AP) -- The Dalai Lama called war "legalized violence" and said Sunday he wished he had visited Iraq and pushed for a better dialogue between countries before the war started in an effort to avert it.
In a speech to thousands of people in Central Park and later in an interview with The Associated Press, the exiled Tibetan Buddhist leader stressed the importance of compassion and peace. He said war is an outdated concept in a global society, and people should instead learn to communicate.
"We have to make every effort to promote human affection," the Dalai Lama said. "While we oppose violence or war, we must show there is another way - a nonviolent way."
He said in an interview he regretted not following the example of his fellow Nobel Peace laureates, Nelson Mandela and President Carter, who visited Iraq before the war. He said maybe together they would have been able to avoid war.
"Violence is very unpredictable," the Dalai Lama said. "Although your motivations may be sincere, violence ... easily can be out of control."
The more I learn about Clark, the more I say "Give Us Howard Dean"
As much as the press and Dean's Democratic rivals like to showcase him as a guy who spouts off and later has to explain himself, I have never seen him waffle on the issue of Iraq.
Regarding Clark, I was dismayed to read this FAIR piece, which says, in part:
".... After the fall of Baghdad, any remaining qualms Clark had about the wisdom of the war seemed to evaporate. "Liberation is at hand. Liberation-- the powerful balm that justifies painful sacrifice, erases lingering doubt and reinforces bold actions," Clark wrote in a London Times column (4/10/03). "Already the scent of victory is in the air." Though he had been critical of Pentagon tactics, Clark was exuberant about the results of "a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call."
Clark made bold predictions about the effect the war would have on the region: "Many Gulf states will hustle to praise their liberation from a sense of insecurity they were previously loath even to express. Egypt and Saudi Arabia will move slightly but perceptibly towards Western standards of human rights." George W. Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair "should be proud of their resolve in the face of so much doubt," Clark explained. "Their opponents, those who questioned the necessity or wisdom of the operation, are temporarily silent, but probably unconvinced." The way Clark speaks of the "opponents" having been silenced is instructive, since he presumably does not include himself-- obviously not "temporarily silent"-- in that category. Clark closed the piece with visions of victory celebrations here at home: "Let's have those parades on the Mall and down Constitution Avenue."...
Pass me the syrup, please.
When it comes down to the nitty-gritty, Mr Bush,
nobody likes being dissed.
Learn from your deathly blunders.
If you don't genuinely have it IN you, at least FAKE a smidgen of humility for the sake of the people you "lead" and "represent".
"..When you think about it, the Congress and the French have about the same reaction to our Iraq policy: 'You didn't ask us, so why should we pay?' "
Lost Trust:
Mr. Bush Has Lied So Many Times We Just Don't Know What to Believe Anymore
This is what Bush said that day on the aircraft carrier, bedecked in the flight suit:
"...... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed....
.....The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.
....In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.
When truth takes flight, only an empty suit remains.
....Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.
Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.
...Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted......."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
This is what he said two days ago after VP Dick Cheney once again misled the public on Meet The Press about the Saddam/9-11 connection:
Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.
“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th....What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida....
And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.”
Note: Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda. He ONCE received medical care in Baghdad. If this and the faulty legend of one of the suicide bombers meeting with Iraqi intelligence (never proven) is all they've got, it's flimsy at best.
In a Sept. 6 interview with The Washington Post, Paul Wolfowitz said hundreds of fighters from al-Qaeda and other groups were now in Iraq....after we took out the Hussein regime. You will note that Wolfowitz acts as if this was an unexpected consequence of taking Saddam out of the picture...but I beg to differ.
Wolfowitz has said: "There are some thousands of former Baathists and some hundreds of al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists who are ... killing Americans and Iraqis and U.N. officials and moderate Shiite leaders in order to destabilize Iraq.''
It seems to me, after we look back at the failure to locate WMDs and the flimsy (highly changeable) reasons and false references to the Iraq/9-11 connection, that the Bush administration had their own reasons for attacking Iraq.
Amazingly, they never bother to share the real reason.
