tBlog - Anti-Neoconservative Weblog

Anti-Neoconservative Weblog

Blog For Free!

Archives
Home
2005 January
2004 December
2004 November
2004 October
2004 September
2004 August
2004 July
2004 June
2004 May
2004 April
2004 March
2004 February

My Links
Project for the OLD American Century
Winston Smith's Daily Journal
Sam Adams' CounterPoint

tBlog
My Profile
Send tMail
My tFriends
My Images

Sponsored
Blog

KERRY WINS THE 1st DEBATE!!!

09.30.04 (10:25 pm) [edit]

Bush proved he is an incompetent buffoon without a clue about what is going on-- Bush repeats the same tired ole' cliches and bullshit over and over again. Bush's interest is enriching Halliburton and he doesn't give a rat's ass how many Americans die to do so. Bush lied about WMDs. Bush isn't fit to be president. Bush isn't fit to wipe toilets in Abu Ghraib. [Bush is the one who is inconsistent, idiotic and his "certainty" is dim-witted "certainty" to run the ship into the rocks into a major disaster!]

Contrast Dubya's insanity and diversion into Iraq (having nothing to do with 9/11 or terrorism) with strong, smart John Kerry who couldn't be led by the nose by neo-con crooks. Dubya has fucked-up Iraq big-time!

Kerry is strong. Kerry advocates working with other nations to defeat the REAL causes of terrorism-- not the bogus fabrications of Bush's corporate cronies. Kerry is smart enough to extricate us from Bush's many miserable failures.

Kerry understands international relations. Kerry understands the threats. Kerry understands what has to be done.

Kerry can instill credibility again to the White House. Kerry is a strong, smart man!!!

Presidential Debates: Kerry is Smart-- Bush is a Lying Asshole!!!

09.30.04 (10:03 pm) [edit]

It is clear to anyone who knows the FACTS, that Dubya is a complete and utter asshole, liar and dim-witted buffoon!

It's too dangerous to keep such an idiot Bush in office.

Kerry is smart-- Kerry knows the facts-- Kerry won't make the same bungling mistakes that Dubya makes over and over again. Dubya ain't even smart enough to learn from his many, many disastrous mistakes! (Maybe because other people pay the price!)

Hey, DimWit Dubya: Where are the WMDs you asshole???

09.30.04 (9:50 pm) [edit]

Geez! Dubya is so god-damn dumb!

It's an embarrassment to watch the asshole dribble the same ole' Karl Rove cliches; mind-numbing rehearsed bullshit and phony lies!

Where are the WMDs, you asshole Dubya???

Defensor has Head up Butt-- Kerry isn't talking about Vietnam!!!

09.30.04 (9:47 pm) [edit]

Kerry isn't talking about Vietnam!

Kerry is talking sense about a plan to fix the fuck-up by Bush in Iraq!

Defensor should take his head out of Rush Limbaugh's butt!!!

PEACE? Bush's Bloodbath: TODAY!

09.30.04 (9:03 pm) [edit]

U.S. forces have launched a major offensive on the rebel stronghold of Samarra after a series of horrific car bombings in Baghdad Thursday that killed 41 people, mostly children.

Residents of Samarra, 60 miles north of Baghdad, told Reuters by telephone that big explosions were shaking the city, one of several places where the U.S. military has vowed to wrest control from insurgents to enable elections in January.

The residents, speaking early on Friday morning Iraq time, said there were more than two hours of airstrikes and most residents were sheltering indoors.

CNN’s reporter in Iraq, Jane Arraf, in a live broadcast from Samarra, said she was accompanying U.S. forces engaged in the attack, which she described as “an entire brigade-size operation into Samarra to root out insurgents.”

Arraf said the forces, accompanied by Iraqi national guards, were moving “sector by sector through the city to secure it.” Power had been cut off and her report was punctuated several times by what she said were explosions of rocket-propelled grenades and mortars.

The U.S. military has said it wants to retake Samarra, Fallujah, Ramadi and the Baghdad neighborhoods of Sadr City and Haifa Street, which are in the hands of insurgents, by the end of the year to create the right conditions for the election.

In Fallujah, 50 kilometers west of Baghdad, U.S. forces on Thursday destroyed a building they said was being used by fighters loyal to al-Qaida ally Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Iraqi doctors said at least three people were killed and eight wounded in the attack. - http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6...

Cheney & his puppy Bush: Fascists, Crooks & War Criminals-- Definitely NOT Good Christians!!!

09.30.04 (8:55 pm) [edit]

[b]George Bush and the Rise of Christian Fascism

Rev. Rich Lang [/b]

The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States knew that we human beings have a tendency to 'not get along with each other'. They knew that if power accrued into the hands of an elite the experiment of democracy (power spread out into the realm of the people) would be over. So they created a system of checks and balances which blocked access to any one person, or any one special interest or elite gaining too much power over others. Thus our executive, legislative and judicial branches of government "checked" each other. The media was yet another "check" on the accrual of too much power as was the Bill of Rights which was written into the Constitution. The system wasn't perfect but it kept alive the possibility of true democracy. It kept alive the dream that one day "we the people" could live in a peaceful commonwealth where every person has what they need to survive and thrive.

That dream died in December 2000 when the checks and balances of our Constitution collapsed and George Bush was inserted into the Presidency of the nited States. September 11, 2001 furthered the atrophying of democracy handing the country into the hands of an emerging Corporate (and I say Christian) Fascism.

Since that time we have witnessed and have been unable to prevent the emergence of an Imperial Presidency that has the unrestricted power to declare war against any country he chooses. The Imperial Presidency has brought to an end the Constitutional mandate that 'ONLY CONGRESS' has the authority to declare war. It has furthered weakened international law and has undermined the potential of the United Nations to spread democracy throughout the earth.

The President has also gained unrestricted power to round up unlimited numbers of American citizens and incarcerate them in military brigs or concentration camps for the rest of their lives. He can keep them from ever again communicating with friends, families, and attorneys, simply on the president's certification that the incarcerated are "terrorists," as he has done with Jose Padilla and Yaser Esam Hamdi. The President may also now kill American citizens abroad solely on the basis of his certification that the one killed is a "terrorist". Just ask the family and friends of Ahmed Hijazi, anAmerican killed with a U.S.-fired missile in Yemen. Therefore suspending the Constitutional right: "no person shall be denied life, liberty or property without due process of law."

Ominous signs are all around us concerning the accrual of power into the hands of the Presidency. If Mr. Bush stays in office I think our future will continue to witness shrinking political rights, financial collapse and endless war. Part of the power and seduction of this administration emerges from its diabolical manipulation of Christian rhetoric. I want to flesh out the ideology of the Christian Fascism that Mr. Bush articulates. It is a form of Christianity that is the mirror opposite of what Jesus embodied. It is, indeed, the materialization of the spirit of antichrist: a perversion of Christian faith and practice.

This country, like it or not, is overwhelmingly dominated by the ideology of the Christian story. It is not so much that our founders were all Christians. Rather, they lived in an atmosphere scented throughout by Christian thought and rhetoric. Just as most of us can't imagine how to keep things cold without refrigeration; so too our founders couldn't help but think through the lens of the Christian story. And what they saw was that America had become the New Israel (the new Promised Land) of God. America has understood itself as a benevolent nation seeking only the good of all. We have understand our wealth as a blessing given to us as a sign that we are a "chosen, special people" whose larger meaning is to help the world into an era of peace, prosperity and justice. Every politician draws on this "civil religion story" which gives authority to the politicians ambition and agenda. Another way of saying this is: every nation needs sacred legitimation. It needs the authority of transcendence: of a story larger than itself . a story that connects past with present and future. An Empire needs an even broader story: one that connects with cosmic and/or historical redemption and new creation.

Martin Luther King understood this sacred American civil religion and was able to wed it brilliantly with the prophetic religious teachings of the Bible. He drew upon Biblical narratives which limited the power and authority of the elite while calling for economic redistribution of wealth. He drew upon teachings rooted in the personal morality of nonviolence and compassion. George Bush, on the other hand, also understands this sacred American 'civic gospel' and has brilliantly merged it with Biblical Holiness and Holy War traditions. These traditions call for the emergence of the Righteous Warrior who will cleanse the land of its impurity. These traditions are rooted in the personal morality of righteous zeal and obedience.

For example:

1.. Mr. Bush consistently sends signals to his right wing religious base. In last year's State of the Union he exhorted: "there's power, wonder working power, in the goodness and idealism and faith of the American people". It's a phrase from a well known Communion hymn "there's power, wonder working power in the blood of the lamb". Bush brings together the holiness zeal of Christian evangelicalism with patriotic fundamentalism. The core belief system of this 'civic gospel' goes something like this: The United States was founded as a Christian nation with free enterprise as the only economic system truly compatible with Christian beliefs. These religious values are today under attack in America. The danger is that without faith in God America will lose its blessing. Therefore, the government needs to act to protect the nation's religious heritage.

2.. Mr. Bush's teachings on terrorism: "you are with us or against us" cements for the hearer the apocalyptic world of good versus evil. There can be no neutral ground. You have to make a decision. Patriotism is now all or nothing: it is either total agreement or a slippery slope towards treason. In the Church you come to Jesus alone for salvation. In the state you obey the God-annointed leader and are thereby secured. Renana Brooks writes (The Nation June 24, 2003: Bush Dominates A Nation of Victims):

"Bush is a master at inducing learned helplessness in the electorate. He uses pessimistic language that creates fear and disables people from feeling they can solve their problems. In his September 20, 2001 speech to Congress on the 9/11 attacks, he chose to increase people's sense of vulnerability: 'Americans should not expect one battle, but a lengthy campaign, unlike any other we have ever seen. . I ask you to live your lives, and hug your children. I know many citizens have fears tonight . Be calm and resolute, even in the face of a continuing threat.' (Subsequent terror alerts .. have maintained and expanded this fear of unknown, sinister enemies.)"

The terror threat itself can only be combated with increases in military force, domestic security and curtailment of civil rights through Patriot Acts. There are no other options nor any dialogue or debate that would create an alternative way to deal with terrorism.

3.) Mr. Bush certainly sees himself as a Messiah figure. Listen to his language after 9-11: " I will not forget this wound to our country or those who inflicted it. I will not yield; I will not rest; I will not relent in waging this struggle for freedom and security for the American people." Or, in his 2003 State of the Union speech: "I will defend the freedom and security of the American people". He has become the nation. He is its embodiment. According to Palestinian Prime Minister Mahmoud Abbas, - Bush told him: "God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at Saddam, which I did, and now I am determined to solve the problem in the Middle East. If you help me I will act, and if not, the elections will come and I will have to focus on them." This is Biblical language . it isn't political script. This is Bush's soul language. He understands himself as a man with a Divine mission. It also means that for him leadership is not "representing the people" rather leadership means transcending the will of the people. George Bush already knows the truth before the evidence is presented. He is guided by God and must blaze the trial even if the people are reluctant.

Iraq, for example, was a necessary war whether or not Saddam had nukes. Saddam, for Bush, was a bad guy who tried to kill "my dad". The war, for Bush, was holy and justified and necessary. Purging evil is necessary in the Holiness/Holy War tradition of the Bible. The righteous will purge evil but the unrighteous will be consumed by it. Think of an alcoholic: it's all or nothing. The whole world is all or nothing.

Like all religions the Bible has various narratives within its pages: Jesus drew on the prophetic traditions that called upon the people to change their way of life even as it critiqued and called upon the elites to decentralize their power. Jesus himself role modeled a lifestyle of service. Mr. Bush, on the other hand, draws on traditions that call for purity and cleansing. It is a language of hostility towards enemies and a strident call for obedience. It calls forth a lifestyle of the RIGHTEOUS ONE who will purge evil from the world through sacred violence.

All of this is not to say that the political world is of less importance. We know that the planning for the Iraq war was at least a decade in preparation. We know that America has had imperial designs and has intervened militarily throughout the world. And we've known for 25 years that Corporations have been savagely reducing labor rights while looting the treasury. We know that Mr. Bush is not the cause of our problems. Rather, the point I am making is that Mr. Bush is a sincere front man for an emerging fascism. His religious rhetoric is an authentic merging of Holiness Christianity with Imperial Americanism. The emphasis on security, law and order is necessary to maintain the "high calling" of the American people. The policies of fascism, in other words, are consistent with religious holiness and holy war narratives. And fascism, woven underneath Christian Holiness/Holy War traditions, is a powerful symbolic narrative that speaks to the American people as evidenced by Mr. Bush's 58% approval rating.

The coming election will not be decided because of political policy. It will not be decided in a debate over free markets versus fair markets; tax cuts or no tax cuts, Patriot Act or no Patriot Act; war with Syria or no war. None of these issues will determine the election because the candidates are all for free markets, tax cuts, domestic security and a strong global military presence. The election will be determined by the candidate who can embody the deeply felt, often unarticulated religious yearnings of the populace. Yearnings such as "who will save us, secure us, lead us??? who will connect us with a power greater than the power of others?" Bush speaks this language. Democrats are stuck in political nuance. Or, in other words, Democrats cannot speak the language of Martin Luther King who understood that social transformation requires a transcendent authority.

The problem comes down to this: Democrats, liberals, and social progressives have simply not grasped how afraid, insecure and how deeply in despair the populace is. They keep speaking as if objective analysis and idealistic vision can win the day. What Bush and Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz and Pearls, Abrams and Bolton, DeLay and Rice etc, have clearly understood is that truth is subjectivity. Unfortunately, the inner person of America today is a hollowed out consumer who lacks the will power, stamina and imagination to do anything more than be overwhelmed. Therefore, a politics of crisis, a politics of fear will keep us locked into a state of conformity.

On the "civic side" of things America is being inundated with a rhetoric of insecurity. Most of Bush's State of the Union was taken up with war themes reminding us all of the horrible new world we live in post 9/11. We know that further increases in the military and police budgets are on the way; we know that the Patriot Act is going to be extended and strengthened; we know that Homeland Security will continue to be a growth industry. We know that this administration wants to break down the wall between church and state with faith-based initiatives. The world is in chaos and the Bush-men will fix it bringing us peace, prosperity, purity and purpose.

On the religion side of things apocalyptic theology is booming. This is also a worldview of crisis and insecurity. It is a theology rooted in the Holiness/Holy War traditions and it dominates the spirituality of this current administration. More to the point, this is the dominant theology of the mass media expression of Christian faith. It is a theology of despair that has given up on the possibilities of redemption.

One of the most popular fiction series making the rounds these days is the LEFT BEHIND series written by Tim LaHaye & Jerry Jenkins. Multiple millions of people are reading these books which fictionalize the end of life as we know it. It used to be that the Church could control people through the fear of eternal damnation. Today it is through fear of the future. The theology is basically this: The Bible is a code book that when rightly interpreted reveals that we are living at the end of history. History is scripted and is about to come to a catastrophic conclusion. The only hope is to accept Jesus as your personal Lord and Savior so that you can be "saved" from the future apocalypse. God will "snatch you up" (Rapture) right before a seven year series of horrible events that will see the rise of Antichrist and the rebuilding of the Jewish temple. There will be world war with most of humanity dying. At that point Jesus will return to restore law and order. This theology of despair "fits" our current culture of powerlessness and fear. From SARS to weapons of mass destruction to the ongoing Palestinian-Israeli conflict, to ecological collapse, the whole world seems to be on a "no exit" slide into an end times abyss. The theology of despair is very seductive. It is shaping the spirituality of Christians which provides a strong core from which Bush draws political strength.

And it has, at least, five political implications that affect each one of us here today. FIRST: Israel is to be exalted and defended no matter what they do to the Palestinian people. They are God's chosen people and must reside in their Biblically anointed Land for the "end time clock" to tick to its final minute. Israel has a Biblical mandate to conquer and control all of the land from the Nile River to the Euphrates. Behind the politics of oil lie the religious passion to fulfill God's will: Syria must fall.

Secondly: institutions like the United Nations are not to be trusted because they are tools of the Antichrist. The Antichrist is thought of (not as a spirituality or ideology) but as an personal embodiment of evil. The Antichrist will be a living person who will come to power at the end of history and proclaim himself to be god on earth. The theory has it that his power will be generated from within a coalition of nations. Thus . America, as God's chosen nation, will need to go it alone so as not to be duped by Antichrist. Our destiny is to take the gospel to all the nations: a benevolent gospel of therapeutic salvation for all.

Thirdly: since the world is passing away the environment is not of great importance. There is no need to worry about issues of sustainability because the world is in its final countdown. Part of the unconcern towards global warming and other ecological crisis is the religious belief that we aren't going to be around in 100 years. We're in the end times now . every moment is merely preparation for eternity. Whether Bush himself believes this or not is irrelevant. This is the religious worldview of those who exalt him and the voter-bloc to which he plays. For Bush to act for sustainability would require a major shift in his religious narrative. . As an aside this past summer the National Park Service was instructed to approve the display of religious symbols and Bible verses, as well as the sale of creationist books at the Grand Canyon National Park. In December 2003 the Park Service was ordered to develop a "more balanced" version of an 8 minute video shown at the Lincoln Memorial Visitor Center. Conservative Christians wanted the removal of footage of gay rights, pro choice and anti-war demonstrations replacing it with footage of Christian rallies and pro-war demonstrations.

Fourth: the trust that Jesus died for "my sins" is far more important than the teachings of Jesus. This fosters a domesticated therapeutic religious expression that insists that "jesus in my heart" is more important than my lifestyle. It's like the Mafia don who could order his enemies killed while he himself was celebrating the baptism of his nephew. There is a disconnect between one's inner experience of God's loving grace and embodying that experience outwardly through one's politics. This leads to a discounting of following Jesus in a lifestyle of nonviolence, economic justice and compassion. Again as an aside . while Governor of Texas Mr. Bush was interviewed by Talk Magazine concerning the impending execution of fellow Christian Karla Faye Tucker. Bush imitated Tucker's appeal for him to spare her life . pursing his lips, squinting his eyes, and in a squeaky voice saying, "please don't kill me".

Fifth: a leader who loves Jesus is to be followed as God's man for the hour. The Christian leader is God's shepherd over the American flock. As stated before Bush sees himself as a Messiah figure (annointed by God for a special redemptive purpose). When he decided on running for the Presidency he called a group of evangelical Pastors together announcing to them "I have heard the call" and then receiving from them the "laying on of hands" which corresponds to divine ordination for the task ahead. On September 14, 2001 he stated: "our responsibility before history is already clear: to answer these attacks and rid the world of evil". He then launched the crusade Operation Infinite Freedom against Afghanistan. Yet other messainic statements from Bush:

"History has called America to action. . The great hope of our time, and the great hope of every time, now depends on us." ..

"We must also remember our calling as a blessed nation to make the world better . and confound the designs of evil men."

"Our nation has been chosen by God and commissioned by history, to be a model of justice before the world."

*** According to Vice-President Cheney: America "has the duty to act with force to construct a world in the image of the United States."

In return for this messianic leadership evangelical Christians have returned an annointing of prayer. During the Afghanistan crusade thousands of "Presidential Circles of Prayer" and "Wheels of Prayer" were organized on the Internet, running 24 hours a day.

[b]WHEEL OF PRAYER FOR OUR SOLDIERS[/b]

Lord hold our troops in your loving hands. Protect them as they protect us.

Bless them and their families for the altruistic actions they are performing

for us in our time of need. This I ask in the name of Jesus, our Lord and Savior. Amen

This prayer was so popular and was hit so often that the website crashed within days.

Pastor Charles Stanley distributed among Marines as they entered into combat thousands of pamphlets entitled "Duty of a Christian in Time of War". With the pamphlet went a card instructing them to sign and send directly to Mr. Bush. The card says: "I have committed to pray for you, your family and your Administration." Specific prayers for the President were included for each day.

[b]CONCLUSION:[/b]

The point I'm trying to make is that we are not dealing simply with politics when it comes to the Bush administration. The progressive left, which often pays little attention to Christianity, will be making a huge mistake if they overlook the religious ideology at the core of Mr. Bush personally and the movement he represents. And we are talking about a "movement" (a movement of 'the people' not just the elites). We are seeing today the emergence of a "fascist movement". It is bankrolled and organized by Corporations, articulated through the ideology of neo-conservativism. but is fueled by the right-wing church drawing upon Holiness/Holy War Biblical narratives.

When Dave Korten (author of When Corporations Rule the World) says that we need a "new story"; he is talking about needing a transcendent authority in which we root our political culture. Human beings cannot live in societal form without a sacred narrative. Neither anarchy nor atheism can construct a house that will hold our future. The Republicans know this well. But the Democrats seem clueless.

In Biblical language the Republicans have become Pharaoh whose house is strong because of economic exploitation of the populace and military repression of the people. The populace is being asked to make bricks without straw. We are seeking a "savior" . a Moses who can rally us out of these mudpits towards the promise of a land flowing with milk and honey. Unfortunately most Democrats are simply offering Pharaoh-lite: they still will keep us in the mudpit making bricks.

What we need is a movement of spiritual justice. We need the language of those who can wed America's civil religion with Biblical prophetic narrative. We need to expand that language so that it can include the language and stories that are emerging from the antiwar, fair trade and human rights movements. Together this language can form a unique new narrative that has the power to inspire imagination and courage. A language that call forth a new coalition powerful enough to leave behind the mudpit and to enter the promise of a new beginning. A coalition that understands that "we are the ones we are looking for". Indeed, the new narrative will proclaim "God with us" not "God above us". - http://www.opednews.com/lang0...

Jobless Claims Jump by 18,000 (Neo-Con Hypocrites Don't Care, So Long as the Rich Get Richer!)

09.30.04 (6:59 pm) [edit]

[b]Jobless claims jump by 18,000

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rise to 369,000, coming in above estimates.[/b]

NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - The number of Americans filing for unemployment assistance rose by 18,000 last week, the government reported Thursday, as the figures that have fluctuated with the series of hurricanes on the East Coast came in above estimates.

Initial claims for unemployment insurance rose to 369,000 in the week ended Sept. 25, up from a revised 351,000 the previous week, the Labor Department reported. Economists expected 340,000 people to file for assistance, according to Briefing.com.

The weekly readings on jobless claims have fluctuated dramatically in August and September as the Southeast has been mauled by four hurricanes in six weeks.

The four-week moving average of initial claims, which is meant to smooth out some of those swings, came in at 343,500, up from a revised 341,250 the previous week.

Friday's report on the unemployment rate and payroll changes for September may add more clarity to the job market and become a focal point for the remaining two presidential debates as it will be the last report before the Nov. 2 election.

Continuing claims, or those people who have already received one week of assistance, fell to 2,873,000 in the week ended Sept. 18, the latest figures available, down from 2,876,000 the previous week.

States along the East Coast topped the list for the highest numbers of initial claims. Florida, which has been hit by Hurricane Charley, Frances, Ivan and Jeanne reported 8,797 new filings.

States that felt some of the residual effects of the hurricanes, including Georgia, South Carolina, North Carolina, Delaware, New Jersey and New York, rounded out the list with California, the country's most populous state. - http://money.cnn.com/2004/09/...

Britain's Deputy Prime Minister Dope-Slaps Bush

09.30.04 (6:56 pm) [edit]

Like a Class 5 hurricane, George W. Bush destroys everything in his path. He's even ripped the roof of the "special friendship" between the United States and Britain. Ripping the political right for lack of compassion, Deputy Prime Minister John Prescott singled out the current U.S. government for treating compassion as a mere sound bite.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

"Bush Lied, My Son Died" ... Sorry, But Bush Doesn't Give A Rat's Ass About Your Son!!!

09.30.04 (6:36 pm) [edit]

[b]"Bush Lied, My Son Died"[/b]

[b]In excruciating new TV ads, family members of soldiers killed in Iraq speak out about the horrible waste of their loved ones' lives[/b].

In a TV commercial released Wednesday, Cindy Sheehan, a 47-year-old woman from Vacaville, Calif., whose 24-year-old son was killed in Sadr City in April, speaks directly to George W. Bush.

Shot in black-and-white, her soft voice cracking, she says, "I imagined it would hurt if one of my kids was killed, but I never thought it would hurt this bad, especially someone so honest and brave as Casey, my son. When you haven't been honest with us, when you and your advisors rushed us into this war. How do you think we felt when we heard the Senate report that said there was no link between Iraq and 9/11?"

This is one of four new ads featuring relatives of soldiers killed in Iraq, produced by a new political action committee called RealVoices.org. At a time when soldiers' parents have been arrested at Bush rallies and thrown out of the Republican National Convention for trying to make themselves heard, Real Voices was formed to broadcast the excruciating messages of those who feel that their loved ones' lives were wasted in Iraq.

Real Voices is spending $200,000 on its initial ad buy while trying to raise more money. Each one of the spots is bitter and searing. In one, Raphael Zappala, whose 30-year-old brother was killed in Baghdad while searching a warehouse for weapons of mass destruction, says, "My brother died trying to make an honest man out of George W. Bush, needlessly. He was betrayed by the lies of his commander in chief. And the troops still in Iraq are being betrayed." Another features a California mother named Jane Bright, who remains livid about Bush's rash "Bring 'em on!" challenge. "Mr. Bush," she says, "I have no way of knowing whether the insurgent who killed my son ever heard your foolish taunt. But thanks to you, Mr. President, I have the rest of my life to wonder about it."

Sheehan tells Salon that she has never been politically active before. But speaking out against Bush is a way to assuage a tiny bit of the futility she feels about her son's death. "I need to speak out for what I think is right, and I have this chance right now because people want to listen to me," she says. "If I didn't do that, I wouldn't be able to get up in the morning or face a new day, because every day for me is like a new April 4, when my son was killed."

Since her son died, Sheehan has tormented herself for not doing more to fight Bush four years ago. "My biggest regret in my entire life is that when Bush was selected as president by the Supreme Court that I didn't go out and say, 'No, this is B.S., we can't stop this election until we count every single vote.' I just regret it so much. I don't know if I did something more maybe my son would still be alive."

One might think that Sheehan's sacrifice would protect her from assaults by the right-wing patriotism police, but one would be wrong. Since she started speaking out, she's been attacked as a political opportunist and accused of treason.

"I have had people tell me that what I'm doing is supporting terrorists and that my son would be ashamed of me," she says. "I was on a radio call-in show on Sunday morning, and I had a lot of people call me a traitor."

Still, she plans to continue speaking out, joining a growing list of people channeling their grief into activism. There's Lila Lipscomb, the bereft mother from "Fahrenheit 9/11." There's Fernando Suarez del Solar, who crashed the Republican National Convention with a poster bearing a picture of his son, a Marine named Jesus, and the words, "Bush lied, my son died." There's Sue Sapir Niederer, who wore a T-shirt saying "President Bush You Killed My Son" to a campaign rally featuring Laura Bush, and ended up being arrested and charged with "defiant trespassing," even though she had a ticket for the event. And there are more like them coming forth every day.

