A Controversial and/or Informative Site

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::A Misleading Appeal To Fear
Pro-Bush group misstates key facts about anti-terror campaign.

September 8, 2006
Modified:September 8, 2006
Summary
The pro-Bush group Progress for America is running a TV ad appealing directly to Americans' fear of terrorists, saying bluntly "These people want to kill us."

That's true enough. But the ad falsely attributes the recent thwarting of a hijack plot to the President's warrantless NSA wiretaps, when it was actually British authorities who uncovered it.

The ad also distorts the position of Iraq war critics, implying they propose to withdraw from "the Middle East" and not just Iraq.

And in a bit of bad luck, the ad cites the case of al-Qeda affiliate Zarqawi as evidence of the success of Bush's anti-terror campaign – one day before the Senate Intelligence Committee released a report saying Saddam Hussein considered him an outlaw and tried to have him arrested.


Analysis

The ad was announced Sept. 7. PFA said it is the 'first flight' and is appearing initially in Missouri and on the organization's website, with plans to keep it running for the week that will include the five-year anniversary of the 9/11 attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Its sponsor is a group formed in 2001 for the express purpose of backing the "Bush agenda," and it spent $38 million in 2004 promoting the President's re-election.

Progress for America Ad:
"The War on Terror"

Announcer: These people want to kill us. Whether called Al-Qaeda, Islamic Jihad, Hezbollah, they're terrorists who want to kill everyone who don't submit to their extreme ideology, submit to a system where women have no rights, where innocent civilians are political pawns.

Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago.

They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again.

Many times before 9/11, Al-Qaeda attacked America, and we took little action: the first World Trade Center bombing, our embassies, the USS Cole.

But after 9/11, we struck back, destroying Al-Qaeda terrorists in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us.

Now, we have narrowly escaped "another 9/11," using proven surveillance that some would stop.

The War on Terror is a war for our country's freedom, security and survival.

Appeal to Fear

The ad is a raw appeal to fear, saying "these people want to kill us" while showing weapons-toting fighters and a huge crowd chanting "Death to America." It adds, "Many seem to have forgotten the evil that happened only five years ago," while showing an orange fireball billowing from the World Trade Center south tower as United Airlines Flight 175 slammed into it Sept. 11, 2001.

Strictly speaking, the ad is clearly false on that point. We know of nobody who has "forgotten" the events of 9/11, and we doubt that Progress for America can name a single person who has. If what PFA means by this statement is that "many" people don't see 9/11 as justification for the military campaign in Iraq or the President's domestic antiterror actions, they are correct. Many do disagree.

We asked PFA about this. They cited a poll showing only about a third of Americans are worried they will be victims of terrorism. That's not the same as "forgetting."

Misleading Claim:

NSA Wiretaps

The ad seriously misleads viewers when it shows a Newsweek cover story about the foiled plot to blow up US-bound airliners, and claims that "we have narrowly escaped 'another 9/11,' using proven surveillance that some would stop." That's a reference to the National Security Agency wiretaps that President Bush ordered to be undertaken without seeking judicial warrants. In fact, there is no evidence that the NSA wiretaps played any significant role at all in the discovery or thwarting of the alleged plot. British authorities had been watching the accused plotters since December 2005, and only informed the White House about the plot a few days prior to making arrests.

We have been over this before , and what we said then bears repeating. White House adviser Fran Townsend revealed in an interview on MSNBC's Hardball with Chris Matthews that the US simply played a supporting role:

Townsend: We put every tool at our disposal into use to help our British colleagues. But this really was a British investigation for the longest time. We didn`t see an American threat. It was only recently we developed the American angle working with our British colleagues , but this was really a British threat.

We know of no evidence that the the NSA wiretaps turned up any trace of the alleged British plot prior to the British discovery of it. And the British had been watching the accused plotters since December, roughly eight months before giving President Bush a "detailed briefing" about it on Aug. 4, which in turn was less than a week prior to making arrests. No less an authority than the President himself gave the British, not the NSA, credit for exposing the plan. He said on the day of the arrests, Aug 10:

Bush Aug. 10: I want to thank the government of Tony Blair and officials in the United Kingdom for their good work in busting this plot.

According to news accounts, the British first got onto the plan after receiving a tip from a worried member of the Muslim community.

When we asked PFA about this they cited news accounts saying that the British had used wiretaps in their months-long investigation of the suspected terrorists. We consider that a particularly lame response. We know of nobody who suggests that the British end "surveillance." As for the NSA taps, critics generally aren't calling for them to end either – they propose that Bush get judicial warrants for them from the same special panel of judges that approves other secret intelligence-agency wiretaps.

Misleading Claim:

"Leaving al Qaeda free to attack"

The ad also claims that "They would cut and run in the Middle East, leaving Al-Qaeda to attack us again," apparently referring to the President's critics. But we know of nobody who advocates US withdrawal from Afghanistan, for example, much less from the entire Middle East. The ad is artfully worded to avoid mention of an unpopular subject, Iraq, which is the one place in the Middle East that some Bush critics want the US to leave.

In fact, a number of Bush critics have said for years that the administration should have put more troops into the hunt for bin Laden and the remnants of his leadership in the mountains of the Pakistani-Afghan border region. For example, on March 5, Democratic Rep. John Murtha said on CBS News's Face the Nation :

Murtha, March 5: Let me tell you, the only people who want us in Iraq is Iran and al-Qaeda, and I talked to a top level commander the other day, who's--about two weeks ago, and he said China wants us there also. Why? Because we're depleting our resources. Our phys--our mental--not our mental--our troop resources and our fiscal resources.

Q: Well, now, Congressman, when you say al-Qaeda wants us there, why would al-Qaeda want us there?

A: Because we're depleting our resources. A very small proportion to what's going on in Iraq, and they've diverted their attention away from the war on terrorism.

Describing such criticism as proposing to leave al Quaeda unmolested is as false as it can be. And the fact is that despite all Bush's efforts bin Laden still remains at large and - in theory - "free to attack us again."

Misleading Claim:

"Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us."

The ad specifically cites the case of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi in support of Bush policy in Iraq. It says the US destroyed al Qaeda terrorists "in Afghanistan and Iraq. Terrorists like Zarqawi who want to kill us." But just one day after the ad appeared, the Senate Intelligence Committee released its long-awaited "Phase II" report on Iraq, concluding that Saddam Hussein not only offered no support for al Qaeda but repeatedly turned down requests for aid. As for Zarqawi, to whom some Bush allies once pointed as evidence of Saddam's supposed ties to al Qaeda, the Senate report said Saddam tried and failed to capture him when he slipped into Baghdad under an alias in 2002, possibly seeking medical treatment. It said Saddam's regime "did not have a relationship with, harbor or turn a blind eye toward Zarqawi." In fact, the Senate cited information from an al Qaida detainee that Saddam "considered al-Zaraqi to be an outlaw."

Zarqawi left and "he did not return to Baghdad until June 2003, after the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime," according to the report.

- By Brooks Jackson


Sources

Craig Whitlock and Dafna Linzer, "Tip Followed '05 Attacks on London Transit," Washington Post 11 Aug 2006: A1.

"President Bush Discusses Terror Plot Upon Arrival in Wisconsin," White House. 10 Aug. 2006.

White House Press Briefing, Tony Snow. 11 Aug. 2006

CBS News Transcripts, "Face the Nation: Representative Jack Murtha, House Appropriations Committee, discusses war in Iraq and Iran, and Dubai ports deal," 5 March 2006.

Jim Abrams, " Senate: No prewar Saddam-al-Qaida ties," The Associated Press, 8 Sep 2006.

Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, " Postwar Findings about Iraq's WMD Programs and Links to Terrorism and How they Compare with Prewar Assessments," released 8 Sep 2006.
http://forums.allaboutjazz.com/newreply.php

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: ::
Tomgram: Crashing the Plane of State into Iraq

[Note to Tomdispatch readers: Don't miss the new project, Lie by Lie just up at the Mother Jones website. A cleverly cross-referenced time-line, It is in the process of cataloguing all the lies and manipulations of the Bush administration on the way to war and thereafter. It may be a work in progress but it's an important one. Bookmark it. Let me also thank three sites in particular for helping me to keep up on Iraq: As always, Juan Cole's indispensable Informed Comment blog, Antiwar.com with its plethora of pieces I would otherwise never catch, and the War in Context whose editor has a telling eye for the important article. Tom

http://www.tomdispatch.com/

Mother Jones Radio

HTMLText

IN TUNE
New music every issue

CLICK TO LISTEN
Sundays on Air America Radio

THIS WEEK

Matt Brzezinski on the 9/11 anniversary; "Shadow Company" director Nick Bicanic; Sara Catania on growing up white in a black neighborhood; Jason Mark on California's global warming initiatives

COMING NEXT WEEK: Chris Mooney on global warming and the Republican "war on science"; "Bleeding Afghanistan" co-author Sonali Kolhatkar; Mother Jones writer Alyssa Katz; professor Fathali M. Moghaddam on Iran


Learn More...

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/


Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003
The first drafts of history are fragmentary. Important revelations arrive late, and out of order. In this timeline, we’ve assembled the history of the Iraq War to create a resource we hope will help resolve open questions of the Bush era. What did our leaders know and when did they know it? And, perhaps just as important, what red flags did we miss, and how could we have missed them? This is the first installment in our Iraq War timeline project.
HOW TO USE THIS TIMELINE | GET UPDATES | SUPPORT | LEARN MORE | COMMENT

This timeline requires Macromedia's Flash Player. If you don't see the image above, download the player here.

Bush bomb illustration by John Ueland


Comments (64)

TAGS
People: Jack Abramoff, Al-Libi, Al Qaeda, Mohammad Atta, Tony Blair, George W. Bush, Ahmad Chalabi, Dick Cheney, Curveball, Doubters, Saddam Hussein, John Kerry, Jessica Lynch, Judy Miller, Neocons, Colin Powell, Condoleezza Rice, Karl Rove, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Abu Zubaydah

Agencies: British Intelligence, CIA, DIA, DOD, DOE, DOJ/FBI, FEMA/Katrina, German Intelligence, IAEA, NSA, Reconstruction Authorities, State, TIA, UN

Other: 9/11 Commission, Abu Ghraib, Afghanistan, Aluminum Tubes, Boondoggle, Detainees, Downing Street Memos, Mobile Weapons Labs, Niger Uranium, Oil, Plamegate, Rathergate, Sexed-Up Dossier, Terror Alert, Terror Attack, Terror Prosecutions, Weapons Inspection, WMD, Wiretapping

RECENT COMMENTS
Lie by Lie: Chronicle of a War Foretold: August 1990 to March 2003 (64)
vex wrote: First, I don't understand why a cou... [more]

November 8, 2002 (1)
Al Leskys wrote: It is my understanding that the phr... [more]

Powered by
Movable Type 3.31

© 2005 The Foundation for National Progress

http://www.motherjones.com/bush_war_timeline/

http://www.motherjones.com
...

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Just Try Voting Here: 11 of America's worst places to cast a ballot (or try)
Machines that count backward, slice-and-dice districts, felon baiting, phone jamming, and plenty of dirty tricks

Sasha Abramsky
September/October 2006 Issue We used to think the voting system was something like the traffic laws -- a set of rules clear to everyone, enforced everywhere, with penalties for transgressions; we used to think, in other words, that we had a national election system. How wrong a notion this was has become painfully apparent since 2000: As it turns out, except for a rudimentary federal framework (which determines the voting age, channels money to states and counties, and enforces protections for minorities and the disabled), U.S. elections are shaped by a dizzying mélange of inconsistently enforced laws, conflicting court rulings, local traditions, various technology choices, and partisan trickery. In some places voters still fill in paper ballots or pull the levers of vintage machines; elsewhere, they touch screens or tap keys, with or without paper trails. Some states encourage voter registration; others go out of their way to limit it. Some allow prisoners to vote; others permanently bar ex-felons, no matter how long they've stayed clean. Who can vote, where people cast ballots, and how and whether their votes are counted all depends, to a large extent, on policies set in place by secretaries of state and county elections supervisors -- officials who can be as partisan, as dubiously qualified, and as nakedly ambitious as people anywhere else in politics. Here is a list -- partial, but emblematic -- of American democracy's more glaring weak spots.

#1 The New Poll Tax
Atlanta, Georgia

In 2005, Georgia state legislators passed a bill requiring voters to present either a driver's license or a state-issued photo ID that costs between $20 and $35 and is available only from Department of Motor Vehicles offices. Supporters claimed this was necessary to keep people from casting votes in someone else's name, even though Georgia secretary of state Cathy Cox noted that her office had no evidence of this happening. Either way, the measure is likely to have a dramatic effect on who can vote. Two-thirds of the state's counties don't even have a DMV office; Atlanta, the state's largest city, has just one, where waits at the ID counters often run to several hours. In late June, the secretary of state issued a report finding that more than half a million active-status, registered voters in Georgia don't have valid photo IDs. Fully 17.3 percent of African American voters, and one-third of black voters over age 65, wouldn't be able to cast a ballot under the law. When the federal Department of Justice had five experts examine the ID legislation in 2005, four of them objected to it, as the Washington Post discovered. But higher-ups at Justice overruled them and the measure (pushed by conservative think tanks such as the American Center for Voting Rights) went on the books. In October of last year a judge blocked its implementation, and the law -- along with another version that offers free voter IDs -- remains in limbo as appeals continue.

At least two other states, Wisconsin and Missouri, have passed similar ID legislation. (Wisconsin's governor has since vetoed it.) University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee professor John Pawasarat has found that fewer than a quarter of 18-to-24-year-old black men in that state have valid driver's licenses, the most common state-issued ID. In Indiana, a new law requires valid IDs to bear an expiration date, ruling out Veterans Affairs cards, among others.

"In my view it's an orchestrated vote-suppression strategy by less scrupulous strategists in the Republican Party," says Dan Tokaji, associate director of election law at Ohio State University's Moritz College of Law. "It's pretty clear to me that these are disenfranchisement strategies. I try not to use that word too often, but in this case it fits."

Runner-up: Arizona voters in 2004 passed Proposition 200, which requires "proof of citizenship" when a person registers to vote. There's no evidence that noncitizens had been flocking to the polls, but the measure is bad news for Native Americans, the poor, and the elderly, who often don't have the requisite documents. Driver's licenses issued prior to 1996 don't count -- a not-insignificant fact, given that Arizona licenses are valid until a person turns 65. Officials say that 14,000 voter registrations in Phoenix and environs have already been rejected because of the law.

#2 Machine Meltdowns
Beaufort, North Carolina; Fort Worth, Texas; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (tie)
In 2004, a touch-screen voting machine in Beaufort, North Carolina, erased 4,439 ballots cast during early voting two weeks before Election Day; they were never recovered. A similar problem in Burke County, North Carolina, resulted in several thousand votes for president not being counted. And, according to the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation, a voting machine in Ohio managed to add 4,000 extra votes for Bush. But those episodes, voting experts say, are just a preview of balloting debacles to come: The federal Help America Vote Act requires most counties to replace punch-card or lever machines with newer technology by the end of this year, and election officials are scrambling to meet the deadline. Already during this spring's primaries, reports of trouble multiplied: Initial results in Fort Worth, Texas, showed 150,000 votes being tabulated in a county where only about 50,000 people voted. In Pottawattamie County, Iowa, machines suddenly began counting some candidates' votes backward. In Philadelphia, more than 5 percent of voting machines broke down on primary day.