Bush said in his last speech to the nation:
"...Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."
This leads me to believe Bush intended for Iraq to become the "central front" for the war on terror. It seems we did not go as moral defenders of the people of Iraq...and we know now that Iraq did not pose a significant threat to us...(it's more dangerous for America today than it was before the war).
It seems we went into Iraq because we knew Saddam's regime was weak...and we bet that his people were weakened by years of sanctions. Previously contained, it would be an easy government to roll over.
What we seem to have gone into Iraq for was to PROVOKE terror.
We seem to have desired to make Iraq the central front for terror.
How moral is that?
How just is that for the people of Iraq?
Is this what Bush means by American justice?
Is it any wonder the Iraqis have a groundswell of resistance? (Or "terror", as the Bush administration prefers to call it, being allergic to the word "resistance").
WHY THE HELL DID WE REALLY GO TO WAR, MR. BUSH?
Have you defrauded America?
My darkest moments when considering Wesley Clark--
Serbia 1999
General Wesley's Got Some 'Splainin' to do
There are going to be a lot of hard questions coming from the right in the next few months about both the Waco David Koresh) incident and about NATO operations in Serbia, 1999.
They are questions that I admit are valid and need to be brought to light.
Waco should still bother more than just the ugly right-wingers and the "wacky militia types".
There's a lot of dust America likes to sweep under its carpet.
A genuine patriot cannot let untruths be swept under or go on existing as untruths.
I'll be listening closely to General Clark's replies to the hardest questions.
I dreamt last night that General Clark came to power in this nation and was revered as a hero and a savior of a land that had nearly died from division. In my dream, there was a nation of angry, divided souls without geographic dividing lines from which to create "sides". In the dream, I knew there would never be another conceivable civil war...only chaos and eventual apathy with a citizenry too tired and helpless to resist the money-machine dictatorship of those who disdain the democratic ideals of our forefathers. Our beloved nation, a wee shadow of its former self, was beaten down to
a neo-monarchy...not a lot dfferent from the tyranny from which we had triumphed long ago.
I awoke and wondered if enough people today consider this nation worth saving?
Most people you speak with could care less about what's happening with the powers-that-be in this country.
The ones who DO care are so deeply divided that I can see my dream coming true.
America will die soon..she's on a terminal course.
The only way General Clark can mend us, in my opinion, is to show us that war is an obsolete concept...and that world cohesion does not mean relinquishing your nation's best interests or unification.
We good people of this world all need one another, regardless of our borders.
We need a leader who has integrity and vision for a peaceful and cooperative world.
More than anything, the people of our nation (as well as the people in this world) need an American leader they can trust.
With the shady, lying Bush administration who obviously harbor contempt for the poor in their own country, we don't have leadership we can trust.
Could a man with a military background accomplish something like this?
Will he be able to explain his past without glossing over the hard facts? If he can't, he won't gain my complete trust.
Can he transform these corporations into businesses who will develop alternative energy technologies and 21st-century peace-keeping apparatus?
General Clark is an economist as well as a military man. His upcoming speech on the economy should be very interesting.
But he really has a lot of explaining to do about Waco and Serbia.
My ears are open. If he is right for this country, I want him to succeed.
Illogical Republicans Ensure Renewal of Arms Race
OR:
"What about Box-Cutters?"
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism''
Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"The idea of being able to use a redesigned box-cutter to keep a terrorist from hijacking a plane with a box-cutter is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism."
Iddybud, Blogstress Extraordinaire.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"If smaller, more precise weapons could do the job, wouldn't people of goodwill want it?"
Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.
One of the more-blatant lies VP Dick Cheney told on Meet The Press Last Sunday:
He Says He Has Cut Financial Ties With Halliburton?
Uh....Sorry, Dick... Don't Think So.
Oil services firm paid Cheney as VP
No Halliburton ties? -- Is he telling lies?
~~~~~~~~~~~
The VP must think we're retarded out here to assume we'd swallow these stories about his distance from and lack of vested interest in Halliburton's fiscal health. He's made far more dough from Halliburton than he's made during his time as VP, regardless of WHY he's raking in the dough.