Speaking about those who want her to shut up, Sheehan says, "I think those people are traitors, because my son and millions of brave Americans before him have died for my right to speak out against the government." - http://www.salon.com/news/fea...

The KKK Rides again through GOP in US Voting Manipulation and Intimidation

09.30.04 (2:18 pm) [edit]

[b]Think that headline's an exaggeration?[/b] "In the 2000 Florida elections, thousands of black voters were unlawfully denied the right to vote; Postcards were mailed to minority voters in Passaic County, NJ, threatening fines up to $1000 and imprisonment of up to five years...and warning of "armed law enforcement officers" at the polls; In Wharton County, TX, a white woman had her home vandalized, received phone threats, and was victim to a cross burning that lit her home on fire for her support of an African American candidate;. John Pappageorge, a GOP state Representative from Troy, MI was quoted in the Detroit Free Press on July 16, 2004 saying, "If we do not suppress the Detroit vote, we're going to have a tough time in this election cycle." During a special election in South Dakota on June 1, 2004 many Native Americans were sent to the wrong polling places or given incorrect information about new laws." All these offenses were perpetrated in the interests of the GOP.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.movingideas.org/ac...

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:23 am) [edit]

[b]London Review of Books:[/b] "America is now offering lessons in what little wisdom it takes to govern the world. Confounded in Iraq, isolated from its traditional allies, shamed over Abu Ghraib, soaked in corporate corruption and the backwash of environmental harm, sustaining an uninherited budget deficit while preparing more tax rewards for the rich, as dismissive of the unhealthy as the foreign, as terrified of the unfolding truth as of mailed anthrax, it is a society made menacing by a notion of God's great plan. America is tolerance-challenged, integrity-poor, frightened to death, and yet, beneath its patriotic hosannahs, a country in delirium before the recognition that it might have spent the last three years not only squandering the sympathy of the world but hot-housing hatreds more ferocious than those it had wished to banish for ever from the clear blue skies."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.lrb.co.uk/v26/n18/...

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:20 am) [edit]

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:18 am) [edit]

Bush's Corruptions: Republicans' Lack of 'Wisdom' Horrifies Allies

09.30.04 (7:16 am) [edit]

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:11 am) [edit]

[b]Bob Fertik blogs[/b], "Since Walter Robinson published his groundbreaking story '1-year gap in Bush's guard duty' on May 23, 2000, journalists and researchers have been trying to find out WHY Bush stopped flying in 1972... Now, FINALLY, we have a simple answer: Bush developed a 'fear of flying,' possibly influenced by his drinking. Below are two articles based on interviews with Janet Linke, the widow of the F102A pilot (Jan Peter Linke) who had to replace Bush when he quit flying in 1972. Jerry Killian told her and her husband about Bush's flying problems. Linke's story is confirmed by several of her friends. It is also confirmed by the few records that remain, including Bush's grounding order and his flight logs. Finally, it is confirmed by Bush's fellow pilot Deane Roome: 'You wonder if you know who George Bush is. I think he digressed after a while. In the first half, he was gung-ho. Where George failed was to fulfill his obligation as a pilot. It was an irrational time in his life.'"

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://community.democrats.co...

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:09 am) [edit]

STOP THE PRESS! Swaggering A'W'OL Bush was Grounded for 'Fear of Flying'

09.30.04 (7:07 am) [edit]

Bush's BIG Flip-Flop: Record Shows Dubya Continues to Spin & Shift on Iraq

09.30.04 (6:47 am) [edit]

[b]Record shows Bush shifting on Iraq war

President's rationale for the invasion continues to evolve [/b]

President Bush portrays his position on Iraq as steady and unwavering as he represents Sen. John Kerry's stance as ambiguous and vacillating.

"Mixed signals are the wrong signals,'' Bush said last week during a campaign stop in Bangor, Maine. "I will continue to lead with clarity, and when I say something, I'll mean what I say.''

Yet, heading into the first presidential debate Thursday, which will focus on foreign affairs, there is much in the public record to suggest that Bush's words on Iraq have evolved -- or, in the parlance his campaign often uses to describe Kerry, flip-flopped.

An examination of more than 150 of Bush's speeches, radio addresses and responses to reporters' questions reveal a steady progression of language, mostly to reflect changing circumstances such as the failure to discover weapons of mass destruction, the lack of ties between Iraq and the al Qaeda terrorist network and the growing violence of Iraqi insurgents.

A war that was waged principally to overthrow a dictator who possessed "some of the most lethal weapons ever devised'' has evolved into a mission to rid Iraq of its "weapons-making capabilities'' and to offer democracy and freedom to its 25 million residents.

The president no longer expounds upon deposed Iraqi strongman Saddam Hussein's connections with al Qaeda, rarely mentions the rape and torture rooms or the illicit weapons factories that he once warned posed a direct threat to the United States.

In the fall of 2002, as Bush sought congressional support for the use of force, he described the vote as a sign of solidarity that would strengthen his ability to keep the peace. Today, his aides describe it unambiguously as a vote to go to war.

Whether such shifts constitute a reasonable evolution of language to reflect the progression of war, or an about-face to justify unmet expectations, is a subjective judgment tinged by partisan prejudice.

Yet a close look at the record makes it difficult to support Bush campaign chairman Ken Mehlman's description of the upcoming debate as a "square-off between resolve and optimism versus vacillation and defeatism.''

A careful reading of Bush's statements on Iraq reveals many instances of consistency, just as The Chronicle's examination of Kerry's words found consistency in the Democratic challenger's statements. Over and over, Bush stated that the tragedy of Sept. 11, 2001, changed the way Americans -- including the commander in chief -- viewed the threat of terrorism and lowered the threshold of risk Americans were willing to accept.

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take,'' Bush said in a well-received speech before the U.N. General Assembly on Sept 12, 2002.

Bush echoed those words earlier this month as he accepted his party's nomination for president a few miles away, at Madison Square Garden in New York:

"Do I forget the lessons of September the 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country? Faced with that choice, I will defend America every time.''

Yet the more specific explanation of a mission that has cost more than 1, 000 American lives, thousands of Iraqi lives and well over $100 billion has undergone a transformation.

Prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, Bush focused on weapons of mass destruction and stated the U.S. goal in straightforward terms.

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change,'' Bush said at a news conference two weeks before he took the nation to war.

"And our mission won't change,'' Bush continued. "Our mission is precisely what I just stated.''

Six weeks later, speaking to workers at an Army tank plant in Ohio, the goal seemed to expand.

"Our mission -- besides removing the regime that threatened us, besides ending a place where the terrorists could find a friend, besides getting rid of weapons of mass destruction -- our mission has been to bring humanitarian aid and restore basic services and put this country, Iraq, on the road to self- government.''

Last month, speaking to supporters at a campaign event in Wisconsin, Bush put it more plainly: "The goal in Iraq and Afghanistan is for there to be democratic and free countries who are allies in the war on terror. That's the goal.''

In the course of the campaign, such shifts have been characterized by Bush's opponents as lies.

"He failed to tell the truth about the rationale for going to war,'' Kerry said during a speech at New York University last week in which he said Bush has offered 23 different rationales for going to war. "If his purpose was to confuse and mislead the American people, he succeeded.''

The count comes from a study conducted by an honors thesis written by a University of Illinois student, which actually attributed 19 rationales -- none mutually exclusive -- to Bush and four others to members of his administration.

Most of the rationales were on the table from the beginning. What changed was the emphasis.

Bush voiced no doubt from the beginning that Hussein possessed chemical, biological and potentially nuclear weapons.

"Year after year, Saddam Hussein has gone to elaborate lengths, spent enormous sums, taken great risks, to build and keep weapons of mass destruction,'' Bush said in his State of the Union address in January 2003.

By the following year, after no such weapons had been discovered and evidence suggested that much of the intelligence was wrong, Bush had toned down such talk and begun to speak of the "threat'' of Hussein developing such weapons.

In his State of the Union address last January, Bush spoke of Hussein's "mass destruction-related program activities."

"Look, there is no doubt that Saddam Husein was a dangerous person,'' the president told ABC's Diane Sawyer in an interview several weeks before that speech. "And there's no doubt we had a body of evidence providing that. And there is no doubt that the president must act, after 9/11, to make America a more secure country.''

Sawyer asked the president about the distinction between the "hard fact that there were weapons of mass destruction as opposed to the possibility that he could move to acquire those weapons.''

"So what's the difference?'' Bush responded. "The possibility that he could acquire weapons, if he were to acquire weapons, he would be the danger.''

"What would it take to convince you he didn't have weapons of mass destruction,'' Sawyer persisted.

"Saddam Hussein was a threat,'' Bush responded. "And the fact that he is gone means America is a safer country.''

In the months since, Bush has changed his standard speech to reflect that failure to discover the weapons.

"Although we have not found stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, we were right to go into Iraq,'' Bush said in July in Tennessee. "We removed a declared enemy of America who had the capability of producing weapons of mass murder and could have passed that capability to terrorists bent on acquiring them. In the world after September the 11th, that was a risk we could not afford to take.''

There are a few instances where the president's words contradict developments or his previous statements.

On March 6, 2003, for example, Bush insisted during a prime-time news conference that he would offer a resolution before the United Nations calling for the use of force against Iraq even if other nations threatened to veto it.

"No matter what the whip count is, we're calling for the vote,'' Bush said.

A few days later, after it became apparent that the measure would not only be vetoed but might fail to win a majority of the Security Council, the Bush administration dropped its demand for a vote.

The president also said last month on NBC's "Today Show'' that "I don't think you can win'' the war on terrorism, explaining instead that the nation could greatly minimize the likelihood of terrorist attacks. The comment came after months of asserting the United States was winning, and would ultimately triumph, in its war on terror. The statement appeared to be little more than an inelegant way of adding nuance to his explanation, and the president quickly retreated from the words the following day.

Some statements now look off-base after developments in Iraq, such as Bush's response in the first days of the war after learning that Iraqis may have captured some Americans.

"I do know that we expect them to be treated humanely, just like we'll treat any prisoners of theirs that we capture humanely,'' Bush said, many months before American soldiers committed the atrocities at the Abu Ghraib prison.

------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----

President Bush on Iraq
Sept. 12, 2002

Speech before the U.N. General Assembly

"Saddam Hussein's regime is a grave and gathering danger. To suggest otherwise is to hope against the evidence. To assume this regime's good faith is to bet the lives of millions and the peace of the world in a reckless gamble. And this is a risk we must not take.''

Sept. 19, 2002

Response to a reporter's question

"If you want to keep the peace, you've got to have the authorization to use force. ... This is a chance for Congress to indicate support. It's a chance for Congress to say, we support the administration's ability to keep the peace. That's what this is all about.''

Oct. 7, 2002

Speech before the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Saddam Hussein is harboring terrorists and the instruments of terror, the instruments of mass death and destruction. ... Knowing these realities, American must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud.''

March 6, 2003

News conference

"Should we have to go in, our mission is very clear: disarmament. And in order to disarm, it would mean regime change.''

March 17, 2003

Address to nation (two days before invasion)

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. The danger is clear: Using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country or any other.''

May 1, 2003

Aboard the aircraft carrier Abraham Lincoln

"Major combat operations in Iraq have ended. In the battle of Iraq, the United States and our allies have prevailed. ... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 -- and still goes on."

Nov. 11, 2003

Veterans Day address

"Our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan is clear to our service members -- and clear to our enemies. Our men and women are fighting to secure the freedom of more than 50 million people who recently lived under two of the cruelest dictatorships on earth. Our men and women are fighting to help democracy and peace and justice rise in a troubled and violent region. Our men and women are fighting terrorist enemies thousands of miles away in the heart and center of their power, so that we do not face those enemies in the heart of America.''

Aug. 16, 2004

Speech to the Veterans of Foreign Wars, Cincinnati

"Even though we did not find the stockpiles that we thought we would find, Saddam Hussein had the capability to make weapons of mass destruction, and he could have passed that capability on to our enemy, to the terrorists. It is not a risk after September the 11th that we could afford to take. Knowing what I know today, I would have taken the same action." - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

Bush's BIG Flip-Flop: Record Shows Dubya Continues to Spin & Shift on Iraq

09.30.04 (6:47 am) [edit]

High Time for Bush to Start Telling the Truth for a Change

09.30.04 (6:41 am) [edit]

It's not an "if." It's a "when." Pentagon officials have indicated that they plan to send as many as 15,000 additional troops during the first four months of 2005, and the President George W. Bush continues to insist "we will stay the course" until Iraq is stabilized. (I do wish his advisers would provide a different vocabulary so that those of us steeped in the mistakes regarding Vietnam could be spared painful flashbacks.)

Where will the additional troops come from? The Bush administration insists there will be no draft, but its credibility has been badly tarnished. The "backdoor draft" that has kept so many from the Reserve and National Guard on active duty has backfired, as quotas for new enlistments have not been met. So plans are already advanced for fully mobilizing the Reserve and National Guard.

Senator John Kerry states the obvious in calling such steps "temporary measures" that have increased the burden on our troops and their families without addressing the basic reality that the active-duty Army is too small. He proposes adding 40,000 troops to the Army and offsetting the cost by reducing expenditures on highly expensive projects like national missile defense (NMD). (Kerry might have added that the NMD boondoggle, for which Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and defense contractors have pushed so hard and so long, is now actually being deployed without having been adequately tested – not to mention its dubious utility in the priority struggle against terrorism.)

[b]Let's Be Honest, Finally[/b]

But how many troops would be needed to stabilize Iraq? The well respected International Institute for Strategic Studies in London, before which the president spoke last November, says 500,000. Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki told Congress publicly before the war that "several hundred thousand" troops would be needed. It turns out he was asking for 400,000, fully aware that Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld was planning to attack and occupy Iraq with just a fraction of that. Rumsfeld gave him the back of his hand.

At this point, to be unaware of the requirement for additional troops while watching the burgeoning chaos in Iraq requires a Ph.D. in denial and a childlike, faith-based trust in the administration's PR rhetoric. Indeed, cracks can be seen within the president's own camp regarding what is happening in Iraq and what to do about it. And some truth is now peeking through those cracks.

While the president promotes the bromide of "months of steady progress" in Iraq, Sen. Chuck Hagel (R, Neb.) calls this a "grand illusion." And on Sunday, Secretary of State Colin Powell gave tacit, but unambiguous, support to the gloomy conclusions reached in the recent National Intelligence Estimate.

President Bush says he will provide more troops if commanders ask for them. But it would mean early retirement for any general making such a request before the election. And, sadly, as was the case in Vietnam, the top military brass appear to be giving priority to their careers over their duty to support and protect the troops they send into battle.

[b]Who's the Enemy?[/b]

We also need honesty about whom we're fighting in Iraq. Disingenuousness persists about the resistance to U.S. occupation. The president assured us last week that there are only "a handful of people who are willing to kill" in order to thwart U.S. aims. And those interested in learning more about these people are malnourished by "intelligence." Instead, they are forced to resort to Iraqi newspaper listings of the various groups who have claimed credit for hitting the invader.

The reality in Iraq was far better captured by retired Army Special Forces Col. W. Patrick Lang, former Defense Intelligence Officer for the Middle East and a member of Veteran Intelligence Professionals for Sanity. In an informal e-mail, Col. Lang wrote:

"The sad thing is that US combat intelligence in Iraq does not seem to know who the insurgents are, where they are, how many they are, or what they plan to do. This in spite of all the happy campaign talk about how well things are going."

Another retired Army colonel, a well respected military strategist and educator, Sam Gardiner, writing recently for Salon.com, reacted bitterly to reports – now confirmed by Secretary Powell – that military operations into the "no-go" areas in Iraq have been postponed until after the election.

"There is certainly no commander in the field saying, 'Let's give the bad guys another 60 days to operate freely inside their sanctuaries before we attack.' Such a decision would be particularly bizarre when attacks against coalition forces are more frequent than ever, attacks on oil pipelines are on the rise, and the U.S. is suffering increased casualties."

[b]Needed: Patriotic Leaks[/b]

Daniel Ellsberg makes a poignant appeal to conscience in an op-ed in Tuesday's New York Times, noting with great regret that he wished he had made unauthorized disclosures 40 years ago as he worked on plans to expand the war in Vietnam even as President Lyndon Johnson campaigned for president on a platform of "no wider war."

Ellsberg neglects to mention a key juncture four years later when he, with the help of another patriotic leaker, was able to prevent a disastrous widening of the war that threatened to bring in China as an active combatant.

In the election year of 1968, Gen. William Westmoreland, commander of U.S. forces in Vietnam, was proving a master at playing the political game. He put an artificial limit on the count of armed Vietnamese Communists. As a result, U.S. Army Intelligence carried on its books less than half the actual number of 500,000. The countrywide Tet offensive in early 1968 gave the lie to Westmoreland's fictitious figures – at great cost to our troops.

Still, Westmoreland and President Lyndon Johnson dissembled, as the general secretly asked for 206,000 more troops to widen the war into Cambodia, Laos, and up to the Chinese border – perhaps even beyond. They then ran into the troubled conscience of Ellsberg, who leaked the 500,000 figure to the New York Times after another patriot had leaked the 206,000 request.

On March 25, 1968, Johnson complained to a small gathering:

"The leaks to the New York Times hurt us. . . . We have no support for the war . . . I would have given Westy the 206,000 men."

The moral of the story? Leaking can be patriotic; can prevent a wider, longer war.

[b]The Next Four Years[/b]

Some say that perhaps the administration's plan, if it gets four more years, is to "clean out" Fallujah and other resistance strongholds, despite the heavy casualties that would result, and then turn the fight over to Iraqi forces and withdraw.

Not a chance. If, as I believe to be the case, the actual objectives of the war on Iraq have mostly to do with achieving military dominance over that oil-rich region and eliminating any conceivable threat to the security of Israel, four more years will mean a still larger U.S. military force there for the duration. Among other things, to leave sooner would leave Israel less safe than it was before the war, something the president's advisers are very loath to do.

President Bush insists, "You can understand how hard it is, and still believe we'll succeed." No you can't – not if you really understand how hard it is and are honest about what would be required.

No matter how much the president may try to disparage as "just guessing" the more accurate intelligence estimates he is now getting, this time the experts have got it right. Even Colin Powell acknowledged on Sunday "we have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world" since the war began, and the insurgency in Iraq is "getting worse."

It is high time the administration explained how it is going to "win" this war with a troop force widely recognized as inadequate to the task.

[b]Ray McGovern was a CIA analyst for 27 years – from the John F. Kennedy administration to that of George H. W. Bush[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/m...

High Time for Bush to Start Telling the Truth for a Change

09.30.04 (6:41 am) [edit]

Remember When Bush Said US Troops Would Free Iraq & Leave? IT'S A LIE!!!

09.30.04 (6:36 am) [edit]

[b]Bush plans US bases in Iraq forever... Or, at least for decades to come!!![/b]

[u][b]US bases in Iraq: sticky politics, hard math[/b][/u]

If a new Iraq government should agree to let American forces stay on, how many bases will the US request?

One, as the United States Army currently maintains in Honduras? Six, the number of installations it lists in the Netherlands. Or maybe 12?

The Pentagon isn't saying.

But a dozen is the number of so-called "enduring bases" located by John Pike, director of GlobalSecurities.org. His military affairs website gives their names. They include, for example, Camp Victory at the Baghdad airfield and Camp Renegade in Kirkuk. The Chicago Tribune last March said US engineers are constructing 14 "enduring bases," but Mr. Pike hasn't located two of them.

Note the terminology "enduring" bases. That's Pentagon-speak for long-term encampments - not necessarily permanent, but not just a tent on a wood platform either. It all suggests a planned indefinite stay on Iraqi soil that will cost US taxpayers for years to come.

The actual amount depends on how many troops are stationed there for the long term. If the US decides to reduce its forces there from the 138,000 now to, say, 50,000, and station them in bases, the costs would run between $5 billion to $7 billion a year, estimates Gordon Adams, director of Security Policy Studies at George Washington University in Washington, D.C. That's two to three times as much as the annual American subsidy to Israel. Providing protection for Israel is one of several reasons some analysts cite for the US invasion of Iraq.

If more troops are based in Iraq for the long haul, the cost would be higher. US Army planners are preparing to maintain the current level of forces in Iraq at least through 2007, The New York Times reported this week. But no decision has been made at the political level.

So far, the Bush administration has not publicly indicated that it will seek permanent bases in Iraq to replace those recently given up in Saudi Arabia, a possibility mentioned by Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz before US forces moved into Iraq. The US already has bases in Kuwait and Qatar.

At an April 2003 press conference, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said any suggestion that the US is planning a permanent military presence in Iraq is "inaccurate and unfortunate." With the presidential election weeks away, he is unlikely to alter that pronouncement on such a politically touchy matter. Such a move would almost certainly attract fire from Democratic candidate John Kerry.

Nonetheless, several military experts in Washington assume Iraq's new government will need the support of American troops - and thus "permanent" bases - for years, perhaps decades, to come.

The US already has 890 military installations in foreign countries, ranging from major Air Force bases to smaller installations, say a radar facility. Perhaps bases in Iraq would enable the Pentagon to close a few of those facilities. As part of a post-cold-war shift in its global posture, the Defense Department has been cutting the number of its installations in Germany, which total more than 100. Last week Mr. Rumsfeld testified about a global "rearrangement" of US forces to the Senate Armed Forces Committee.

"Who needs Germany when we have Iraq?" asks Mr. Pike of GlobalSecurities.org.

Building bases in Iraq has risks. Two Americans beheaded last week were working as civil engineers constructing the Taji military base north of Baghdad, one of the bases Pike lists as "enduring."

The bigger risk: Polls find that at least 80 percent of Iraqis - whatever their views on the insurgency, democracy, the removal of Saddam Hussein, and other issues - want US armed forces to leave their nation. Making the bases permanent could stir up more opposition to the US occupation.

Another fear, however, is that without US bases, the various Iraqi factions - the Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - would fall into civil war. In turn, this conflict could drag in Iran, Syria, and Turkey, leading to a widespread conflict in the Middle East. Hope of establishing a democracy in an Arab nation would fade.

To avoid these risks, an Iraq government will accept a US military presence despite popular disapproval, Pike says. "An indefinite American presence in Iraq is the ultimate guarantor of some quasi-pluralistic government."

Also, withdrawal of US forces would be seen by Iraqi insurgents as a victory, prompting them to redouble their efforts to kill Americans, says Thomas Donnelly, a military expert at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington.

The US can afford maintaining bases in Iraq, he argues. US defense spending now amounts to a bit more than 4 percent of gross domestic product, the nation's output of goods and services. It might rise as a result of Iraq bases to 5 percent of GDP, still less than the 6.5 percent of GDP in the cold war or the 10 percent during the Vietnam War.

Not everyone agrees. Permanent bases in Iraq are a "disastrously bad idea," says Jessica Mathews, president of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Washington. It reinforces Iraqi suspicions that the US launched the war to get a hand on Iraqi oil, control the region, and wants to maintain a puppet government in Baghdad.

The total cost of the Iraq war has reached $125 billion to $140 billion, estimates Mr. Adams. Reconstruction boosts the total to as high as $175 billion. Permanent bases would keep the tab running for years to come. - http://csmonitor.com/2004/093...

Remember When Bush Said US Troops Would Free Iraq & Leave? IT'S A LIE!!!

09.30.04 (6:34 am) [edit]

Bush can Lie, Drool, Smirk, or Fall Comatose - the Media Will Still Declare Him the Winner

09.29.04 (7:45 pm) [edit]

[b]Paul Krugman writes:[/b] "Let's face it: Whatever happens in Thursday's debate, cable news [AND networks, too, we might add] will proclaim Bush the winner. This will reflect the political bias so evident during the party conventions. It will also reflect the undoubted fact that Bush does a pretty good Clint Eastwood imitation.But what will print media do? Let's hope it isn't what they did four years ago But as Adam Clymer pointed out Monday on the Op-Ed page of The Times, front-page coverage of the 2000 debates emphasized not what the candidates said but their "body language." After the debate, the lead stories said a lot about Gore's sighs but nothing about Bush's lies. And even the fact-checking pieces "buried inside the newspaper" were, as Clymer delicately puts it, "constrained by an effort to balance one candidate's big mistakes" -- that is, Bush's lies -- "against the other's minor errors."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...

Intelligence Professionals Say Bush is Lying to America about Iraq, Continuing to Ignore Reality

09.29.04 (7:36 pm) [edit]

This underlying truth in this Pentapost article, which is spun using the "sweetened lemon" approach, is that Bush is LYING TO AMERICA about Iraq and continuing to ignore intelligence reports. Yet what does the minimizing, almost empty headline say? "Growing Pessimism on Iraq." Which, of course, could mean anything. What the article says is: "While Bush, Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being 'publicly acknowledged."".' A Bushie media euphemism for LYING TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE. "People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A'W'OL Bush is Responsible for the Massacre of Thousands of Innocents due to "Incompetence"

09.29.04 (5:09 pm) [edit]

[b][u]U.S. kills 40 civilians in village attack[/u]

BLUNT ASSESSMENT: S.F.'s Pelosi calls Bush 'incompetent' and lacking in judgment [/b]

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi of San Francisco offered her strongest condemnation yet of President Bush on Wednesday, assailing him as incompetent and declaring that the only way for the United States to triumph in Iraq is to replace him as commander in chief.

"Bush is an incompetent leader. In fact, he's not a leader,'' Pelosi said. "He's a person who has no judgment, no experience and no knowledge of the subjects that he has to decide upon.''

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

[u][b]Top Republicans calling Bush incompetent[/b][/u]

Leading members of President Bush (news - web sites)'s Republican Party on Sunday criticized mistakes and "incompetence" in his Iraq (news - web sites) policy and called for an urgent ground offensive to retake insurgent sanctuaries.

In appearances on news talk shows, Republican senators also urged Bush to be more open with the American public after the disclosure of a classified CIA (news - web sites) report that gave a gloomy outlook for Iraq and raised the possibility of civil war.

"The fact is, we're in deep trouble in Iraq ... and I think we're going to have to look at some recalibration of policy," Republican Sen. Chuck Hagel (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska said on CBS's "Face the Nation."

"We made serious mistakes," said Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record), an Arizona Republican who has campaigned at Bush's side this year after patching up a bitter rivalry.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sjsharks.com/shark...