The most sensational claims about voting technology have to do with the possibility of actually programming the machines to manipulate elections; computer scientists have warned that viruses could, for example, be inserted into vote-counting programs to delete a set number of votes and then erase themselves. So far no smoking guns have been found to prove such vote-fixing. But there have been myriad well-documented instances of human error and machine failures, and of extreme reluctance on the part of machine manufacturers to make their software accessible to outside experts. "Elections in this country are becoming proprietary," explains Lillie Coney, coordinator of the D.C.-based National Committee for Voting Integrity. "Vendors are saying, ‘You can't investigate our technology, or our software.' They've put the technology in place, but the mechanisms for public officials to manage the technology, they're just not there."

When Ion Sancho, the elections supervisor in Leon County, Florida, discovered last year that Diebold's machines could easily be tinkered with, the company responded by refusing to service or upgrade the county's voting equipment so long as Sancho remained in charge. Since then, researchers in Florida and California have discovered more problems with Diebold technology, finding that the machines could accidentally allow one person to cast multiple votes, could be tricked into terminating an election count before all the votes had been tallied, and could permit changes to election results without detection.

Even some of the "paper trail" systems for electronic voting are deeply flawed. On some machines, logs have been designed so badly that auditors are at risk of counting "tentative" votes instead of the voters' final choices; on others, a voter wanting to check whether her choice has registered must lift an inconspicuous door and then peer, through a plastic screen, at a tiny printout, with the actual vote often not even scrolling into view.

#3 Line Forms Here
Franklin County, Ohio

Like many states, Ohio theoretically requires equal treatment of voters in all parts of the state; in practice, it frequently ignores its own requirements, especially in urban, predominantly Democratic, neighborhoods. In Franklin County, for example, more than 2,500 voters in the city of Columbus found themselves crammed into a single precinct in 2004, even though the state's guidelines call for no more than 1,400 -- apparently because officials assumed that in a poor neighborhood, turnout would be low. The state only partially reimburses counties for buying electronic voting machines, so Franklin, like many poor counties, didn't have enough machines on hand to start with. When record numbers of voters showed up, massive lines snaked toward the handful of machines. The Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law has sued Ohio; among the complainants was an elderly woman with arthritis who had to leave because no one could find a place for her to sit.

Runners-up: New Orleans and St. Louis have long been plagued by long lines in poor neighborhoods; in 2000, so many polling places failed to open on time in St. Louis that a judge ordered the polls be kept open late, a ruling that Republicans battled to the last minute. In Broward County, Florida, waits stretched to four hours even during early voting in 2004; on Election Day at least one polling station didn't open until the early afternoon, and poll workers frantically calling the county elections office got nothing but busy signals.

#4 Incompetence
Cuyahoga County, Ohio

Dominated by the city of Cleveland and its Democratic machine, Cuyahoga County has a stunning history of poll-worker incompetence and technology failures, resulting in de facto disenfranchisement on a massive scale. In primary elections this spring, so many poll workers failed to show up for work that numerous polling places opened more than an hour late, some because they didn't have extension cords or three-prong adapters. Once voting began, it was promptly undermined by a shortage of voting machines, confusion over precinct voter lists, and paper jams that poll workers did not know how to fix (some asked random voters to repair the machines). Though only 20 percent of registered voters turned out for the primary, it took more than a week to count their votes. Around the nation, says Brenda Wright, managing attorney at the Boston-based National Voting Rights Institute, election administration is massively underfunded, with poll workers paid mere pittances, trained only marginally, and overseen bystate officials who don't provide "any meaningful check on recurrent problems at the local level."

#5 Foul Play
New Hampshire

Intimidation, deception, and assorted trickery have long been staples of American elections, practiced with equal aplomb by both parties and by operatives working with (or without) a nod and a wink from party leaders. In Milwaukee, Wisconsin, in 2004, fliers from the nonexistent Milwaukee Black Voters League were distributed in black neighborhoods, warning residents that "if anyone in your family has ever been found guilty of anything, even a traffic violation, you can't vote in the presidential election," and that "if you violate any of these laws you can get ten years in prison and your children will get taken away from you."

Meanwhile, in (again) Franklin County, Ohio, fliers purporting to be from the county Board of Elections announced that because of high voter registration, Republicans would be voting on Election Day, and Democrats would cast their ballots the next day; they ended with the inspired line, "Thank you for your cooperation, and remember voting is a privilege." In the same county, a group of out-of-state Republicans known as the Mighty Texas Strike Force made phone calls from a hotel warning ex-prisoners that they could be returned to the slammer if they dared to vote, and reportedly telling other voters that their polling places had changed. Congressional investigators later discovered that the Ohio Republican Party had paid the Strike Force's hotel bills.

The dirtiest-trick award, however, goes to New Hampshire, where the state Republican Party -- its executive director, a veteran, working on the military principle of disrupting "enemy communications" -- hired a Virginia-based company named gop Marketplace to jam the Democrats' phone bank system during the 2002 U.S. Senate election. Republican John Sununu won the close contest; three men are serving prison terms as a result of the endeavor, and a fourth is under indictment, with evidence still surfacing that the action may have been approved by senior party officials in Washington.

#6 Gerrymandering
Travis County, Texas

In recent elections, 95 percent of members of the U.S. House of Representatives have been reelected; the vast majority ran in districts drawn to be entirely noncompetitive in the general election. In these districts, registered Republicans or Democrats may have a say in the primaries, but everyone else's vote is for all intents and purposes meaningless.

Gerrymandering got a major boost with the advent of redistricting software in 1991. The new algorithms were first used to boost the chances of black and Latino candidates; soon, both parties realized that you didn't need the fig leaf of minority representation, and they began slicing and dicing districts at will. In Texas, Travis County, which includes Austin, has long dominated a congressional district that reliably sent a Democrat to Washington. But in 2003, the Texas Legislature snipped off various chunks of Travis and attached them to a series of jagged-edged districts snaking north-south and east-west through strongly Republican areas outside the county. This, and a series of other creatively shaped districts in Texas, would be the ultimate legacy of Tom DeLay, who in 2002 launched a push to create a Republican majority in the Statehouse that would redraw the state's electoral map and thus cement the GOP's hold on Washington. Last June, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that this was constitutional, even though Travis and other areas were carved up "with the sole purpose of achieving a Republican congressional majority."

At the state level, the redistricting game has also taken the uncertainty out of politics in many places. The New York Public Interest Research Group estimates that only 11 percent of New York's 212 legislative districts are competitive, and that 27 of the state's 62 Senate districts have been engineered to create Democratic advantages of at least 40,000 votes per district. Similarly, researchers at Claremont McKenna College in Pomona, California, have found virtually 100 percent of California legislative districts to be noncompetitive thanks to gerrymandering, and The Economist estimates that November's election outcome is uncertain in only one of the state's 53 congressional districts. Redistricting has produced crazy-looking, swirling districts whose shapes make sense only under an increasingly complex political calculus. In one notorious instance, in 2001, then-Senate leader John Burton, a Democrat, went out of his way to have a specific dis-trict's boundaries redrawn to weaken the election prospects of Fred Keeley, a Democrat from Santa Cruz whom Burton viewed as a troublemaker and who had announced interest in the Senate seat. The Senate district, which previously included all of Santa Cruz County, migrated north, extending a thin southward finger through the city of Santa Cruz. So effective was the maneuver, Keeley didn't even bother to run.

#7 No Felons Allowed
Mississippi Delta

Since the 2000 election, when the state of Florida disenfranchised thousands of people by falsely tagging them as felons, half a dozen states have gotten rid of laws permanently barring felons from voting, but felon bans still affect more than 5 million Americans. In Florida, close to 1 million people, or about 9 percent of adult citizens, cannot vote because they have felony records. In 2000 and 2004 the state went to the trouble of hiring private companies to "scrub" the rolls of suspected felons who had registered to vote; both times, it became apparent that because of shoddy database criteria the companies were flagging many people who either weren't felons or had had their voting rights restored.

But perhaps the nation's most scandalous disenfranchisement law is found in Mississippi, which in the early days of Jim Crow crafted its felon codes with the specific intent of disenfranchising only those convicted of "black crimes." In the Delta, about a quarter of African American men are for all practical purposes disenfranchised, and even more assume that they are: Though not everyone convicted of a felony is automatically barred from voting -- in fact, people convicted of drug felonies retain their voting rights -- corrections and election officials have made no effort to get that information out. One ex-con in Jackson told me that she knew people who were terrified of voting because they had become convinced that any interaction with authority would put them at risk of losing their welfare payments.

What's more, to get re-enfranchised in Mississippi, a felon has to persuade his state senator or representative to author a bill personally re-enfranchising him, has to get the bill approved by both houses, and then has to get the governor to sign it. In reviewing records from January 2001 to December 2004, I could identify just 52 people -- in a state with more than 25,000 prisoners, 2,100 parolees, and 21,000 men and women on probation -- who had managed to get their voting rights restored.

#8 Voting While Black
Charleston, South Carolina

Though the Voting Rights Act ended many race-based practices, local politicians continue to come up with creative methods to maximize white clout. A favorite is at-large voting, which dilutes minority votes. In Charleston, South Carolina, 38 of the 41 people elected to the county council between 1970 (when the county switched from district-based voting to at-large) and 2004 were white. A lawsuit from the federal government finally ended at-large voting for council seats in 2004. But Charleston still has at-large voting for school board members; in the 1990s, several black candidates nonetheless managed to get elected when the white vote split among a number of candidates. In response, a conservative state senator named Arthur Ravenel Jr., who'd made a name for himself by defending public display of the Confederate flag and mocking his opponents as the "National Association of Retarded People," pushed through legislation that made the school board election partisan, thus introducing a primary process that ensured a one-on-one fight in the final round. The number of blacks on the nine-member school board went from five in 2000 to one today.

Runner-up: The town of Martin, South Dakota, is sandwiched between two Lakota Sioux reservations; its City Council district map, which according to an aclu lawsuit was drawn specifically to ensure a white majority, was found unconstitutional earlier this year. Voting-rights monitors also allege that voter-registration personnel in South Dakota sometimes "forget" to give registration cards to Native Americans, and that sheriffs harass reservation residents coming into town (often across enormous distances) to vote.

#9 Suspect Students
Waller County, Texas

Prairie View A&M is a black school in the heart of east Texas, where the local leadership has, over many decades, worked to deny the students' claims to being full-time county residents and thus eligible to vote. In 2003, Waller County district attorney Oliver Kitzman wrote a letter to the elections administrator and the local newspaper warning that any students who tried to vote could face 10 years in prison and a $10,000 fine. The NAACP filed suit, noting that as far back as 1979 the U.S. Supreme Court, ruling on a lawsuit brought by Prairie View students, held that students could register to vote in the communities in which they attended college. Students in Arkansas, Florida, Maine, New Hampshire, and Virginia have also been prevented or discouraged from registering; in Williamsburg, Virginia, William and Mary students were denied permission to register merely for acknowledging that they were going home on vacation.

#10 Failing to Register
Florida

Voter registration forms are easily lost. In 2004, for example, headlines focused on a Republican National Committee contractor named Sproul & Associates, which subcontracted with a company called Voters Outreach of America that, in Las Vegas, was found destroying forms filled out by people trying to register as Democrats. Incidents like this would seem to justify a new Florida law that imposes fines of $250 to $500 per form on anyone who registers voters and doesn't immediately deliver the paperwork to election officials, with no exceptions for difficult circumstances or natural disasters. But since it was already illegal in Florida to deliberately delay handing in voter registration forms, and since the new legislation does not apply to the two main political parties, its only likely effect is to intimidate independent voter-registration organizations; the largest among them, the League of Women Voters, has stopped doing voter registration in the state altogether.

#11 Politicos in Charge
Ohio

Election activists don't have Florida's Katherine Harris to kick around anymore, but in a system where most states' top election officials are also politicians, there's no shortage of other nominees for worst secretary of state. The current leading candidate must be Ohio's Ken Blackwell, now a Republican candidate for governor, who seems intent on making sure as few Ohioans as possible are registered to vote. In 2004 Blackwell achieved national notoriety when he announced that his office would accept only voter-registration forms printed on paper of at least 80-pound weight. Blackwell had to back off that requirement, but a slew of other restrictions remain, including one under which door-to-door registration workers must sign in with county officials, and another requiring them to personally mail in the registration forms they collect. "The constant promulgation of rules and regulations keeps members of the Board of Elections jumping around like cats on a hot tin roof," says Chris Link, executive director of the Ohio ACLU. "And this essentially hurts Democrats. Who is newly registering? People who've just become citizens, young people who've just gotten the right to vote." Meanwhile, Blackwell's office has done nothing to inform voters that come Election Day this year, they will have to bring photo IDs to the polls -- guaranteeing that tens of thousands of mostly Democratic voters will be turned away.

http://www.motherjones.com/cgi-bin/print_article.pl?url=http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/09
/just_try_voting_here.html

http://www.motherjones.com/news/feature/2006/09/just_try_voting_here.html

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Anti-War Candidates and the Primaries
Folks who oppose the war in Iraq (and are ticked off at the deception and misdirection that got us into it) shouldn't read too much into Hillary Clinton's expected drubbing of anti-war insurgent Jonathan Tasini, notes John Nichols over at The Nation. Clinton after all, in addition to enjoying all the advantages of incumbency, is an A-list celebrity and is a formidable fundraisers. There are races, though, where anti-war messages are more interestingly--perhaps decisively--in play. Nichols lists a few.


* The Maryland Senate race, where former NAACP executive director Kweisi Mfume has been far more aggressive in his opposition to the war than Cardin. Mfume's focus on the cost of the war is especially noteworthy. "The billions of dollars being spent to wage this war continue to distort our priorities and drain our economy of much needed resources," the former congressman argues. "We don't ever seem to have the money that we need when it comes to driving down the cost of health care or driving up the quality of our public schools, because we are throwing so much of it into this war."


* Maryland's 4th Congressional District, where veteran activist Donna Edwards has come on strong at the close of her Democratic primary challenge to complacent incumbent Albert Wynn. With fresh endorsements from the Washington Post, the major newspaper in the district, and the region's Teamsters, Edwards is clearly credible. And she is closing with a strong anti-war message in a race against a Democrat who she blisters for "casting his lot with Bush and the Republicans on such critical issues as Iraq..."


* Minnesota's 5th Congressional District, where Democrat Olav Martin Sabo is retiring. Several of the candidates in the crowded Democratic primary have articulated anti-war positions. Of the frontrunners, the most aggressive is state Representative Keith Ellison, who says, "I am calling for an immediate withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq. I opposed the war before it began; I was against this war once it started and I am the only candidate calling for an immediate withdrawal of troops."

* Arizona's 8th Congressional District, where Republican incumbent Jim Kolbe is stepping down. The Democratic field is crowded and Jeff Latas lacks the funding and the name recognition of several of the other candidates. But the retired Air Force fighter pilot is a compelling contender.

Nichols, citing the example of the staunchly anti-war John Sarbanes, son of Sen. Paul Sarbanes and a frontrunner for an open U.S. House seat representing Maryland's 3rd District, also argues that "[o]nly when Democrats have the wisdom and the courage to articulate a clear anti-war position will they begin to steer the debate in Washington."


For more on the November elections, check out the Times' nifty interactive map (click on it).

Posted by Julian Brookes on 09/12/06 at 12:14 PM | Trackbacks (0) | Comments (0) | E-mail | Print


Primary Races to Watch Today

In addition to Sen. Lincoln Chafee's fascinating battle to keep his job ("If you want to see just how large Republicans can build their Big Tent, or alternately, how tight they can hold their noses, look at the Senate primary race in Rhode Island today."), here are some primary races to watch today (AP):

The New York Democratic primary for attorney general, with former federal Housing Secretary Andrew Cuomo - son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo - against Mark Green, the former New York City Public Advocate.
In New York's gubernatorial primary, Eliot Spitzer is set to pulverize Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi; Sen. Hillary Clinton likewise will crush anti-Iraq war candidate Jonathan Tasini in the New York Democratic Senate primary. (If she can hold Tasini to single digits Clinton will likely claim to have neutralized the anti-war opposition to her larger political ambitions.)
The Maryland Democratic Senate primary, where Rep. Ben Cardin and Kweisi Mfume, a former congressman and one-time head of the NAACP, are among 18 contenders for an open seat. The winner will face Michael Steele, who, if he wins in the fall, would be the Senate's only black Republican.
The Democratic primary for a House seat in Minnesota in an open, reliably Democratic district which includes Minneapolis. Four candidates are running, including state legislator Keith Ellison, who won his party's backing. If he won, Ellison would be the first Muslim member of Congress.