You can call his statements "word-parsing"...or maybe "misleading"...where I come from, we call them lies.
Prettied-up lies.
When Dick opens that envelope and out pops a fat check from Halliburton and he takes it to the bank....well, is that 'getting paid' or is that 'cutting financial ties'?
You decide!
In truth, Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting again and again...most recently to Tim Russert...that he has no financial interest in the company.
ZZZZZZAP!
Caught you lying, VP Dick Cheney!
"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton."
Senator Tom Daschle
U.S. Senate defies Bush, votes to undo FCC media-ownership liberalization-
Senate votes 55-40 to undo changes to Federal Communications Commission regulations
Of course, Mr. Bush is threatening to veto any legislation of this nature...and why wouldn't he?
Think of the Clear Channel pro-war rallies that might be negatively affected by this!
Think of the potential loss of propaganda!
Think of the continuation of those desperate haters out there writing anti-American sentiments in liberal newsrags
like that Madison Capital Times!
"We have to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy."
Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)
Click HERE to see a cool promo for Salam Pax's new book: "The Baghdad Blog"
"SALAM PAX WAS THE ANNE FRANK OF THE WAR... AND ITS ELVIS"
Peter Maass, Slate
Here comes the General!
From:Veep Moves
"...the possibility of a Dean/Clark ticket will set off other possibilities before the January 27 New Hampshire primary: ..."
CNN's Top War Correspondent Christiane Amanpour Slams Iraq War Coverage
Tuesday 16th September, 2003
USA Today
CNN has no comment on this:
"....."I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.".."
Christiane Amanpour
FOX News proves they prefer censorship and propaganda. FOX News also proves they prefer filtering the truth- -endeavoring to hide some of the facts from the American public:
"....Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."
William Rivers Pitt:
NEW YORK, You've Been Used.
Excerpt:
".... If we are to win this War on Terror, this new Cold War, we will not do so by bombing decrepit countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians. We will not do so by swaggering across the planet and slapping the international community across the face. In this struggle, I look to one of my favorite Red Sox fans, President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was by no means a foreign policy prince; he pulled crap that would make Richard Perle blush. Yet Kennedy understood something fundamental about the Cold War struggle, from back when that struggle was as hot and dangerous as it ever got, that resonates in roaring truth today. Kennedy understood that to win the Cold War, America did not simply have to defeat the Soviet Union by force of arms, or threaten to be able to do so. America had to give the rest of the world, especially those regions where communism stood a good chance of taking hold, the belief and understanding that we had a better way. We had to convince the world that were right, and righteous, and though we were not perfect by any means, the hope and goodness of what we represented had to be carried to the corners of the world with something besides a bayonet and a bomb. Hatred of America does not take root when America shows its best face. The bastion of immigration that is New York City proves this beyond doubt. We are not perfect, but we can be very good, and bringing this simple truth to the world will defang these thugs, period.
That is the final failure of this administration, and of these boys from the Project for a New American Century. They believe we can defeat terrorism by kicking ass and taking names, by being violent and unilateral, by basically shoving the worst aspects of our country and our system into the international community’s face and demanding, at gunpoint, that they be with us or against us. Machiavelli said, long ago, that given such a choice, the attacked would always choose to be against. Kicking ass in Iraq, while being exposed as liars and bullies, has proven to be the greatest recruiting poster al Qaeda could have ever asked for. We can defeat these thugs if we go after them properly. We can cut off their funds and their ability to bring in people who will die for the privilege of watching you die. But when we do what we have been doing, when we follow the PNAC plan, we create an unending tide of furious humanity that will, in the end, bury us.