New Study Shows that Bush Supporters are Idiots Stuffed with Misinformation

09.29.04 (5:02 pm) [edit]

A new study by the Program on International Policy Attitudes reveals that Bush supporters "have many incorrect assumptions about his foreign policy positions. Kerry supporters, though, are largely accurate in their assessments. The uncommitted also tend to misperceive Bush's positions, though less than Bush supporters, and to perceive Kerry's positions correctly. Majorities of Bush supporters incorrectly assumed that Bush favors including labor and environmental standards in trade agreements (84%), and the US being part of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty (69%), the International Criminal Court (66%), the treaty banning land mines (72%), and the Kyoto treaty (51%). They were divided between those who knew that Bush favors building a new missile defense system now (44 percent) and those who incorrectly believe he wishes to do more research until its capabilities are proven (41%)." In short, these folks ain't too bright!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.pipa.org/

Over 100 US Cities to Hold 'Run against Bush' (the War Criminal) Events in October

09.29.04 (4:59 pm) [edit]

Run against Bush: "Organizers of Run Against Bush, a movement to raise money and awareness to defeat George W. Bush, proclaimed National Run Against Bush Day on September 18 "a rousing success" and announced Saturday, October 23 as the date for "National Run Against Bush Day II: Run Against Bush Strikes Back!" "The sequel will be twice as big as the original," said Rich Khoe, a co-founder of the group. Thousands of joggers, walkers, and bikers assembled in 111 cities across the country and in international locations such as Dakar, Paris, Tokyo, and Darfur. Here in the United States, National Run Against Bush Day events were held in cities such as Missoula, Ames, Tampa, Phoenix, South Bend, Boise, Minneapolis, Buffalo, Seattle, Houston, Chicago, Knoxville, Milwaukee and Washington, DC, where more than 300 runners and walkers gathered on The Ellipse in front of the White House. "

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.commondreams.org/n...

Three Dozen Leading Pediatricians Say the Bush Regime is Hurting America's Children

09.29.04 (4:57 pm) [edit]

[b]Yahoo:[/b] "Three dozen eminent pediatricians and social workers attacked the Bush administration on Wednesday for policies they said leave too many children without health insurance. The doctors, including some well-known authors of manuals for parents and professionals, said they were taking the unusual step because they were worried about the state of U.S. health care. "The Bush administration's policies are moving us away from effective and longstanding federal commitments that improved the health of children, commitments proudly initiated and supported by previous Republican and Democratic presidents," reads their statement, signed by 36 child experts. "If not reversed, these ill-advised tax and budget policies will erode decades of hard-won health gains for children, while still leaving unaddressed such critical problems as child abuse, mental health, and alcohol and other drug abuse."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

NEO-CON Assholes Lie About Kerry (Again)-- No Connection Between Iraq & Al Qaeda Existed!!!

09.29.04 (4:51 pm) [edit]

[b]No Evidence Connecting Iraq to Al Qaeda, 9/11 Panel Says [/b]

There is "no credible evidence" that Saddam Hussein's government in Iraq collaborated with the al Qaeda terrorist network on any attacks on the United States, according to a new staff report released this morning by the commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

More Iraqis Killed by U.S. Than By Terror ...

09.29.04 (11:24 am) [edit]

[b]More Iraqis killed by U.S. than by terror

Civilian deaths are undermining efforts to win over people [/b]

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Operations by U.S. and multinational forces and Iraqi police are killing twice as many Iraqis -- most of them civilians -- as attacks by insurgents are, according to statistics compiled by the Iraqi Ministry of Health.

According to the ministry, which provided the Free Press with the figures Friday, the interim Iraqi government recorded 3,487 Iraqi deaths in 15 of the country's 18 provinces from April 5 -- when the ministry began compiling the data -- until Sept. 19. Of those, 328 were women and children. Another 13,720 Iraqis were injured, the ministry said.

While most of the dead are believed to be civilians, the data include an unknown number of police and Iraqi national guardsmen. Many Iraqi deaths, especially of insurgents, are never reported, so the actual number of Iraqis killed in fighting could be higher.

During the same period, 432 U.S. soldiers were killed.

Iraqi officials said the statistics proved that U.S. air strikes targeting insurgents also were killing large numbers of civilians. Some of the officials say these casualties are undermining popular acceptance of the U.S.-backed interim government.

The U.S. command is planning more aggressive military operations to clear the way for nationwide elections scheduled for January, the Bush administration has said.

Lt. Col. Steve Boylan, a U.S. military spokesman, said the insurgents were living in residential areas, sometimes in homes filled with munitions.

"As long as they continue to do that, they are putting the residents at risk," Boylan said. "We will go after them."

Boylan said the military conducted intelligence at a home to determine whether it housed insurgents before striking it. While damage would happen, the air strikes were "extremely precise," he said. And he said that any attacks conducted by the multinational forces were done "in coordination with the interim government."

The Health Ministry statistics indicate that more children have been killed around Ramadi and Fallujah than in Baghdad. U.S. air strikes and ground combat have been heavy in both places, particularly in April and May.

According to the statistics, 59 children were killed in Anbar province, a hotbed of the Sunni Muslim insurgency that includes the cities of Ramadi and Fallujah, compared with 56 children in Baghdad. The ministry defines children as anyone younger than 12.

"When there are military clashes, we see innocent people die," said Dr. Walid Hamed, a member of the operations section of the Health Ministry, which compiles the statistics.

Juan Cole, a history professor at the University of Michigan who specializes in Iraq and Shi'ite Islam, said the widespread casualties meant that coalition forces already had lost the political campaign: "They lost the hearts and minds a long time ago.

"And they are trying to keep U.S. military casualties to a minimum in the run-up to the U.S. elections" by using air strikes instead of ground forces, he said.

U.S. military officials say they're targeting terrorists and are aggressively working to spare innocent people nearby.

Nearly a third of the Iraqi dead -- 1,122 -- were killed in August, according to the statistics. May was the second deadliest month, with 749 Iraqis killed, and 319 were killed in June, the least violent month. Most of those killed lived in Baghdad. The ministry found that 1,068 had died in the capital.

Many Iraqis say they think the numbers show that the multinational forces disregard their lives.

At his fruit stand in southern Baghdad, Raid Ibraham, 24, theorized: "The Americans keep attacking the cities not to keep the security situation stable, but so they can stay in Iraq and control the oil."

Others blame the multinational forces for allowing security to disintegrate, inviting terrorists from everywhere and threatening the lives of everyday Iraqis.

"Anyone who hates America has come here to fight: Saddam's supporters, people who don't have jobs, other Arab fighters. All these people are on our streets," said Hamed, the ministry official. "But everyone is afraid of the Americans, not the fighters. And they should be." Saddam is former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.

Iraqi officials said about two-thirds of the Iraqi deaths were caused by multinational forces and police; the remaining third died from insurgent attacks.

From that date until Sept. 10, 1,295 Iraqis were killed in clashes with multinational forces and police versus 516 killed in terrorist operations, the ministry said. The ministry defines terrorist operations as incidents in which someone is killed by an explosive device in a residential area, killed by a car bomb or assassinated.

The Health Ministry is the only organization that attempts to track deaths through government agencies. The U.S. military said it kept estimates, but refused to release them. - http://www.freep.com/news/nw/...

Bush/Cheney Have No Respect for the Lives of Innocent Iraqi People

09.29.04 (11:23 am) [edit]

'Kerry will restore American dignity': Bush's hometown paper endorses Kerry

09.29.04 (11:10 am) [edit]

[b]2004 Iconoclast Presidential Endorsement[/b]

Few Americans would have voted for George W. Bush four years ago if he had promised that, as President, he would:

. Empty the Social Security trust fund by $507 billion to help offset fiscal irresponsibility and at the same time slash Social Security benefits.

. Cut Medicare by 17 percent and reduce veterans' benefits and military pay.

. Eliminate overtime pay for millions of Americans and raise oil prices by 50 percent.

. Give tax cuts to businesses that sent American jobs overseas, and, in fact, by policy encourage their departure.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

'Kerry will restore American dignity': Bush's hometown paper endorses Kerry

09.29.04 (11:08 am) [edit]

A'W'OL: George Bush has Disgraced the Name of 'Cowboy' ...

09.29.04 (10:58 am) [edit]

[b]Village Voice:[/b] "George W. Bush is a fake cowboy. He plays up the image, big-time, with $300 designer cowboy boots, a $1,000 cowboy hat, and his 1,600-acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He guns his rhetoric with frontier lingo, saying that he'll "ride herd" over ornery Middle Eastern governments... He branded Saddam Hussein's Iraq "an outlaw regime" and took the vanquished dictator's pistol as a trophy. As for Osama bin Laden, Bush declared, "There's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' " But Bush is no cowboy. "The idea of the American cowboy is the direct lineal descendant of the chivalric knight," observes Bonnie Wheeler, a medievalist who teaches at So. Methodist University.. "The only serious difference is that your status doesn't depend on your social class. Our president is neither a knight nor a cowboy. He doesn't believe in taking care of the little guy, nor does he have the restraint or dignity of the cowboy."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.villagevoice.com/i...

A'W'OL: George Bush has Disgraced the Name of 'Cowboy' ...

09.29.04 (10:58 am) [edit]

[b]Village Voice: [/b]"George W. Bush is a fake cowboy. He plays up the image, big-time, with $300 designer cowboy boots, a $1,000 cowboy hat, and his 1,600-acre Prairie Chapel Ranch in Crawford, Texas. He guns his rhetoric with frontier lingo, saying that he'll "ride herd" over ornery Middle Eastern governments... He branded Saddam Hussein's Iraq "an outlaw regime" and took the vanquished dictator's pistol as a trophy. As for Osama bin Laden, Bush declared, "There's an old poster out West, I recall, that says, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive.' " But Bush is no cowboy. "The idea of the American cowboy is the direct lineal descendant of the chivalric knight," observes Bonnie Wheeler, a medievalist who teaches at So. Methodist University.. "The only serious difference is that your status doesn't depend on your social class. Our president is neither a knight nor a cowboy. He doesn't believe in taking care of the little guy, nor does he have the restraint or dignity of the cowboy."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.villagevoice.com/i...

Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives

09.29.04 (10:52 am) [edit]

Have you noticed how the MEDIA polls have all bumped up Bush's lead this week before the debates, while honest polls continue to show Bush and Kerry in a dead heat? This is no "accident." An insider [hey, if FOX can make all its sources anonymous, so can we!] says the Bush campaign and the media are using manipulated polls to achieve three objectives: 1.Create the illusion of Bush momentum, using the GOP convention as the pretext for a sudden (and completely phony) surge; 2. Keep less motivated voters away from the polls by convincing them Kerry doesn't have a chance; and 3. Make it more plausible &/or acceptable to name Bush the winner of both debates, even if he does nothing but drool on the microphone. To this we add: Having eliminated a vote paper trail, the BushMedia cartel want it to seem more plausible when Bush steals the election at the polling booths.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://news.independent.co.uk...

Insider Says Media Polls are being Systematically Manipulated to Achieve Specific Objectives

09.29.04 (10:51 am) [edit]

Not Enough Troops to Subdue Iraq, So DimWit-Dubya's Gonna' Attack Syria!!!

09.29.04 (10:46 am) [edit]

[b]After Bush/Cheney have fucked-up Afghanistan and Iraq, both bloodbaths, now the assholes are planning attacks on Syria (and Iran http://www.inthesetimes.com/s... ?)??? The neo-cons are insane!!![/b]

[u][b]Not enough troops to keep pace, study says[/b][/u]

The military doesn’t have enough people for its current pace of missions, according to an independent study commissioned by Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. But Rumsfeld said he won’t immediately act on the panel’s recommendations.

As violence grows in Iraq, Rumsfeld also took exception to suggestions that he and other U.S. officials are portraying the troubled country in an overly positive light.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.navytimes.com/stor...

[u][b]Bush administration completes get-tough plan for Syria[/b][/u]

The Bush administration has drafted contingency plans for bringing military and economic pressure against the regime of Syrian President Bashar Assad.

Officials said the administration has determined that diplomacy has failed to resolve U.S. concerns that Syria has been working to destabilize the interim government in Iraq.

They said the Assad regime has been harboring senior operatives of Abu Mussib Al Zarqawi, regarded as the most lethal insurgent in Iraq, aides to Saddam Hussein as well as Iraqi nuclear scientists as part of a Syrian policy coordinated with Iran.

On Monday, the State Department reiterated its criticism of Syria for its harboring groups deemed as terrorists, Middle East Newsline reported. The department refused to condemn the Sept. 26 assassination of a Hamas leader in Damascus in a car-bombing attributed to Israel.

"If Americans are dying in Iraq because of Syrian policies, then this is something we are not going to tolerate," a senior official said.

The official, who refused to be identified, did not report any progress in U.S. efforts to end Syria's support of the insurgency movement in Iraq or other issues in dispute between Damascus and Washington.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://216.26.163.62/2004/ss_...

Not Enough Troops to Subdue Iraq, So DimWit-Dubya's Gonna' Attack Syria!!!

09.29.04 (10:46 am) [edit]

INSANITY: THE NEO-CON'S NEXT TARGET?

09.29.04 (10:10 am) [edit]

[b]Is Iran Next?

The Pentagon neocons who brought you the war in Iraq have a new target[/b]

Shortly after 9/11, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Douglas Feith began coordinating Pentagon planning for an invasion of Iraq. The challenge facing Feith, the No. 3 civilian in the Defense Department, was to establish a policy rationale for the attack. At the same time, Feith’s ideological cohorts in the Pentagon began planning to take the administration’s “global war on terrorism,” not only to Baghdad, but also to Damascus and Tehran.

In August it was revealed that one of Feith’s Middle East policy wonks, Lawrence Franklin, shared classified documents—including a draft National Security Presidential Directive formulated in Feith’s office that outlines a more aggressive U.S. national security strategy regarding Iran—with the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) and Israeli officials. The FBI is investigating the document transfer as a case of espionage.

This spy scandal raises two concerns for U.S. diplomats and foreign policy experts from across the political spectrum. One, that U.S. Middle East policy is being directed by neoconservative ideologues variously employed, coordinated or sanctioned by Feith’s Pentagon office. And two, that U.S. Middle East policy is too closely aligned with that of Israeli hardliners close to U.S. neoconservatives.

Feith is joined in reshaping a U.S. foreign Middle East policy—one that mirrors or complements the policies of the hardliners in Israel—by a web of neoconservative policy institutes, pressure groups and think tanks. These include the Jewish Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies (IASPS), Center for Security Policy (CSP) and the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA)—all groups with which Feith has been or still is closely associated.

[b]First Iraq, now Iran[/b]
In the months after 9/11, rather than relying on the CIA, State Department or the Pentagon’s own Defense Intelligence Agency for intelligence about Iraq’s ties to international terrorists and its development of weapons of mass destruction, neoconservatives in the Pentagon set up a special intelligence shop called the Office of Special Plans (OSP). The founders, Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz and Feith, are fervent advocates of a regional restructuring in the Middle East that includes regime change in Iran, Syria and, ultimately, Saudi Arabia.

Not having its own intelligence-gathering infrastructure, Feith’s office relied on fabricated information supplied by Ahmed Chalabi, an Iraqi expatriate who led the Iraqi National Congress (INC). In 1998, Chalabi’s group was funded by the Iraq Liberation Act, a congressional initiative that was backed by neoconservative institutions such as AIPAC, CSP, Project for the New American Century (PNAC) and the American Enterprise Institute (AEI).

At the same time that Chalabi and other INC militants were visiting Feith’s office, so were Israeli officials, including generals, according to Lt. Col Karen Kwiakowski, who formerly worked in the Near East and South Asia office under Feith’s supervision. Like the neoconservatives in the United States, Israeli hardliners believe that Israel’s long-term security can best be ensured by a radical makeover of Middle East politics enforced by the superior military power of the United States and Israel.

It now appears that Feith’s Office of Policy, which was creating dubious intelligence rationales for the Iraq war, was also establishing a covert national security strategy for regime change in Iran—most likely through a combination of preemptive military strikes (either by the United States or Israel) and support for a coalition of Iranian dissidents.

[b]Covert operators[/b]
This covert operation is now the subject of an FBI espionage investigation and inquiries by the House Judiciary Committee and Select Senate Intelligence Committee—inquiries that have been postponed until after the election.

Without notifying the State Department or the CIA, Feith’s office has been involved in back channel operations that have included a series of secret meetings in Washington, Rome and Paris over the last three years. These meetings have brought together Office of Policy officials and consultants (Franklin, Harold Rhode and Michael Ledeen), an expatriate Iranian arms dealer (Manichur Ghorbanifar), AIPAC lobbyists, Ahmed Chalabi, and Italian and Israeli intelligence officers, among others.

Franklin, an Iran expert who was pulled into Feith’s policy shop from the Defense Intelligence Agency, met repeatedly with Naor Gilon, the head of the political department at the Israeli embassy in Washington. According to U.S. intelligence officials, during one of those meetings, Franklin offered to hand over the National Security Presidential Directive on Iran. For more than two years, an FBI counterintelligence operation has been monitoring Washington meetings between AIPAC, Franklin and Israeli officials. Investigators suspect that the draft security document was passed to Israel through an intermediary, likely AIPAC.

Franklin, who is known to be close to militant Iranian and Iranian-American dissidents, is the common link to another series of meetings in Rome and Paris involving Ledeen (an American Enterprise Institute scholar who was a special consultant to Feith), Harold Rhode (a cohort of Ledeen’s from the Iran-Contra days, who is currently employed by Feith to prepare regime-change strategy plans for Middle Eastern countries on the neoconservatives’ hit list), and Ghorbanifar (an arms dealer who claims to speak for the Iranian opposition). These meetings addressed, among other things, strategies for organizing Iranians who would be willing to cooperate with a U.S.-spearheaded regime change agenda for Iran.

[b]Echoes of Iran-Contra[/b]
This cast of characters indicates that U.S. Middle East policy involves covert and illegal operations that resemble the Iran-Contra operations in the ’80s. Not only are the neoconservatives once again the leading actors, these new covert operations involve at least two Iran-Contra conspirators: Ledeen, who has repeatedly complained that the Bush administration has let its regime-change plans for Iran and Syria “gather mold in the bowels of the bureaucracy”; and Ghorbanifar, who the CIA considers a “serial fabricator” with whom the agency prohibits its agents from having any association

During the Iran-Contra operation, Israel served as a conduit for U.S. arms sales to Iran. The proceeds went largely to fund the Nicaraguan Contras despite a congressional ban on military support to the counterrevolutionaries. This time around, however, the apparent aim of these back channel dealings is to move U.S.-Iran relations beyond the reach of State Department diplomats and into the domain of the Pentagon ideologues. Ledeen, the neoconservative point man in the Iran regime-change campaign, wrote in the National Review Online that too many U.S. government officials “prefer to schmooze with the mullahs” rather than promote “democratic revolution in Iran.”

In early 2002, Leeden, along with Morris Amitay, a former AIPAC executive director as well as a CSP adviser, founded the Coalition for Democracy in Iran (CDI) to build congressional and administration support for Iran regime change. AIPAC and CDI helped ensure passage of recent House and Senate resolutions that condemn Iran, call for tighter sanctions and express support for Iranian dissidents.

The CDI includes members of key neoconservative policy institutes and think tanks, including Raymond Tanter of the Washington Institute for Near East Affairs (WINEA)—an off-shoot of AIPAC—and Frank Gaffney, president of CSP. In the ’90s, Feith served as the board chairman of CSP, whose slogan is “peace through strength,” and where Woolsey currently serves as co-chairman of the advisory committee. Other neoconservative organizations represented in the coalition by more than one member include AEI and Freedom House.

Rob Sobhani, an Iranian-American, who like Ledeen and other neoconservatives is a friend of the Shah’s son Reza Pahlavi, is also a CDI member. CDI expresses the common neoconservative position that constructive engagement with the Iranian government—even with the democratic reformists—is merely appeasement. Instead, the United States should proceed immediately to a regime change strategy working closely with the “Iranian people.” Representatives of the Iranian people that could be the front men for a regime change strategy, according to the neoconservatives, include, the Shah’s son, Reza Pahlavi (who has also cultivated close ties with the Likud Party in Israel), the Iraq-based guerrilla group Mujahadin-E Khalq (MEK), and expatriate arms dealer Ghorbanifar.

The CDI’s Ledeen, Amitay and Sobhani were featured speakers at a May 2003 forum on “the future of Iran,” sponsored by AEI, the Hudson Institute and the Foundation for Defense of Democracies. The forum, chaired by the Hudson Institute’s Meyrav Wurmser, the Israeli-born wife of David Wurmser (he serves as Cheney’s leading expert on Iran and Syria), included a presentation by URI Lubrani of Israel’s Ministry of Defense. Summarizing the sentiment of neoconservative ideologues and strategists, Meyrav Wurmser said: “Our fight against Iraq was only a battle in a long war. It would be ill-conceived to think we can deal with Iraq alone. We must move on, and faster.”

JINSA, a neoconservative organization established in 1976 that fosters closer strategic and military ties between the United States and Israel, also has its sights on Iran. At a JINSA policy forum in April 2003 titled “Time to Focus on Iran—The Mother of Modern Terrorism,” Ledeen declared, “The time for diplomacy is at an end; it is time for a free Iran, free Syria and free Lebanon.”

JINSA, along with CSP, serves as one of the main institutional links to the military-industrial complex for neoconservatives. Ledeen served as JINSA’s first executive director and was JINSA’s “Godfather,” according to Amitay. Amitay is a JINSA vice chair. JINSA board members or advisers also include former CIA director James Woolsey, former Rep. Jack Kemp and the AEI’s Joshua Muravchik. After he joined the administration, Feith resigned from JINSA’s board of advisers, as did Vice President Dick Cheney and Undersecretary of State for Arms Control John Bolton.

Like other neoconservatives, Feith sees Israel and the United States sharing common national-security concerns in the Middle East. In 1996, Feith was a member of a study team organized by IASPS and led by Richard Perle that also included representatives from JINSA, the AIPAC-related WINEA, and Meyrav and David Wurmser.

The resulting report, A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm, advised Israeli Prime Minister-elect Benjamin Netanyahu to “work closely with Turkey and Jordan to contain, destabilize and roll back” regional threats, to help overthrow Saddam Hussein, and to strike Syrian military targets in Lebanon and possibly in Syria proper. It recommended that Israel forge a foreign and domestic policy based on a “new intellectual foundation” that “provides the nation the room to engage every possible energy on rebuilding Zionism.”

Ideology alone does not explain Feith’s close connections to Israel. His old law firm Feith & Zell, which has an office in Israel, specialized in representing arms dealers and missile defense contractors. The firm has boasted of its role in facilitating technology transfers between U.S. and Israel military contractors.

[b]Zionism runs deep[/b]
Feith’s right-wing Zionism typifies neoconservatism. The Pentagon’s advocacy of an invasion of Iraq and, more recently, its hard-line postures with respect to Iran and Syria, must be considered in light of the Zionist convictions and Likud Party connections of those shaping the administration’s Middle East policy.

Through the early ’70s anti-totalitarianism was the core political tenet that united neoconservatives and their forerunners. In this Manichean political worldview, the forces of good and democracy led by the United States were under constant threat by the forces of evil as embodied in communism and fascism. At home, the “present danger” came in the form of appeasers, pro-détente advocates, isolationists and peace activists who shied away from direct and preemptive military confrontation with the totalitarian empire builders.

Although the early neoconservatives were largely Jewish, most were not Zionists. In the ’50s and through most of the ’60s, neocons such as Irving Kristol—widely known as the father of neoconservatism—regarde d Israel more as a key Cold War ally than as the biblically ordained homeland of God’s chosen people.

After the 1967 Six Day War and the 1973 Yom Kippur War, the Jewish neoconservatives embraced their Judaic roots and incorporated Zionism into their worldview. Anti-totalitarianism remains a core neoconservative foreign policy principle. Since the end of the Cold War, neoconservatism has focused on the Muslim world and to a lesser extent China—but is now tied to the ideological and political imperatives of right-wing Zionism.

Feith’s own Zionism is rooted in his family. In 1997, the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA) honored Dalck Feith and his son Douglas at its annual dinner, describing the Feiths as “noted Jewish philanthropists and pro-Israel activists.” The father was awarded the group’s special Centennial Award “for his lifetime of service to Israel and the Jewish people,” while Douglas received the “prestigious Louis D. Brandeis Award.”

Dalck Feith was a militant in Betar, a Zionist youth movement founded in Riga, Lativia in 1923, by Ze’ev Jabotinsky, an admirer of Mussolini. Betar, whose members spouted militaristic slogans modeled after fascistic movements, was associated with the Revisionist Movement, which evolved in Poland to become the Herut Party, the forerunner of the Likud Party.

In 1999, Douglas Feith contributed an essay to a book titled The Dangers of a Palestinian State, published by the ZOA. That same year, Feith spoke to a 150-member ZOA lobbying mission to Congress that called for “U.S. action against Palestinian Arab killers of Americans” and for moving the U.S. embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. The ZOA lobbying group also criticized the Clinton administration for its “refusal to criticize illegal Palestinian Arab construction in Jerusalem and the territories, which is far more extensive than Israeli construction there.”

In addition to his close ties with the right-wing ZOA, before assuming his current position at the Pentagon Feith co-founded One Jerusalem, a group whose objective is “saving a united Jerusalem as the undivided capital of Israel.” Other cofounders of this Jerusalem-based organization are David Steinmann, chairman of JINSA, board member of the CSP and chairman of the executive committee of the Middle East Forum; Dore Gold, a top adviser to Prime Minister Ariel Sharon; and Natan Sharansky, Israel’s Minister of Diaspora Affairs and current chairman of One Jerusalem.

One Jerusalem actively courts the involvement of Christian Zionists. In May 2003, One Jerusalem hosted the Interfaith Zionist Summit in Washington, DC, that brought together Christian Zionists such as Gary Bauer of American Values and Roberta Combs of the Christian Coalition with Daniel Pipes of the Middle East Forum and Mort Klein of the ZOA.

[b]Dual agendas[/b]
The Israeli government and AIPAC have denied that they engaged in any criminal operations involving classified Pentagon documents about Iran. Sharansky said, “There are absolutely no attempts to involve any member of the Jewish community and any general American citizens to spy for Israel against the United States.” He observed that the investigation of the Pentagon’s Office of Policy staff most likely stemmed from an inter-agency rivalry within the U.S. government.

For his part, Ledeen told Newsweek that the espionage allegations against Franklin, his close friend, were “nonsensical.” Ledeen and other neoconservatives see the investigations as instigated by the State Department and the CIA to undermine the credibility of neoconservatives and to obstruct their Middle East restructuring agenda, particularly regime change in Iran.

Given the depth of congressional bipartisan support for Israel and close ties with right-wing Israeli lobbying groups like AIPAC, it’s unlikely that the investigations will provide the much-needed public scrutiny of the dual and complementary agendas that unite U.S. and Israeli hardliners. Feith’s policymaking fiefdom inside and outside of government continues to drive U.S. policy in the Middle East with no evidence that these radical policies are increasing the national security and welfare of either the United States or Israel.

[b]Iran rumbles[/b]
Meanwhile tensions with Iran deepen—which suits the Iran war party just fine. “Stability,” Michael Ledeen once said, “gives me the heebee jeebies.”