Posted by Julian Brookes on 09/12/06 at 10:55 AM

http://www.motherjones.com/mojoblog/index.html

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Until lions have their historians, tales of the hunt shall always glorify the hunter: African proverb

~~~

Recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world: Preamble, Universal Declaration of Human Rights
http://www.un.org/Overview/rights.html

~~~

Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings: Patrick Henry, March 23, 1775.

~~~
"The test of every religious, political, or educational system is the man that it forms.": -- Henri-Frédéric Amiel - (1821-1881) Swiss philosopher, Poet


http://www.informationclearinghouse.info

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

...........Cheney's Gift Agreement

On-site There's A Petition to Sign
Since 2001, Cheney has claimed that one day his stock options in Halliburton will be given to charity, so that "technically" he holds no financial interest in the company. But it's been FIVE years and Cheney still holds 50,000 Halliburton share options with a gross value of $3.76 million as of May 15.

Why the delay in giving up the options to charity?

Cheney claims a contract he signed in 2001 "irrevocably" requires the options to be given to charity at sometime in the future. But the contract states: "Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any legal rights, privileges, or benefits in any ... charity ... to any donation."

The Agreement also states that Cheney cannot be sued for reneging on his promise to donate the options to charity. It states, “Nothing in this Agreement is intended to create any legal rights ... to any claim for damages resulting from any decision ... to withhold any item (i.e. withhold the stock options from the charities).”

The Agreement was signed between Cheney and Philip J. Ward, an attorney who is not affiliated with any charity. The Agreement gives Ward power of attorney over the options with the authority to donate to charity any profits derived therefrom.

Contract law allows the signatories of agreements to abandon agreements entirely if all the parties agree. Cheney and Mr. Ward may, at their discretion, terminate the Agreement at anytime and without any legal penalty and the charities would have no right to sue for damages. That's because the Agreement was made between Cheney and Mr. Ward, not Cheney and charity groups.

In other words, Vice President Cheney could retire from politics and terminate the gift agreement with the consent of Mr. Ward and keep all of his stock options.

Given Cheney's propensity for secrecy, the American people have reason to question whether the Vice President truly intends to donate the Halliburton options to charity. His ongoing interest in the Halliburton options creates an ongoing conflict of interest at the highest levels of government.

We call on the vice president to give up his options immediately and cease his conflict of interest between his governmental duties and his financial interest in Halliburton.

The “Give It Up, Cheney” campaign suggests Mr. Cheney consider donating the proceeds from his remaining Halliburton stock options to the following charities that work with Iraq war veterans:

Intrepid Fallen Heroes Fund: http://www.fallenheroesfund.org/fallenheroes/index.php

Mercy Corps: http://www.mercycorps.org/

National Coalition for Homeless Veterans: http://www.nchv.org/

Tell Mr. Cheney to give it up.

More on the campaign can be found on the internet at:

http://www.GiveItUpCheney.org

SIGN THE PETITION
Tell Cheney to relinquish his stock options in Halliburton! Go on-site to do this, if it is still in going on.

MORE INFORMATION
Cheney's gift agreement

Cheney's 2006 financial disclosure form

Independent report confirms Cheney's stock options are a "continuing financial interest" in Halliburton

Senator denounces Cheney's Halliburton investment

http://www.GiveItUpCheney.org

Go on-site by clicking on the above link, to access the following ones:

LINKS
HalliburtonWatch
Center for Corporate Policy
Essential Information Multinational Monitor

© GIVE IT UP, CHENEY! All Rights Reserved. 2006.

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Voting shouldn't require a heroic act of patience

By
Alexander S. Belenky and Richard C. Larson
Tue Sep 12, 4:00 AM ET

Of all the issues that decide federal elections, the length of lines at polling stations shouldn't be one of them. Yet, as egregious as that would be, they may. And as implausible as that would be, nobody seems to care. After two straight close presidential elections, the 2006 midterms and the 2008 election are likely to be nail-biters, too. This means that the integrity of the election process matters more than ever.

Is there cause for concern? Yes. Consider the 2000 presidential election. George W. Bush won the presidency by a margin of just 537 votes in Florida. Assume (optimistically) that all the voters were properly registered and marked their preferred candidate, and that no voting machines malfunctioned. Even then, if only 538 Floridians who came to the precincts did not vote due to the widely reported long lines, the election outcome would be in doubt.

In the 2004 election, fewer than 119,000 Ohio votes decided the outcome. Bipartisan accounts suggest that in Columbus, an average of 21 would-be voters per precinct were discouraged by reported waits of four hours or more. If this rate of discouragement held in all 12 of the most populated Ohio counties, with 6,560 precincts - where official tallies show John Kerry won a majority of votes - the result might have been different.

Certainly, long voter lines might have discouraged more Bush voters in each election, narrowing his victories in each case. But we'll never know.

Election queues mostly form when the number of voting machines and support personnel are insufficient to handle swiftly the voters entering the polling station. Culprits include statistical underestimation, incompetence, equipment malfunction, and voter inexperience, especially in dealing with new machines. But deliberate manipulation may also be a factor.

Certain voting precincts can be intentionally "understaffed" with voting machines and personnel. Creating queues can be a potent weapon of partisan election authorities for suppressing votes believed to favor the other party. Among possible abuses that compromise elections, this tactic is difficult to detect, much less to prove. As there are no "exit polls" of voters who gave up because of long lines, red flags aren't raised, and stealth disenfranchisement is a real possibility.

Malfunctions of voting equipment in the 2000 presidential election led to the Help America Vote Act (HAVA), passed by Congress in 2002. But the deployment of voting machines does not have any federal oversight. Two bills that address this issue seem to be bogged down in Congress. Currently, extended election hours are the best that voters can expect from election authorities in overcrowded precincts.

That's why it's time for the federal government to set voting standards, such as a maximum acceptable waiting period to cast a vote, which should be explicitly written in the current bills or in a new bill. Making a maximum waiting period a federal standard would provide "accessibility equity" for all voters.

In the private sector, effective managers of supermarkets, 1-800-number call-centers, and banks employ quantitative analysis to keep customer lines moving. In professional hands, the tools of queuing science and optimization are sufficient to meet the challenge. In elections, the same tools should be the basis for a new deployment system for fairly allocating voting machines and personnel across precincts.

Supplemented by Election Day "emergency measures," such as an adjustable redeployment of mobile voting units, this new system would greatly decrease the numbers of voters lost to unexpectedly crowded precincts. Unpredicted crowds, of course, could eventually cause voter queues even if the system's recommendations are correct. However, such a system would make deliberate manipulation to suppress the turnout of particular voters much more difficult.

The integrity of the election process is severely damaged when long lines keep voters from casting ballots. By pressing Congress to establish strong voting standards, we, the voters, can help preserve the integrity of American democracy.

* Alexander S. Belenky is a visiting scholar at MIT's Center for Engineering Systems Fundamentals. His third book on US presidential elections, "How America Chooses Its Presidents," is forthcoming. Richard C. Larson, director of the center and MIT's Mitsui professor of engineering systems, has written many scientific articles on queuing theory.

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor

http://www.christiansciencemonitor.com

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
USA>Domestic Politics
from the September 13, 2006 edition

History by miniseries: Too fast, too loose?

ABC's 'Path to 9/11' ignited a furor over political meddling – and how it will play in an election season.
By
Daniel B. Wood and Gloria Goodale |
Staff writers of The Christian Science Monitor
LOS ANGELES – ABC-TV's miniseries "Path to 9/11" has ignited a new national dialogue on an old subject - the cinematic dramatization of real life.
But unlike previous fact-vs.-drama arguments over the Vietnam War or episodes in the Nixon or Reagan presidencies, this week's just-ended series has raised the political stakes, say media critics and political pundits.

STRETCHING IT?
'Path to 9/11,' depicting Clinton officials' lack of action
against Al Qaeda, has come under fire.

COURTESY OF PETER STRANKS/ABC

Because the war on terror remains central in the lives of Americans - and because the November elections may hinge on how people perceive its progress - the drama and its timing have unfurled charges of media bias, as well as concerns that voters might be swayed by a fictionalized and disputed account of events.

"The intensity of the controversy over the portrayals in ['Path'] is already ratcheted up because of the coming election, and when you add the currency of the war on terror, the whole issue becomes a very combustible commodity," says Matthew Felling, media director for the Center for Media and Public Affairs, a media research organization in Washington. "When you have a piece of historical fiction competing for the historical record that is still forming in people's minds, that is dangerous terrain."

The film's most hotly contested moments dealt with the effectiveness of Clinton administration officials in fighting terrorism. With President Bush's party now heading into fall elections and battling voter concerns that he has fumbled the war on terror, a TV docudrama that points the finger at others for similar mistakes may help to soften criticism of the president, some say.

Mr. Felling goes so far as to suggest this was a deliberate strategy on the part of ABC's team. "It's always troubling when people fudge history," he says. "It's considerably more invidious when they are manufacturing a scapegoat."

A November effect?

That's an extreme view.

Most media experts interviewed were careful not to weigh in on the ultimate veracity of the depictions. Instead, they suggest that the fallout from any misleading portrayals could alter voting patterns in a key election, as well as shape decisions on events that are still unfolding.

"Everyone knows that by defi- nition, docudramas compromise the nature of fact and truth ... that madeup dialogue, composite scenes, compressed timelines are not the best medium to tell history," says Robert Thompson, a media theorist at Syracuse University. "This has become a way more complex problem in 'Path to 9/11' because we are talking about subject matter that is sitting smack in the middle of America's political and civil life. The consequences of what viewers take away from this are higher, and so should their awareness be."

The controversy over "Path" boiled over even before its première Sunday. Several officials in the Clinton administration publicly complained that the dramatization distorted their actions to track down Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden. Former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright wrote ABC saying that one scene depicting her was "false and defamatory." Samuel Berger, President Clinton's former national security adviser, wrote the network about another scene: "The fabrication of this scene cannot be justified."

ABC made changes to allay concerns

The issue became such a hot potato that ABC hunkered down over the weekend, rechecking facts and editing important moments. The network shortened a sequence showing CIA operatives ready to attack Mr. bin Laden's headquarters but waiting for Clinton officials to authorize the attack. It also deleted the scene Mr. Berger complained about, in which he was depicted hanging up on then-CIA director George Tenet, who was asking for permission to attack. But ABC left in a scene in which Ms. Albright explained why the administration informed Pakistan in advance about an airstrike, which missed bin Laden by a few hours.

The network also added a strong disclaimer that it aired at the beginning, middle, and end of each episode, which read, in part: "The movie is not a documentary.... For dramatic and narrative purposes, the movie contains fictionalized scenes."

The disclaimer strengthens ABC's position in fighting off possible legal challenges.
"There is not a legal question here," says Michael Asimow, a law professor at the UCLA School of Law. The burden of proof includes showing conclusively that writers and producers knew they were lying, he says - an almost impossibly high standard. "It's extremely unlikely that, as public figures, Berger and Albright could successfully sue for defamation because everyone knows that docudramas cannot insist on complete accuracy," he says.

But the more important questions are ethical, he adds. Is it OK for historical dramas to bend the truth? Does it matter how far it is bent? Even when the facts are correct, what about subtle issues of nuance, inflection, and emphasis?

"People should realize that documentarians all have their point of view and are almost never true to fact," says Mr. Asimow. "If they are using the occasion to score points by misrepresenting the facts, that is something for critics and viewers to decide. [Viewers and critics] have to be very careful."

After the broadcast, Clinton officials reportedly said the changes didn't go far enough, while some viewers criticized them for interfering. Others were concerned about the series's timing.

"Somehow the wounds seem still too fresh to take such horrific events to a fictional level," writes Yvonne Berkovich, in an e-mail to the editor of this newspaper. "Let's hope ... viewers recognize the partial truth they are fed."

But other viewers weren't bothered by the dramatization.

"So many of the facts are incorrect, so what. So story lines have changed, big deal. Listen up, America, it's a movie," countered Nicholas Treff in another e-mail to this paper.

The miniseries's first half, which aired Sunday, reportedly attracted 13 million viewers - far short of the 20.7 million that watched NBC's "Sunday Night Football."

Sticking to 9/11 report?

From the outset, producers maintained their objective has been to bring the 9/11 Commission Report to life. "Our ambitions and our goals and our standards were all about accuracy," says executive producer Marc Platt. The choice to dramatize the material was for maximum impact, he adds.

More people will watch the TV show than will ever read the report, agrees Thomas Kean, the former New Jersey governor who was on the team of five Democrats and five Republicans who assembled the 9/11 Commission Report. He consulted on the series and says his goal was to encourage Americans to understand and push Congress to implement the report's recommendations.

"Nobody has said the recommendations weren't the right thing to do," says Mr. Kean. "They're just not doing them."

However, many who heard about the controversy before the film aired have expressed concern that the filmmakers have miscalculated in dealing with such recent history through fiction. Completely aside from the political ramifications, dramatization strives "to give you a you-are-there feeling," says Catherine Opper, a former high school English teacher in Dubuque, Iowa, who watched the mini-series. The problem is that we were there, she adds. "Perhaps we do not need so much the drama of tragedy as we need better understanding of the forces that drive such events."
• AP material was used in this report.

Related Stories
Five years after 9/11: a shifted view of the world 09/11/06

Tubegazing: 'The Path to 9/11' 09/08/06

Movies as political puppets

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0913/p01s01-uspo.html

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Sudoku: Why It Makes Your Brain Sore
Posted Sep 13, 2006 at 08:40AM by KJM

Listed in: Computer Science, Mathematics

Tags: Sudoku, Princeton University In case you haven't yet encountered it, Sudoku is the latest rage among middle-school nerds and others looking for a "different" sort of mental challenge. It is a mathematical puzzle that involves filling in a grid of 81 squares with varying combinations of the numbers one to nine in which the same numeral cannot appear more than once in any given row across or down, or in any group of nine adjacent squares.

Sounds simple? Well, while some mathematicians over the centuries have suggested that God can be found in numbers, but you'll have a Devil of a time solving a Sudoku puzzle - and with a good reason. Doing Sudoku involves neural pathways that even the most powerful computers can't replicate. Computer scientists now say that studying the way in which humans solve Sudoku puzzles may lead to the development of more intelligent computers.

According to a paper published by John Hopfield of Princeton University, humans brains use a unique set of neural pathways known as "associative memory." This is the process by which we discover patters by studying a partial clue, or as Sherlock Holmes might say, "from one, deduce the whole." Computers can store and process huge amounts of data at blistering speeds, but associative memory is beyond their current capabilities.

In his paper, Hopfield provides an algorithm of associative memory. He believes this algorithm could be implemented in silicon chips. "[Associative memory] may account for our strong psychological feeling of 'right' or 'wrong' when we retrieve a memory from a minimal clue," says Hopfield. "This fact may account for our strong psychological feeling of 'right' or 'wrong' when we retrieve a memory from a minimal clue."

An Australian colleague, computer scientist Andrew Paplinski believes that Hopfield's model could lead to more accurate facial recognition computer technology.

Go on-site for photo, links, & more scientific information, by clicking on the following link:

http://science.qj.net/Sudoku-Why-It-Makes-Your-Brain-Sore/pg/49/aid/65769
:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
CREW Sends FOIA to State Department to Determine Policy Regarding Distribution of Contributions from Foreign Governments and International Organizations for Hurricane Katrina Relief

FOIA
August 23, 2006

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) has requested documents from the State Department which would detail its policy of collecting and distributing contributions from foreign governments for relief aid in the wake of Hurricane Katrina. CREW’s FOIA request seeks information regarding any coordination on these collection and distribution efforts between the State Department and other U.S. agencies, including the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the White House.
Copyright 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, All Rights Reserved.
1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005

http://www.citizensforethics.org/activities/campaign-print.php?view=147

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: ::
Novak: Real story behind Armitage story

By Robert Novak, Chicago Sun-Times
September 13, 2006
When Richard Armitage finally acknowledged last week he was my source three years ago in revealing Valerie Plame Wilson as a CIA employee, the former deputy secretary of state’s interviews obscured what he really did. I want to set the record straight based on firsthand knowledge.