You’ve been used, New York. Your pain and woe has been used to justify a course of action formulated years before those Towers fell. The fear caused by those falling Towers has been used against you, on purpose, to drag us all along on a suicide ride that fulfills the extremist dreams of a tiny minority while filling the coffers of defense and petroleum companies that do not, and will never, have your best interests in mind. Those companies exist to serve themselves, and with the rise of PNAC, they have found their champions. At your expense. "
Reservists say they remain in Iraq with no mission
By Bill Burke, The Virginian-Pilot
September 14, 2003
Dick Cheney Denies Joe Wilson Three Times
How very strange:
VP Dick Cheney denies knowing former ambassador to Africa Joseph Wilson
According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."
The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."
Today on 'Meet The Press':
Vice President Cheney, when asked by Tim Russert what he knew about Joseph Wilson's findings, replied simply that he did not know Joseph Wilson and he did not know who hired Joseph Wilson.
CHENEY'S WORDS: "No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson--I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back........I don't know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess--like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson... I probably shouldn't judge him... I have no idea who hired him and it never came... .."
Tim Russert: "The CIA did."
Cheney: "Who in the CIA, I don't know."
Later in the same 'Meet the Press' interview, Cheney prided himself on asking a "hell of a lot of questions" when it came to U.S. intelligence.
After all, he said, "that's what he's paid for".
Cheney has avoided the questions as to who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report....(conveniently saying he doesn't know Wilson--he must think we're total idiots out here...)
Cheney has avoided the question as to what efforts were made by his office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense.....
..and whether or not his office regarded Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate...
Let's face it, his reticence and usual cloak of secrecy and avoidance serve to make him appear to be hiding something from us. If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...
We should remember to vote like ducks in November 2004.
Another comment: Buzzflash
My Message to Other Howard Dean Suppporters:
These are just some thoughts from a post I recently wrote about conversations I'd read on my local Howard Dean Yahoo forum:
"...In a most practical sense, we need to back a candidate who has a damn good shot at actually beating George Bush in the next election...by a wide margin so there can be no doubt (no risk of cheating the American people out of another election)... even if it risks exclusion of some intellectual or idealistic aims.
I think we should be realistic for the health of our democracy.
A second Bush term may well decay democracy to a point of no return.
This may well be the most important American election in history.
We really do need to find a way to unite as Democrats, Greens, Progessives, Independents...the strength of the party of Karl Rove is unifying the base.
This next election will be war...let's be prepared for battle.
The American dream of our forefathers will never continue until we awaken from our current nightmare.
I deeply admire and appreciate candidate Kucinich's ideals. The hope for and the goal of progressive idealism will not ever be reached in this nation, however, by promoting a candidate who is not pragmatically electable in 2004.
I happen to think Dennis Kucinich is one of the most truly decent souls in the entire field of democratic candidates.
I have the utmost respect for his ideas.
But I'll tell you this..and I believe it's true.
Americans will not elect Dennis Kucinich.
I do not consider myself to be a shallow person, and some of you won't like what I'm going to say here.
But I must say it.
American voters tend to be very shallow. In all brutal honesty, America is not ready for a candidate with an elfin appearance who takes the far left pulpit.
I know America too, too well.
How I wish it could be different.
I saw what happened in the last election...I felt that Ralph Nader had fantastic ideas. So did many others.
Unfortunately, we saw what happened in Florida..which may well have been avoided had some of our idealistic voters chosen to consider the sheer pragmatism of the situation and the danger of the fast-encroaching radical right-wing...and voted for Gore rather than Nader.
I wonder, knowing what they know now, if many of the Nader voters would have changed their vote.
Idealism, Kate Harris, and five crooks on the US Supreme Court got us one "George W Bush" in 2000.
What a prize.
It's time for Americans to elect a new President.
I'm with Howard Dean all the way.
I believe in him.
I may not agree with him on every single issue, but he is the candidate I most closely match up with on the most important issues.. and also a candidate for whom I carry the belief in standing a decent chance against the Republican machinery.
I firmly believe he is electable.
I see that many, many other Americans are leaning the same way.
I think we should do all we can to promote it rather than fight one another on single issues.
If collective truth emerges as a practical consequence of belief, then Howard Dean will be our next President...because looking at current developments in the Dean campaign, I haven't seen this much belief in and hope for a candidate in a long time.