On September 21, Iran’s President Mohammed Khatami warned that Iran may withdraw from the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty if Washington and the International Atomic Energy Commission demand that the country desist from plans to enrich uranium. The Iranian government says that it has no plans to develop nuclear weapons, and international inspectors have not determined otherwise. However, if Iran does proceed with its plans to enrich nearly 40 tons of uranium, which it says will be used to generate electricity, it is commonly acknowledged that in a few years it could produce several nuclear bombs.

But it’s not only the possibility that Iran could emerge as the Middle East’s second nuclear power that worries the United States and Israel. At the same time that Washington was demanding that the Iranian case be sent to the Security Council, the Iranian army was test-firing its long-range (810 miles) missile—a demonstration of its commitment to an effective deterrent capacity.

From the point of view of the Middle East restructurers, Iran represents an increasing threat to regional stability. Not only does it already have long-range missiles, and might be developing nuclear weapons, its close ties with the Shiite majority in Iraq do not bode well for the type of political and economic restructuring the Bush administration planned for Iraq. Moreover, neoconservatives and Israelis have long complained that Iran backs the Hezbollah militias in Lebanon and is fueling the Shiite rebels in Iraq.

Effectively, Washington has already declared war on Iran. Being named by President Bush as part of the “Axis of Evil” triad targeted in the global war on terrorism and the new U.S. strategy of preemptive war has made Iran increasingly nervous.

Iran—itself a victim of a 1953 British and U.S.-engineered regime change that installed the Shah—has seen the United States implement regime change in Iraq to its west and Afghanistan to its east. Moreover, the U.S. government has for the first time solidly allied itself with the military hardliners in Israel—the region’s only nation with nuclear warheads and one of the few nations that has refused to sign the nonproliferation treaty.

Back in 1996, Feith was busy representing the armament industries in Israel and the United States while at the same time preparing a policy briefing for the Israeli government. In [i]A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm[/i], Feith et al. recommended “a new vision for the U.S.-Israeli partnership … based on a shared philosophy of peace through strength”—a “clean break” policy that is currently being dually implemented by the Bush and Sharon administrations. The next demonstration of strength may well be with Iran. - http://www.inthesetimes.com/s...

INSANITY: THE NEO-CON'S NEXT TARGET?

09.29.04 (10:08 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush Bloodbath: Officials at CIA, State & Defense Depts Confirm Iraq Worse Than Bush Says

09.29.04 (9:36 am) [edit]

[b]Growing Pessimism on Iraq

Doubts Increase Within U.S. Security Agencies[/b]

A growing number of career professionals within national security agencies believe that the situation in Iraq is much worse, and the path to success much more tenuous, than is being expressed in public by top Bush administration officials, according to former and current government officials and assessments over the past year by intelligence officials at the CIA and the departments of State and Defense.

While President Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and others have delivered optimistic public appraisals, officials who fight the Iraqi insurgency and study it at the CIA and the State Department and within the Army officer corps believe the rebellion is deeper and more widespread than is being publicly acknowledged, officials say.

People at the CIA "are mad at the policy in Iraq because it's a disaster, and they're digging the hole deeper and deeper and deeper," said one former intelligence officer who maintains contact with CIA officials. "There's no obvious way to fix it. The best we can hope for is a semi-failed state hobbling along with terrorists and a succession of weak governments."

"Things are definitely not improving," said one U.S. government official who reads the intelligence analyses on Iraq.

"It is getting worse," agreed an Army staff officer who served in Iraq and stays in touch with comrades in Baghdad through e-mail. "It just seems there is a lot of pessimism flowing out of theater now. There are things going on that are unbelievable to me. They have infiltrators conducting attacks in the Green Zone. That was not the case a year ago."

This weekend, in a rare departure from the positive talking points used by administration spokesmen, Secretary of State Colin L. Powell acknowledged that the insurgency is strengthening and that anti-Americanism in the Middle East is increasing. "Yes, it's getting worse," he said of the insurgency on ABC's "This Week." At the same time, the U.S. commander for the Middle East, Gen. John P. Abizaid, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "we will fight our way through the elections." Abizaid said he believes Iraq is still winnable once a new political order and the Iraqi security force is in place.

Powell's admission and Abizaid's sobering warning came days after the public disclosure of a National Intelligence Council (NIC) assessment, completed in July, that gave a dramatically different outlook than the administration's and represented a consensus at the CIA and the State and Defense departments.

In the best-case scenario, the NIC said, Iraq could be expected to achieve a "tenuous stability" over the next 18 months. In the worst case, it could dissolve into civil war.

The July assessment was similar to one produced before the war and another in late 2003 that also were more pessimistic in tone than the administration's portrayal of the resistance to the U.S. occupation, according to senior administration officials. "All say they expect things to get worse," one former official said.

One official involved in evaluating the July document said the NIC, which advises the director of central intelligence, decided not to include a more rosy scenario "because it looked so unreal."

White House spokesman Scott McClellan, and other White House spokesmen, called the intelligence assessment the work of "pessimists and naysayers" after its outlines were disclosed by the New York Times.

President Bush called the assessment a guess, which drew the consternation of many intelligence officials. "The CIA laid out several scenarios," Bush said on Sept. 21. "It said that life could by lousy. Life could be okay. Life could be better. And they were just guessing as to what the conditions might be like."

Two days later, Bush reworded his response. "I used an unfortunate word, 'guess.' I should have used 'estimate.' "

"And the CIA came and said, 'This is a possibility, this is a possibility, and this is a possibility,' " Bush continued. "But what's important for the American people to hear is reality. And the reality's right here in the form of the prime minister. And he is explaining what is happening on the ground. That's the best report."

Rumsfeld, who once dismissed the insurgents as "dead-enders," still offers a positive portrayal of prospects and progress in Iraq but has begun to temper his optimism in public. "The path towards liberty is not smooth there; it never has been," he said before the Senate Armed Services Committee last week. "And my personal view is that a fair assessment requires some patience and some perspective."

This week, conservative columnist Robert D. Novak criticized the CIA and Paul Pillar, a national intelligence officer on the NIC who supervised the preparation of the assessment. Novak said comments Pillar made about Iraq during a private dinner in California showed that he and others at the CIA are at war with the president. Recent and current intelligence officials interviewed over the last two days dispute that view.

"Pillar is the ultimate professional," said Daniel Byman, an intelligence expert and Georgetown University professor who has worked with Pillar. "If anything, he's too soft-spoken."

"I'm not surprised if people in the administration were put on the defensive," said one CIA official, who like many others interviewed would speak only anonymously, either because they don't have official authorization to speak or because they worry about ramifications of criticizing top administration officials. "We weren't trying to make them look bad, we're just trying to give them information. Of course, we're telling them something they don't want to hear."

As for a war between the CIA and White House, said one intelligence expert with contacts at the CIA, the State Department and the Pentagon, "There's a real war going on here that's not just" the CIA against the administration on Iraq "but the State Department and the military" as well.

National security officials acknowledge that the upcoming presidential election also seems to have distorted the public debate on Iraq.

"Everyone says Iraq certainly has turned out to be more intense than expected, especially the intensity of nationalism on the part of the Iraqi people," said Steven Metz, chairman of the regional strategy and planning department at the U.S. Army War College. But, he added, "I don't think the political discourse that we're in the middle of accurately reflects anything. There's a supercharged debate on both sides, a movement to out-state each side."

Reports from Iraq have made one Army staff officer question whether adequate progress is being made there.

"They keep telling us that Iraqi security forces are the exit strategy, but what I hear from the ground is that they aren't working," he said. "There's a feeling that Iraqi security forces are in cahoots with the insurgents and the general public to get the occupiers out."

He added: "I hope I'm wrong." - http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A'W'OL Bush Bloodbath: Officials at CIA, State & Defense Depts Confirm Iraq Worse Than Bush Says

09.29.04 (9:34 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush's Hometown Newspaper Endorses Kerry

09.28.04 (4:13 pm) [edit]

[b]Even the locals don't like the asshole ...[/b]

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - The newspaper in President Bush (news - web sites)'s adopted hometown of Crawford threw its support on Tuesday behind Bush's Democratic rival, Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites).

The weekly Lone Star Iconoclast criticized Bush's handling of the war in Iraq (news - web sites) and for turning budget surpluses into record deficits. The editorial also criticized Bush's proposals on Social Security (news - web sites) and Medicare.

"The publishers of The Iconoclast endorsed Bush four years ago, based on the things he promised, not on this smoke-screened agenda," the newspaper said in its editorial. "Today, we are endorsing his opponent, John Kerry."

It urged "Texans not to rate the candidate by his hometown or even his political party, but instead by where he intends to take the country."

Bush spends many of his weekends and holidays at his Crawford, Texas, ranch.

The Iconoclast's publisher and editor-in-chief, W. Leon Smith, said the newspaper is sent to Bush's ranch each week. "But I don't know if he reads it," Smith said.

The Kerry campaign welcomed the endorsement in an email to reporters. - http://news.yahoo.com/news?tm...

Europe to Bush: GET LOST! (Rest of the World Agrees!)

09.28.04 (4:56 am) [edit]

[b]SFGate:[/b] "Why Bush must be beaten," screamed the headline of Le Nouvel Observateur, a left-leaning French newsweekly. Smaller type above the U.S. president's half profile provided the answer: "His re-election will be a catastrophe for the world and for America." That sentiment may have been expressed more bluntly than the opinions of many Europeans, yet it captured the passions on this continent over who will occupy the White House come January. Fredet's article listed numerous reasons why Bush should go: "unprecedented" American isolationism since 2000; "unequaled arrogance" in Bush's leadership style; intolerant religious fervor; and the growing millions of Americans without proper health insurance. On a continent with largely free health services, many Europeans cite that last reason as their major dislike for the U.S. system and are often dumbfounded about why Americans do not push politicians for universal health care. "

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin...

Apparently, Saudi Royals Can Kill Americans & Rig US Elections (They're Kings, Right?)

09.28.04 (4:52 am) [edit]

[b]Senator Bob Graham Says Bush Covered up Saudi Role in 9/11[/b]

Bob Graham tells Salon, “there are several possible reasons [why Bush is covering up the Saudi role in 9/11]. One is that it did not want the public to be aware of the degree of Saudi involvement in supporting the 9/11 terrorists. Second, it was embarrassing that that support took place literally under the nose of the FBI, to the point where one of the terrorists in San Diego was living at the house of a paid FBI informant. Third, there has been a long-term special relationship between the US and Saudi Arabia, and that relationship has probably reached a new high under [W], in part because of the long and close family relationship that the Bushes have had with the Saudi royal family… Bandar is a great friend of the Bush family. Most of the things that he did are, frankly, still classified. But … within a few hours after 9/11, Prince Bandar was able to gain access to [W] to make the case for why 140 or so Saudis should be given permission to leave the US immediately. ” - http://www.salon.com/news/fea...

Read [b]HOUSE OF BUSH, HOUSE OF SAUD [/b] http://www.houseofbush.com/

Bush's REAL Poll Numbers Must Tanking! White House Raises 'Pre-Election Terror Alert'

09.28.04 (4:48 am) [edit]

Guess the White House and Bushie media must KNOW what the REAL poll trend in the US is - Bush is bombing! Because now not only are they disseminating new "Bush is gaining" polls that NO ONE believes anymore, but spreading dark hints that Bush's all-purpose bogeymen, Al Qaeda just MAY attack sometime or the other between now and Nov. 2! How convenient for Bush! No wonder he hasn't made any serious effort to fight the terror network. This "warning" is so vague we are embarrassed for the media for even releasing it: "The officials also said they had no specific information of a target or the date of an attack. When the initial information of the threat came in "the window was eight months large, now it is five or six weeks large," said the official. "Nothing since then has changed our assessment received in the spring. Nothing has changed, but the window is narrowing." ....HUH?

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Falwell Brags that He and His Fundy Fanatics Control Bush and GOP Congress

09.28.04 (4:45 am) [edit]

[b]SignonSanDiego: [/b]"The Rev. Jerry Falwell said yesterday that evangelical Christians, after nearly 25 years of increasing political activism, now control the Republican Party and the fate of President Bush in the November election. "The Republican Party does not have the head count to elect a president without the support of religious conservatives," Falwell said at an election training conference of the Christian Coalition. Falwell said evangelical Christians are now "by far the largest constituency" within the Republican Party, their route to dominance beginning in 1979 with his founding of the Moral Majority, a precursor to the Christian Coalition. " Wanna know what America really thinks of rightwing blowhard delusional fanatics like Falwell and his Jim Jonesy followers? Read the next story about how one of their "fold" - Alan Keyes - is getting his self-righteous ass kicked in Illinois by Barak Obama, 68-17%!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.signonsandiego.com...

Falwell Brags that He and His Fundy Fanatics Control Bush and GOP Congress

09.28.04 (4:44 am) [edit]

Falwell Brags that He and His Fundy Fanatics Control Bush and GOP Congress

09.28.04 (4:42 am) [edit]

Falwell Brags that He and His Fundy Fanatics Control Bush and GOP Congress

09.28.04 (4:42 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush Caught Trying to Use CIA to Illegally Rig Iraq Elections

09.28.04 (4:37 am) [edit]

[b]Rediff:[/b] "The Bush administration has been forced to scale back a plan proposing a covert CIA operation to aid candidates favoured by Washington in the Iraq elections after lawmakers raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. The plan, written several months ago, wanted to help such candidates "whose opponents might be receiving covert backing from other countries, like Iran" but not necessarily to go so far as to rig the elections [yeah, right!], US media reports [speaking of rigged] said. But lawmakers, from both parties, raised questions about the idea when it was sent to Capitol Hill. In particular, house minority leader Nancy Pelosi "came unglued" [says who? yet another "anonymous source"?] when she learned about what a source described as a plan for "the CIA to put an operation in place to affect the outcome of the elections."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://in.rediff.com/news/200...

A'W'OL Bush Caught Trying to Use CIA to Illegally Rig Iraq Elections

09.28.04 (4:36 am) [edit]

Bush's Miserable Failure: Heady US Goals for Iraq Fall by Wayside

09.28.04 (4:32 am) [edit]

WASHINGTON — Despite continuing violence and instability, President Bush has stuck doggedly to his central message on Iraq: There is no need to change course because the administration's plan for planting democracy in the Middle East is working.

Yet behind the unwavering public posture, there is evidence that the Bush administration has altered its approach. It has lowered its hopes for the type of democracy that can be achieved, changed course on its plans to privatize Iraq's economy and reordered its priorities by devoting more money to improving security as fast as possible.

Gone — at least for now — is the lofty ideal of Iraq serving as a free-market democratic model that would ignite the forces of change throughout the Middle East and lay the seeds of a settlement to the Arab-Israeli conflict.

Rep. Jim Kolbe (R-Ariz.), chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, said administration officials have told him privately that they have lowered their expectations. "They've definitely recalibrated their goals," he said. "One of them told me: 'When we went in there, I thought we would build American-style democracy. Hell, I'd be happy with Romanian-style democracy now.' "

"It doesn't mean you abandon" the Iraqis, Kolbe added. "It reflects what is realistic, what is doable." Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld echoed that sentiment Friday, when asked what it would take for the United States to declare victory and begin to withdraw.

"Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and U.S. forces I think would obviously be unwise because it's never been peaceful and perfect and it isn't likely to be," he said. National security advisor Condoleezza Rice this month defined success in more modest terms than the administration used in the war's early stages. "Success will be an Iraqi government that has gone through the legitimacy process of being elected and an Iraqi government that can defend itself," she said.

Many experts believe the administration will be hard-pressed even to pull that off.

Chaotic security conditions in large parts of the country and delays in preparation are jeopardizing plans to hold national elections in January, according to administration officials and independent experts.

Early last week, opinions within the administration appeared to be divided, with some privately suggesting that election day should slip into the spring while others argued for keeping to the current timetable, even if the balloting is incomplete. The administration now appears to be willing to risk holding an election marred by violence and, quite possibly, incomplete balloting to keep to its schedule.

On Thursday, Rumsfeld became the first senior figure in the administration to suggest that elections should proceed even if violence prevents voting in as much as a quarter of the country.

"Nothing's perfect in life," he said in testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

Bush and Iraqi interim Prime Minister Iyad Allawi, who visited the United States last week, said voting for a national assembly would go ahead as scheduled in January.

Days earlier, however, administration officials dealing with Iraq appeared resigned to a delay. "The way things are going, the fact that the U.N. has not come forward with its support means we may have to settle for the spring," said a State Department official who declined to be named.

The official indicated that initial timetables had called for thousands of United Nations election workers to be deployed around the country by this time, registering voters, setting up polling stations and training Iraqis to staff them.

Friday, a U.N. spokesman in New York said just eight non-Iraqi staff members were in the country preparing for the balloting and that no significant buildup would begin until a military force assigned to protect election workers was in place.

Carlos Valenzuela, the top U.N. electoral official in Iraq, has said that the election timetable is very tight and that preelection violence "could be a show-stopper." Further complicating matters for U.N. officials is that three elections — for a national assembly, regional councils and a Kurdish parliament in northern Iraq — are to be held simultaneously.

Independent specialists following Iraq worry that an election so flawed that its legitimacy becomes a major issue could set back, rather than promote, democracy in the region.

The Bush administration has declined to say what the minimum acceptable conditions would be. "I don't think anybody's thinking in those terms right now," said a senior official who declined to be identified by name. "In December, we'll know where we are."

The stakes are high. A successful vote would constitute a strategic setback for insurgents who are trying to bring down Allawi's government and force the Americans to leave.

The administration has long viewed elections in Iraq — and those scheduled next month in Afghanistan — as potential models for the broader Middle East. Speaking at the United Nations last week, Bush repeated that concept, but his description of the potential domino effect was less expansive than the vision he had sketched on the eve of the war.

"Success in Iraq could also begin a new stage for Middle Eastern peace and set in motion progress towards a truly democratic Palestinian state," he told the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, last year. In his U.N. speech last week, Bush omitted any suggestion that democracy in Iraq might nurture hope for peace in Israel and the Palestinian territories.

In the economic arena, the administration was forced to change course from plans to privatize Iraq's public-sector businesses — almost 200 firms employing about 650,000 people.

The state-owned enterprises' obsolete equipment and bloated staffs made it difficult to find buyers. The International Crisis Group, a nonpartisan research organization based in Brussels, found that while Iraq's state-owned enterprises generated revenue of $73 million in the first five months of 2004, they paid out $85 million in salaries. Security concerns scared away many potential suitors. Finally, legal questions were raised about whether international law allows an occupying force such as the U.S. to sell off state assets.

In the end, the effort was all but abandoned after only a handful of partial privatizations. The "privatization schemes were both unrealistic and ill-advised, given Iraq's condition," the ICG report concluded.

Noted American Enterprise Institute Vice President Danielle Pletka: "I don't think anyone has let go of [privatization] as an imperative, but it can't work in present conditions. To privatize, someone has to buy, and buyers aren't there right now."

Today, White House officials point to the spawning of rural small businesses as the primary success of private enterprise.

Bush administration hopes for the Iraqi oil industry have also foundered. Initially, there were predictions that Iraq could step up production to 6 million barrels a day in a matter of years.

Now, however, U.S. officials in Iraq concede they may not even be able to meet the goal of pumping 2.8 million barrels of oil a day by the end of this year. Constant insurgent attacks on oil infrastructure have produced losses of up to $1 billion this year, slashing the funds available for reconstruction.

In addition to the barriers to reviving oil production, plans to privatize much of Iraq's oil industry ran into ideological resistance.

"There was an emotional reaction to the idea [of privatizing oil], a belief that the state has to protect oil assets," Pletka said.

The administration is also shifting priorities on security to do a better job of confronting the insurgency, whose success has undermined Iraqis' confidence in the ability of the interim government and the U.S. to maintain order. The economy and Iraq's fragile experiment in democracy have suffered as a result.

The most visible element of the change of U.S. direction involves redirecting money initially meant for reconstruction projects mainly into strengthening Iraq's fledgling security forces. There is also new pressure to accelerate spending the $18.4-billion reconstruction budget that Congress approved in November and to heighten its impact on individual Iraqis.

So far, only $1.2 billion has been disbursed, and so much of that has been eaten up in project overhead and payments to foreign firms that less than half of it has reached Iraqis, according to nongovernmental experts.

Deputy Secretary of State Richard L. Armitage told a House subcommittee Friday that only 77,000 Iraqis were employed on rebuilding projects.

"That's woefully inadequate," he said. - http://fairuse.1accesshost.co...

Bush's Miserable Failure: Heady US Goals for Iraq Fall by Wayside

09.28.04 (4:28 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush Caught Trying to Use CIA to Illegally Rig Iraq Elections ...

09.27.04 (5:56 pm) [edit]

Who is the Biggest Flip-Flopper??? It's NOT Kerry, It's LIAR Bush!!!

09.27.04 (5:51 pm) [edit]

[b]The next time someone criticizes John Kerry for being a flip-flopper remind them:[/b]

Bush was against campaign finance reform; now he's for it.

Bush was against a Homeland Security Department; now he's for it.

Bush was against a 9/11 commission; now he's for it.

Bush was against an Iraq WMD investigation; now he's for it.

Bush was against nation building; now he's for it.

Bush was against deficits; now he's for them.

Bush was for free trade; then he was for tariffs on steel, and now he's against them again.

Bush was against the U.S. taking a role in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; now he pushes for a "road map" and a Palestinian State.

Bush was for states' rights to decide on gay marriage; now he is for changing the Constitution to outlaw gay marriage.

Bush said he would provide money for first responders (fire, police, emergency); then he doesn't.

Bush said that "help is on the way" to the military; then he cuts their benefits and health care.

Bush claimed to be in favor of environmental protection; then he secretly approved oil drilling on Padre Island in Texas and other places and took many more anti-environmental actions.

Bush said he is the "education president;" then he refused to fully fund key education programs and rarely does his homework, such as read position papers so he will be more knowledgeable on issues.

Bush said that him being governor of Texas for six years was enough political experience to be president of the U.S.; then he criticized Sen. John Edwards for not having enough experience after Edwards had served six years in the U.S. Senate.

During the 2000 campaign, Bush said there were too many lawsuits being filed; then during the Florida recount, he was the first to file a lawsuit to stop the legal counting of votes after Gore took advantage of Florida law to ask for a recount.

On Nov. 7, 2000, the Bush campaign supported Florida county officials drawing up new copies of some 10,000 spoiled absentee votes in 26 Republican-leaning counties that the machines did not read and marking them for the candidates when they showed "clear intent;" they opposed doing the same thing after Nov. 7 when Gore asked for such recounts. Bush dominated absentee balloting in Florida by a two-to-one margin.

Bush said during the 2000 campaign that he did not have a "litmus test" for judges he appointed to be against abortion; then he mostly appointed judges who were against abortion.

In the early 1990s, Bush led a campaign to raise taxes in Arlington, Texas, to build a new baseball stadium for the team he partly owned; he later criticized politicians for supporting tax increases ñ after he got rich by selling the team with the new stadium to a wealthy campaign contributor.

Bush opposed the U.S. negotiating with North Korea; now he supports it.

Bush went to the racist and segregationist Bob Jones University in South Carolina; then he said he shouldn't have.

Bush said he would demand a U.N. Security Council vote on whether to sanction military action against Iraq; later Bush announced he would not call for a vote.

Bush first said the "mission accomplished" Iraqi banner was put up by the sailors; he later admitted it was done by his advance team.

Bush was for fingerprinting and photographing Mexicans who enter the U.S.; after meeting with Mexican President Fox, he decided against it.

Bush was opposed to Rice testifying in front of the 9/11 commission citing "separation of powers;" then he was for it.

Bush was against Ba'ath party members holding office or government jobs in Iraq; now he's for it.

Bush said we must not appease terrorists; then he lifted trade sanctions on admitted terrorist Mohammar Quaddafi and Pakistan, which pardoned its official who sold nuclear secrets to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.

Bush said he would wait until after the Nov. election to ask for more money for the war effort; then he decided he needed it before the election, after all.

Bush said, "Leaving Iraq prematurely would only embolden the terrorists and increase the danger to America." His administration now says that U.S. troops will pull out of Iraq when the new provisional authority asks. Then he said they'll stay "as long as needed" again. Now he's

saying that the Iraqis can ask the troops to leave, and they will. Or is he?

The Bush administration officials said that the Geneva Conventions don't apply to "enemy combatants." Now they claims they do.

Bush officials said before the Iraq invasion that Iraq posed an "imminent threat" to U.S. security and that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction and even nuclear weapons; after the invasion, they denied saying the word "imminent" and saying that Iraq had WMDs and nuclear weapons, even though they were caught on tape making such statements.

"The most important thing is for us to find Osama Bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him." - George W. Bush, Sept. 13, 2001

"I don't know where he is. I have no idea, and I really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." - George W. Bush, March 13, 2002

Are you getting tired of this? Well, some in the American military are getting tired of this, too: "The (Bush) administration has an overly simplistic view of how and when to use our military. By not bringing in our friends and allies, they have created a mess in Iraq and are crippling our forces around the world." -Retired Admiral William Crowe, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs under Ronald Reagan. - http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Former President Carter Says Honest Voting System Still Does Not Exist in Florida

09.27.04 (1:56 pm) [edit]

[b]Sacbee.com:[/b] "Former President Jimmy Carter says that despite changes designed to eliminate voting problems in Florida - where the disputed 2000 presidential election was decided by only a few hundred votes - conditions for a fair election in that state still don't exist. "The disturbing fact is that a repetition of the problems of 2000 now seems likely," says Carter...citing the experience of his Carter Center in monitoring international elections."Some basic international requirements for a fair election are missing in Florida." Most significant: requirements that a nonpartisan electoral commission or official organize and conduct the electoral process and that voting procedures be uniform for all citizens." Florida's top election official in 2000, Secretary of State Katherine Harris was a Bush toady, while her successor, Glenda Hood, is said to be just as bad if not worse. Meanwhile, Bush's brother Jeb Bush has allowed the situation to continue.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/...

Bush Policy has Increased the Threat of a Nuclear 9/11 Dramatically

09.27.04 (1:49 pm) [edit]

[b]AP:[/b] "The Bush administration's failure to shut down al-Qaida and rebuild Iraq have fueled the insurgency and made the United States more vulnerable to a nuclear attack by terrorists, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy said Sunday. In a speech prepared for delivery at George Washington University on Monday, Kennedy said that by shifting attention from Osama bin Laden to Iraq, Bush has increased the danger of a ''nuclear 9/11.'' ''The war in Iraq has made the mushroom cloud more likely, not less likely,'' he said in the remarks released late Sunday," adding that he thought "it was a good thing Bush was not in charge during the Cuban missile crisis, one of the darker periods of his late brother's John Kennedy's time as president. " Amen to that!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.boston.com/dailyne...

WILL BUSH'S BRAT-TWINS BE DRAFTED? (Poor Sombody's Poor Kids Will be Drafted!)