First, Armitage did not, as he now indicates, merely pass on something he had heard and that he ‘‘thought’’ might be so. Rather, he identified to me the CIA division where Mrs. Wilson worked, and said flatly that she recommended the mission to Niger by her husband, former Amb. Joseph Wilson.

Second, Armitage did not slip me this information as idle chitchat, as he now suggests. He made clear he considered it especially suited for my column.

An accurate depiction of what Armitage actually said deepens the irony of him being my source. He was a foremost internal skeptic of the administration’s war policy, and I long had opposed military intervention in Iraq. Zealous foes of George W. Bush transformed me improbably into the president’s lapdog. But they cannot fit Armitage into the left-wing fantasy of a well-crafted White House conspiracy to destroy Joe and Valerie Wilson. The news that he and not Karl Rove was the leaker was devastating news for the left.

A peculiar convergence had joined Armitage and me on the same historical path. During his quarter of a century in Washington, I had no contact with Armitage before our fateful interview. I tried to see him in the first 2 years of the Bush administration, but he rebuffed me — summarily and with disdain, I thought.

Then, without explanation, in June 2003, Armitage’s office said the deputy secretary would see me. This was two weeks before Joe Wilson surfaced himself as author of a 2002 report for the CIA debunking Iraqi interest in buying uranium in Africa.

I sat down with Armitage in his State Department office the afternoon of July 8 with tacit rather than explicit ground rules: deep background with nothing said attributed to Armitage or even an anonymous State Department official. Consequently, I refused to identify Armitage as my leaker until his admission was forced by Hubris, a new book by reporters Michael Isikoff and David Corn that absolutely identified him.

Late in my hourlong interview with Armitage. I asked why the CIA had sent Wilson — lacking intelligence experience, nuclear policy or recent contact with Niger — on the African mission. He told the Washington Post last week that his answer was: ‘‘I don’t know, but I think his wife worked out there.’’

Neither of us took notes, and nobody else was present. But I recalled our conversation that week in writing a column, while Armitage reconstructed it months later for federal prosecutors. He had told me unequivocally that Mrs. Wilson worked in the CIA’s Counter-Proliferation Division and that she had suggested her husband’s mission.

As for his current implications that he never expected this to be published, he noted that the story of Mrs. Wilson’s role fit the style of the old Evans-Novak column — implying to me it continued reporting Washington inside information.

Mrs. Wilson’s name appeared in my column July 14, 2003, but it was not until Oct. 1 that I heard about it from Armitage. Washington lobbyist Kenneth Duberstein, Armitage’s close friend and political adviser, called me to say the deputy secretary feared he had ‘‘inadvertently’’ (the word Armitage used in last week’s interviews) disclosed Mrs. Wilson’s identity to me in July and was considering resignation. (Duberstein’s phone call was disclosed in the Isikoff-Corn book, which used Duberstein as a source. They reported Duberstein was responsible for arranging my unexpected interview with Armitage.)

Duberstein told me Armitage wanted to know whether he was my source. I did not reply because I was sure that Armitage knew he was the source. I believed he contacted me Oct. 1 because of news the weekend of Sept. 27-28 that the Justice Department was investigating the leak. I cannot credit Armitage’s current claim that he realized he was the source only when my Oct. 1 column revealed that the official who gave me the information was ‘‘no partisan gunslinger.’’

Armitage’s silence the next 2 1/2 years caused intense pain for his colleagues in government and enabled partisan Democrats in Congress to falsely accuse Rove of being my primary source. When Armitage now says he was mute because of special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s request, that does not explain his silence three months between his claimed first realization that he was the source and Fitzgerald’s appointment on Dec. 30. Armitage’s tardy self-disclosure is tainted because it is deceptive.
Copyright 2006, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, All Rights Reserved.

1400 Eye Street NW, Suite 450, Washington, D.C. 20005

http://www.citizensforethics.org/press/pressclip-print.php?view=3239

Blame it on anyone but himself. Novak is weaseling out of this one now after a long bout of silence. Had he not felt the need to pump up his own self importance by releasing this news, the information about a covert operative on a CIA mission of the utmost importance, then none of this would be happening, or would it? I do know one thing, Novak put his own personal ambition, him with one foot in the grave, above national interests, above our own safety, much less the safety of Valerie Plame, Joe Wilson and very likely numerous other operatives around the middle east. What a man, this Novak, another self seeking b*@#%*d.

Give us a break Novak, you should have kept your hands of a typewriter off of a pen, & you should have kept your mouth shut. You've shown you can do it, now that it's too late. SRH
::

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Howard the Coward, or Just 'Bushed'?
(Australian for 'Lost One's Bearings')

By BuzzFlash
Created 09/13/2006 - 2:35pm
MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON

BuzzFlash,

The human race has today the means for annihilating itself--either in a fit of complete lunacy, in a big war, by a brief fit of destruction, or by careless handling of atomic technology, through a slow process of poisoning and of deterioration in its genetic structure. -- Max Born, Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, 1957

From the above quote, and with the Bush GOP in charge, I'll choose lunacy. Does it make any sense that Howard states he is an ally of Bush? Bush is just an employee, like Howard. Our allies should be of the US, not some un-elected official who's constantly in need of being reminded that he works for the US and not for himself.

So, I gather Howard won't talk to a Democrat or the person who actually won the US election in 2000, because he, Howard, is Bush's bud.
Prime Minister John Howard, a friend and ally of Bush, said he would not meet Gore during his Australian visit and would not heed his advice to sign up to Kyoto.

"I don't take policy advice from films," Howard told reporters.

Al Gore says he hasn't ruled out 2nd run [1] - Yahoo! News

No, Howard says he doesn't take advice from film, but he'll take it from a treasonous, warring political lying, put-up putz like Bush. Blair, Howard, Bush, how could we all be so lucky? Howard must be just like Bush, too, which is not a compliment. I have to wonder, how did all of these politically greedy stiffs get into leadership positions at around the same time? It's like a deranged, demolition derby with the world in the middle, and people are dying all over this planet, and nothing is being done for them.

The people and the world (our home) deserve better than this, as these are not leaders, but offenders of the most egregious kind. I'm not concerned how history will represent these leaders ... unless they are removed, we may not have much of a history left. To ignore science and embrace lies and propaganda and help Bush turn the world into a Bush dunny ... well, that's Australian colloquialism for outdoor toilet ... Howard may be Bush's ally, but he's no ally to the US or to this planet.

These are serious problems and we, the people, need competent leaders who care about their responsibilities instead of playing political power games. We have no winners in leadership today. All losers. Fools and their follies. And, that makes all of us losers by default if such careless and irresponsible politicians are allow to stay in those positions of power. Even the man on the street has more common sense than can be said of Bush, Blair, or Howard ... they have proved over and over again, we can't put our lives into their hands. They are already responsible for tens of thousands of dead on this planet (invasion and starvation) ... let them take care of themselves, and they can keep the change ... we need them in leadership like the dinosaurs they represent.

Just a thought,

Thanks BuzzFlash,

Shirley Smith

MS. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON
Source URL:http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/smith/078
Links:
[1] http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060910/ap_on_re_au_an/australia_gore;_ylt=AvPQDXSmqPbt8DexkMQUr_es0NUE;_ ylu=X3oDMTA3OXIzMDMzBHNlYwM3MDM-
Published on BuzzFlash

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles
lllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllll
JUST LISTEN TO THOSE WHO ARE IN POSITIONS OF POWER, IN CONTROL
SRH

International Edition
Air Force chief:
Test weapons on testy U.S. mobs
POSTED: 7:56 p.m. EDT,
September 12, 2006

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Nonlethal weapons such as high-power microwave devices should be used on American citizens in crowd-control situations before being used on the battlefield, the Air Force secretary said Tuesday.

The object is basically public relations. Domestic use would make it easier to avoid questions from others about possible safety considerations, said Secretary Michael Wynne.

"If we're not willing to use it here against our fellow citizens, then we should not be willing to use it in a wartime situation," said Wynne. "(Because) if I hit somebody with a nonlethal weapon and they claim that it injured them in a way that was not intended, I think that I would be vilified in the world press."

The Air Force has paid for research into nonlethal weapons, but he said the service is unlikely to spend more money on development until injury problems are reviewed by medical experts and resolved.

Nonlethal weapons generally can weaken people if they are hit with the beam. Some of the weapons can emit short, intense energy pulses that also can be effective in disabling some electronic devices.

On another subject, Wynne said he expects to choose a new contractor for the next generation aerial refueling tankers by next summer. He said a draft request for bids will be put out next month, and there are two qualified bidders: the Boeing Co. and a team of Northrop Grumman Corp. and European Aeronautic Defence and Space Co., the majority owner of European jet maker Airbus SAS.

The contract is expected to be worth at least $20 billion (€15.75 billion).

Chicago, Illinois-based Boeing lost the tanker deal in 2004 amid revelations that it had hired a top Air Force acquisitions official who had given the company preferential treatment.

Wynne also said the Air Force, which is already chopping 40,000 active duty, civilian and reserves jobs, is now struggling to find new ways to slash about $1.8 billion (€1.4 billion) from its budget to cover costs from the latest round of base closings.

He said he can't cut more people, and it would not be wise to take funding from military programs that are needed to protect the country. But he said he also incurs resistance when he tries to save money on operations and maintenance by retiring aging aircraft.

"We're finding out that those are, unfortunately, prized possessions of some congressional districts," said Wynne, adding that the Air Force will have to "take some appetite suppressant pills." He said he has asked employees to look for efficiencies in their offices.

The base closings initially were expected to create savings by reducing Air Force infrastructure by 24 percent.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.


PLUS: A BREAKING NEWS BRIEF

Students: Silent shooter showed no emotion
At least four people are dead and 13 more wounded after a Wednesday shooting at Dawson College in downtown Montreal, police said.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/US/09/12/usaf.weapons.ap/index.html lllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

@@@@@@@
Dixie Chicks To Bush: "You're a Dumb F**k"

Posted Sep 12th 2006 6:19PM
by
TMZ Staff
Filed under: Movies, Celebrity Feuds

It's been more than three years since the Dixie Chicks sparked a media firestorm by announcing they were "ashamed the President of the United States is from Texas." Now, the embattled country stars are reigniting the blaze with a highly controversial documentary featuring lead singer Natalie Maines calling President Bush a "dumb f---."

According to Entertainment Weekly, one memorable scene from "Dixie Chicks: Shut Up and Sing" shows the singers watching a news report on President Bush's reaction to their infamous on-stage comment. In the report, Bush says ''the Dixie Chicks are free to speak their mind,'' adding, ''they shouldn't have their feelings hurt just because some people don't want to buy their records when they speak out. You know, freedom is a two-way street.'' After watching this footage, Maines then repeats the president's comment and says, ''What a dumb f---.'' She then looks into the camera, as if addressing Bush himself, and reiterates, ''You're a dumb f---.''

The documentary, directed by two-time Academy Award-winning Barbara Kopple, travels with the Chicks, from their peak of popularity as the national anthem-singing darlings of country music and top-selling female recording artists of all time, through the now infamous anti-Bush comment, and on through the days, months and years of mayhem. The film is set to premiere tonight at the Toronto International Film Festival, where for some odd reason (possibly that our neighbors to the north aren't exactly fans of our nation's leader), it's expected to be a huge hit.


Related
Article
Dixie Chicks Still Not Making Nice

Go on-site to access photo's, links, and related article, or other entertainment news, like Whitney and Bobby Browns pending divorce,
not that you should care. Always did hear that Whitney was the bad influence on Bobby. He always took the bad press on that one.

http://www.tmz.com/2006/09/12/dixie-chicks-to-bush-youre-a-dumb-f-k/ @@@

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllInvestigator Probes Oil Leases


By
H. JOSEF HEBERT
Associated Press Writer
Wednesday September 13, 2006 11:16 PM


WASHINGTON (AP) - An official overseeing oil leasing says he was directed in the 1990s to remove a provision concerning royalty payments, leading to a financial windfall to oil companies, the Interior Department's inspector general said Wednesday. He also unleashed a broad rebuke of his department's record on ethics.

Inspector General Earl Devaney testified at a House hearing that the leasing official's claim could not be verified despite a lengthy investigation and a polygraph test, which the official passed. He said three people were implicated by the official but all denied making such a directive, and one also passed a polygraph.

Devaney, who has been the department's internal watchdog for seven years, said he could not say if anyone will be disciplined over the oil royalty mistake. It involved thousands of leases issued in 1998-99 without a section that would have required royalty payments if oil prices reached a certain level.

He contended that midlevel department officials covered up the mistake for five years. Devaney also lashed out at what he said was the department's failure to deal with ethical missteps and conflicts of interest.

``Short of a crime, anything goes at the highest level of the Department of Interior,'' he said. ``Ethics failures on the part of senior department officials - taking the form of appearances of impropriety, favoritism and bias - have been routinely dismissed with a promise of not to do it again.''

He said his office's recommendations usually were ignored. In testimony before the House Government Reform's energy subcommittee, Devaney described a meeting with former Interior Secretary Gale Norton about questionable ethical conduct by a senior official.

Norton, who resigned last March and cited personal reasons, ``indicated that she accepted this official's admission that he exercised bad judgment, but given his promise not to do so again, she was unwilling to take any action against him,'' Devaney said.

Devaney later told reporters the incident involved an investigation - one he said cost $1 million - of then-Deputy Secretary Steven Griles.

Two years ago, Devaney's office referred 25 potential ethics violations by Griles to the federal ethics office, which cleared Griles on 23 of them but sent two to Norton for final decision.

Griles, who resigned in January 2005, has said he did nothing illegal and cleared his action with his department's ethics office.

Devaney said he has raised his concerns with Norton's successor, Dirk Kempthorne, shortly after he took office in July and that Kempthorne promised to ``create a culture of ethics and accountability.''

Concerning the oil royalty investigation, Devaney told the committee, ``Although we found massive finger pointing and blame enough to go around, we do not have a smoking gun'' that pinpoints blame.

Devaney said that despite a lengthy investigation, he only can conclude this was ``a very costly mistake'' and there is no indication anyone at the Minerals Management Service colluded with the oil industry or benefited financially.

This agency oversees the federal offshore oil and gas leasing program. The flawed leases involved deep-water projects in the Gulf of Mexico; the investigation focused on the service's New Orleans office.

To spur oil exploration in deep Gulf waters, Congress in the 1990s directed that such leases exempt oil from federal royalty payments. But the leases also were supposed to included language that would lift the exemption if oil prices exceeded $36 a barrel. That threshold is well below today's prices of $60-plus a barrel.

For some reason, the price threshold requirements was omitted from more than 1,000 leases issued in 1998 and 1999. This error surfaced publicly only this year.

Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., the subcommittee chairman who has held hearings on the issue, contends the error could result in the loss of more than $10 billion in federal royalties during the life of the 1998-99 leases. Some of them will continue for years.

Devaney described what he viewed as a five-year cover-up by the service.

In 2000, he said, an economist in the New Orleans office noticed the absence of the price threshold language in the flawed leases and passed the information to superiors. But an assistant administrator, now deceased, told the economist to drop the matter, Devaney said.
http://www.guardianunlimited.com
lllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Force is all-conquering, but its victories are short-lived.
~
Abraham Lincoln

~~~

And so, to the end of history, murder shall breed murder, always in the name of right and honor and peace:
George Bernard Shaw - Irish playwright "Caesar and Cleopatra"

~~~

"But I know now that there is not a chance in hell of America becoming humane and reasonable. Because power corrupts us, and absolute power corrupts us absolutely. Human beings are chimpanzees who get crazy drunk on power. By saying that our leaders are power-drunk chimpanzees, am I in danger of wrecking the morale of our soldiers fighting and dying in the Middle East? Their morale, like so many lifeless bodies, is already shot to pieces. They are being treated, as I never was, like toys a rich kid got for Christmas."
-- Kurt Vonnegut, Jr. (1922- ) Author

~~~

The moment a man claims a right to control the will of a fellow being by physical force, he is at heart a slaveholder.
~
Henry C. Wright, The Liberator, 7 April 1837

~~~

"You have not converted a man because you have silenced him.":
John Morley - (1838-1923) - Source: Critical Miscellanies

~~~

As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand: -Josh Billings

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

::: ::: :::Old Farmer's Almanac sees harsh U.S. winter
Wed Sep 13, 2006 8:11 PM ET
By
Jason Szep

BOSTON (Reuters) - The Old Farmer's Almanac is embracing new technology -- from Internet podcasts to a 24-hour Web cam -- as the 215-year-old Yankee oracle warns of a harsh North American winter with a chance of snow even in Las Vegas.