As for General Wesley Clark, I believe the fact that he came from a Military background will hurt his chances to be a front-runner, but I believe that most Americans will view him as a fitting running mate for Howard Dean. (since our mainstream journalists are beating the drums about Deans foreign policy inexperience)..."
Michael Kinsley column: An Apology Would Help
I found this to be a well-written column. I can't help but to agree with Mr. Kinsley.
Kinsley points out the fact that Mr. Bush--lacking honesty, grace, and high-mindedness--appears to prefer falsehood and pride over regret or truth.
".....What's going on here is something like lying-by-reflex. If the opposition accuses you of saying the world is round, you lunge for the microphone to declare your passionate belief that it is flat. Or maybe it has something to do with the bureaucracies that political campaigns have become. The truth, whatever its advantages, is messy and out of control. A lie can be designed by committee, vetted by consultants, tested with some focus groups, shaped to perfection. Anyone can tell the truth. Crafting a good lie is a job for professionals....."
".....This $87 billion request is a minefield of embarrassments, through which a simple "We got it wrong" would have been the safest route. After all, Bush either knew we'd be spending this kind of money for two or more years after declaring victory and didn't tell us -- or he didn't realize it himself. Those are the only two options. He deceived us or he wasn't clairvoyant in the fog of war. Apparently Bush would rather be thought omniscient than honest, which is a pity, since appearing honest is a more realistic ambition. Especially for him....."
Kay scheduled to feed America more bullshit
In my opinion, David Kay is not to be trusted--he has positioned himself as the definitive 'anti-Scott Ritter'--
and to be honest, when the smoke clears, I simply believe Scott Ritter is the honest one of the two.
Kay is a symbol of gullibiity, innuendo, deception, and mistrust.
It hurts to know that he stands to make money off his new deceptive report.
If you consider this "new report" closely, all he is saying is that he and the Bush administration
were nothing more than gullible saps for believing those who informed them about pre-war Iraq.
Boy, oh boy, do I ever feel more confident in our American leadership NOW!
".....officials are beginning to spread the word that Kay's team is prepared to claim that the Hussein regime purposefully "spread nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons plans and parts throughout the country to deceive the United Nations." Citing senior Bush administration and intelligence officials, the Globe reports that Kay will argue that after hoodwinking the UN inspectors, Hussein would quickly reassemble all the information and materials and "manufacture substantial quantities of deadly gases and germs."
The loyal David Kay appears poised to hand in a report marked by speculation, innuendo and circumstantial evidence. Kay's September surprise: He morphs into a weapon of mass deception..."
Read more about Kay:
Did David Kay Engineer WMD Evidence for Bush I - and Now Bush 2?
A Weapons Cache We'll Never See
Do we recall how Kay was fired from his UN/IAEA job because of his connections with the U.S. intelligence community?
Think of how BAD that intelligence has turned out to be, to boot. And we trust Kay now? -- WHY?!
BE SURE TO SEE "THE KAY REPORT COMEDOWN"--The Carnegie Analysis
Bush Resignation Hailed by World Leaders
by Greg Palast
"[Washington] The surprise resignation of the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush, on the second anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, was hailed by chiefs of state throughout the world. Mr. Bush announced that after, "two years of bloodshed, economic devastation, and spreading fear in America and abroad," he saw no choice but to accept that, "I have held a title which I did not win, and for which I have proven unqualified."
The text of the former President's September 11 address to the nation follows:.........."
1965 Again?
Col. David Hackworth says that Bush's assertion that our battered, overstretched combat troops in Iraq would "never retreat" was a major deja vu moment. He cites mistakes of our American past when President Lyndon B. Johnson listened to an arrogant defense secretary and an all-knowing coterie of civilian and uniformed go-along types running the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff rather than some smart, straight-shooting field generals.
He says it looks like Bush is going down the same path.
He names names....saying America is in big trouble in Iraq and that "heads should roll – and the necks of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers and Pace should be first on the chopping block."