09.27.04 (1:20 pm) [edit]

[b]Feeling a Draft [/b]

Lawrence Kaplan, neo-Jacobin ideologue and shameless apologist for the carnage in Iraq, claims that Americans wouldn't mind having 30,000 of our troops killed in Iraq if it achieves Bush's "strategic objectives."

No one knows any longer what these objectives are unless it is to start World War III. The original strategic objectives were all propagandistic lies to justify a gratuitous invasion of a Muslim country, an irrational act that was a strategic blunder that wrecked US foreign policy and isolated the US from the rest of the world.

The year-long Iraqi military adventure has been justified with a series of shifting strategic objectives. First, it was to rid ourselves of the danger of Iraqi WMD. When the befuddled American public learned that there were no WMD, the strategic objective was to sever the al Qaeda-Iraqi terror link. When it became clear that there was no such link, the objective changed to removing a brutal dictator and building democracy.

As it becomes clear that the US is the new dictator – one moreover that has now killed more Iraqi women and children than Saddam Hussein – intending a permanent military occupation under cover of a puppet government, Shiites have joined Sunnis in resisting the occupation, and US casualties have risen to higher rates than during the military conflict with the Iraqi army.

Just as in Vietnam, American generals are calling for more troops. But there are no more troops to send. National Guard and Reserve units are already deployed filling in the manpower gaps. To bolster our forces against the rising resistance, the Pentagon must renege on the promised rotation of 20,000 US troops, requiring them to remain at their combat stations.

Meanwhile, US forces are poised to attack the Shiite holy city of Najaf in order to kill or capture the rebellious cleric Moqtada al-Sadr. The US started Sadr's rebellion by closing down a Shiite newspaper that was not sufficiently obsequious to the American dictatorship which has taken Saddam Hussein's place.

Moderate Shiite clerics, who have been attempting to hold the US to its promise of democracy and elections, have indicated that an attack on Najaf would lead to a generalized Shiite uprising.

Such an uprising would involve huge numbers. The calls for more US troops would be urgent. The only source of those troops is to reinstate the draft. If the insane idiots running the Bush administration persist in their macho bully mentality of escalating the conflict, we will have a test of Kaplan's prediction that Americans will gladly sacrifice 30,000 of their sons.

Moderate Shiite clerics cannot be reasonably expected to stand quietly while the US mows down Sadr's followers and destroys holy shrines. Trusting to their numbers prevailing in a democratic election, the Shiites' acceptance of the US occupation has already harmed their credibility and raised questions whether they have been bought by American gold. Until Sadr joined the resistance, only the Sunnis actively resisted the occupation.

A generalized rebellion against the American occupation would likely spill over into generalized conflict in the Middle East – the ignition of which was the precise reason behind the neoconservative plan to invade Iraq. Although utterly discredited by the failure of their "cakewalk" scenario, the neocon ideologues and their Likud Party allies might yet prevail in starting a Middle Eastern war. - http://www.antiwar.com/robert...

Angry Seniors Stage Nationwide 'Sock Rallies' to Sock it to Bush

09.27.04 (12:35 pm) [edit]

[b]US Newswire:[/b] " Fed up with a president that has socked it to them with skyrocketing drug costs, record-breaking Medicare premium increases and threats to privatize Social Security, older Americans are kicking off the Presidential Debate season Wednesday, Sept. 29, by protesting George Bush's anti-senior, anti-family policies with a nationwide sock rally. The Alliance for Retired Americans is sponsoring the "Socked Out Seniors" Washington, D.C., and cross-country rallies to call attention to George Bush's failure to protect and preserve programs vital to the safety and security of seniors and their families. All socks collected at the rally will be delivered to the White House. "

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://releases.usnewswire.co...

100 Children Per Day Die in Iraq, Most Due to Malnutrition & Consequences of Bush Bombing

09.27.04 (5:07 am) [edit]

[b]Zaman Daily:[/b] "In one month, 3000 children died in Iraq; on average, that is 100 per day. Though many are innocent victims of incessant clashes, most succumb to malnourishment and unsanitary living conditions [caused in large part by the systematic destruction of Iraq's infrastructure via the pre-invasion bombing, trashing sewage and water purification plants]. The shortage of drugs and modern equipment is worse than when Saddam Hussein was in power - when international embargoes isolated the country. Shells and shrapnel, grenades and bombs are other factors affecting the health of children. According to disclosures from the Health Care Ministry, children are suffering from diseases that were never reported before the war. Rimad Cuburi, a doctor in one of the country's largest children's hospitals, said the ailments arouse from some of the American weaponry." So this is what the Bush and his media goons are so eager to perpetuate at all costs? The slaughter of children?

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.zaman.com/?bl=inte...

100 Children Per Day Die in Iraq, Most Due to Malnutrition & Consequences of Bush Bombing

09.27.04 (4:56 am) [edit]

100 Children Per Day Die in Iraq, Most Due to Malnutrition & Consequences of Bush Bombing

09.27.04 (4:53 am) [edit]

100 Children Per Day Die in Iraq, Most Due to Malnutrition & Consequences of Bush Bombing

09.27.04 (4:51 am) [edit]

WHILE A'W'OL BUSH & NEO-CONS COMMIT TREASON WITH IMPUNITY ...

09.27.04 (4:45 am) [edit]

[b]While Neocons Commit Treason With Impunity [/b]. . .

Al Lorentz, a Texas reservist serving with the U.S. Army in Iraq, has gotten into hot water for writing this courageous appraisal of the Iraq disaster http://www.lewrockwell.com/or... . Specifically, the military may charge him with "willfully causing or attempting to cause insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty." Lt. Col. (ret.) Karen Kwiatkowski suggests http://www.lewrockwell.com/kw... that another Texan might be a tad uncomfortable with Lorentz for entirely different reasons. Check out this piece Lorentz wrote for Antiwar.com back in June http://www.antiwar.com/orig/l... to see why.

WHILE A'W'OL BUSH & NEO-CONS COMMIT TREASON WITH IMPUNITY ...

09.27.04 (4:40 am) [edit]

Former President Jimmy Carter Is Right Says Michael Badnarik

09.27.04 (4:36 am) [edit]

[b]Jimmy Carter Is Right

by Michael Badnarik [/b]

Former president Jimmy Carter recently issued a gutsy call on the U.S. government to pull out of Iraq as soon as possible. While a distinct minority in Congress has voiced this sentiment, it's refreshing to hear an ex-president say what almost no one else in the political mainstream dares say. Even many in the "antiwar" movement, to say nothing of the leadership of his party, don't see Carter's call for withdrawal as a reasonable option.

Not only is it reasonable, it's the only sensible course of action for the U.S. government to take. Most Americans now realize that the Iraq War is a tragic mistake that has failed to make us any safer. It has only inflamed anti-American sentiment in the Middle East, made us more vulnerable to terrorism, and served to distract us from the fact that the 9/11 terrorists are still out there. Al-Qaeda's ranks have swollen as a result of a war that has left many thousands dead. The Abu Ghraib prison scandal was the last nail in the coffin – we are out of chances to win the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people.

The Bush administration has found no weapons of mass destruction, and is finally backing away from the notion that Saddam had any serious links to al-Qaeda. Its one final rationalization of war – the liberation of the Iraqi people – has been proven a farce, as the Iraqis now suffer under a brutal regime of martial law backed by U.S. support and deceptively referred to as "self government."

It is time to leave.

Some "realists" point out that if the U.S. government picks up and leaves, Iraq will fall into chaos, despotism, and civil war. Perhaps the Bush administration should have considered this before it launched an unnecessary, undeclared war without an exit strategy. But even if chaos results – as if it hasn't already -- the overwhelming majority of Iraqis wants Americans out. Few of them think of us as liberators. Attacks against Americans have escalated to the highest levels since the invasion. Jimmy Carter speaks the plain truth when he says that "the main thing that sustains violence there is the apparent long term presence of U.S. troops." People worry about civil war – but that is the de facto situation now, and it will only continue to escalate as long as U.S. troops are present.

Many Americans don't want to confront the fact that the U.S. government can't improve life for the average Iraqi, and that its interventions in the region – from Reagan's support of Saddam during the Iran-Iraq war, to George H.W. Bush's war and sanctions on the Iraqi people, to Clinton's continuous bombing of Iraq and his enforcement of his predecessor's sanctions that left hundreds of thousands of malnourished Iraqi civilians dead, to George W. Bush's bombing and occupation of the country – have only made life worse for Iraqis. While some hold onto a forlorn hope that things will turn around under a continued or even increased U.S. presence, and others pessimistically hold that the nation will fall to pieces if the American military simply leaves, the cold hard truth is that the U.S. government is seen as an imperial occupier and will very unlikely succeed at promoting peace and stability there, any more so than it has over the last twenty years.

It is time to leave.

It is time to leave other places as well. Some say that Yugoslavia will fall into chaos if the U.S. government leaves. Some say that North and South Korea will destroy each other if the U.S. government leaves. Some say that the entire Middle East will fall like dominoes to terrorism if the U.S. government leaves. The idea that America's job is to keep the world from descending into hell by being a global cop is not only un-American, it is laughable, considering the U.S. government's terrible record at peacekeeping.

The U.S. government has stuck its nose into, invaded, bombed and occupied plenty of countries over the last fifty years, and what benefits have such interventions provided, either to Americans in the form of safety, or to foreigners in the form of democracy or stability? If Clinton's bombing of thousands of civilians in Yugoslavia, for example, really improved anything, it certainly hasn't been a lasting improvement if U.S. presence is indeed all that's keeping the volatile region from exploding.

Sept. 11 was a reaction to U.S. foreign interventions, showing that U.S. foreign policy has not made us safer, and instead of a measured response to capture and bring justice to the perpetrators, the Bush administration has simply continued with the same disastrous policy of arrogant and deadly interventions, guaranteed to alienate the world, and all at an unspeakable expense in American blood and treasure. Not to mention American prestige: Bush's war has transformed the most universal international sympathy America had seen since World War II into the most universal hatred and fear of America in our country's history.

Even if most Americans are not ready to call for an end to U.S. foreign adventurism across the board, most have come to realize that the U.S. government has little to show for its actions in Iraq, and that it's time to admit the whole thing was a colossal mistake and leave. We must take Carter's advice and start bringing the troops home. This guerilla war will last as long as the United States tries to run the country, and it is time we cut our losses and stopped participating in, and inciting, the madness. While Americans are beginning to see these simple realities, very few political leaders are willing to admit the obvious, and for his unusually candid words of truth, Carter deserves the applause of the frustrated masses who do not often hear their views represented in Washington or the mainstream media.

The Iraq war is one of the most important issues for voters to consider this November. It is unfortunate that the Democrats nominated someone who refuses to take an unwavering stand against Bush's catastrophic war in Iraq and demand that the troops be brought home. At least there would be a debate between the two major candidates on this crucial issue if they had nominated Jimmy Carter instead. - http://www.antiwar.com/orig/b...

[b]Maybe, but Kerry is a far, far better candidate than A'WOL Bush![/b]

DumbBell Dubya Says He'd Vomit his "Mission Accomplished" Lie & Play the Clown Again!!!

09.27.04 (4:31 am) [edit]

[b]Bush: Would Give 'Mission Accomplished' Speech Again[/b]

CRAWFORD, Texas (Reuters) - President Bush said he had no regrets about donning a flight suit to give his "Mission Accomplished" speech on Iraq in May 2003 and would do it all over again if he had the chance, according to excerpts from an television interview released on Sunday.

When asked by Fox News if he still would have put on a flight suit to declare major combat operations in Iraq over, Bush replied, "Absolutely."

When Bush gave his May 1 speech fewer than 150 Americans had died in the war. Since then more than 900 have died.

The interview is to air on Fox's "The O'Reilly Factor" on Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, just before Bush and Democratic presidential nominee Sen. John Kerry face off in their first televised debate on Thursday.

Amid a rising U.S. death toll and a rash of abductions and beheadings in Iraq, some members of Bush's own Republican Party have criticized him for not doing enough to secure insurgent areas in Iraq sooner.

But Bush said he also did not regret the decision to withdraw U.S. forces from the rebel stronghold of Falluja earlier this year because he believed the conflict there could have jeopardized the June handover of sovereignty to Iraqis.

"A lot of people on the ground there thought that if we'd have gone into Falluja at the time, the interim government would not have been established," Bush said.

Also in the interview, the president was noncommittal about whether his top political aide, Karl Rove, knew in advance about ads by the group, "Swift Boat Veterans for Truth" which attacked Kerry's military service in Vietnam. Bush himself did not serve in Vietnam.

On the issue of whether he knew ahead of time about the Swift Boat ads, Bush said "no," but replied "I don't think so" when questioned whether Rove had advance knowledge of them.

The Swift Boat ads accused Kerry of lying about the events that led to his decoration for bravery. As a so-called 527 organization, the Swift Boat group is barred under election rules from coordinating its activities with campaigns or political parties.

Democrats has accused the Bush campaign of colluding with the group, a charge the White House has denied. - http://www.reuters.com/newsAr...

DumbBell Dubya Says He'd Vomit his "Mission Accomplished" Lie & Play the Clown Again!!!

09.27.04 (4:28 am) [edit]

Powell on A'W'OL Bush's Bloodbath in Iraq: "It's Getting Worse"!!!

09.27.04 (4:27 am) [edit]

[b]Iraq Uprising Growing, Powell Says

Successful Elections Seen as Way to Alleviate Muslim Anger[/b]

Secretary of State Colin L. Powell said yesterday that the insurgency in Iraq is getting worse and that the U.S. occupation there has increased anti-American sentiment in Muslim countries, but he said successful elections in Afghanistan and Iraq would turn the situation around.

"We have seen an increase in anti-Americanism in the Muslim world. We'll not deny this," Powell said on ABC's "This Week." "But I think that that will be overcome in due process because what the Muslim world will see . . . is that in Afghanistan, 10 million people who have registered to vote will vote on the ninth of October and bring in place a freely elected president.

"And I think we're going to do the same thing in Iraq if we stay the course, if we defeat this insurgency," Powell said.

He acknowledged that "yes, it's getting worse, and the reason it's getting worse is that they are determined to disrupt the elections."

But he rejected the notion, put forward recently by Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, that it would be sufficient to hold elections in most, but not all, of Iraq.

"For the elections to have complete credibility and stand the test of international scrutiny, I think what we have to do is to give all the people of Iraq an opportunity to participate," Powell told "Fox News Sunday." "Just as we would have difficulty with partial elections here in the United States . . . I think it has to be throughout the country."

In contrast, Gen. John P. Abizaid, U.S. commander for the Middle East, told NBC's "Meet the Press" that the goal is that "the election will be able to be held in the vast majority of the country."

The election, to be held by Jan. 31, will create a national assembly, which in turn will pick a new government to replace the one headed by interim Prime Minister Ayad Allawi. The assembly will also oversee the writing of a new constitution.

"I am not predicting victory by January at the end of the elections," Abizaid cautioned. "I am predicting that we'll have elections. We will fight our way through the elections. It will be tough. It will be hard. But it will move us a step closer to ultimate victory, which is when Iraqis control their own destiny."

Abizaid said he found the CIA's recent assessment of Iraq's future over 18 months to be "overly pessimistic." The classified National Intelligence Estimate, which Democrats on the Senate Intelligence Committee have asked the CIA to declassify, predicted a tenuous stability at best and, in the worst-case scenario, civil war.

Powell, on Fox News, said the CIA report "wasn't a terribly shocking assessment. It was something that I could have written myself."

The assessment contrasted with President Bush's and Allawi's more optimistic portrayal of Iraq's short-term future.

Abizaid criticized news reports that the insurgency was spreading among the general population. "The constant drumbeat in Washington of a war that is being lost, that can't be won, of a resistance that is out of control, simply do not square with the facts on the ground," he said.

Statistics compiled by Kroll Security International, a private security firm working for the U.S. government, indicate the attacks against U.S. troops, security forces and private contractors are greater than reported by the U.S. military and have spread to parts of the country that have been relatively peaceful, according to a report Sunday in The Washington Post.

Powell confirmed a second report in The Post that military plans are underway for a fall offensive aimed at regaining control of the most volatile cities in the Sunni Triangle, including Fallujah and the provincial capitals near Baghdad, such as Ramadi to the west, Samarra to the north and Baqubah to the northeast.

The plan calls for opening up these areas so that Iraqi forces can move back in and secure the towns in preparation for balloting. - http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Powell on A'W'OL Bush's Bloodbath in Iraq: "It's Getting Worse"!!!

09.27.04 (4:19 am) [edit]

'Washington Times' Runs Correction of Intentional Misquote of Kerry Statement

09.26.04 (8:52 am) [edit]

W. Times: "Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday's editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire" as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq. In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern [-] where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq." Trouble with the "correction-after-the-fac t" strategy is that as the Times WELL KNOWS, very few readers look at the corrections - the initial smear is what will stick and that is what the Times and the other corporate media liars count on.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washtimes.com/nati...

It's All About the GREED: Corporate Media Baron Admits He Doesn't Give a Damn about Americans

09.26.04 (8:48 am) [edit]

So Sumner Redstone simply has admitted what is true of ALL the US corporate media: It's all about the GREED - the American public and the democratic system be damned. Redstone officially endorsed Bush for president, saying "I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom." In short, what's good for America, for our soldiers suffering daily in a living hell, for global security, for future generations DON'T MEAN SQUAT. As long as Viacom keeps sucking up money and favors at everyone else's expense, it's all good. Remember that scene in Monty Python's 'Meaning of Life" where the huge, bloated human whale of a rich corporazi type sat stuffing himself until he exploded? Well, Sumner and his kind - like Steve Forbes, who shared the stage with Redstone, remind us alot of that guy!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://makethemaccountabl e.co...

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (Bush is similar to Hitler)

09.26.04 (4:55 am) [edit]

[b]Rumours of a link between the US first family and the Nazi war machine have circulated for decades. Now the Guardian can reveal how repercussions of events that culminated in action under the Trading with the Enemy Act are still being felt by today's president [/b]

By Ben Aris in Berlin and Duncan Campbell in Washington, The Guardian, http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

George Bush's grandfather, the late US senator Prescott Bush, was a director and shareholder of companies that profited from their involvement with the financial backers of Nazi Germany.

The Guardian has obtained confirmation from newly discovered files in the US National Archives that a firm of which Prescott Bush was a director was involved with the financial architects of Nazism.

His business dealings, which continued until his company's assets were seized in 1942 under the Trading with the Enemy Act, has led more than 60 years later to a civil action for damages being brought in Germany against the Bush family by two former slave labourers at Auschwitz and to a hum of pre-election controversy.

The evidence has also prompted one former US Nazi war crimes prosecutor to argue that the late senator's action should have been grounds for prosecution for giving aid and comfort to the enemy. [b]Full story [/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

[b]Also read "Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush"[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

Impeach Bush: Millions of US Citizens Blocked from Voting on 2nd Nov!!!

09.26.04 (4:49 am) [edit]

[b]Millions Blocked from Voting in Election[/b]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Millions of U.S. citizens, including a disproportionate number of black voters, will be blocked from voting in the Nov. 2 presidential election because of legal barriers, faulty procedures or dirty tricks, according to civil rights and legal experts.

The largest category of those legally disenfranchised consists of almost 5 million former felons who have served prison sentences and been released.

In total, 13 percent of all black men are barred from voting due to a felony conviction, according to the Commission on Civil Rights. Polls consistently find that black Americans overwhelmingly vote for Democrats.

"This has a huge effect on elections but also on black communities which see their political clout diluted. No one has yet explained to me how letting ex-felons who have served their sentences into polling booths hurts anyone," said Jessie Allen of the Brennan Center for Justice at New York University.

Conservatives disagree. "Society is not required to turn a blind eye to the fact that someone has a criminal record. Someone who was not willing to follow the law and was sent to prison should not be in a position to make the law for others by electing lawmakers," said Roger Clegg of the Center for Equal Opportunity think tank.

Millions of other votes in the 2000 presidential election were lost due to clerical and administrative errors while civil rights organizations have cataloged numerous tactics aimed at suppressing black voter turnout.

"There are individuals and officials who are actively trying to stop people from voting who they think will vote against their party and that nearly always means stopping black people from voting Democratic," said Mary Frances Berry, head of the U.S. Commission on Human Rights.

[b]'DISCOURAGED' FROM VOTING [/b]

Vicky Beasley, a field officer for People for the American Way, listed some of the ways voters have been "discouraged" from voting.

"In elections in Baltimore in 2002 and in Georgia last year, black voters were sent fliers saying anyone who hadn't paid utility bills or had outstanding parking tickets or were behind on their rent would be arrested at polling stations. It happens in every election cycle," she said.

In a mayoral election in Philadelphia last year, people pretending to be plainclothes police officers stood outside some polling stations asking people to identify themselves. There have also been reports of mysterious people videotaping people waiting in line to vote in black neighborhoods.

Minority voters may be deterred from voting simply by election officials demanding to see drivers' licenses before handing them a ballot, according to Spencer Overton, who teaches law at George Washington University.

"African Americans are four to five times less likely than whites to have a photo ID," Overton said at a recent briefing on minority disenfranchisement.

Courtenay Strickland of the Americans Civil Liberties Union testified to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights last week that at a primary election in Florida last month, many people were wrongly turned away when they could not produce identification.

[b]BLACKS' BALLOTS REJECTED [/b]

The commission, in a report earlier this year, said that in Florida, where President Bush (news - web sites) won a bitterly disputed election in 2000 by 537 votes, black voters had been 10 times more likely than non-black voters to have their ballots rejected and were often prevented from voting because their names were erroneously purged from registration lists.

Additionally, Florida is one of 14 states that prohibit ex-felons from voting. Seven percent of the electorate but 16 percent of black voters in that state are disenfranchised.

In other swing states, 4.6 percent of voters in Iowa, but 25 percent of blacks, were disenfranchised in 2000 as ex-felons. In Nevada, it was 4.8 percent of all voters but 17 percent of blacks; in New Mexico, 6.2 percent of all voters but 25 percent of blacks.

Penda Hair, co-director of the Advancement Project, which seeks to ensure fair multiracial elections, recently reported that registrars across the country often claimed not to have received voter registration forms or rejected them for technical reasons that could have been corrected easily before voting day if the applicant had known there was a problem.

Beasley said that many voters who had registered recently in swing states were likely to find their names would not be on the rolls when they showed up on Election Day. - http://story.news.yahoo.com/n...

Impeach Bush: Millions of US Citizens Blocked from Voting on 2nd Nov!!!

09.26.04 (4:48 am) [edit]

Bush Hates Democracy: Phony Elections -- Not All Citizens Will be Allowed to Vote!!!

09.26.04 (4:42 am) [edit]

[b]Leaders say all of Iraq may not vote[/b]

BAGHDAD, Iraq -- Iraq's vice president conceded Saturday that voting might not be possible in all parts of the country when elections are held in in January.

Vice President Barham Saleh told The Associated Press that authorities are adamant that insurgents will not derail efforts to hold elections on time.

"Hypothetically, if you have a location in which the security situation is not conducive to holding elections ... then you end up with the question, Shall we delay or hold the entire process hostage to that particular district? " he said during an interview in his Baghdad office. "That will be a bridge that we will have to cross when we come to it."

The issue of bypassing the vote in some areas where violence is heaviest has been debated in recent days.

Prime Minister Ayad Allawi insisted that the vote will be held throughout the country amid concern that some areas in Iraq may be inaccessible to voters due to the insurgency.

But U.S. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld said Thursday and again Friday that if insurgents prevent Iraqis from voting in some areas, a partial vote would be better than none at all.

However, Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage told Congress Friday that elections must be held throughout the country, including areas gripped by violence.

A surge of violence, kidnappings and beheadings, and the inability of U.S.-led forces to secure volatile parts of the country that are controlled by insurgents, such as Fallujah, have raised doubts about the timing of the vote.

"This is about the constitution and any area that will hold out and create trouble, they risk being isolated and lose their voice," said Saleh, a Kurd and a former prime minister in the Kurdish province of Sulaymaniyah.

By way of example, he said there were doubts about holding the National Assembly before it opened in August. He said 1,000 people converged on Baghdad to take part in the assembly, raising fears of terrorist attacks.

"It succeeded," he said. "We had a National Assembly come out of it which is part of the political process." - http://seattlepi.nwsource.com...%20Vice%20President

Bush Hates Democracy: Phony Elections -- Not All Citizens Will be Allowed to Vote!!!

09.26.04 (4:40 am) [edit]

Bush's Bloodbath: Violence in Iraq belies A'W'OL Bush's Dishonest Propaganda

09.26.04 (4:37 am) [edit]

[b]Violence in Iraq Belies Claims of Calm, Data Show[/b]

BAGHDAD, Sept. 25 -- Less than four months before planned national elections in Iraq, attacks against U.S. troops, Iraqi security forces and private contractors number in the dozens each day and have spread to parts of the country that had been relatively peaceful, according to statistics compiled by a private security firm working for the U.S. government.

Attacks over the past two weeks have killed more than 250 Iraqis and 29 U.S. military personnel, according to figures released by Iraq's Health Ministry and the Pentagon. A sampling of daily reports produced during that period by Kroll Security International for the U.S. Agency for International Development shows that such attacks typically number about 70 each day. In contrast, 40 to 50 hostile incidents occurred daily during the weeks preceding the handover of political authority to an interim Iraqi government on June 28, according to military officials.

Reports covering seven days in a recent 10-day period depict a nation racked by all manner of insurgent violence, from complex ambushes involving 30 guerrillas north of Baghdad on Monday to children tossing molotov cocktails at a U.S. Army patrol in the capital's Sadr City slum on Wednesday. On maps included in the reports, red circles denoting attacks surround nearly every major city in central, western and northern Iraq, except for Kurdish-controlled areas in the far north. Cities in the Shiite Muslim-dominated south, including several that had undergone a period of relative calm in recent months, also have been hit with near-daily attacks.

In number and scope, the attacks compiled in the Kroll reports suggest a broad and intensifying campaign of insurgent violence that contrasts sharply with assessments by Bush administration officials and Iraq's interim prime minister that the instability is contained to small pockets of the country.

Speaking with President Bush at the White House on Thursday, Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said the security situation in Iraq was "good for elections to be held tomorrow" in 15 of the country's 18 provinces. Elections for a national assembly are scheduled for January.

Allawi told Washington Post reporters and editors on Friday that "for now the only place which is not really that safe is Fallujah, downtown Fallujah. The rest, there are varying degrees. Some -- most -- of the provinces are really quite safe."

The Kroll reports are based on nonclassified data provided by U.S.-led military forces, the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, private security companies working in Iraq and nongovernmental organizations. The reports, which Kroll has refused to distribute to journalists, were provided to The Post by a person on the list to receive them. They cover the period of Sept. 13 through Sept. 22 -- but do not include Sept. 15, 18 or 19, for which reports were not available.

To many natives and foreigners living in Iraq, the portrait of progress that Allawi painted during his trip to Washington does not depict reality.