North America's oldest continuously published periodical, a compendium of curious articles, zodiac secrets, humorous anecdotes and weather forecasts, says winter temperatures will be as much as 8 degrees F below its 30-year average.

"But there will be less snow than average on the northern plains, which is an usual place to have less snow," Judson Hale, the almanac's 73-year-old editor-in-chief, told Reuters in an interview on Wednesday.

He said sales and profit margins of the yellow-jacketed periodical were stronger than ever with an estimated 8 million readers -- only about 9 percent of whom are farmers.

Most are women and many are gardeners. In Clovis, New Mexico, 68-year-old Billie Whitfield uses it to plan her gardening, while Joe Billicki in Massachusetts swears by its trove of tidal charts and astronomical forecasts.

"I buy it to see what days the full moons are and the tides and the little stories they have in there, and for the weather forecasts," said Billicki, 56, who has saved every issue since 1977 in a bookshelf in his Wakefield, Massachusetts home.

But faced with ever-expanding sources of rival weather news -- from 24-hour cable television to the Internet and satellite radio -- the almanac is embracing new technology to broaden its audience and maintain its recipe for longevity.

It now offers its own podcast, allowing Internet users to download audio clips, to complement the 256-page tome, which still has a hole in the upper left-hand corner so it can be easily strung and nailed to the kitchen or outhouse wall.

A Web cam provides a 24-hour glimpse of its office in a quaint, red New England cape in the lakeside village of Dublin, New Hampshire where it continues to spin out folksy wisdom in articles like "Carving cues from a Pumpkin pro."

FOLKLORE?
Among its illuminations for 2007: It may snow in Kentucky and Tennessee this winter. You can tell how aggressive a man is by the size of his index finger. People with red hair feel more pain than brunettes. And lip balm can help you whistle better.

"We attempt to be useful with a pleasant degree of humor," said Hale who, like the almanac itself, has an easy, irreverent manner as he thumbs through its pages. "If you think it is totally for fun, you're missing the point, and if you think it's totally serious, you're missing the point."

The little magazine -- not to be confused with the Farmers' Almanac published in neighboring Maine -- claims to get the weather right about 80 percent of the time, though it failed to forecast last year's unusually warm January.

"We didn't do as well last year -- overall we were down to 63 percent. We would have been much much better if you didn't count the temperature foul up in January," he said.

Though weather fanatics rely on its secret formula of solar activity, climatology and meteorological data for weather forecasts, it also gets its share of skeptics.

Steven Babin, senior meteorologist at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, dismisses it as a quaint book with little grounding in meteorology. "It's a bit like tossing a coin," he said.

Jan Null, who worked at the National Weather Service for 23 years in California, studied the almanac's forecasts for 2001, 2003 and 2005 and concludes they were right about 25 percent of the time. "I am just not convinced that we have the tools to make good long-range forecasts," he said.

:::

© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved. Republication or redistribution of Reuters content, including by caching, framing or similar means, is expressly prohibited without the prior written consent of Reuters. Reuters and the Reuters sphere logo are registered trademarks and trademarks of the Reuters group of companies around the world.
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2006-09-14T001110Z_01_N13472732_RTRUKOC_0_US-WEATHER-ALMANAC.xml
:::

[Saundra Hummer]

llllllllllllll
Drug War Allowed To Get In The Way of Terror War
Bill Maher
09.13.2006
September 14, 2006

Afghanistan is a mess. The Taliban is back and has mounted serious offenses in recent weeks. NATO says they need more troops. And why is the Taliban back? Well, one of the reasons people are pointing to is our government's plan to eradicate opium. We've hired a corporation to go through the fields of the poorest farmers in Afghanistan and destroy their opium crop.

And it's really worked too - opium production is at its highest levels ever. But the rural farmers who grow the opium have turned on the Americans and Brits for destroying their crop, and this is where the Taliban is re-gaining control. Coincidence? Who's to say?

But I noticed in the recent drug survey - the same one that said baby boomers were getting high while their children say "no" - about 6 percent of people said they had used marijuana in the past month. About 4 percent of people surveyed said they had used methamphetamine. 2.6 percent said they had abused prescription drugs. Just about 1 percent said they had used cocaine.

Heroin? Only 0.1 percent used heroin.

So why worry so much about the opium crop in Afghanistan when Americans don't really have a heroin problem? We're sacrificing the war on terror in the vain hope of one day helping Courtney Love kick her smack habit?

Bill Maher is the host of HBO's "Real Time with Bill Maher" which airs every Friday at 11PM.


Comments :
... Bravo, Bill! The goverment fears a little green weed growing wild, more than the financers of this current war that has KILLED THOUSANDS of Americas sons & daughters! Bu$h "Bin Laden", indeed! THAT'S what this war was REALLY about - the BILLIONS of dollars to be made by war-mongering PROFITEERS! Keep giving them hell EVERY chance you get, Bill - like this Friday night, for instance! That's a GREAT time for hell-giving to those who SO richly deserve it! ;) ...
By: CynAnne on September 13, 2006 at 09:45pm
Flag: [abusive]

No kidding! And the Senate just threw more money at curbing opium cultivation thanks to Chuck Schummer. The War on Drugs is dangerous to our security. It needs to end.

Anyway, you were great on Hardball. ;)
By: melanie on September 13, 2006 at 10:05pm
Flag: [abusive]

Yes, but it sends the wrong signal to the world if we don't go after the poppy farms just because we don't have such a heroin problem. It will be like saying America will go to war only if there's oil involved.

Never mind.
By: rigotrash on September 13, 2006 at 10:15pm
Flag: [abusive]

On the face of your argument, I understand where you're coming from, but your premise may be wrong. As I understand it, opium from Afghanistan is a major source of income for terrorists. Damn, as I write this,I'm wondering if I'm the one who is misinformed. Does anyone know the answer: Is it true that terrorists are funded by illicit drugs?
By: carol on September 13, 2006 at 10:24pm
READ MORE: Afghanistan (Go on-site to access more information by clicking on the following link:http://www.huffingtonpost.com/
lllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllll
GOP Leaders Back Bush on Wiretapping, Tribunals

By Jonathan Weisman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 14, 2006; A13

Congress's Republican leadership yesterday threw its weight behind two of President Bush's most controversial national security programs, warrantless wiretapping and extrajudicial military tribunals.

But the party leaders are having trouble getting all their members on board, including the chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee. And by backing the president's legislative demands, the leadership risks being labeled by Democrats as a rubber stamp for an unpopular president.

With prodding from Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist (R-Tenn.) and House Speaker J. Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.), the Senate Judiciary Committee voted 10 to 8 along party lines to approve a bill negotiated with the White House to allow -- but not require -- Bush to submit the National Security Agency's warrantless wiretapping program to a secret court for constitutional review.

That bill, which could come before the Senate next week, is considered by many to be a ratification of the administration's current surveillance program, which monitors the overseas phone calls and e-mails of some Americans when one party is suspected of links to terrorism. The program has been attacked by Democrats and civil liberties advocates as an excessive encroachment on Americans' privacy.

"The committee took the important step of acknowledging the president's constitutional authority to conduct foreign intelligence surveillance," said Sen. John Cornyn (R-Tex.), an ardent Bush ally.

At the same time, the House Armed Services Committee voted 52 to 8 to ratify the White House's version of legislation creating military commissions for trying terrorism suspects. The measure would give Bush the authority he seeks to withhold classified evidence from defendants, admit testimony that defendants might maintain was coerced, and protect U.S. intelligence agents from legal action over their interrogation methods. House Republican leaders plan to bring the tribunal bill to a vote next week.

Committee action and the scheduling of floor time represented tangible progress for the administration and turned what had been essentially a heated policy debate into a legislative showdown. But if GOP leaders intended to use the bills to distinguish Republicans from Democrats on the conduct of the fight against terrorism, they had their share of problems.

Frist and other GOP leaders remain at odds with many of their rank-and-file members over their military commission bill.

Senate Armed Services Committee Chairman John W. Warner (R-Va.), Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) and Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) are holding firm against the White House and Frist in their support of an alternative tribunal bill that would limit the use of classified evidence and coerced testimony in terrorism prosecutions while maintaining broader protections for detainees against cruel and inhumane treatment. They said they will press ahead with their bill, despite the political sensitivity of the controversy in a key election year.

"Every senator and congressman should understand this is not about November 2006. This is not about your reelection," Graham said. "This is about those who take risks to defend America."

Director of National Intelligence John D. Negroponte, in an unusual conference call with reporters yesterday evening to express opposition to the dissident Senate bill, said the CIA had told him that, if that bill passes, the agency will not be able to continue its "high-value terrorist detention program."

The existence of that program, known unofficially as the CIA's secret prison system, was confirmed last week by Bush, but all its prisoners were transferred to military custody. Negroponte said that under the Senate's proposed rules, the program's effectiveness would be so curtailed that continuing it would not make sense.

McCain expressed bewilderment at an administration stand that he said would tamper with interpretations of the Geneva Conventions on the conduct of war. That stand is firmly opposed by top military lawyers. "The overwhelming majority of retired military people are weighing in on this issue and saying, 'Don't amend Common Article 3 [of the Geneva Conventions] because then you are allowing other nations' " to conclude that they, too, can change the conventions, McCain said.

McCain and his allies were unable to persuade White House negotiators to agree that an alleged enemy combatant could not be convicted on the basis of classified information that is not shared in some form with the defendant. "We're still gridlocked on that," McCain said. "They want to turn 200 years of criminal procedure on its head."

In the House, the Judiciary Committee was forced to scrap a planned drafting of a warrantless surveillance bill, in part because nearly half a dozen Republican conservatives were in open rebellion against GOP leaders' efforts to weaken controls on the eavesdropping program.

"There are enough Republicans with concerns," said Rep. Jeff Flake (R-Ariz.), who was pushing bipartisan legislation that would all but scuttle the warrantless surveillance program. "Once you basically give the president this authority, it's very difficult to pull it back. That's very shortsighted just to point out the differences between Republicans and Democrats."

Such internal dissension did not sit well with an orchestrated push to elevate the profile of the national security debate ahead of the Nov. 7 midterm elections. GOP leaders seized on week-old comments by House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) that suggested that the capture of Osama bin Laden would not "make us safer." Republicans launched a blizzard of e-mailed statements condemning the comments, culminating in a news conference yesterday.

Democrats noted that Pelosi's comments mirrored sentiments expressed by Bush, Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld, and even Vice President Cheney last weekend, when he told Tim Russert on NBC's "Meet the Press": "He's not the only source of the problem, obviously, Tim. If you killed him tomorrow, you'd still have a problem with al-Qaeda."

The second GOP track is to label military commissions "terrorist tribunals" and attack Democrats for opposing them. House Republican leadership aides acknowledged that the biggest roadblock to the president's military commissions is coming from Senate Republicans.

Democrats used the GOP's allegiance to the Bush security agenda to redouble efforts to tie vulnerable Republicans to the president.

"The role of Congress is to bring to bear its own independent judgment, to represent the American people and to forge policy, not to simply be a complacent rubber stamp for the president of the United States," said House Minority Whip Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md.).
Staff writers Charles Babington and R. Jeffrey Smith contributed to this report.

© 2006 The Washington Post Company

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201252 _pf.html lllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllll
9/11 plus 5
Will Durst
-
WorkingForChange.com

09.08.06 - Monday is the fifth anniversary of IX-XI, and President Bush has apparently decided to prepare us for our national day of mourning by delivering a weeklong series of seminars on fear-mongering. Okay, okay, maybe "fear-mongering" is a bit much. Perhaps a better phrase would be "PR campaign of cheap political calculation," or "systematic exploitative pandering" or "a typical sleazy example from the Karl Rove electioneering handbook." Or as we have to come know it during the last six years: "business as usual."

First Dubyah played the Nazi card, comparing Democratic plans for a phased withdrawal of our forces from Iraq to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in '39. I'm surprised he didn't unveil secret footage of Nancy Pelosi brandishing a rolled-up umbrella. Then he played the Red Menace card, invoking Lenin and intimating a hammer and sickle tattoo on Howard Dean's forehead -- invisible only due to a thickly slapped-on layer of Dark Egyptian Number 4 make up.

And if these two jackbooted images don't do the trick, expect to hear him summon up other, more ancient scourges -- the Huns and the Mongols and the Visigoths -- in his never ending quest to keep Americans all aquiver so we run and hide behind his urban camouflaged pants right up until the clock strikes 8 pm PST, November 7, 2006. Screw Hawaii.

Uncharacteristically, Democrats refused to curl up in their customary fetal position at the sound of the President's big bad rhetoric. Dems ratcheted up their criticism of his war policies, calling for the institutionalized bitch-slapping of Donald Rumsfeld in a transparently futile attempt to get the Secretary of Defense to join 10,000 Intel workers in next month's unemployment line. Predictable as a papier mache roof in a Category 3 Hurricane? Yes. But as they say about fire, it take politics to fight politics.

White House spokesman Tony Snow knee-slapped and guffawed and scoffed at the Democrats' proposal, stating that portraying Rumsfeld as a bogeyman "may make for good politics but makes for lousy strategy." And one can't immediately discount that opinion, because if anybody has experience with lousy strategies, it's this White House.

An administration that strategized the best way to stem terrorist activity was to invade a country that had none. An administration that stragetized that applying car battery contacts to a prisoner's nipples was not torture because it wasn't life threatening. An administration that stragetized that causing the death of over 100,000 noncombatant Iraqis was going to win over the hearts and minds of their countrymen. An administration that considers the best strategist to be the one who finds the biggest stick. Do the names Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton have any meaning here?

In just one of his series of deep tissue massages of fear and loathing, Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden by name 18 times, conveniently neglecting to mention it was BUSH HIMSELF who DISBANDED the CIA division devoted to FINDING the six-foot seven-inch Arabian guy traipsing around the Kyhber Pass dragging behind him a solar-powered kidney dialysis machine from the Islamabad Sharper Image Catalogue.