You can read it here.
Shamefully Pathetic--Bush Snubbed NYC on 9-11 Anniversary
For all the political mileage he sucks out of 9-11 on the perennial campaign trail day in/day out, Mr. Bush went nowhere near Manhattan yesterday on the second anniversary of the most dreadful attack on U.S. soil in history.
Now, you can say the President's a busy guy.
I'm sorry---too busy to drop in on the city that suffered most on that awful day?
VP Cheney came in like a ghost to a Riverside church memorial service and never said a whispery word!
Not a one. (While a few members of Riverside Church's global justice and peace ministry, who stood across the street from the church, held signs opposing the war in Iraq and reading "no blood for oil.")
You can say that the President and Vice President didn't want to cause a security problem for the families of the dead, and to that I say MALARKEY! Those two show up anywhere and everywhere and mouth off about 9-11 anytime that suits their political fancies.
They didn't show because it was not a good political move.
To me, this is the truest indicator of a miserably failed presidency.
The recent revelation about the Bush administration's involvement in deceit.. the lower Manhattan/EPA air quality incident...is only one of the many bitter pills New Yorkers have had to swallow.
Many families of the World Trade Center are angry with Mr. Bush by making war on Iraq in the names of their loved ones. New York City suffers economically as a result of the Bush flop-economy.
Mahattan was the weather vane on this sad anniversay.
All "politically-safe" indicators pointed Bush to any other place except NYC.
He stayed away..steered clear.
No bullhorns this year.
No one there at the World Trade Center missed him yesterday, either, I'd wager.
They were there to mourn their own...not to hear a bunch of political rhetoric, expolitation, lies, and exaggerations...they can hear Bush do that nealy every other day of the year.
No fear--he'll be back for the Republican National Convention to exploit 9-11 for every penny and parcel of publicity it's worth.
The little yellow-bellied coward couldn't face his stiffest critics.
See Paul Krugman's column today---Exploiting the Atrocity
The world-at-large expressed limited sympathy for the U.S. yesterday. You see, they have a NEW nation for which to feel sorry...
IRAQ.
On the Middle East:
We Need Wise Leadership-Not Demagoguery
Thomas Paine is quoted as saying: “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”
As Americans, we do not need further division in these difficult and often-frightening times.
Watching the televised Democrats' debate this week, I was disheartened to see Senator Joseph Lieberman's attempt to create division within the party where there is none. His attack upon the views of Howard Dean was unfair, at best. Democrats need to be united in their focus on the failures of the Bush administration in foreign affairs--especially the Middle East.
The current 'road map to peace' has not convinced the rest of the world that we are putting forth enough sincere effort or focus to help secure human liberty for all people. Every time a journalist classifies a suicide bombing as part of the “cycle-of-violence”, it sterilizes the horror that people are actually living out in that part of the world. The Middle east was virtually ignored for the first 18 months of President Bush's term. Lip service just hasn't been enough to inspire or persuade these troubled leaders.
We don't need to slip into demagogy or more inane rhetoric on this issue. We need a leader to roll up his/her sleeves and get personally involved to build and act for a meaningful peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. I can't think of a foreign policy issue more deserving of an American President's personal attention and devotion. After 9-11, we can see that our own American liberty and security depends upon it.
My American heart tells me that Howard Dean will be the man who will roll up his sleeves and begin this work, winning other hearts and minds as he rolls along.
Regardless of who wins the presidential nomination, I hope to see a more honest Democratic debate. Franklin D. Roosevelt said that "repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." If candidates are going to challenge one another, they should do so truthfully. There is no dignity in demagoguery when it comes to the Middle East. Give us a leader who will show the world that America has genuine caring toward her brethren, regardless of race or religion. If America can once again prove its religion is “to do good”, mankind will surely listen.
Jude
9-11-2003
Have we taught the terrorists that blowing up civilians is a legitimate way to achieve political goals?