After his speech to a joint meeting of Congress on Thursday, Allawi described Baghdad as "very good and safe." In fact, during the period for which security reports were available, the number of attacks in the capital averaged 22 a day.

On Wednesday, there were 28 separate hostile incidents in Baghdad, including five rocket-propelled grenade attacks, six roadside bombings and a suicide bombing in which a car exploded at a National Guard recruiting station, killing at least 11 people and wounding more than 50.

"People are very naive if they think Baghdad is safe," said Falah Ahmed, 26, a cigarette vendor in center city. A nearby tailor, Hisham Nuaimi, 52, said Allawi "is either deceiving himself or the Americans."

"What do you call a city with a car bomb every day?" he said. "Is this the security they are achieving?"

At the same time, however, the city retains an air of normalcy. Motorists clog the roads during rush hour. Markets bustle with shoppers. Restaurants fill up with lunchtime customers.

In his remarks Thursday, Allawi did not specify the three provinces he deemed insecure, nor did he specify what he meant when he contended that violence in those provinces had been limited to "certain pockets." But since the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003, Baghdad and three of the country's largest and most populous provinces -- Anbar in the west, Salahuddin to the north and Babil to the south -- have been the principal hotbeds of insurgent violence. And according to the Kroll reports, recent violence appears to have been widespread rather than limited. On Wednesday, for instance, attacks in Salahuddin province occurred in Taji, Balad, Tikrit, Samarra, Baiji, Thuliyah and Dujayl -- the seven largest population centers in the area.

Moreover, the security reports indicate that a majority of the hostile acts committed against U.S. and Iraqi security forces over the past two weeks have occurred outside those three provinces. For example, the cities of Amarah in the southern province of Maysan and Samawah in Muthanna province, also in the south, had long been relatively free of violence but are now experiencing frequent attacks, the reports indicate.

There also has been an unusual spike in the number of attacks to the north of the capital. More attacks have been reported in the northern cities of Mosul, Samarra and Tikrit over the past two weeks than in Fallujah and Ramadi, two areas of frequent fighting in Anbar.

Military officials contend, however, that does not mean the restive areas west of Baghdad -- the area known as the Sunni Triangle -- are no longer insurgent strongholds. The likely explanation, the officials said, is that U.S. Marines stationed in Anbar have sharply reduced their patrolling, making them less vulnerable to roadside attacks. But that strategy, officials say, has allowed insurgent cells to expand in the province.

"There are fewer attacks here because we're out on the road less," an officer at the Marine headquarters near Fallujah said on condition of anonymity. "But you shouldn't conclude from that that things are any safer."

As news reports have detailed over the past several months, the insurgents' campaign of violence is not limited to U.S. and Iraqi security forces. Iraqi civilians working for the interim government have been killed and kidnapped. So, too, have Iraqis who work as interpreters and truck drivers for the U.S. military. Foreign civilians, even aid workers and fellow Arabs, are regarded as fair game by the insurgents.

The security situation has grown so dire that many of the few remaining nongovernmental aid organizations left in Iraq are making plans to withdraw. The United Nations, which was supposed to help organize the national elections, has just 30 employees in the country, all of whom are quartered in the U.S.-controlled, fortified Green Zone. Foreign journalists, who used to roam the country, are now largely restricted by safety concerns to Baghdad hotels surrounded with concrete walls and barbed wire.

With insurgents targeting not just U.S. troops but seemingly everyone in the country -- Iraqi security forces, Iraqis working for the interim government, foreign contractors, journalists, aid workers and others -- it is difficult for even ordinary Iraqis to ignore the threat.

"When we leave home, we never know if we're going to return home alive or not," said Mohammed Kadhim, a taxi driver. - http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Bush's Bloodbath: Violence in Iraq belies A'W'OL Bush's Dishonest Propaganda

09.26.04 (4:34 am) [edit]

BUSH: A Study in Failure

09.25.04 (12:32 pm) [edit]

When a new history of the United States of America comes to be written, the narrative will show that the biggest disaster that ever happened to that country was President George W. Bush Jr., and not the calamity of September 11, 2001.

And if George Bush should write his memoirs after being voted out of the White House, he should title the work, "Failure" with the sub-title, "How the Son Never Rose."

George Bush is the clearest example of how, in spite of all the privileges and advantages at one's disposal, one can easily fail to succeed in life.

George Bush will never be in the same league as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Frank Delano Roosevelt, J. F. Kennedy, Jimmy Carter, Dwight D. Eisenhower and Bill Clinton, for example.

While George W. Bush Sr., (the father) was carving a niche for himself in American society as ambassador, Director of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and later as president of the United States, what was his son doing?

He was leading the life of the typical wastrel: dissipation and total aimlessness in life. In fact, as everyone knows, he had to be rescued from that life and rehabilitated by a group of Wesleyan priests.

One wonders whether the rehabilitation was one hundred percent successful.

This is the man who became the President of the United States of America under extremely dubious circumstances. In deed, if the way Bush was " elected" had happened in a so-called Third World or developing country, the "civilized and democratic" people of the Western world, would have cried "Foul."

The Florida vote was crucial. And Florida was where the elder brother of Bush was the Governor. Some ballot boxes disappeared for a time. Barriers were erected to stop some Black Americans from going to exercise their right to vote. They are known to vote for the Democratic Party.

A faulty voting machine was used that resulted in the votes of several Black Americans being rendered invalid.

The Democratic candidate for the Presidency, Al Gore, insisted on manual recounting of the votes. As the recounts threatened to turn the vote in Al Gore's favour, the matter ended up at the United States Federal Supreme Court.

There, with seven out of the nine Justices of the court being Republicans put on the Court mainly by previous Republican Presidents, the verdict unsurprisingly went in favour of Bush. Al Gore accepted the verdict with grace.

At the inauguration of a President of the United States, a number played is titled, "Hail To The Chief."

Having "won" the election under such unconvincing and highly questionable circumstances, it is no wonder that some of the spectators shouted, 'Hail To The Thief." Sure, he had stolen the Presidency, no doubt about that, Probably realizing his debilitating shortcomings as a person and as "a cut-purse president" George W. Bush set out to terrorize the rest of the world.

With a deadpan face, eyes almost shut out by his eyelids, snake-like lips, hectoring speeches and a bellicose posture, Bush sought to create the impression that he was the modern-day equivalent of the Old Wild West Sheriff who, alone or in the company of a posse, rides out of town to catch the bad guy and bring him to Justice.

On the contrary, Bush has proved himself rather the bad guy who, with his sidekicks, rides into town, pulls out his Smith & Wesson or Colt 45 pistols, heads for the nearest saloon, and starts to cower everyone by indiscriminating firing into the ceiling.

Came September 11 and Bush must have thought that a wonderful opportunity had been presented to him to embark on a crusade to rid the world of all the bad guys whom he describes as terrorists.

Buoyed up by his invasion of Afghanistan and the driving away of the Taliban regime, Bush must have convinced himself that he was invincible.

He must have been convinced further by the people he had assembled around him: Dick Cheney, his Vice President; Collin Powell, his Secretary of State; Donald Rumsfeld, his Secretary for Defense; Ms Condoleesa Rice, his national security Advisor, and John Ashcroft, his Attorney-General.

These people, as shown by the Guinness Book of Records, are all billionaires. The god they worship is an insatiable appetite for wealth, power and world domination.

Casting their eyes around, they saw what Bush came to describe as countries that terrorized the rest of the world through state-sponsored destabilization of other countries.

To Bush, these countries, namely Iraq, Iran and North Korea, formed an "axis of evil" that had to be destroyed. Attacked them one after the other and such so-called "rogue states" like Libya and Syria would quickly mend their ways.

The conquest of Iraq and the removal of Saddam Hussein would open up that country for economic rape. Most of the people around him had made their fortunes in oil, especially Dick Cheney and Condoleesa Rice. The oil fields of Iraq were there for the picking.

Why not attack Saddam Hussein on the false pretext that, contrary to the resolutions of the United States, he had acquired, or was seriously acquiring, weapons of mass destruction, namely chemical, biological and nuclear weapons (WMDs)?

Without the sanction of a resolution by the United Nations, George Bush, the World's Number One Policeman or Sheriff, wore his ten-gallon hat and his cow boy boots, buckled his belt with two holsters for his fighting guns, swung into the saddle, and headed straight for Iraq. Dear readers, you know the rest of the story of the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath.

In Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden, fingered as the villain who masterminded the September 11 catastrophe, reportedly remains at large.

So are the leaders of the Taliban regime.

Thanks to the power and the lure of money, Saddam Hussein has been betrayed to Bush. Far from Saddam's capture and the disbanding of his army ending hostilities in Iraq, Bush continues to sink in the Iraqi quicksand.

Far from being the Liberator bringing peace, development and prosperity, Bush has only succeeded in introducing chaos, needless bloodshed and disintegration to that country.

When he allegedly visited American soldiers in Iraq, he could only do so "Nicodemously," instead of riding in an open vehicle to acknowledge the cheers of a grateful people.

It is said that he wore a military uniform, ostensibly to empathize with the troops but more likely to hide his real identity so that he did not become a target. The man "highlighted it" out of town as fast as he had entered it.

On June 30, 2004, Bush will hand over the house of cards he has built in Iraq to a group. He knows very well that that house will collapse but it is anything to get out of that hellhole.

American jingoism, the policy of "my country right or wrong" and her hypocrisy and double standards pre-date the Bush Presidency.

Still, there can be no doubt that Bush in his almost four years in office has adopted the crudest type of foreign policy that has raised this American character to record heights.

The shocking record of the treatment of prisoners in Iraq and at the Guantánamo Base in Cuba has shown the ugliest face of George Bush and his America.

Today, the worst type of a so-called Third World dictator is an angel compared to George Bush. No wonder that 50 (fifty) former American diplomats have written to warn him about the effect of his policies. According to them, such policies are losing friends for America.

Today, George Bush encourages Israel to disregard international law, respect for human rights and to carry out acts of genocide. At least other American Presidents tried to bring about peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians.

Today, George Bush says that the prisoners at the Guantánamo base are not regular prisoners of war but "illegal combatants." They are also said not to be on United States soil so the laws of the United States do not apply to them. Consequently, Bush has the right to hold them forever at the Base and under constant torture.

Far from winning his so-called war on terror, George Bush rather continues to stoke up the fires that forge terrorists around the world.

George W. Bush, this "king of shreds and patches" (apologies to Shakespeare's Hamlet), has become the biggest terrorist of all time.

He has succeeded in reducing America to the lowest point or nadir of her history while he himself has sunk lower than a snake's belly.

This is the man who wants another stay in the White House.

MEDIA FRAUD for Today: Washington Times Deliberately Prints Misquote to Smear Kerry

09.25.04 (12:27 pm) [edit]

In their frantic, greed-driven fever to try to keep their Sugar Daddy in the White House, the corporate media have become mutant hybrids: part pig, part hyena, part shark. The pig-like snout has been swilling deeply from the federal trough - scooping up billions in tax cuts and increased revenues via pro-media legislation. The hyena part sneaks, lies, and cheats to try to make sure it gets its share of the 'kill." The shark circles its victims, waiting for just a drop of blood in the water as a signal for a savage attack. Here's just the latest "Pigenark" sighting, this one from Media Matters, who caught the Washington Times (one of the greediest Pigenarks) in a flagrant act of media fraud in its neverending efforts to smear Kerry.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://releases.usnewswire.co...

The RNC's Political Strategy for 2004: a Grotesque Campaign of Fear and Intimidation

09.25.04 (12:25 pm) [edit]

365Gay.com: "The RNC has finally admitted that it was responsible for a mass mailing that claimed Democrats would permit gay marriage and ban the Bible." The mailings esp. targeted poor communities in areas like West. VA. "365Gay.com reported last week that the mailing had a return address of the RNC, but RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie [lied bald-facedly] last week [and said] he wasn't aware of the mailing. The NY Times reported that in an e-mail message, Christine Iverson, a spokesperson for the RNC, finally confirmed that the party had sent the mailings." This is a twenty-first century political party in America?? It sound more like 'KKK lite" circa 1870 in the Deep South. Anyone who still supports the RNC is NOT supporting America's principles - or ANY principles, for that matter.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.365gay.com/newscon...

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (Bush is similar to Hitler)

09.25.04 (5:29 am) [edit]

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (Bush is similar to Hitler)

09.25.04 (5:27 am) [edit]

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (Bush is similar to Hitler)

09.25.04 (5:26 am) [edit]

How Bush's grandfather helped Hitler's rise to power (Bush is similar to Hitler)

09.25.04 (5:25 am) [edit]

Fear of flying: Woman says nerves ended W's National Guard Service in Texas

09.25.04 (5:20 am) [edit]

Janet Linke has been thinking about George W. Bush a lot lately. Thirty-two years ago, her late husband Jan Peter Linke served briefly in the Texas Air National Guard's 111th Fighter Interceptor Squadron. Bush's service in the same squadron has gotten plenty of mention in an election year when what you did during the Vietnam War is suddenly a litmus test of character. But Linke claims she knows a part of the story that nobody has mentioned.

According to Linke, a Jacksonville resident and artist, Bush's flying career was permanently disabled by a crippling fear of flying.

Linke's husband was admitted to the Texas Guard in the summer of 1972 to replace Bush. President Bush has said that he stopped flying fighter jets because the Alabama Guard unit didn't have jets, and he wanted to transfer to Alabama in order to work on a political campaign. But Linke says she heard a different story from her husband and Bush's squad commander, the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian. Shortly after her husband joined the Texas unit, Linke says, the couple discussed Bush's service with Killian at a social event.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.smirkingchimp.com/...

Neo-Con Invasion by Proxy: Is Bush Plannig to Attack Iran through Israel?

09.25.04 (5:16 am) [edit]

[b]Common Dreams:[/b] "The United States plans to sell Israel $319 million worth of air-launched bombs, including 500 "bunker busters" able to penetrate Iran's underground nuclear facilities, Israeli security sources said. The U.S. embassy in Israel had no comment, referring queries to Washington. Israel's Defense Ministry also declined comment. But a senior Israeli security source who confirmed the Haaretz story told Reuters: "This is not the sort of ordnance needed for the Palestinian front. Bunker busters could serve Israel against Iran, or possibly Syria." " How very convenient for Bush! It's his pattern: let someone else do your dirty work while you weasel out: from letting someone else go to Vietnam, to letting others slime political opponents, this man is an unbelievably cowardly sneak!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.commondreams.org/h...

Neo-Con Invasion by Proxy: Is Bush Plannig to Attack Iran through Israel?

09.25.04 (5:15 am) [edit]

Rumsfeld Admits Flip-Flop Dubya May Cut-n-Run in Iraq Leaving a Mess!!!

09.25.04 (5:13 am) [edit]

[b]Rumsfeld Suggests US Could Begin Iraq Troop Withdrawal Before Peace[/b]

WASHINGTON, Sept 24 (AFP) - The United States could begin to withdraw troops from Iraq before the country is at peace, US Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld suggested Friday after meeting Iraqi Prime Minister Iyad Allawi.

"Any implication that that place has to be peaceful and perfect before we can reduce coalition and US forces would obviously be, I think, unwise because it has never been peaceful and perfect, and it isn`t likely to be," Rumsfeld said.

Rumsfeld`s comments were in jarring contrast to President George W. Bush`s vow to "stay the course" in Iraq as well as the administration`s broader effort to portray the situation in Iraq as one of steady progress despite an onslaught of insurgent violence.

It came only a day after the secretary told members of Congress that if violence made elections impossible in parts of the country, "Well, so be it." An imperfect election, he said, was better than none at all.

But it also appeared to be a response to a drumbeat of Democratic charges that the administration has no plan to get US forces out of Iraq.

Democratic challenger Senator John Kerry has said he would withdraw the 140,000-member US force from Iraq in four years, replacing them with Iraqi security forces and troops from other countries.

Rumsfeld indicated in his comments to reporters that the training of Iraqi security forces to assume responsibility for the country`s security has become a central preoccupation at the Pentagon.

He pointed to the disadvantages of having a large foreign military presence in the country.

"There is a tension there. No country wants foreign forces in your country any longer than they have to be there," he told reporters after his meeting at the Pentagon with Allawi.

"The more of them you have, the more force protection you have to have, the more combat support you have to have. The heavier your footprint is, the more intrusive you are in their lives," he said.

"The question is to balance the numbers against the disadvantage that begins to accrue by having an excessively large footprint, against the advantage that tends to accrue by having more people to do more things to help get to the point you want to that they in fact can take over those responsibility."

Rumsfeld said about 100,000 Iraqi security forces are now fully trained and equipped, and up to 150,000 should be ready during the election period, he said. Tens of thousands of Iraqis were volunteering for the security forces, he said.

An earlier US attempt to rapidly field a 200,000-member Iraqi security force with an eye to shrinking the US military presence failed in April when they refused to fight or fled in the face of uprisings in both Shiite and Sunni communities.

US officials hope that with better training and equipment and an Iraqi government in place the Iraqi security forces will hold.

But it is being put to the test by a wave of car bombings, beheadings of hostages and fighting that has raised questions about the viability of January elections in Iraq.

US commanders and Iraqi leaders now face the dilemma of whether to use force to recover insurgent control communities.

"In some places we`ve used force, in some places we`ve used diplomacy," he said.

"Has it worked everywhere? Did it work in Fallujah? No, obviously not. It didn`t work in Fallujah. The Fallujah Brigade didn`t work," he said.

"And they tried. And they`re sorry. And they`re not going to let it sit there. They`re going to do something else about it. And life will go on," he said.

Rumsfeld said it would be a judgement call as to whether the additional Iraqi security forces will be sufficient to provide security for the election.

"Well, you know, time will tell. We`ve said it 100 times: If General Abizaid decides he needs more forces, obviously, there`ll be more U.S. forces," Rumsfeld said, referring to the head of the US Central Command, General John Abizaid. - http://www.turkishpress.com/t...

Rumsfeld Admits Flip-Flop Dubya May Cut-n-Run in Iraq Leaving a Mess!!!

09.25.04 (5:08 am) [edit]

Similarities Between Hitler and President Bush

09.23.04 (8:19 am) [edit]

When President Bush decided to invade Iraq, his spokesmen began comparing Saddam Hussein to Adolph Hitler, the most monstrous figure in modern history. Everybody was therefore shocked when a high German bureaucrat turned the tables by comparing Bush himself with Hitler. As to be expected, she (the bureaucrat) was forced to resign because of her extreme disrespect for an American president. However, the resemblance sticks--there are too many similarities to be ignored, some of which may be listed here.

1. Like Hitler, President Bush was not elected by a majority, but was forced to engage in political maneuvering in order to gain office.

2. Like Hitler, Bush began to curtail civil liberties in response to a well-publicized disaster, in Hitler’s case the Reichstag fire, in Bush’s case the 9-11 catastrophe.

3. Like Hitler, Bush went on to pursue a reckless foreign policy without the mandate of the electorate and despite the opposition of most foreign nations.

4. Like Hitler, Bush has increased his popularity with conservative voters by mounting an aggressive public relations campaign against foreign enemies. Just as Hitler cited international communism to justify Germany’s military buildup, Bush has used Al Qaeda and the so-called Axis of Evil to justify our current military buildup. Paradoxically none of the nations in this axis--Iraq, Iran and North Korea--have had anything to do with each other.

5. Like Hitler, Bush has promoted militarism in the midst of economic recession (or depression as it was called during the thirties). First he used war preparations to help subsidize defense industries (Halliburton, Bechtel, Carlyle Group, etc.) and presumably the rest of the economy on a trickle-down basis. Now he turns to the very same corporations to rebuild Iraq, again without competitive bidding and at extravagant profit levels.

6. Like Hitler, Bush displays great populist enthusiasm in his patriotic speeches, but primarily serves wealthy investors who subsidize his election campaigns and share with him their comfortable lifestyle. As he himself jokes, he treats these individuals at the pinnacle of our economy as his true political “base.”

7. Like Hitler, Bush envisages our nation’s unique historic destiny almost as a religious cause sanctioned by God. Just as Hitler did for Germany, he takes pride in his “providential” role in spreading his version of Americanism throughout the entire world.

8. Like Hitler, Bush promotes a future world order that guarantees his own nation’s hegemonic supremacy rather than cooperative harmony under the authority of the United Nations (or League of Nations).

9. Like Hitler, Bush quickly makes and breaks diplomatic ties, and he offers generous promises that he soon abandons, as in the cases of Mexico, Russia, Afghanistan, and even New York City. The same goes for U.S. domestic programs. Once Bush was elected, many leaders of these programs learned to dread his making any kind of an appearance to praise their success, since this was almost inevitably followed by severe cuts in their budgets.

10. Like Hitler, Bush scraps international treaties, most notably the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, the Biological Weapons Convention, the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, the Convention on the Prohibition of Land Mines, the Chemical Weapons Convention, the Kyoto Global Warming Accord, and the International Criminal Court.

11. Like Hitler, Bush repeats lies often enough that they come to be accepted as the truth. Bush and his spokesmen argued, for example, that they had taken every measure possible to avoid war, than an invasion of Iraq would diminish (not intensify) the terrorist threat against the U.S., that Iraq was linked with Al Qaeda, and that nothing whatsoever had been achieved by U.N. inspectors to warrant the postponement of U.S. invasion plans. All of this was false. They also insisted that Iraq hid numerous weapons it did not possess since the mid-190s, and they refused to acknowledge the absence of a nuclear weapons program in Iraq since the early nineties. As perhaps to be expected, they indignantly accused others of deception and evasiveness.

12. Like Hitler, Bush incessantly shifted his arguments to justify invading Iraq--from Iraq’s WMD threat to the elimination of Saddam Hussein, to his supposed Al Qaeda connection, to the creation of Iraqi democracy in the Middle East as a model for neighboring states, and back again to the WMD threat. As soon as one excuse for the war was challenged, Bush advanced to another, but only to shift back again at another time.

13. Like Hitler, Bush and his cohorts emphasize the ruthlessness of their enemies in order to justify their own. Just as Hitler cited the threat of communist violence to justify even greater violence on the part of Germany, the bush team justified the invasion of Iraq by emphasizing Hussein’s crimes against humanity over the past twenty-five years. However, these crimes were for the most part committed when Iraq was a client-ally of the U.S. Our government supplied Hussein with illegal weapons (poison gas included), and there were sixty U.S. advisors in Iraq when these weapons were put to use (see NY Times, Aug. 18, 1992). U.S. aid to Iraq was actually doubled afterwards despite disclaimers from Washington that our nation opposed their use. President Reagan’s special envoy Donald Rumsfeld personally informed Hussein of this one hundred percent increment during one of his two trips to Iraq at the time. He also told Hussein not to take U.S. disclaimers seriously.

14. Like Hitler, Bush takes pride in his status as a “War President,” and his global ambition makes him perhaps the most dangerous president in our nation’s history, a “rogue” chief executive capable of waging any number of illegal preemptive wars. He fully acknowledges his willingness to engage in wars of “choice” as well as wars of necessity. Sooner or later this choice will oblige universal conscription as well as a full-scale war economy.

15. Like Hitler, Bush continues to pursue war without cutting back on the peacetime economy. Additional to unprecedented low interest rates bestowed by the Federal Reserve, he has actually cut federal taxes twice by substantial amounts, especially for the top one percent of U.S. taxpayers, while conducting an expensive invasion and an even more expensive occupation of a hostile nation. As a result, President Clinton’s $350 billion budget surplus has been reduced to a $450 billion deficit, comprising an unprecedented $800 billion decline in less than four years. At the same time the U.S. dollar has steadily dropped against currencies of both Europe and Japan.

16. Like Hitler, Bush possesses a war machine much bigger and more effective than the military capabilities of other nations. With the extra financing obliged by the defeat and occupation of Iraq, Bush now relies on a “defense” budget well in excess of the combined military expenditures of the rest of the world. Moreover, the $416 billion defense package passed last week by Congress will probably need to be supplemented before the end of the year.

17. Like Hitler, bush depends on an axis of collaborative allies, which he describes as a “coalition of the willing,” in order to give the impression of a broad popular alliance. These allies include the U.K. as compared to Mussolini’s Italy, and Spain and Bulgaria, as compared to, well, Spain and Bulgaria, both of which were aligned with Germany during the thirties and World War II. As a result of their cooperation, Prime Minister Blair’s diplomatic reputation has been ruined in England, and a surprising election defeat has produced an unfriendly government in Spain. The Philippines have withdrawn their troops from Iraq to save the life of a hostage, and other defections can be expected in the near future.

18. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to go to war over the objections of the U.N. (League of Nations). His Iraq invasion was illegal and therefore a war crime as explained by Articles 41 and 42 of the U.N. Charter, which require two votes, not one, by the Security Council before any state takes such an action. First a vote is needed to explore all possibilities short of warfare (in Iraq’s case through the use of U.N. inspectors), and once this has been shown to be fruitless, a second vote is needed to permit military action. U.S. and U.K. delegates at the Security Council prevented this second vote once it was plain they lacked a majority. This was because other nations on the Security Council were satisfied with the findings of U.N. inspectors that no weapons of mass destruction had yet been found. Minus this second vote, the invasion was illegal. Bush also showed in the process that he has no qualms about bribing, bullying, and insulting U.N. members, even tapping their telephone lines. This was done with undecided members of the Security Council as well as the U.N. Secretary General when the U.S.-U.K. resolution was debated preceding the invasion.

19. Like Hitler, Bush launches unilateral invasions on a supposedly preemptive basis. Just as Hitler convinced the German public to think of Poland as a threat to Germany in 1939 (for example in his Sept. 19 speech), Bush wants Americans to think of Iraq as having been a “potential” threat to our national security--indeed as one of the instigators of the 9-11 attack despite a complete lack of evidence to support this claim.

20. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a military strategy that features a “shock and awe” blitzkrieg beginning with devastating air strikes, then an invasion led by heavy armored columns.

21. Like Hitler, Bush is willing to inflict high levels of bloodshed against enemy nations. Between 20,000 and (more probably) 37,000 are now estimated to have been killed, as much as a ro-1 kill ratio compared to the more than 900 Americans killed. In other words, for every U.S. fatality, probably as many as forty Iraqi have died.

22. Like Hitler, Bush is perfectly willing to sacrifice life as part of his official duty. This would be indicated by the unprecedented number of prisoners executed during his service as governor of Texas. Under no other governor in the history of the United States were so many killed.

23. Like Hitler, Bush began warfare on a single front (Al Qaeda quartered in Afghanistan), but then expanded it to a second front with Iraq, only to be confronted with North Korea and Iran as potential third and fourth fronts. Much the same thing happened to Hitler when he advanced German military operations from Spain to Poland and France, then was distracted by Yugoslavia before invading the USSR in 1941. Today, bush seems prevented by the excessive costs of the Iraqi debacle from going to war elsewhere if reelected, but not through any lack of desire.