A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, the President spoke to the country of bin Laden: "He can run but he can't hide." You know what, it's been five years. I think they're both hiding. One behind the billowing skirts of the other.

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, burden to his family Will Durst, after his vacation, doesn't need Dark Egyptian Number 4.

Catch Durst in standup form at 142 Thockmorton in Mill Valley on Thursday, September 7, @ 8 pm, and at the Last Day Saloon in Santa Rosa, on Saturday, September 9, @ 8 pm. And in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7-10 am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21334

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllll
The war on truth
Amy Goodman
and
David Goodman
-
Published by Hyperion

09.13.06 - President George W. Bush has long preferred illusion to reality. "See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda," Bush explained of his approach at a public forum in 2005. For Bush, there are no real problems, only political problems. The only crises are when poll numbers fall.
Bush administration officials are obsessed with controlling the flow of information. Their strategy for maintaining their grip on power is simple: Perpetuate fear. We must remain in a state of total war. The implications for democracy are chilling. President Bush has asserted a right to unlimited wartime powers. Thus the Constitution, Bill of Rights, Geneva Conventions, and the very notion of a balance of power have been shredded. The official rhetoric is that we are now in a Long War, led by the president, über alles.

The media, so cowed for so long, has failed to present a coherent picture of this frontal assault on our democracy. Alarming stories emerge, piecemeal, of warrantless wiretaps, of U.S. sanctioned torture, of offshore prisons where thousands are being held at the whim of a president who invokes sweeping life-and-death powers and dispatches propagandists to cover his trail.

Information is a crucial weapon in Bush's war. In a February 2006 speech Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld declared that "information warfare" will be vital to fighting terrorism. He lashed out at the media for "an explosion of critical press stories" that exposed secret U.S. anti-terror programs, including propaganda efforts in Iraq. He declared: "We are fighting a battle where the survival of our free way of life is at stake and the center of gravity of that struggle is not simply on the battlefield overseas; it's a test of wills, and it will be won or lost with our publics, and with the publics of other nations. We'll need to do all we can to attract supporters to our efforts and to correct the lies that are being told, which so damage our country, and which are repeated and repeated and repeated."

He responded to the images of and charges about American torture of detainees in Guantánamo Bay and Iraq by dismissing them as fabrications. "The terrorists are trained . . . to lie. They're trained to allege that they've been tortured. They're trained to put out misinformation, and they're very good at it," he declared.

In a speech a month later, Rumsfeld made clear that he believes the real problem in Iraq is simply the coverage: "Much of the reporting in the U.S. and abroad has exaggerated the situation . . . Interestingly, all of the exaggerations seem to be on one side . . . The steady stream of errors all seem to be of a nature to inflame the situation and to give heart to the terrorists."

The "truth" that Rumsfeld prefers can be found in the articles that the Bush administration is planting in the "free" Iraqi media, written by American psychological warfare operatives.

IRAQI ARMY DEFEATS TERRORISM blared an October 2005 story in Iraqi newspapers that said, "The brave warriors of the Iraqi Security Forces (ISF) are hard at work stopping al-Qaeda's attacks before they occur." Another planted article crowed, "The ISF has quickly developed into a viable fighting force capable of defending the people of Iraq against the cowards who launch their attacks on innocent people." The latter story was published in the Iraqi press around the time that the United States conceded that no Iraqi battalions were capable of fighting on their own.

The audience for this cartoonish propaganda is not just Iraqis: The Bush administration has turned psychological warfare, which by U.S. law can only be targeted at foreign audiences, on Americans. Rumsfeld dismissed the legal prohibitions against using foreign propaganda at home, declaring in February 2006: "The argument was, of course, that it was taking taxpayers' dollars . . . and propagandizing the American people. Of course, when you speak today, there's no one audience . . . Whatever it is we communicate inevitably is going to be heard by multiple audiences."

Rumsfeld is leaving nothing to chance. A Pentagon briefing for Army Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the top US. commander in Iraq, identifies the "home audience" as one of the major targets of American propaganda. The Washington Post reported in April 2006 that U.S. psychological operations soldiers produced a video about atrocities committed by Saddam Hussein that was "seen on Fox News." The Bush administration also attempted to hype the role of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the Jordanian who was killed in Iraq in June 2006. Bush officials used Zarqawi to falsely connect Saddam Hussein with the 9/11 attacks, and to bolster their dubious claim that the Iraqi insurgency was led by al Qaeda-backed foreign fighters. "Villainize Zarqawi/leverage xenophobia response," stated one US. military briefing. As part of this effort, U.S. psy-ops soldiers in 2004 leaked a supposed letter from Zarqawi to the New York Times that boasted of foreigners' role in suicide attacks in Iraq. Other reporters questioned the authenticity of the document that wound up in a widely cited front-page Times story. Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, the U.S. military's chief spokesman in Iraq in 2004, boasted later, "The Zarqawi PSYOP program is the most successful information campaign to date."

The "information war" Rumsfeld describes is deadly serious. ABC News reported in May 2006 that the government was tracking the phone numbers dialed from major news organizations in an attempt to root out whistle-blowers. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales added that it "is a possibility" that journalists will be prosecuted for publishing classified information. The message is clear: The media can either participate in Bush's war, or become a target of it. As Bush administration officials have warned, journalists who do not follow the party line are promoting terrorism.

Declaring war on the media is a desperate and risky move. But the corporate media, so compromised and atrophied by its own complicity in promoting the lies of the Bush administration, is woefully unprepared to do battle. If the past is any guide, as the government aims a sword at the heart of our civil liberties and freedoms, the media will provide sporadic resistance at best, and at worst, will help drive the sword home.

Covering for Power

When the Bush administration launched its PR blitz to sell the Iraq War in September 2002, the American public never stood a chance of learning the truth behind the massive fraud emanating from the White House. Bush and his propaganda czars knew something the American public had not quite grasped: The American media was little more than a megaphone for those in power. This was especially true for celebrity journalists like Judith Miller, the now-disgraced national security correspondent for the New York Times; and Bob Woodward, once a crusading muckraker at the Washington Post, now father confessor to the political elite.

For three years, the Bush administration called the tune, and the New York Times danced. In the run-up to the Iraq War, the newspaper, led by Miller's dispatches, acted as a conveyor belt for the lies of Iraqi exiles, channeling their self-serving distortions right onto the front pages. Miller's sources were the key players in the Iraqi National Congress, an outfit first created by the CIA and later funded by the Pentagon. Its leaders, such as Ahmad Chalabi, conjured fantastic tales about the menace posed by Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction. They hinted darkly about bioweapons labs buried beneath hospitals, aluminum tubes that the Iraqi dictator was intent on using to develop nuclear weapons, and secret meetings held between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden.

This was propaganda in the purest sense: disinformation that was bought and paid for by the U.S. government. The only thing needed was for respected news outlets to legitimize these fairy tales by running them as fact. The American media rose to the task, and carried out the Bush administration's dirty work with gusto. The consequences of the media's abdication of its role as watchdog of democracy are now written in new front page dispatches -- about the bloody quagmire in Iraq.

Yet the media can't seem to shake its instinct to defer to power. In December 2005, the New York Times published a shocking exposé by reporters James Risen and Eric Lichtblau. Their story revealed that following the 9/11 attacks, the Bush administration ordered the National Security Agency (NSA) to begin wiretapping people inside the United States, including U.S. citizens, in direct violation of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978, which expressly forbids warrantless wiretaps inside the country. To read the article, you might have felt alarmed by the picture of creeping fascism that it describes. But you would have felt vaguely reassured that the press was on the job as a watchdog . . . until you came to the ninth paragraph:

The White House asked the New York Times not to publish this article, arguing that it could jeopardize continuing investigations and alert would-be terrorists that they might be under scrutiny. After meeting with senior administration officials to hear their concerns, the newspaper delayed publication for a year to conduct additional reporting. Some information that administration officials argued could be useful to terrorists has been omitted.

Let's do the math: Thirteen months before this story was published there was . . . a national election. Won by George W. Bush. The guy who ordered laws to be broken, because he felt he didn't have to answer to anyone. The last president to behave in this way was Richard Nixon. He faced a public outcry and was forced to resign in disgrace in the face of almost certain impeachment. Indeed, when the wiretapping story was finally published in the Times, it sparked congressional investigations and even calls for impeachment of the president for violating the law.

It turns out the Times did, in fact, have this story ready to go before the 2004 election but decided to wait -- at the request of the people running for reelection, who rightly feared how the public might respond to the revelations.

Imagine, just for a moment, how different things might have been if this explosive exposé had been published when it was written.

The Times delayed publication because it might "jeopardize continuing investigations" -- ignoring, as the media watch group Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR) has pointed out, that "placing illegal and unconstitutional programs in jeopardy is the whole point of the First Amendment."

More astonishing was Times executive editor Bill Keller's explanation of why the story was delayed for so long. He said that the Bush administration had "assured senior editors of the Times that a variety of legal checks had been imposed that satisfied everyone involved that the program raised no legal questions." Mind you, this is the regime of George W. Bush we're talking about -- the folks who assured us that torture was legal, that preemptive war was legal, and that holding prisoners incommunicado in an offshore gulag was legal. But for the editor of the Times, it is enough just to take the government's word when it says something is legal. The Times finally published the story -- which won reporters Risen and Lichtblau a 2006 Pulitzer Prize -- only when it became apparent that Risen was planning to publish the revelation in a book a month later.

In spite of all that we now know about how the media failed to challenge government liars and instead became cheerleaders for a fraudulent war, the corporate media still covers for power. That may explain why an explosive report in the London Times on May 1, 2005, which caused a sensation around the world, was ignored or played down in the American media. The British paper revealed the contents of the so-called Downing Street memo, minutes of a July 2002 meeting between British prime minister Tony Blair and his top advisors, at which British intelligence chief Richard Dearlove reported to Blair on his meetings with CIA Director George Tenet. Dearlove explained that Bush "wanted to remove Saddam Hussein through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

This bombshell from a top British official -- that Bush had decided to attack Iraq and would simply cook the intelligence to suit his aims -- was greeted with a yawn by the American media. It was only after bloggers promoted the story that the corporate media acknowledged it -- and only then, to dismiss it. The Los Angeles Times insisted the memo was not a "smoking gun." The Washington Post dismissed it as old news. The New York Times barely mentioned it at all. And the network nightly news shows virtually ignored the story.

It's a sad day when the government no longer has to cover up its dishonesty because the American media does it for them.

The Access of Evil

This is the state of the corporate media today. It's a symptom of what we call the access of evil: journalists trading truth for access. The public unwittingly mistakes the illusion of news for reality. This also applies to the one-sided debates that are the rage on the networks and cable news. Viewers don't even know what they don't know. The media watch group Media Matters did a study of the Sunday morning talk shows. During Bush's first term as president, 69 percent of the journalists appearing on the Sunday shows were conservatives, and 58 percent of all guests were Republicans/conservatives. This echoes a study done by FAIR in the run-up to the Iraq War. In the two weeks surrounding Colin Powell's infamous 2003 speech to the UN in which he made the case for the invasion that was to occur six weeks later, 393 "experts" appeared on the major nightly network news shows. Of these, three -- less than 1 percent -- were leaders of antiwar organizations.

We can't even call this a "mainstream" media. It's an extreme media -- a media that cheerleads for war.

Instead of learning from the media what is actually going on in the world, we get static -- a veil of distortion, lies, omissions, and half-truths that obscure reality. As bodies pile up in Iraq and New Orleans, many people are mystified, wondering where it went so wrong.

We need a media that creates static of another kind: what the dictionary defines as "criticism, opposition, or unwanted interference." Instead of a media that covers for power, we need a media that covers the movements that create static -- and make history.

We are not waiting for this alternative media; people are building it right now. Blogs, Indymedia centers, independent filmmakers, and other grassroots media have opened a new way to understand what is happening in the world today.

******
From the book Static: Government Liars, Media Cheerleaders, and the People Who Fight Back By Amy Goodman and David Goodman Published by Hyperion September 2006;CAN; 1-4013-0293-9 Copyright © 2006 Amy Goodman and David Goodman

COPYRIGHT (c) 2006 Amy Goodman and David Goodman

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21357
lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllllllll
Five years later,
Bush still clueless
Joe Conason
-
The New York Observer

09.13.06 - George W. Bush seems to believe that if only he speaks the same discredited phrases often enough, the rest of us will somehow come to believe them too. That must be why he misused the solemn occasion of the fifth anniversary of 9/11 to deliver a memorial address justifying the war in Iraq and seeking partisan advantage by stoking fear, while hypocritically urging national unity.
It is this transparent gambit, reprised in every election year since his first inauguration, which will permanently deface his legacy as President -- along with his continuing refusal to confront the grave strategic and tactical errors of his administration's "war on terror."

Instead, Mr. Bush's Sept. 11 speech indulged in self-congratulation while ignoring the grim situation on the ground. We "helped drive the Taliban from power in Afghanistan... put Al Qaeda on the run, and killed or captured most of those who planned the 9/11 attacks," he boasted. "Osama bin Laden and other terrorists are still in hiding. Our message to them is clear: No matter how long it takes, America will find you, and we will bring you to justice."

Every American ought to be angered by his hollow declarations. For those of us who watched the towers fall and breathed the smoke of death on that day in New York City, however, those fatuous words are especially bitter.

Anything but resolute, Mr. Bush has vacillated on the subject of Osama bin Laden, who of course was "in hiding" years before 9/11. During the first weeks after the attack, the President emphasized the importance of getting Mr. bin Laden. "There's an old poster out West, as I recall, that said, 'Wanted: Dead or Alive,'" he said on Sept. 17, 2001. The choice of words was juvenile, but the sentiment resonated.

Later that year, Mr. Bush assured reporters that "he is not escaping us ... He's on the run ... I said to the American people, 'Our objective is more than bin Laden.' But one of the things for certain is we're going to get him running and keep him running, and bring him to justice. And that's what's happening. He's on the run, if he's running at all ... "

Only months later, incoherent blustering gave way to pouting, when the President said that Mr. bin Laden's fate no longer mattered. In March 2002, he told reporters, "I don't know where bin Laden is. I have no idea and really don't care. It's not that important. It's not our priority." In fact, by then the Pentagon and the C.I.A., on orders from the White House, had essentially called off the manhunt and pulled out the Special Operations troops and C.I.A. paramilitaries assigned to that task. Their orders were to leave Afghanistan and prepare for the invasion of Iraq.

Now, as The Washington Post reported last Sunday, the trail has gone cold -- and worse still, the Taliban allies of Al Qaeda have mounted a successful effort to dominate much of southern Afghanistan. The government of Pakistan has stopped looking for Mr. bin Laden and signed a truce with the Taliban. The promises we made to the Afghan people remain unfulfilled and dishonored -- and the President's repetition of his pledge to bring Mr. bin Laden to justice is merely campaign rhetoric that will be forgotten as soon as Election Day passes.

Turning to Iraq, the President said nothing that reflected an honest assessment of the decision to go to war or the dismal results of that choice. "I'm often asked why we're in Iraq when Saddam Hussein was not responsible for the 9/11 attacks," he said. "The answer is that the regime of Saddam Hussein was a clear threat. My administration, the Congress and the United Nations saw the threat -- and after 9/11, Saddam's regime posed a risk that the world could not afford to take. The world is safer because Saddam Hussein is no longer in power." Not a word acknowledging the false premise of "weapons of mass destruction" that led to the war. If there were no such weapons, then how did the Iraqi dictator represent a threat to the security of the United States? Mr. Bush has no plausible answer to that question.