From Jewish World Review:
9-11-03
High Holiday Prayers — for my enemies
By Jeff Dunetz
‘Getting even’ with the evil ones the Jewish way
I sometimes see an old Yiddish curse on Jewish joke websites. It is loosely translated as "May you lose all the teeth in your mount except one, and may you get a toothache in that one tooth" It always makes me smile to read it, even thought I know it really goes against Jewish teaching. You see, the Rabbis teach us that we do not curse bad people, we are supposed to pray that they see the error of their ways and do "teshuvah" which means to apologize and change the way they lead their lives.
With Rosh Hashanah just around the corner, there is no better time to pray to G-d for the people who are responsible for so much bloodshed in recent history. We should be asking G-d to soften the hearts of the people whose hands are stained with the blood of the Twin Tower victims, the groups behind the dead children on the streets of Jerusalem, who are to blame for horrible acts of terror in Russia and Iraq.
Of course I am talking about organizations such as the UN and the EU, groups such as the NY Times and the BBC, countries such as France, the United States and Great Britain. These groups did not set the bombs or fly the airplanes, but they are just as culpable, because they, among others, have taught the terrorists that blowing up civilians is a legitimate way to achieve political goals.
Over the last 20 years Yassir Arafat has slowly edged himself into the legitimate world community. Each time that he was allowed to inch closer to political recognition without giving up his terrorist ways the message the world community was sending to the PLO was clear, terrorism is a legitimate means of political expression. It's like raising children, when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Other terrorists, seeing the gains Arafat has made through terrorism, have learned and followed suit.
The United Nations might not have realized it at the time, but when they first invited the Terrorist PLO Chairman to speak before the General Assembly, they were signing a death warrant for over a hundred UN workers in Iraq years later.
Sure it was Al Qaeda operatives who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, but I will be praying for the people who taught them that terrorism was OK, people such as the first president Bush and President Clinton. Some of the blood spilled on that horrible day is on their hands. This holiday season I pray that they will finally understand that every time that there was contact with the Palestinian Authority under Arafat, every time the pressured Israel to negotiate with terrorists, they were moving those planes closer to the Twin Towers.
I also pray for companies such as Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, and Disney. These companies do so much good work, trying to make children happy. It is such a shame that those companies also own networks that have been responsible for the deaths of so many kids. Networks such as Viacom's CBS or Disney's ABC. Every time one of these networks calls a terrorist a militant, every time they draw a moral equivalence between a homicide bomber targeting children and an assassination of a senior member of Hamas they are legitimizing terror and causing the deaths of more children in the holy land, Palestinian and Israeli.
I have a special prayer in my heart for France once a world leader, a country that taught much of Europe about democracy. Now it is a country that exports a cynical support of terror and anti-Semitism. There is so much blood on their hands. The French government does not even try to differentiate between good and bad terrorism, they don't recognize that terrorism exists at all.
They have taught the terrorist very well. President Jacques Chirac's diplomatic adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, even went so far as making this astonishing statement to the Israeli ambassador to France: "If we find that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are indeed terror groups opposed to peace, we may have to change the EU's stand. This is remarkable, not only for its assumption that France control's the EU's position, but also its disgusting cynicism. Indeed, France knows that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for one civilian-murdering bombing after another. ." (NY Post 9/5/03).
This week Hamas sent two young Palestinians into Israel to kill themselves and as many young Jews that they could. At this writing 14 young people have been killed, countless others injured. The orders came from Hamas but the learning came from others.
With the High Holiday's so close, there is a lot for which to pray.... I pray that G-d will draw me closer to Torah, so that I can be a better person. I also pray that the people who have caused so much pain, finally recognize that they must stop teaching that terrorism is acceptable. Only then can we begin to realize the prayer that is said repeatedly during each service:
Oseh Shalom bimromav hu ya-aseh shalom alenu v'al Kol Yisrael, v'imru amen"
May the One who brings peace to the universe bring peace to us and to all Israel, and let us say: Amen.
Jeff Dunetz is a 20-year marketing veteran, and a freelance writer. To comment on this article, please click here.
You can see other articles by Jeff Dunetz HERE.