24. Like Hitler, Bush has no qualms about imposing “regime change” by installing Quisling-style client governments backed by a U.S. military occupation with both political and economic control entirely in the hands of Americans. It is no surprise that Iyad Alawi, Iraq’s current temporary prime minister, was once affiliated with the CIA and has been reliably reported by the Australian press to have executed six hooded prisoners with a handgun to their heads just a day or two before his appointment a couple weeks ago.

25. Like Hitler, Bush curtails civil liberties in captive nations and depends on detention centers (i.e., concentration camps) such as a Guantanamo, Abu Ghraib, and any number of secret interrogation centers across the world. Prisoners at the camps go unidentified and have no legal rights as ordinarily guaranteed by the Geneva Conventions. They have also been detained indefinitely (for 2 ½ years already at Guantanamo Bay), though there is mounting evidence that many are innocent of what they have been charged--some, for example, having been randomly seized by Northern Alliance troops in Afghanistan for an automatic bounty from U.S. commanders. Moreover, many Iraqi prisoners have been tortured, in many instances just short of death. Recent U.S. documents disclose that as many twenty have died while being tortured, and twenty others have died under unusual circumstances yet to be determined.

26. Like Hitler, Bush uses the threat of enemies abroad to stir the fearful allegiance of the U.S. public. For example, he features public announcements of possible terrorist attacks in order to override embarrassing news coverage or to crowd from headlines positive coverage of Democratic Party activities. He also uses the threat of terrorism to justify extraordinary domestic powers granted by the Patriot Act. Even the books we check out of public libraries can be kept on record by federal agents.

27. Like Hitler, Bush depends on a propaganda machine to guarantee sympathetic news management. In Hitler’s case news coverage was totally dominated by Goebbels; in Bush’s case reporters have been almost totally “imbedded” by both military spokesmen and wealthy media owners sympathetic with Bush. The most obvious case is the Fox news channel, owned and controlled by Rupert Murdoch. Not surprisingly, recent polls indicate that the majority of Fox viewers still think Hussein played a role in the 9-11 attack.

28. Like Hitler, Bush increasingly reduces the circle of aides he feels he can trust as his policies keep boomeranging at his own expense. Just as Hitler ended up isolated in his headquarters, with few individuals granted access, Bush is now said to be limiting access primarily to Attorney General Ashcroft (who also talks with God on a regular basis) as well as Karl Rove, the Vice President, Karen Hughes, and a few others. Both Secretary of State Powell and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld are now said to be out of the loop.

29. Like Hitler, Bush has become obsessed with his vision of conflict between good (U.S. patriotism) and evil (anti-Americanism. Many in contact with the White House are said to be worried that he is beginning to lose touch with reality--perhaps resulting from the use of medication that seriously distorts his judgment. Possibly symptomatic of this concern is the increasing number of disaffected government officials who leak embarrassing documents.

30. Like Hitler, bush takes pleasure in the mythology of frontier justice. As a youth Hitler read and memorized the western novels of Karl May, and Bush retains into his maturity his fascination with simplistic cowboy values. He also exaggerates a cowboy twang despite his C-average elitist education at Andover, Yale, and Harvard.

31. Like Hitler, Bush misconstrues Darwinism, in Hitler’s case by treating the Aryan race as being superior on an evolutionary basis, in Bush’s case by rejecting science for fundamentalist creationism.

Of course countless differences may be listed between Hitler and President Bush, most of which are to the credit of Bush. Nevertheless, the resemblances listed here are striking, especially since Bush’s first term in office must be compared with Hitler’s performance as German Chancellor through the year 1937, preceding the chain of events immediately preceding World War II. In any case, George W. Bush seems the worst and most dangerous U.S. president in recent memory (for me since Roosevelt)--if not in the entire history of the United States. - http://www.dissidentvoice.org...

A'W'OL Bush Doesn't Give A Damn About US Troops-- They're His 'Cannon-Fodder'!!!

09.23.04 (4:20 am) [edit]

[b]Bush Ignores Soldiers' Burials[/b]

President Bush has not attended the funeral of a single U.S. soldier killed in Iraq. And veterans are starting to notice.

[b]Mourners march to reiterate 'the human cost of war' [/b]

Participants in Sunday's mock funeral procession honoring the more than 1,000 American soldiers who have died in the Iraq war carried through downtown Barrington white placards with the names of the fallen.

Peyton Bendix knew little about Donald Samuel Oaks Jr. as she toted his name and walked behind an empty flag-draped casket on a horse-drawn caisson. She only knew he was male.

Then the Deer Park resident went home, where she did some research and learned more about the soldier. Most poignantly, the young man was among the first wave of U.S. soldiers to invade Iraq and die.

"I looked up his name on the Internet and cried," Bendix said. "It's very sad when you see a picture of the person." http://www.pioneerlocal.com/c...

A'W'OL Bush Bends Laws to Pump Mountains of Corporate Cash into His Campaign

09.23.04 (4:16 am) [edit]

Having failed to get the FEC to "fix" the laws for him, Bush is now resorting to a new, just as despicably dishonest tactic. He is exploiting a loophole that will allow him to channel millions more in corporate cash into his campaign than is strictly legal under campaign laws.AP: "Ken Mehlman, Bush's campaign manager, said in an interview that federal election law allows the campaign access to party money "provided that your message is broader than the individual candidate and includes a discussion of the overall agenda and the message of the party." So simply by adding the words "and our leaders in Congress," Bush will be able to dump an obscene $93 million into ads from the corporate cash in the RNC's coffers. And, with the "nightly news" working for his campaign under the guise of "news," never before in US history has a presidential campaign been more rigged! America, can you be bought?

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.sacbee.com/24hour/...

Avg US Citizen Paid More Fed Income Tax in 2003 than AT&T, Time Warner, & Disney Combined!

09.23.04 (4:14 am) [edit]

US Newswire: "Many of the nations largest, most profitable companies are paying little or no federal income taxes, according to a study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The study examined federal income taxes paid by 275 of the country's largest, most profitable companies and found that the overall effective tax rate on these companies between 2001 and 2003 was 18.4%, nearly half the statutory 35% rate. Nearly a third of the companies paid zero taxes or received a rebate in at least one year between 2001 and 2003. "The data indicate that in 2003, the average American taxpayer paid more in federal income taxes than AT&T, Time Warner, and Disney combined," said Steve Hill of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute. Together, those companies earned $8.7 billion, but received an estimated $543 million in federal tax rebates." And funny, none of those savings went back into new jobs.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://releases.usnewswire.co...

'SOVEREIGNTY' in Iraq? It's a Joke, "Incompetent" Bushies Still Running Bloodbath!

09.23.04 (4:11 am) [edit]

[b]Iraq has its sovereignty, but America is still running the show[/b]

Just one sentence demonstrated yesterday where the real power lies in Baghdad: not with the internationally recognised "sovereign" Iraqi government, but with the American "embassy".

Iraq's justice minister announced on Tuesday night that Rihab Taha, a woman scientist known as "Dr Germ", would be released from prison. The case of another scientist known as "Mrs Anthrax", Huda Ammash, was under discussion, he said.

American and British officials were caught by surprise, and feared that this would be seen as a concession to terrorists who had beheaded two American hostages and were threatening to murder a third, the British businessman Kenneth Bigley.

Within a day, a US embassy spokesman in Baghdad set the record straight on Dr Germ and Mrs Anthrax: "Both of them are in the physical and legal custody of the multinational forces, there is no imminent release and these cases are constantly under review."

In other words, the Americans were solely responsible for holding "high-value detainees" - the jailed members of Saddam Hussein's former regime - and only the Americans would decide whether any would be set free. It took several more hours for the Iraqi prime minister, Iyad Allawi, to surface in New York to re-establish his control. He said he would not negotiate with terrorists, declaring: "No release takes place unless I authorise it."

The episode exposes the reality of Iraq, as opposed to the image of independence that the US seeks to project.

The US has tried to withdraw its forces from the streets of Baghdad, leaving day-to-day patrolling in the hands of Iraq's embryonic security forces. But whenever there is an incident, it is American helicopters, Humvees and other armoured vehicles that arrive at the scene.

For all the talk of large numbers of Iraqi soldiers being trained, it is US forces that carry the brunt of the fighting in major operations.

Last June's handover to the Iraqi interim government was symbolised by the departure of Paul Bremer, the US proconsul who controlled every aspect of the Iraqi bureaucracy, and the arrival of John Negroponte as the new US ambassador.

But thousands of US officials stayed in Baghdad's heavily protected "Green Zone". Mr Bremer's Coalition Provisional Authority headquarters, in one of Saddam's former palaces, was redesignated a US "embassy".

US officials who were all-powerful "advisers" to Iraqi ministers under Mr Bremer have now become "consultants".

Both sides claim that there has been a "real change" in the balance of power within the ministries, and that Iraqis now decide how to spend more than £40 million a day in oil revenues.

In contrast with the flamboyant Mr Bremer, Mr Negroponte has made a point of staying in the shadows. The question is the degree to which he has relinquished control.

In a rare interview this week with The Washington Post, he resorted to an American football metaphor to explain the transformation.

"When it comes to calling the plays on the field, especially on sensitive military operations, there's only one quarterback, and his name is Allawi. Obviously they need a lot of help, but we're working on reducing that reliance and building up their capacity."

Still, America's best efforts to demonstrate that Dr Allawi is in charge are periodically undermined by its actions.

Last week, for example, Mr Negroponte's office tried to stop the ABC television network from interviewing Dr Allawi during his stop in London, saying it should be delayed by a week.

But when ABC let the White House know its irritation at a mere ambassador presuming to dictate the Iraqi prime minister's press schedule, Dr Allawi's interview was back on track.

A top Pentagon commander, Lt Gen Walter Sharp, this week let slip that the handover of security control to local Iraqi forces is decided by the US commander and Mr Negroponte jointly "looking across all the sectors to determine whether or not an area is ready to go to local control".

On major military operations, such as last month's three-week siege to evict Shia radicals from the Shrine of Ali in Najaf, the timing, pace and conclusion of the US action appears to have been strongly influenced by Dr Allawi's political calculations.

But elsewhere it is American calculations that dominate. US forces are preparing to retake the Sunni town of Fallujah, which has become a no-go area for coalition forces. But the assault will almost certainly be delayed until after the US presidential election in November.

Dr Allawi faces a dilemma in his relationship with America. Without the presence of US forces, he would be swept away within days; but for as long as US troops remain in Iraq, he cannot gain full legitimacy in the eyes of Iraqis. - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/ne...

[b]Why hasn't Condi Rice, Head of the ISG, been held accountable for the Iraq fuck-up?[/b] http://www.tblog.com/template...

Don't Be Duped!!! A'W'OL's Rich Cronies Get Tax Cuts-- You Get Fucked!!!

09.23.04 (4:09 am) [edit]

[b]Thanks to Bush and His 'Leaders in Congress', Eli Lily's Pays 2/3 LESS in Taxes Now than in 2001[/b]

IndyStar: "Eli Lilly and Co. used legal tax breaks to cut its federal income tax rate by two-thirds between 2001 and 2003, according to as study released today.The report, which was based on the public filings of 275 large profitable companies, was conducted by the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The Washington research organization is associated with Citizens for Tax Justice, a non-profit group supported in part by labor unions. One-third of the companies examined paid no federal income taxes in at least one year between 2001 and 2003. "The sharp increase in the number of tax-avoiding companies reflects the results of aggressive corporate lobbying and a White House and a Congress eager to do the lobbyists' bidding," said Robert S. McIntyre, director of Citizens for Tax Justice and a co-author of the report." http://www.indystar.com/artic...

[b]Average US Citizen Paid more Federal Income Tax in 2003 than AT&T, Time Warner, and Disney Combined[/b]

US Newswire: "Many of the nations largest, most profitable companies are paying little or no federal income taxes, according to a study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The study examined federal income taxes paid by 275 of the country's largest, most profitable companies and found that the overall effective tax rate on these companies between 2001 and 2003 was 18.4%, nearly half the statutory 35% rate. Nearly a third of the companies paid zero taxes or received a rebate in at least one year between 2001 and 2003. "The data indicate that in 2003, the average American taxpayer paid more in federal income taxes than AT&T, Time Warner, and Disney combined," said Steve Hill of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute. Together, those companies earned $8.7 billion, but received an estimated $543 million in federal tax rebates." And funny, none of those savings went back into new jobs. http://releases.usnewswire.co...

WHO DO YOU THINK WILL PAY INTEREST RATES ON THE U.S. TAXPAYER 'CREDIT-CARD' THAT BUSH CHARGED HIS HISTORICAL RECORD-LEVEL DEFICIT SPENDING FOR WAR, CORPORATE BOONDOGGLES & TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH? WHO DO YOU THINK INFLATION HITS? NOT THE RICH!!! NOT CORPORATE CROOKS!!! NOT THE BUSHIES!!!

WHY DO YOU THINK THAT 10 NOBEL PRIZE ECONOMISTS DON'T WANT RECKLESS BUSH WHO IS MAKING THE RICH RICHER AND EVERYBODY ELSE POORER??? http://www.bizjournals.com/ct... http://money.cnn.com/2004/08/...

Don't Be Duped!!! A'W'OL's Rich Cronies Get Tax Cuts-- You Get Fucked!!!

09.23.04 (4:08 am) [edit]

Don't Be Duped!!! A'W'OL's Rich Cronies Get Tax Cuts-- You Get Fucked!!!

09.23.04 (4:07 am) [edit]

'SOVEREIGNTY' in Iraq? It's a Joke, "Incompetent" Bushies Still Running Bloodbath!

09.23.04 (4:02 am) [edit]

'SOVEREIGNTY' in Iraq? It's a Joke, "Incompetent" Bushies Still Running Bloodbath!

09.23.04 (3:57 am) [edit]

Why hasn't Condi Rice, Head of the ISG, been held accountable for the Iraq fuck-up?

09.22.04 (4:33 pm) [edit]

[b]In October 2003, the US media was crowing and howling that the "genius", Condi Rice was made Head of the Iraq Stabilization Group (ISG). Supposedly the "genius" Rice would co-ordinate all of the security and re-building efforts henceforth in Iraq! Since that time, Iraq has deteriorated into a bloodbath of disastrous proportions. But has the right-wing media lap-dogs who take orders from Karl 'Joseph Goebbles' Rove said anything about Rice? Nope!

[What do you think the neo-con mad-dogs and right-wing blowhards would have been screeching if this fiasco had been managed by Sandy Berger?]

Iraq Stabilization Group[/b]

The New York Times on October 5, 2003, http://www.nytimes.com/2003/1... announced that "The White House has ordered a major reorganization of American efforts to quell violence in Iraq and Afghanistan and to speed the reconstruction of both countries, according to senior administration officials.

"The new effort includes the creation of an[b] 'Iraq Stabilization Group' (ISG),[/b] which will be run by the National Security Adviser, Condoleezza Rice. The decision to create the new group, five months after Mr. Bush declared the end of active combat in Iraq, appears part of an effort to assert more direct White House control over how Washington coordinates its efforts to fight terrorism, develop political structures and encourage economic development in the two countries....

"The creation of the stabilization group appears to give more direct control to Ms. Rice, one of the president's closest confidantes, who signed the memorandum announcing it. For the first two and a half years of Mr. Bush's presidency, Ms. Rice often seemed hesitant to take a more active role, eschewing the kind of hands-on approach for which Henry A. Kissinger and other national security advisers were known, and viewing her job chiefly as providing quiet advice to Mr. Bush.

"Now, four of her deputies will run coordinating committees on counterterrorism efforts, economic development, political affairs in Iraq and the creation of clearer messages to the media here and in Baghdad.

"Each working group will include under secretaries from the State, Defense and Treasury Departments, and senior representatives from the Central Intelligence Agency....

"In the interview, Ms. Rice described the new organization as one intended to support the Pentagon, not supplant it."

Rice stated that the National Security Council (NSC) "'staff is first and foremost the president's staff,... but it is of course the staff to the National Security Council.' That group will in effect be taking more direct responsibility."

According to Rice, the NSC "is made up of top advisers to the president who meet three times a week in the Situation Room. They have often seemed unable to coordinate efforts on the main issues relating to the occupation of Iraq. 'The Pentagon remains the lead agency, and the structure has been set up explicitly to provide assistance to the Defense Department'" and the Coalition Provisional Authority.

"Other officials said the effect of Ms. Rice's memorandum would be to move day-to-day issues of administering Iraq to the White House.

"The counterterrorism group, for example, will be run by Frances F. Townsend, Ms. Rice's deputy for that field. Economic issues from oil to electricity to the distribution of a new currency will be coordinated by Gary Edson. He has been the liaison between the National Security Council and the National Economic Council.

"Robert D. Blackwill, a former ambassador to India, will run the group overseeing the creation of political institutions in Iraq, as well as directing stabilization for Afghanistan.

"Anna Perez, Ms. Rice's communications director, will focus on a coordinated media message, a response to concerns about the daily reports of attacks on American troops and lawlessness in the streets." - http://www.disinfopedia.org/w...

------------------------- ------------------------- ------------------------- -----

[b]External Links [/b]

1. Steve Holland, Bush Orders Iraq Effort Reorganized, http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... Reuters, October 6, 2003: "The Pentagon remains the lead agency. This is a group to help assist the Department of Defense's and the coalition's efforts,' said White House spokesman Scott McClellan.... The new group was formed in anticipation of congressional approval of as much as $20 billion for Iraqi reconstruction as part of an $87 billion U.S. spending request for Iraq."

2. Terence Hunt, White House Creates Rebuilding Task Force, http://story.news.yahoo.com/n... AP, October 6, 2003: "'Almost two years after the fall of the Taliban and nearly six months after the fall of Baghdad, the White House is finally organizing itself to deal with the realities of postwar Afghanistan and Iraq,' said Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina, a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination. 'It's about time President Bush tried to get his bureaucracy in order but rearranging flow charts is no substitute for leadership.'"

[[b]Note:[/b] Go into the [b]Google Search [/b]engine and type in [b]Iraq Stabilization Group[/b]... You'll note a morasse of articles proclaiming that the "genius" Condi Rice was going to [i]manage things [/i]and that all would be [i]fine-and-dandy [/i]in Iraq.]

A'W'OL Bush's Corporate Rapists are Fucking Over-n-Over the American Worker!!!

09.22.04 (2:10 pm) [edit]

[b]Average US Citizen Paid more Federal Income Tax in 2003 than AT&T, Time Warner, and Disney Combined[/b]

US Newswire: "Many of the nations largest, most profitable companies are paying little or no federal income taxes, according to a study released today by Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy. The study examined federal income taxes paid by 275 of the country's largest, most profitable companies and found that the overall effective tax rate on these companies between 2001 and 2003 was 18.4%, nearly half the statutory 35% rate. Nearly a third of the companies paid zero taxes or received a rebate in at least one year between 2001 and 2003. "The data indicate that in 2003, the average American taxpayer paid more in federal income taxes than AT&T, Time Warner, and Disney combined," said Steve Hill of the Maryland Budget and Tax Policy Institute. Together, those companies earned $8.7 billion, but received an estimated $543 million in federal tax rebates." And funny, none of those savings went back into new jobs.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://releases.usnewswire.co...

A'W'OL Slut-Bush Bends Laws to Pump Mountains of Corporate Cash into His Campaign

09.22.04 (2:07 pm) [edit]

A'W'OL Bushie Media, Aided by CBS-Planted Campaign link, Collude to Smear Kerry Advisor

09.22.04 (2:04 pm) [edit]

CBS, in what was now plainly a set up, asked Kerry campaign advisor Joe Lockhardt to consult with Bill Burkitt before the 60 Minutes 'Bush TX Guard duty" story aired. Now the Bushie media - including the Washington Times, MSNBC, FOX, et al, have pounced - and so quickly that it defies credibility. Media Matters reports : " Conservative pundit...proceeded to spread unsupported speculation about Kerry-Edwards '04 campaign senior adviser Joe Lockhart...Conservative pundits Sean Hannity, Pat Buchanan, Tony Blankley, and Neal Boortz suggested with no credible evidence that Lockhart might be behind the documents." They didn't need to - all these creeps needed was the CBS-engineered "fact" that Lockhardt had talked to Burkitt to take the accusation to the farthest extreme, just as they have everything else, from Saddam's nonexistent connection to Al qaeda to the Swift Boat fraud.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://mediamatters.org/items...

Karl Rove's FingerPrints: Duping the American Public, Rather & Kerry Campaign to Aid A'W'OL Bush

09.22.04 (2:02 pm) [edit]

[b]INSIDE JOB: Did CBS Dupe the American Public, Dan Rather, and the Kerry Campaign to Aid Bush?[/b]

Cheryl Seal writes: "You know the old saying "If it seems too good to be true, it probably is"? Well that adage should have gone off like an alarm bell when CBS first announced it would air a story on Bush's Texas National Guard Duty. Not only would they have an interview with Ben Barnes, they announced, but they would present HARD DOCUMENTATION supporting the story. Now, after "reviewing all the evidence," I have myself come to the conclusion that the entire story was, in essence a Kerry campaign "ambush" engineered by CBS itself, working in concert with a White House insider, most likely Karl Rove. Why would CBS do such a thing? Because although CBS may appear to "lose the battle" by airing a deeply flawed story, it stands to win the war. Winning the war - as in getting get Bush reelected.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.democrats.com/view...

Whistleblower Sues for Release of 9/11 Info Covered-up by Neo-Con Bushies!!!

09.22.04 (10:26 am) [edit]

WASHINGTON, D.C. - Sibel Edmonds, a former FBI contract linguist who was terminated in 2002 after becoming a whistleblower regarding the 9/11 tragedy, filed a lawsuit today in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia under the Freedom of Information and Privacy Acts (FOIPA). The complaint seeks to compel the release of a secret investigative report, and related documents, compiled by the Department of Justice's (DOJ) Office of Inspector General (OIG). The DOJ OIG investigated Edmonds' allegations for more than two years and has failed to abide by repeated promises – including those provided to Senators Charles Grassley (R, Iowa) and Patrick Leahy (D, Vt.) in June 2002 – to complete its investigation in a timely fashion and release its findings.

On July 21, 2004, FBI Director Robert S. Mueller III notified the Senate Judiciary Committee that the DOJ OIG had completed its investigation and concluded that Edmonds' allegations "were at least a contributing factor" in her firing. Additionally, DOJ Inspector General Glenn Fine also concluded that the FBI failed to "adequately pursue" Edmonds' allegations of espionage against a coworker. Although the DOJ promised the Committee that a declassified summary would be released, and notwithstanding the fact that Edmonds' FOIA request was granted expedited processing by the government in July 2004, to date not one page has been released.

"The Justice Department has continually sought to cover up the FBI's misconduct with respect to Sibel Edmonds. When the documents are eventually released, they will likely reveal that the government once again improperly abused the classification process," said Edmonds' attorney Mark S. Zaid, who is the Managing Partner of the Washington, D.C., law firm of Krieger & Zaid, PLLC, which specializes in national security cases. Zaid added that the Justice Department's classification assertions were primarily prompted by a desire to gain a litigation advantage against Edmonds.

Edmonds' efforts to expose the FBI's misconduct and the retaliation she has suffered has been plagued by the government's zealous and excessive classification of information. Although Edmonds' specific allegations were the subject of several unclassified congressional meetings held in 2002, the Justice Department refuses to allow her to discuss the information. In June 2004, the FBI notified all staff members of the Senate Judiciary Committee that the information was now considered classified. The FBI's move, allegedly at the behest of the Justice Department, prompted Senators Grassley and Leahy to remove two of their letters regarding Edmonds from their public Web sites. According to the e-mail notification, the government took this action because of "civil litigation in which the FBI is seeking to quash certain information."

"This report is no doubt the tip of the iceberg. The Justice Department is ignoring numerous matters worthy of investigation. Rather than protecting our interests, the government's actions are harming national security by withholding this information from the public and the congress," said Sibel Edmonds.

Edmonds, who is Turkish-American, started working for the FBI immediately after the 9/11 attacks as a translator in the FBI's Washington field office with top-secret security clearance. She was summarily dismissed in March 2002 after alleging that the FBI's translation services were plagued by incompetence, a lack of urgency, numerous security breaches and intentional efforts by some FBI officials to withhold information from investigators. The FBI ignored her repeated efforts to raise these concerns with superiors. Earlier this year Edmonds provided closed-door testimony to the 9/11 Commission, and she is cited in its final report.

In July 2004, a federal judge dismissed Edmonds' primary lawsuit against the FBI on the basis of the rarely invoked "state secrets privilege." The government also prevented Edmonds from being deposed by 9/11 family members in their lawsuit against Saudi Arabia. A year earlier a different federal judge dismissed Edmonds' FOIA case that sought release of her own FBI file on grounds of national security. Both decisions are currently on appeal before the DC Circuit Court of Appeals.

[b]Copies of Edmonds' FOIPA complaint are available upon request.[/b] - http://www.antiwar.com/edmond...

NEO-CONS: Osama bin Laden's Useful Idiots

09.22.04 (8:40 am) [edit]

[b]Bin Laden's Useful Idiots

by Patrick J. Buchanan [/b]

Of all Ronald Reagan's achievements, among the greatest was that this president who began his term declaring the Soviet Union an "evil empire" was, by the end of his tenure, strolling through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev to the cheers of the Russian people.

That the Cold War ended without our tearing our nations to pieces, as Britain and Germany did, was a triumph, especially considering the awesome power of our weaponry. And since the Cold War ended, Americans have seemed to understand the importance of good and strong relations with Russia. The Washington-Moscow connection is among the most critical on the planet.

Why, then, this raft of attacks on President Vladimir Putin over his efforts to consolidate power to combat his terrorist threat?

In late August, two Russian airliners were brought down in minutes by "Black Widow" Chechen terrorists. Days later, a school of Russian children was seized by Chechen terrorists loyal to Shamil Basaev, the Osama bin Laden of the Caucasus. Hundreds were slaughtered in the most barbaric atrocity since 9/11.

After these horrors, Putin acted to centralize power over his Balkanizing country. He called on parliament to approve a plan to let him name the governors of Russia's 89 provinces, rather than have them elected. Most of the governors approved. But Western elites are howling as though Putin were using the Beslan horror as Hitler used the Reichstag fire – to railroad his rivals to Dachau.

In The Washington Post, Robert Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard calls Putin's plan an "unambiguous step toward tyranny in Russia." Putin "is imposing dictatorship," rails Kagan. "Putin is not really 'with us.' ... A dictatorial Russia is at least as dangerous as a dictatorial Iraq. ... A Russian dictatorship can never be a reliable ally of the United States."

"[T]he aspiring dictator of Russia has forced President Bush to reveal how committed he really is to the cause of democracy around the world." Kagan demanded that Bush denounce Putin – which Bush and Colin Powell both mildly did, infuriating Moscow – and even consider sanctions against Russia.