Even worse, he ignored what is actually happening there now. For political expediency, he pretends that the main enemy is Al Qaeda, when the most serious threat to Iraq is ethnic and religious civil war. "We're adapting to stay ahead of the enemy, and we are carrying out a clear plan to ensure that a democratic Iraq succeeds," he claimed, although everyone knows there is no useful plan -- and his own military officers warn that we are not winning.

Five years ago, Mr. Bush had an extraordinary opportunity to bring together the United States and the world. He spurned that chance at greatness for the sake of power -- and now, ironically, sees his power diminish every day as a result of that venal decision. His televised incantations cannot restore what he so wantonly squandered.

COPYRIGHT (c) 2006 THE NEW YORK OBSERVER

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?itemid=21356

lllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllllllllll
Tell the Senate: Censure Bush on Illegal Wiretapping

Contributed by Working Assets

The facts of the matter really aren't in dispute. The President has admitted to conducting a domestic spying program outside the scope of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), despite the fact that FISA is the exclusive means of such surveillance inside the United States. The Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution also clearly prohibits searches without a warrant based upon probable cause.
President Bush's justifications for his illegal conduct have shifted with the wind. Most recently, he has been claiming that powers entrusted to him after the Sept. 11th attacks give him free rein to blatantly and openly violate existing law and our Constitution. Sadly, the Republican-controlled Congress has completely abdicated the "checks and balances" role our nation's founders envisioned to restrain Presidents with tendencies towards tyranny.

But now Senator Russ Feingold of Wisconsin has introduced a resolution to censure the president for this outrageous violation of our civil liberties. Congress may consider a range of other actions in the future, including investigations, an independent counsel, or even impeachment. But at a minimum, and as a first step, Congress must censure a president who has so plainly broken the law. This is not something that can or should be swept under the rug.

Censuring the President is not something that should be taken lightly. But the President has openly broken the law, and we must have action and accountability to defend and preserve our civil liberties. Democrats, especially, need to stop cowering to the baseless argument that holding this administration accountable under the rule of law is somehow helping terrorists.

Call to action:
Tell your Senators to support Senator Feingold's resolution to censure President Bush.

Deadline:
immediate

Additional Information:
We urge you to personalize the letter and express your views in your own words.
http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=20475&afccode=afchp
Go on-site to fill out petition, and to see other important issues you can try to do something about, by clicking on the url/link above^lllllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllllllll
Tell the Media
--
Cover Rep. Conyers' Report on Extensive Presidential Lawbreaking

Contributed by Working Assets


The minority staff of the U.S. House of Representatives Judiciary Committee, under the leadership of Congressman John Conyers (D., Mich.) just released the final version of a staggering report that includes evidence of extensive crimes and abuses committed by President Bush and his administration.
This report, "The Constitution in Crisis," details 26 specific laws broken by the Bush Administration -- and could potentially provide the raw material for numerous news stories and point reporters toward fertile ground for additional investigations. After all, you would think that a report from the ranking minority member of the House Judiciary Committee alleging such widespread lawbreaking would be quite newsworthy -- and deserve follow-up stories by investigative reporters.

However, the release of Rep. Conyers' report has been met with deafening silence by the national media conglomerates. Not a single national news network or major paper has seen fit to cover the release of Representative Conyers' report.

So let's remind the media that they need to do their jobs and report ALL the news -- even if it's not to the Administration's liking.
Call to action:
Tell ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, the Washington Post, the New York Times and Naional Public Radio to cover the release of the Conyers Report.

Deadline:
ongoing

Additional Information:
We urge you to modify the message subject line or personalize the letter to express your views in your own words.

Go on-site to sign petition (there are other issues to fight for as well on-site) and to send to friends.)

http://www.workingforchange.com/activism/action.cfm?itemid=21205 lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllllllll
::
New Anti-Immigrant Law Chasing "Nonexistent Problem" is Dropping Millions of U.S. Citizens from Medicaid Coverage
Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)

By
Created 09/14/2006 - 11:16am

A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Our protections and our safe lives are falling by the wayside with our laws being ignored and by new ones being pushed upon us by a seemingly corrupt administration.

Our elected officials who are supposed to be representing us, the voters, are administration and lobby driven, a compliant congress, who are short changing all of us. For what? It isn't too hard to figure.
SRH

A new provision requiring Medicaid applicants to provide "satisfactory documentary evidence of citizenship or nationality" may prevent coverage for many of the U.S. citizens who need it the most, according to a letter sent to the General Accountability Office (GAO) by senior House Democrats John Dingell and Henry Waxman.

Applicants must now submit original documents like birth certificates or passports, which millions of low-income citizens do not have, or certified copies, which can incur significant effort, costs, and delays.

The mandate is part of the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, the same law signed by President Bush even though he knew it had not been signed by the House of Representatives, an obviously unconstitutional action recently upheld by a Bush-appointed federal judge [0].

The letter cites multiple government sources to show that there is not a problem of illegal immigrants improperly receiving Medicaid, yet estimates suggest that agencies and recipients will have to spend a whopping 5,150 years of work hours just to rectify those currently on Medicaid with the new law. "These figures raise serious questions about whether the new requirements can meet a basic cost-benefit test," the letter says. "We may be wasting hundreds of millions of dollars and denying health coverage to large numbers of eligible beneficiaries in order to chase a nonexistent problem."

Meanwhile, 40,000 Georgia residents have been dropped from coverage in just the first few months of the policy, already more than the Congressional Budget Office's estimate that only 35,000 Americans nationwide would be dropped after ten years of implementation. A new study has found that between 3.2 and 4.6 million U.S. born citizens could inappropriately lose Medicaid coverage.

"States are allowed little flexibility for millions of children, adults, and disabled persons, regardless of degree of illness or circumstances," Dingell and Waxman wrote. "For instance, survivors of natural disasters who have lost everything will not qualify for even temporary benefits while searching for original documentation. Children in foster care will still be forced to produce original documentation, though their citizenship status has already been verified by states in order to be eligible for foster care."

The letter requests further GAO investigation into the effects of the law on costs and denied coverage.

Click here to read the letter [1] (pdf)
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

Source URL:http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/alerts/113
Links:[1]http://www.house.gov/commerce_democrats/Press_109/109-ltr.091306.GAO.walker%20Medicaid.pdf
lllllllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

::+::+::+::+::

President Says He's Leading A
"Third Awakening Of Christianity" In America
-
Verse-Case Scenario
Published on BuzzFlash
By BuzzFlash
Created 09/14/2006 - 10:20am
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles

VERSE-CASE SCENARIO

President Says He's Leading A "Third Awakening Of Christianity" In America

by Tony Peyser

It sounds like Bush [1] thinks he might just
Be God
Is what we need right now a born again
Jihad?

VERSE-CASE SCENARIO

Tony Peyser provides daily poems and weekly cartoons for BuzzFlash and also writes the new BuzzFlash column, "Blue State Jukebox [1]." He was a daily cartoonist for the L.A. Times from 1994 to 1997. You can contact Tony via email at tonypeyser@yahoo.com [2].

BuzzFlash Cartoons by Tony Peyser are © Tony Peyser. Contact Tony for reprint permissions.

Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/peyser/245
Links:
[1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201594.html
[2] mailto:tonypeyser@yahoo.com

Bush Tells Group He Sees a 'Third Awakening'

By Peter Baker
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, September 13, 2006; A05



President Bush said yesterday that he senses a "Third Awakening" of religious devotion in the United States that has coincided with the nation's struggle with international terrorists, a war that he depicted as "a confrontation between good and evil."

Bush told a group of conservative journalists that he notices more open expressions of faith among people he meets during his travels, and he suggested that might signal a broader revival similar to other religious movements in history. Bush noted that some of Abraham Lincoln's strongest supporters were religious people "who saw life in terms of good and evil" and who believed that slavery was evil. Many of his own supporters, he said, see the current conflict in similar terms.

"A lot of people in America see this as a confrontation between good and evil, including me," Bush said during a 1 1/2 -hour Oval Office conversation on cultural changes and a battle with terrorists that he sees lasting decades. "There was a stark change between the culture of the '50s and the '60s -- boom -- and I think there's change happening here," he added. "It seems to me that there's a Third Awakening."

The First Great Awakening refers to a wave of Christian fervor in the American colonies from about 1730 to 1760, while the Second Great Awakening is generally believed to have occurred from 1800 to 1830.

Some scholars and writers have debated for years whether a Third Awakening has been taking place, although some identify other awakenings in U.S. history. Bush aides, including Karl Rove, have read Robert William Fogel's "The Fourth Great Awakening and the Future of Egalitarianism."

Bush has been careful discussing the battle with terrorists in religious terms since he had to apologize for using the word "crusade" in 2001. He often stresses that the war is not against Islam but against those who corrupt it. In his comments yesterday, aides said Bush was not casting the war as a religious struggle but was describing American cultural changes in a time of war.

"He's drawing a parallel in terms of a resurgence, in dangerous times, of people going back to their religion," said one aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the session was not open to other journalists. "This is not 'God is on our side' or anything like that."

The White House did not release a transcript of Bush's remarks, but National Review posted highlights on its Web site. On another topic, Bush rejected sending more troops to the Afghanistan-Pakistan border areas to find Osama bin Laden. "One hundred thousand troops there in Pakistan is not the answer. It's someone saying 'Guess what' and then the kinetic action begins," he said, meaning an informer disclosing bin Laden's location.
© 2006 The Washington Post Company
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/09/12/AR2006091201594_pf.html
lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~

"In order to get power and retain it, it is necessary to love power; but love of power is not connected with goodness but with qualities that are the opposite of goodness, such as pride, cunning and cruelty."
Leo Nikolaevich Tolstoi - (1828-1910) Russian writer

~~~

"A tyrant... is always stirring up some war or other, in order that the people may require a leader."
Plato - (429-347 BC) - Source: The Republic