Query: Have we lost our minds? In Russia, what is vital to us is that we have a stable, friendly government and reliable partner in combating terrorism. How Russia chooses its regional or provincial leaders or parliament is none of our business. What are Western media and politicians doing hectoring Putin and mucking around in Russia's internal affairs?

British journalist John Laughland has looked behind the attacks on Putin and discovered the "oligarchs" – Russian billionaires who looted the privatized assets of the old Soviet Union, men like Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin has run them out of Russian or locked them up. And they have used their vast fortunes to buy up intellectuals in Western capitals to agitate against him.

Also agitating against Putin is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a front group of neocons such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and Kenneth ("Cakewalk") Adelman.

ACPC wants Bush to cut Putin adrift in the name of democracy. These are the same ideologues who engineered the war to "democratize" Iraq and prevailed on Bush to declare "world democratic revolution" the overarching goal of his foreign policy.

These neoconservatives are demanding that Putin negotiate with the Chechens rebels. Many favor a NATO presence in Chechnya along the lines of the NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Putin sees them as pressuring him to negotiate with child-murderers and as pursuing a devious Western strategy to further weaken and break up Russia. In interviews, he has expressed a growing bitterness toward the West – reacting just as Andrew Jackson would have if Czar Nicholas I had loudly demanded that Jackson sit down and start negotiating with the Cherokees.

But the larger question is: Why is Bush still listening to these people? These were the propagandists and agitators for the war in Iraq that may yet cost him his presidency. Nothing they promised has been delivered. They constantly undercut relations with our European allies with their insults. They persuaded Bush to outsource Middle East policy to Sharon, to our national detriment.

Now, they are pushing Bush to distance ourselves from, if not to destabilize, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Why does Bush continue to heed men whose policies have radicalized the Middle East and converted much of the Islamic world into a giant recruiting station for Osama bin Laden? - http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?a...

Bushie Media, Aided by CBS-Planted Campaign link, Collude to Smear Kerry Advisor

09.22.04 (8:36 am) [edit]

Bush's Neo-Con-Con: The Rapture Racket

09.22.04 (5:22 am) [edit]

Bill Berkowitz writes: "'The rapture is a racket,' writes Barbara R. Rossing in the first sentence of her recently published book The Rapture Exposed: The Message of Hope in the Book of Revelation... Rossing, a New Testament scholar and an associate professor at the Lutheran School of Theology at Chicago, maintains that the Rapture is a fraud of monumental proportions, as well as a disturbing way to instill fear in people [as Rev. Tim LaHaye does with the 'Left Behind' books]. 'Whether prescribing a violent script for Israel or survivalism in the United States, this theology distorts God's vision for the world,' Rossing writes. 'In place of healing, the Rapture proclaims escape. In place of Jesus' blessing of peacemaking, the Rapture voyeuristically glorifies violence and war. [...] This theology is not biblical. We are not Raptured off the earth, nor is God... God created the world, God loves the world, and God will never leave the world behind!' "

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.workingforchange.c...

Bush's Neo-Con-Con: The Rapture Racket

09.22.04 (5:21 am) [edit]

Bush: If This Were a Dictatorship, It Would Be a Heckuva Lot Easier-- So Long as I'm the Dictator

09.22.04 (5:16 am) [edit]

Robert Parry writes: "Indeed, the younger George Bush -- with his thin appreciation for the value of free-and-open debate -- may be the perfect vessel for transforming the U.S. political process into a more authoritarian system envisioned by some hard-line conservatives. After Election 2000, Bush joked that 'If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier -- so long as I'm the dictator.' While the United States is not headed toward a traditional dictatorship nor even a tightly controlled 'democracy' on the model of Vladimir Putin's Russia, Republicans do envision the nation undergoing a transformation into a new political model that would ensure their party's control of all levers of American power for a generation or more. In effect, the transformation would mean that any candidate without the blessings of the powerful conservative echo chamber will have about as much chance of winning as the Washington Generals do against the Harlem Globetrotters."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.consortiumnews.com...

A'W'OL Bush Wants To Rule The World, But He's Just Too Damned Stupid!!!

09.22.04 (5:13 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush's Hidden Agenda -- A National Draft in the Future?

09.22.04 (5:10 am) [edit]

"A key issue for young Americans and their families to consider as they prepare to cast their votes in the upcoming presidential election is the real likelihood of a military draft being reinstated if President Bush is re-elected. President Bush should tell us now whether he supports a military draft. Here is the evidence that makes a draft likely: The U.S. Army has acknowledged that they are stretched thin and that finding new recruits is challenging. They recently placed 300 new recruiters in the field. Bonuses for new recruits to the Army have risen by 67 percent to a maximum of $10,000 and $15,000 for hard-to-fill specialties. The extended tours of duty have made service less attractive for both the regular armed forces, and particularly for the National Guard and Reserves. To meet this year's quota for enlistees, the Army has sped up the induction of 'delayed entry' recruits, meaning they are already borrowing from next year's quotas in order to meet this year's numbers..."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.yubanet.com/artman...

A'W'OL Bush's Hidden Agenda -- A National Draft in the Future?

09.22.04 (5:08 am) [edit]

A'W'OL Bush's Hidden Agenda -- A National Draft in the Future?

09.22.04 (5:05 am) [edit]

Karl Rove's Dirty Tricks: Former Nixon Dirty Tricks Operative May Be Source of Planted CBS Docs!

09.22.04 (4:53 am) [edit]

Letter From A Conservative: Bin Laden's Useful Idiots

09.22.04 (4:50 am) [edit]

Of all Ronald Reagan's achievements, among the greatest was that this president who began his term declaring the Soviet Union an "evil empire" was, by the end of his tenure, strolling through Red Square with Mikhail Gorbachev to the cheers of the Russian people.

That the Cold War ended without our tearing our nations to pieces, as Britain and Germany did, was a triumph, especially considering the awesome power of our weaponry. And since the Cold War ended, Americans have seemed to understand the importance of good and strong relations with Russia. The Washington-Moscow connection is among the most critical on the planet.

Why, then, this raft of attacks on President Vladimir Putin over his efforts to consolidate power to combat his terrorist threat?

In late August, two Russian airliners were brought down in minutes by "Black Widow" Chechen terrorists. Days later, a school of Russian children was seized by Chechen terrorists loyal to Shamil Basaev, the Osama bin Laden of the Caucasus. Hundreds were slaughtered in the most barbaric atrocity since 9/11.

After these horrors, Putin acted to centralize power over his Balkanizing country. He called on parliament to approve a plan to let him name the governors of Russia's 89 provinces, rather than have them elected. Most of the governors approved. But Western elites are howling as though Putin were using the Beslan horror as Hitler used the Reichstag fire – to railroad his rivals to Dachau.

In The Washington Post, Robert Kagan of the American Enterprise Institute and The Weekly Standard calls Putin's plan an "unambiguous step toward tyranny in Russia." Putin "is imposing dictatorship," rails Kagan. "Putin is not really 'with us.' ... A dictatorial Russia is at least as dangerous as a dictatorial Iraq. ... A Russian dictatorship can never be a reliable ally of the United States."

"[T]he aspiring dictator of Russia has forced President Bush to reveal how committed he really is to the cause of democracy around the world." Kagan demanded that Bush denounce Putin – which Bush and Colin Powell both mildly did, infuriating Moscow – and even consider sanctions against Russia.

Query: Have we lost our minds? In Russia, what is vital to us is that we have a stable, friendly government and reliable partner in combating terrorism. How Russia chooses its regional or provincial leaders or parliament is none of our business. What are Western media and politicians doing hectoring Putin and mucking around in Russia's internal affairs?

British journalist John Laughland has looked behind the attacks on Putin and discovered the "oligarchs" – Russian billionaires who looted the privatized assets of the old Soviet Union, men like Boris Berezovsky and Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Putin has run them out of Russian or locked them up. And they have used their vast fortunes to buy up intellectuals in Western capitals to agitate against him.

Also agitating against Putin is the American Committee for Peace in Chechnya, a front group of neocons such as Richard Perle, James Woolsey, Michael Ledeen and Kenneth ("Cakewalk") Adelman.

ACPC wants Bush to cut Putin adrift in the name of democracy. These are the same ideologues who engineered the war to "democratize" Iraq and prevailed on Bush to declare "world democratic revolution" the overarching goal of his foreign policy.

These neoconservatives are demanding that Putin negotiate with the Chechens rebels. Many favor a NATO presence in Chechnya along the lines of the NATO missions in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Putin sees them as pressuring him to negotiate with child-murderers and as pursuing a devious Western strategy to further weaken and break up Russia. In interviews, he has expressed a growing bitterness toward the West – reacting just as Andrew Jackson would have if Czar Nicholas I had loudly demanded that Jackson sit down and start negotiating with the Cherokees.

But the larger question is: Why is Bush still listening to these people? These were the propagandists and agitators for the war in Iraq that may yet cost him his presidency. Nothing they promised has been delivered. They constantly undercut relations with our European allies with their insults. They persuaded Bush to outsource Middle East policy to Sharon, to our national detriment.

Now, they are pushing Bush to distance ourselves from, if not to destabilize, Saudi Arabia and Russia.

Why does Bush continue to heed men whose policies have radicalized the Middle East and converted much of the Islamic world into a giant recruiting station for Osama bin Laden?

[b]By Patrick J. Buchanan [/b]- http://www.antiwar.com/pat/?a...

Letter From A Conservative: Bin Laden's Useful Idiots

09.22.04 (4:49 am) [edit]

Letter From A Conservative: Bin Laden's Useful Idiots

09.22.04 (4:45 am) [edit]

Beyond Redemption: The Crimes of Top Bush Ally Tom Delay

09.21.04 (3:38 pm) [edit]

The list of crimes perpetrated against the American people and human ethics in general by Tom Delay, one of Bush's chief Congressional thugs (er, allies) is long indeed. So long that just summarizing his primary offenses over the past four years takes up an entire lengthy article. Some examples: Sent thugs to Miami to disrupt the 2000 Presidential election recount, took thousands in bribes from Enron, Ran a racketeering operation called the Republican Majority Issues Commission; used his own daughter once to launder campaign funds; sold "favors dispensing" meetings to top Bush donors; threatened fellow congressfolk to ram through Medicare Reform ripoff; used a children's charity to launder campaign funds; ran a boiler room fundraising operation that scammed first small business owners, then doctors....and the list goes on and on.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://baltimore.indymedia.or...

32 Felony Indictments Returned in Tom Delay Fundraising Scam

09.21.04 (3:34 pm) [edit]

A Travis County grand jury returned 32 indictments in the 2002 Republican fund-raising investigation Tuesday, alleging felony election code violations against a top aide to U.S. House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, R-Sugar Land, the head of a political group DeLay founded and eight corporations that provided money for their activities. Among the companies indicted on grounds that corporate money was illegally funneled into the 2002 legislative elections were Sears and Roebuck, Westar Energy Inc., Cracker Barrel Old Country Store and Bacardi USA. Three people were indicted: John Colyandro, former executive director of Texans for a Republican Majority, a group DeLay founded; Warren RoBold, a DeLay fund-raiser; and Jim Ellis, a top DeLay political aide." Bet these guys will sing like birds to avoid going to prison for creepo Delay!

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/ne...

Was Cheney's $20 Million 'Retirement Pkg' from Halliburton Payment for 'Fixing Things' w/ Iraq?

09.21.04 (3:28 pm) [edit]

During his chairmanship of Halliburton, Cheney criticized U.S. sanctions against "rogue" nations such as Iran and Libya in a 1998 speech. According to a July 26, 2000, Washington Post story, Cheney complained the sanctions "are nearly always motivated by domestic political pressure, the need for Congress to appeal to some domestic constituency." Cheney's work with Halliburton yielded large financial reward. In May 2000 he sold stock holdings in the company worth $5 million. When he retired from Halliburton during the 2000 presidential campaign, Cheney was awarded a retirement package worth $20 million. " Payment in advance for "fixing" things with Libya (removal of sanctions) and Iran (invade and seize assets).

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.washingtonpost.com...

A'W'OL Bush: I Flip-Flop Every Day on Iraq, 'Cause I Don't Know What I'm Doin'!

09.21.04 (11:23 am) [edit]

[b]Pin flip-flop tag on Bush[/b]

Read:[b] Bush's Iraq: A Powerful Fantasy [/b] http://www.time.com/time/elec...,18471,699348,00.html

Read:[b] True Conservatives Would Back Kerry [/b] http://www.workingforchange.c...

For months now, George W. Bush hasn't missed an opportunity to brand John Kerry a flip-flopper.

There's even a video game on the Bush-Cheney campaign Web site called "Kerry's Flip Flop Olympics," which challenges players to keep up with the back-and-forth positions Republicans claim the Democratic senator has taken on issues.

As political attacks go, this one seems to have resonated with voters who, according to a recent USA TODAY/CNN/Gallup Poll, chose Bush over Kerry by a nearly 2-to-1 margin when asked which of the presidential candidates "is a strong and decisive leader."

To be sure, Kerry's attempts to respond to these attacks have at times done more harm than good. What surprises me is he has stayed on the defensive when Bush has flip-flopped more than a fish out of water.

• Flip-flop. During the 2000 presidential debates, Bush vowed not to engage in "nation-building." "I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation-building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war," he said in criticizing the Clinton administration's use of the troops Bush's father had sent to Somalia during his presidency.

But now the Bush administration is knee-deep in nation-building.

Bush's defenders say the 9/11 attacks forced his flip-flop on this issue. While that might explain why Bush has embraced nation-building in Afghanistan and Iraq, it doesn't tell us why he did so in Haiti — where the Bush administration helped install a new government earlier this year.

[b]Black caucus shunned[/b]

• Flip-flop. During a meeting with members of the Congressional Black Caucus just days after he took office, Bush assured the group's members that they would see a lot of each other.

"This will be the beginning of, hopefully, a lot of meetings. I hope you come back, and I'll certainly be inviting" you back, he said. But that didn't happened.

Bush has not invited the group back to the White House. "He has consistently refused to meet with us," said caucus chairman Rep. Elijah Cummings, D-Md. "The only way we got a meeting, we basically bum-rushed the White House. We went there without an invitation and said we weren't leaving until he met with us," Cummings said of the caucus' sit-in earlier this year that resulted in a brief meeting with Bush.

• Flip-flop. During the 2000 presidential debate, Bush laid out a clear criterion for sending American troops into harm's way. "I'm going to be judicious as to how to use the military," he said. "It needs to be in our vital interest. The mission needs to be clear and the exit strategy obvious."

But if the Bush administration has a plan for getting troops out of Iraq, beyond nebulously saying "we will stay until the job is done," it hasn't revealed it. The only thing clear about the fighting in Iraq, beyond the growing count of dead and wounded, is that U.S. forces won't be coming home anytime soon — unless Bush does another turnaround on nation-building.

[b]Is the war on terrorism winnable?[/b]

• Flip-flop. During an interview last month, NBC Today show co-host Matt Lauer asked Bush whether he thought the U.S. could win the war on terrorism.

"I don't think you can win it," the president responded. "But I think you can create conditions so that those who use terror as a tool are less acceptable in parts of the world — let's put it that way."

Then a day later, Bush backpedaled. "We meet today in a time of war for our country, a war we did not start, yet one that we will win," he said in a speech to the American Legion.

And in what probably amounts to more of a waffle than a flip-flop, Bush did little to encourage the Republican-controlled Congress to renew the 10-year-old assault-rifle ban, which he claims to support. It expired last week.

By staying on the offensive, Bush has put the focus on Kerry flip-flops and deflected attention away from his own.- http://www.usatoday.com/news/...

Looks like One of Pig-Face Rove's Nazis is Behind Planted CBS Docs!!!

09.21.04 (11:05 am) [edit]

[b]Former Nixon Dirty Tricks Orchestrator May Be the Source of Planted Documents[/b]

New York Post political gossip columnist Frederic U. Dicker says "The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard "memos." The irony would be delicious, since Rather became famous confronting President Nixon, in whose service a very young Stone became associated with political "dirty tricks." Reached at his Florida home, Stone had no comment." But this suggestion may, like the planted documents, be a red herring thrown out to the media now that the big question being asked is: Who planted the documents? Our money is still on Karl Rove. The short-memoried media seems to forget that the "dubious documents" are nearly identical to other Bush guard service documents released by the White House earlier this year that SUPPORTED Bush's case.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.nypost.com/comment...

Kofi Annan Unimpressed by Bush's Psychopathic Ramblings about Legitimacy of Iraq War

09.21.04 (10:59 am) [edit]

Khaleej Times: "Kofi Annan opened this year's annual debate of world leaders at the United Nations by critising Bush's plan to deliver democracy to Iraq through force in a pointed speech aimed at underlining the importance of the rule of law." Those who seek to bestow legitimacy must themselves embody it, and those who invoke international law must themselves submit to it," Annan said, according to his prepared remarks." In Iraq, we see civilians massacred in cold blood while relief workers, journalists and other non-combatants are taken hostage and put to death in the most barbarous fashion. At the same time, we have seen Iraqi prisoners disgracefully abused." Annan has laboured for a year to heal the deep divisions over the war that brought down Saddam Hussein, and his wide-ranging address referred to the catastrophe in Sudan, the Middle East conflict and RussiaÃ¢??s hostage tragedy."

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.khaleejtimes.com/D...

Bush/Cheney Sluttin' for Saudi Royals, Terrorists, War-Profiteers! Tell Me It Ain't So!!!

09.21.04 (10:57 am) [edit]

[b]"We the People" should be outraged by the corrupt Bush/Cheney Inc.[i] junta's [/i]shameless pandering to rapacious corporations and hyper-rich plutocrats who are ruthless war-profiteers, having heinously abused our troops considered by these neo-cons as "expendable" cannon-fodder [i]as well as [/i]America's working people considered by these neo-fascists as "slave labor" serfs ...

Refer to [u]"Dog Days Of Employment[/u]" on http://www.tblog.com/template... ...[/b]

[u][b]Billionaires for Bush[/b][/u]

President George W. Bush received donations from 79 percent of the U.S. billionaires who contributed to a presidential campaign this year, while Democrat John Kerry was backed by 21 percent, a study says.

Bush received contributions from 116 billionaires, including Bill Gates, chairman of Redmond, Wash.-based Microsoft Corp., who was listed by Forbes magazine as the world's richest person, and Frederick Smith, chief executive of FedEx Corp., according to PoliticalMoneyLine, which tracks campaign donations.

Kerry got donations from 31 billionaires, including Warren Buffett, chairman of Omaha- based Berkshire Hathaway Inc., and the world's second- richest person; Eli Broad, chairman of AIG SunAmerica Inc., a subsidiary of New York-based American International Group Inc.; and David Geffen, co-founder of Glendale, Calif.-based DreamWorks SKG, a movie studio.

Republicans often outscore Democrats in fund raising among corporate executives.

The 58-year-old Bush has 280 CEOs from Russell 1000 index companies, to 52 for the 60-year-old Kerry, a four-term Massachusetts senator, according to PoliticalMoneyLine, a nonpartisan group based in Washington.

Kerry, who accepted the Democratic presidential nomination last week, released a list of 204 executives who endorse his economic policies.

Of the 277 U.S. billionaires identified by Forbes magazine, 153 gave to a candidate, including six who gave to both Bush and Kerry.

Those giving to both candidates included Charles Dolan, chairman of Bethpage, N.Y.- based Cablevision Systems Corp.; and Donald Trump, chief executive officer of Atlantic City, N.J.-based Trump Hotels and Casino Resorts.

Another 124 billionaires, or 45 percent of the total, gave to neither candidate, including Ted Turner, the founder of Cable News Network and a former vice chairman of New York-based Time Warner Inc.; Roy Disney, chairman of Shamrock Holdings Inc. and a former director of the Walt Disney Co., founded by his uncle; and Forrest Mars Jr., chairman of Mars Inc.

"I'm always surprised at the separation of the business world from politics in a number of wealthy people," said Kent Cooper, co- founder of PoliticalMoneyLine. "To them, politics is a different world, and the business mind has a hard time understanding how politics works."

Kerry has the support of two billionaires who did not give to either presidential campaign: Steve Jobs, chief executive officer of Cupertino, Calif.-based Apple Computer Inc., and Barry Diller, chairman of New York-based IAC/InterActiveCorp, an Internet commerce and television shopping company.

A Kerry campaign spokesman declined to comment.

Calls to the Bush campaign were not returned.

[b]Wealthy donors [/b]

116 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to President Bush.

31 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry.

6 Number of billionaires who made donations this year to both Bush and Kerry. - http://www.rockymountainnews....,1299,DRMN_4_3094590,00.html

[b]Courtesy of WinstonSmith http://winstonsmith.tblog.com... [/b]

[b]Also read about the Saudi Royal Family (who were involved in the attacks against America on 9/11) who illegally fund Traitors Bush/Cheney by funnelling hundreds of millions through the Carlyle Group [/b] http://www.bushnews.com/bushm... http://truthout.org/docs_01/0... http://www.houseofbush.com/

[b]Even more shocking are the Corporations that bribe Traitors Bush/Cheney to rape America [/b] http://www.laborresearch.org/...

[b]Why do you think that Bush/Cheney don't give a damn about American working people and are Traitors? Look at the traitors, terrorists, corporations and plutocrats willing to destroy America, who they are [i]indebted to[/i]![/b]

A'W'OL Bush, Why Don't You Answer the Questions of US Troops in Iraq???

09.21.04 (10:52 am) [edit]

[b]MILITARY – DISCONTENT WITH COMMANDER IN CHIEF: [/b]The Christian Science Monitor reports a "discernible countercurrent among U.S. troops in Iraq - those who blame President Bush for entangling them in what they see as a misguided war." http://www.csmonitor.com/2004... Three factors working against Bush are "the Iraq war, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's tense relationship with the Army, and...Senator Kerry's pledge to add 40,000 new troops and relieve an overstretched force."

A'W"OL Bush: The Biggest Flip-Floppin' Whore in Our Nation's History!!!

09.21.04 (10:46 am) [edit]

Former Nixon Dirty Tricks Orchestrator May Be the Source of Planted Documents ... Karl Rove?

09.21.04 (10:43 am) [edit]

New York Post political gossip columnist Frederic U. Dicker says "The hot rumor in New York political circles has Roger Stone, the longtime GOP activist, as the source for Dan Rather's dubious Texas Air National Guard "memos." The irony would be delicious, since Rather became famous confronting President Nixon, in whose service a very young Stone became associated with political "dirty tricks." Reached at his Florida home, Stone had no comment." But this suggestion may, like the planted documents, be a red herring thrown out to the media now that the big question being asked is: Who planted the documents? Our money is still on Karl Rove. The short-memoried media seems to forget that the "dubious documents" are nearly identical to other Bush guard service documents released by the White House earlier this year that SUPPORTED Bush's case.

[b]Check-it-out [/b] http://www.nypost.com/comment...

HEADS MUST ROLL IN THE BUSH/CHENEY REGIME!!!

09.21.04 (9:05 am) [edit]

[b]IMPEACH BUSH/CHENEY!!!

Bush/Cheney are guilty of War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity!!![/b]

Visit one of the Impeach Bush web-sites http://www.impeach-bush-now.o...

Also visit another web-site called "The Four Reasons" http://www.thefourreasons.org...

"Is Bush a War Criminal?" http://www.earthside.com/bush...

[b]Read:[/b]

Bush/Cheney's War Crimes: For Neo-Cons, Bloody, Sordid Ends Justify Bloody, Squalid Means!!! http://www.tblog.com/template...

Poll: A'W'OL Bush's Presidency is the Most Disastrous in American History http://www.tblog.com/template...

Government Insider: "Bush is guilty of treason and mass murder." http://www.tblog.com/template...

A'W'OL & Cheney Said Iraq Would Be A Cakewalk-- Instead It's A Bloodbath!!!

09.21.04 (9:02 am) [edit]

[b]Even GOP Senators McCain, Lugar, Hagel, Chafee, etc. have condemned Bush's bloodbath and criminal fiasco in Iraq!!![/b]

[b]Iraqi Democracy: Not Quite the Cakewalk

by Charley Reese, January 31, 2004 [/b]

If I had a choice of catching 1,000 feral cats or bringing democracy to Iraq, I'd take the cat job in a New York second.

The Shiites want immediate elections; the Sunnis have just organized themselves and oppose immediate elections. The Kurds want autonomy, but the Turks have warned that they'll cause big trouble if the Kurds get it. On top of all of that is an ongoing guerrilla war that, despite the claims of success by the United States, continues to take a steady toll of American and Iraqi lives. Unemployment is still close to 60 percent.

Some say it would not take much of a spark to set off a civil war, and you can bet the guerrillas will be more than happy to strike that spark if they can.

In the meantime, back at the ranch, President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney remain in denial, refusing, it seems, to accept the fact that there are no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction, nor were there any when they led us to war.

Sooner or later it will sink into the minds of the American people that more than half a thousand Americans have been killed, about 2,500 have been wounded, and $200 billion has been spent on false pretenses, and there is no end in sight.

David Kay, who just quit as the chief weapons searcher, now says there are no stockpiles and probably never were any. Loyal as a lap dog, however, he has given Bush an out by blaming the CIA. The amazing thing is that Bush doesn't have the smarts to take the hint. He keeps insisting he "did the right thing based on good intelligence."

That's so typical of an ideologue. When the facts contradict the theory, ignore the facts and stick with the theory. Bush apparently intends to keep the search going until after the November election so he can always say the issue hasn't been settled.

Yeah, I know that the Bush administration says it plans to hand over sovereignty to the Iraqis this summer, but you can't believe anything the Bush administration says. We'll have to wait to see how the administration defines sovereignty. My guess is it defines sovereignty as an obedient Iraqi government that will allow large numbers of American military forces to remain in the country.

Whether Iraqis will agree to that kind of "limited sovereignty" remains to be seen. If the past is indicative of the future, Iraqis will view the government as a front for the United States and eventually overthrow it and kill off the leaders. In that case, all the lives and limbs lost, all the billions of dollars poured down a Middle East rathole, will have been in vain.

It's too bad we elected a president who had no knowledge of foreign policy, but far worse had no interest in or curiosity about it. Richard Perle, one of the neocon architects of the war, has said in public print that Bush knew nothing. That's why he became a willing victim of the neocon ideologues he put in his administration. They saved him the trouble of having to think, and that is apparently what he likes most: not having to think. Don't ask me to think or make decisions, he seems to say; just tell me what I should do and say, and I'll read the teleprompter.

That would have been all right if he had surrounded himself with wise and experienced people, but he chose a pack of mad-dog ideologues with delusions of grandeur who are itching to impose American will on the rest of the Earth and are fanatically committed to their theory, the facts to the contrary be damned.

Let's hope that Bush's replacement will be somebody with a functioning and engaged brain who is more interested