~~~

"Every collectivist revolution rides in on a Trojan horse of 'emergency'. It was the tactic of Lenin, Hitler, and Mussolini. In the collectivist sweep over a dozen minor countries of Europe, it was the cry of men striving to get on horseback. And 'emergency' became the justification of the subsequent steps. This technique of creating emergency is the greatest achievement that demagoguery attains."
Herbert Hoover - (1874-1964), 31st US President

~~~

"What experience and history teach is this -- that people and governments never have learned anything from history, or acted on principles deduced from it."
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel - (1770-1831) German philosopher

~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
In praise of the 'subversive' documentary

John Pilger pays tribute to 'that most powerful and subversive medium, the political documentary' - 'at its best, fearless, and able to show the politically unpalatable and to make sense of the news' and he urges support for those, like 'citizen' documentary makers, who break through the insidious censorship of 'current affairs'.
By
John Pilger
:: :: ::
09/14/06 "Information Clearing House" -- -- The political documentary, that most powerful and subversive medium, is said to be enjoying a renaissance on both sides of the Atlantic. This may be true in the cinema but what of television, the source of most of our information? Like the work of many other documentary film-makers, my own films have been shown all over the world, but never on network television in the United States. That suppression of alternative viewpoints may help us understand why millions of Americans display such a chronic ignorance of other human beings.

It was not always like this. In the 1930s, the Workers' Film and Photo League, based in New York, produced a dazzling series of "neighbourhood documentaries" that presented the world in decidedly non-Hollywood and non-stereotypical terms, including the United States, where epic documentaries such as The Scottsboro Boys and The National Hunger March accurately recorded America's "lost period" - the incipient revolution of working people suffering the Depression and their brutal repression by the police and army. Shown in trade union halls and workers' clubs, and at open-air meetings, these films were very popular. Thanks to George Clooney's recent, superb movie Good Night and Good Luck, we know of Edward R. Murrow's See It Now, which in the 1950s gave millions an unsentimental and truthful view of their nation, stirring and angering and empowering rather than pacifying, which is the rule today.

I learned my own lessons about the power of documentaries and their censorship when in 1980 took two of my films, Year Zero: the Silent Death of Cambodia and Cambodia Year One, to the United States in the naive belief that the networks would want to air these disclosures of Pol Pot's rule and its aftermath. All those I met were eager to buy clips that showed how monstrous the Khmer Rouge were, but none wanted the equally shocking evidence of how three US administrations had colluded in Cambodia's tragedy; Ronald Reagan was then secretly backing Pol Pot in exile. Having bombed to death hundreds of thousands of Cambodian peasants between 1969 and 1973 - the catalyst for the rise of the Khmer Rouge, according to the CIA - Washington was now imposing an economic blockade on the most stricken country on earth, as revenge for its liberation by the hated Vietnam. This siege lasted almost a decade and ensured that Cambodia never fully recovered. Almost none of this was broadcast as news or documentary.

With the two films under my arm, my last stop in Washington was PBS, the Public Broadcasting Service, which has a liberal reputation, rather like the BBC. During a viewing with a senior executive, I discerned a sharp intake of breath. "Great films, John," he said, "but …" He proposed that PBS hire an "adjudicator" who would "assess the real public worth of your films". Richard Dudman, a Washington journalist with the rare distinction of having been welcomed to Cambodia by the Khmer Rouge, was assigned the task. In his previous Cambodia dispatches, Dudman had found people "reasonably relaxed" and urged his readers to look "on the bright side" as Pol Pot had started "one of the world's great housing programs". Not surprisingly, the author of this apologia turned his thumb down on my films. Later, the PBS executive phoned me "off the record". "Your films would have given us problems with the Reagan administration," he said. "Sorry."

I offer this charade as a vivid example of the fear and loathing of the independent documentary's power to circumvent those who guard official truth. Although its historical roots are often traced back to the work of Robert Flaherty, the American director who made Nanook of the North in 1922, and John Grierson, the British documentarist whose first film was premiered at a London double bill with Battleship Potemkin in1929, in Britain the modern documentary's political power is often measured against a specious neutrality invented by John Reith, founder of the BBC, while he was writing and broadcasting anti-trade union propaganda during the 1922 General Strike. The stamina and influence of this pervasive BBC myth are reflected in the rarity of truly independent political documentaries.

Some remarkable films are made, however, testaments to a faith in the docudmentary form that never fails to inspire. One comes readily to mind: A Letter to the Prime Minister: Jo Wilding's Diary from Iraq. Jo Wilding, a young trainee lawyer and human rights worker in Iraq, produced some of the finest frontline reporting of the war online from Fallujah, then under siege by the US Marines. Living with families and without a flak jacket, she all but shamed the embedded army of reporters in her description of the atrocious American attack on an Iraqi city Her documentary, directed by Julia Guest, presents the evidence of a crime and asks Tony Blair to take his share of the responsibility: a basic question now asked by millions of Britons. The film was offered to television, and rejected. It has been shown at festivals around the world, but "painfully little" in Britain, says Guest, apart from single screenings at the Barbican and a forthcoming screening on October 15 at the Curzon Soho in London.

One problem facing political documentaries in Britain is that they run the risk of being immersed in the insidious censorship of "current affairs", a loose masonry uniting politicians and famous journalists who define "politics" as the machinations of Westminster, thereby fixing the limits of "political debate". No more striking example currently presents itself than the relentless media afforded the infantile scrapping of the political twins, Blair and Gordon Brown, and their tedious acolytes, drowning out the cries of the people of Iraq and Gaza and Lebanon - countries where the BBC has effected its false equilibrium and waffled about "two narratives" as if truth and justice are taboo concepts. Similarly, the fifth anniversary of September 11 proved a lost opportunity to rest the reverential and the ghoulish and describe how George W Bush and his gang used the tragedy to violently renew their version of empire and world domination.

Like the best of commercial television, cinema does offer hope for the political documentary, although film-makers who believe they can follow the success of Michael Moore beware. Moore's work is very popular, and makes money: the two vital ingredients for distributors and exhibitors. To get into cinemas, documentaries need to have at least a hope of repeating something of Moore's success. That said, there is no doubt in my mind that outstanding serious documentaries, if promoted imaginatively, can attract huge pubic interest. When this has happened on television, the reward has been not so much ratings as a "qualitative" audience: that is, people who engage with the work. (When Death of a Nation, the film I made with David Munro about East Timor, was shown on ITV late at night, it was followed by 5,000 phone calls a minute from the public).

What we need are more "citizen" documentary-makers, like Jo Wilding and Julia Guest, who are prepared to look in the mirror of our "civilised" societies and film the long rivers of blood, and their ebbing truth. It took Peter Davis's Oscar-winning 1974 documentary Hearts and Minds to make sense of the mass murder that was the invasion of Vietnam. Two sequences brilliantly achieved this. There was General William Westmoreland, the American commander, declaring: "The Oriental doesn't put the same price on life as the Westerner," while a Vietnamese boy sobbed over the death of his father, murdered by GIs. And there was a naked Vietnamese girl, running from a Napalm attack, her body a patchwork of burns, and followed by a woman carrying a baby, the skin hanging off its body. Thanks to Hearts and Mind, they are now unforgettable evidence of the barbarity of that war.

There is a hunger among the public for documentaries because only only documentaries, at their best, are fearless and show the unpalatable and make sense of the news. The extraordinary films of Alan Francovich achieved this. Francovitch, who died in 1997 , made The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie. THIS destroyed the official truth that Libya was responsible for the sabotage of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie in 1988. Instead, an unwitting "mule", with links to the CIA, was alleged to have carried the bomb on board the aircraft. (Paul Foot's parallel investigation for Private Eye came to a similar conclusion). The Maltese Double Cross – Lockerbie has never been publicly screened in the United States. In this country, the threat of legal action from a US Government official prevented showings at the 1994 London Film Festival and the Institute of Contemporary Arts. In 1995, defying threats, Tam Dalyell showed it in the House of Commons, and Channel 4 broadcast it in May 1995.

To make sense of the current colonial war in Afghanistan, I recommend Jamie Dorian's Afghan Massacre: The Convoy of Death, which describes how the country's liberators oversaw the secret killing of 3,000 Afghans – the number killed in the Twin Towers. To begin to make sense of the news, I recommend Robert Greenwald's Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism, and to understand one of the major reasons Bush and Blair invaded Iraq, I recommend Greenwald's latest, Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers. All are available on DVD. In these dangerous times, with countries about to be attacked and many innocent lives already condemned, we urgently need more documentaries like these, for the simple reason that the public has a right to know in order to act.

Go on-site for links and several other really iformative articles today, by clicking on the following link:

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14973.htm:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Fury over Pope's remarks raises concerns

By
BENJAMIN HARVEY
Associated Press Writer
1 hour, 5 minutes ago

Pakistan's legislature unanimously condemned Pope Benedict XVI. Lebanon's top Shiite cleric demanded an apology. And in Turkey, the ruling party likened the pontiff to Hitler and Mussolini and accused him of reviving the mentality of the Crusades.

Across the Islamic world Friday, Benedict's remarks on Islam and jihad in a speech in Germany unleashed a torrent of rage that many fear could burst into violent protests like those that followed publication of caricatures of the Prophet Muhammad.

By citing an obscure Medieval text that characterizes some of the teachings of Islam's founder as "evil and inhuman," Benedict inflamed Muslim passions and aggravated fears of a new outbreak of anti-Western protests.

The last outpouring of Islamic anger at the West came in February over the prophet cartoons first published in a Danish newspaper. The drawings sparked protests — some of them deadly — in almost every Muslim nation in the world.

Some experts said the perceived provocation by the spiritual leader of more than a billion Roman Catholics could leave even deeper scars.

"The declarations from the pope are more dangerous than the cartoons, because they come from the most important Christian authority in the world — the cartoons just came from an artist," said Diaa Rashwan, an analyst in Cairo, Egypt, who studies Islamic militancy.

On Friday, Pakistan's parliament adopted a resolution condemning Benedict for making what it called "derogatory" comments about Islam, and seeking an apology. Hours later, the Pakistani Foreign Ministry summoned the Vatican's ambassador to express regret over the pope's remarks Tuesday.

Notably, the strongest denunciations came from Turkey — a moderate democracy seeking European Union membership where Benedict is scheduled to visit in November as his first trip as pope to a Muslim country.

Salih Kapusuz, deputy leader of Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan's Islamic-rooted party, said Benedict's remarks were either "the result of pitiful ignorance" about Islam and its prophet or, worse, a deliberate distortion.

"He has a dark mentality that comes from the darkness of the Middle Ages. He is a poor thing that has not benefited from the spirit of reform in the Christian world," Kapusuz told Turkish state media. "It looks like an effort to revive the mentality of the Crusades."

"Benedict, the author of such unfortunate and insolent remarks, is going down in history for his words," Kapusuz added. "He is going down in history in the same category as leaders such as Hitler and Mussolini."

Even Turkey's staunchly pro-secular opposition party demanded the pope apologize before his visit. Another party led a demonstration outside Ankara's largest mosque, and a group of about 50 people placed a black wreath outside the Vatican's diplomatic mission.

Vatican spokesman Federico Lombardi has tried to defuse anger, saying the pope did not intend to offend Muslim sensibilities and insisting Benedict respects Islam. In Pakistan, the Vatican envoy voiced regret at "the hurt caused to Muslims."

But Muslim leaders said outreach efforts by papal emissaries were not enough.

"We do not accept the apology through Vatican channels ... and ask him (Benedict) to offer a personal apology — not through his officials," Grand Ayatollah Mohammed Hussein Fadlallah, Lebanon's most senior Shiite cleric, told worshippers in Beirut.

Rashwan, the analyst, feared the official condemnations could be followed by widespread popular protests. Already there had been scattered demonstrations in several Muslim countries.

"What we have right now are public reactions to the pope's comments from political and religious figures, but I'm not optimistic concerning the reaction from the general public, especially since we have no correction from the Vatican," Rashwan said.

About 2,000 Palestinians angrily protested Friday night in Gaza City. Earlier, Palestinian Prime Minister Ismail Haniyeh, of the Islamic militant group Hamas, said the pope had offended Muslims everywhere.

The pope quoted from a book recounting a conversation between 14th-century Byzantine Christian Emperor Manuel Paleologos II and a Persian scholar on the truths of Christianity and Islam.

"The emperor comes to speak about the issue of jihad, holy war," Benedict said. "He said, I quote, 'Show me just what Muhammad brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached.'"

The pope did not explicitly agree with nor repudiate the comment.

In Britain, the head of the Muslim Council, a body representing 400 Muslim groups, said the emperor's views quoted by the pope were bigoted.

"One would expect a religious leader such as the pope to act and speak with responsibility and repudiate the Byzantine emperor's views in the interests of truth and harmonious relations between the followers of Islam and Catholicism," said Muhammad Abdul Bari, the council's secretary-general.

Many Muslims accused Benedict of seeking to promote Judeo-Christian dominance over Islam.

Even Iraq's often divided Shiite and Sunni Arabs found unity in their anger over the remarks, with clerics from both communities criticizing Benedict.

"The pope and Vatican proved to be Zionists and that they are far from Christianity, which does not differ from Islam. Both religions call for forgiveness, love and brotherhood," Shiite cleric Sheik Abdul-Kareem al-Ghazi said during a sermon in Iraq's second-largest city, Basra.

Few in Turkey, especially, failed to pick up on Benedict's reference to Istanbul as Constantinople — the city's name more than 500 years ago — before it was conquered by Muslim Ottoman Turks.

German Chancellor Angela Merkel defended the German-born pope, saying his message had been misunderstood.

"It is an invitation to dialogue between religions and the pope has explicitly urged this dialogue, which I also endorse and see as urgently necessary," she said Friday. "What Benedict XVI makes clear is a decisive and uncompromising rejection of any use of violence in the name of religion."
Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.
Questions or Comments

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_re_mi_ea/pope_muslims&printer=1 :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllllJust a bit of history when they advertised this edition.
Fun in the Sun:
The West Coast Jazz Box Set
By
Brian L. Knight
There has been a geographical disparity with the jazz re-releases that have occurred in the last 12 months. Through the works of John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Sun Ra, and labels such as Impulse and Blue Note, we have been inadvertently led to believe that jazz of yore strictly occurred east of the Mississippi. To any person born more than thirty years ago, this concept is absurd. To the younger generations, whose exposure to jazz most likely has begun with the fusion of Davis, the funk of Hancock or the innovation of Coltrane, the jazz sounds of the West Coast may be a mystery. Without being too stereotypical, most of today’s new jazz enthusiasts are initially attracted to jazz through the influences that jazz musicians have had on rock & roll. Viperhouse loves Sun Ra. Phish used to play Metheny. The Miracle Orchestra looks to Miles Davis for inspiration. Ulu is a reflection of the Headhunters. Santana claims Coltrane as a primary influence and cut many albums with John McGlaughlin.

When we listen to the new "jazz" of 1990s that has made the most commercial headway, we think of Medeski, Martin &Wood, Galactic and Charlie Hunter. When listening to these 1990s musicians, there is little reflection to the West Coast sounds of Chet Baker, Art Pepper, Zoot Sims and Shelly Manne. This is not due to the West Coast’s talent inferiority, but rather to the rock and roll/funk attraction of today’s music fans and the proliferation of fusion sounds on the East Coast. The fact of the matter, the West Coast during the 1950s and 1960s produced some of the best sounding jazz of the era. Instead of the brooding tones of Miles Davis, the atonalities of Coltrane or the 45-minute solos of Roland Kirk, the West Coast provided more upbeat, concise and easy-feeling music.

After years of planning, the minds of Los Angeles’ Contemporary and Pacific and San Francisco’s Fantasy labels have joined forces to release The West Coast Jazz Box: An Anthology of California Jazz. Through four discs, 62 songs and 56 bands and countless musicians, this box set provides a look into twenty exciting years of California jazz.

Just as the Blue Note Studios served as a farm system for modern jazz on the East Coast, the big bands of Woody Herman and Stan Kenton had a similar impact on the West Coast. Although the sounds, technique and popularity of Herman’s and Kenton’s bands were quite different, the two bands shared a similarity in the fact that they both played distinctly modern music and by doing so, their bands were able to survive the post-swing era. With the advent of the bop of Dizzy Gillepsie and Charlie Parker during the 1940s, swing met a quick demise. However Herman and Kenton were able to keep the swing sound going through the clever combination of big band and bop styles. From these two bands, the core for both the West Coast Jazz scene and these four discs found its roots. Between the straightforward swing of Herman and the somewhat controversial sounds of Kenton, West Coast players such as Art Pepper, Bud Shank, Jimmy Guiffre, Bill Holman, Bob Cooper, Shorty Rogers and Bill Perkins (even musicians such as Shelly Manne, Zoot Sims, Richie Kamuca and Conte Candoli played in both outfits.) found their springboard for successful careers.

The West Coast Jazz scene centered on Central Avenue in Los Angeles. Just as New York City had its 52nd Street, with its numerous jazz clubs; Los Angeles had its Central Avenue which contained a dense pack of clubs. Throughout the Los Angeles and Hollywood area, musicians played in intimate clubs such as Shelly’s Manne Hole, The Haig and Zardis. Coinciding with all of these live venues were the labels that brought these musicians to the national limelight. Thanks to Richard Bock’s Pacific Jazz and Lester Koenig’s Contemporary and many other smaller labels, the jazz musicians of West Coast were actively promoted. It wasn’t all Los Angeles though. San Francisco’s Fantasy Records, and Bay Area clubs like the Jazz Workshop worked hard to promote the music of talented players such as Vince Guaraldi, Ornette Coleman, and Dave Brubeck. It was all of these California labels and clubs that are responsible for this compilation.

There is a misunderstanding concerning the definitions of bop, cool jazz and West Coast Jazz. First of all, both West Coast Jazz and cool jazz are a variation of the bop sound. Bop was a post World War II movement, led by Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillepsie that offered an intense alternative to the dominating swinging sounds. Gillepsie and Parker did not change the face of jazz overnight, as it was a slowly developing process in which Parker and Gillepsie both started in swing bands and then steadily made a transition.

Cool Jazz was a variation of bop in the sense that the style still employed the innovations of Parker and Gillespie (i.e. improvisation and soloing), but cool re-introduced "swing" back into the fold. Swing is much more than a word that describes and era of music; it also describes the way music is played. Music "swings" when the tempo is constant and there are minimal breaks and sudden changes. Even during the avant-garde hey-dey, musicians such as Albert Ayler who strove on cacophony, actually made their music swing for they never lost tempo.

In any compilation involving the sounds of the West Coast Jazz scene, the big players can not be neglected. The Stan Getz Quintet provides " Crazy Rhythm". The Gerry Mulligan Quartet plays "Bernies Tune" and "My Funny Valentine". The Chet Baker Quartet provides "Isn’t It Romantic" and "Maid in Mexico". San Franciscan pianist David Brubeck plays "Stardust" while saxophonist Art Pepper provides "Shaw Nuff" and " You’d be So Nice To Come Home To". Although these players and other such as Bud Shank and Bob Brookmeyer provided the quintessential West Coast sound, there are many more that comprised the meat and bones of the sound. This compilation brings many of those players and their works to the surface.

The hardest working man on the West Coast was drummer Shelly Manne and these discs do an excellent job of representing his work. Manne spent time in both Herman’s and Kenton’s Big Bands and then went off to be one of the most popular leaders and sideman in the Pacific region. As a leader, Manne had two groups – "Shelly Manne and his Friends" and "Shelly Manne and His Men". Between these two outfits, this compilation has three tunes – "Get Me To The Church On Time", "Etude de Concert" and "Theme: A Gem From Tiffany". As a sideman, Manne participates in saxophonist Sonny Rollins’ appropriately titled "Way Out West"; vibraphonist Red Norvo’s "Red Sails", saxophonist Lenny Niehaus’ "Whose Blues?", and the Clifford Brown Ensemble’s " Daahoud". Trumpeter Clifford Brown’s Ensemble also featured one of the greatest sounding names in jazz history (besides Thelonious Monk) – saxophonist Zoot Sims.

In addition, Shelly Manne participated in two ‘all-star’ bands that were synonymous with the West Coast Jazz sound. The first was bassist Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars. During the early stages of the West Coast movement, many of the players from the bands of Woody Herman and Stan Kenton were looking for new venues to ply their new music. Their first "home base" was the Lighthouse Café in Hermosa Beach, where marathon jam sessions would occur every weekend. Sometimes these jam sessions were caught on records and released to the public. On this compilation, there is a version of Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars’ "Swing Shift" and "Sunset Eyes" which features Rumsey, Manne, saxophonists Jimmy Giuffre and Bob Cooper and trumpeter Shorty Rogers. Manne, Guiffre and Rogers would also join up together for a version of "Popo" by Shorty Rogers and His Giants".

Some other interesting contributions to this album are a versions of Dizzy Gillepsie’s " A Night In Tunisia" by Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars. This version of the band features Max Roach on drums and Miles Davis on trumpet and signify a meeting of the two coasts. There is a cut of San Franciscan Ornette Coleman playing "The Sphinx". With his constant tempo changes, Coleman’s track stands out from the other tunes and signifies that the West Coast was not all about the "cool" sound. Eric Dolphy can be found playing the flute on Chico Hamilton’s "Far East" which provides an early glimpse of Dolphy before he headed East. And for all of us who believed that Vince Guaraldi only played the "Peanuts Theme", this compilation will revert our closed minds. The talented pianist is heard on his own "Cast Your Fate To the Wind", Richie Kamuca/Bill Holman Octet’s "Indiana" and the Brew Moore Quintet’s " Dues Blues." Saxophonists Kamuca and Holman (who was an arranger for Stan Kenton) also joined together for the Big Holman Band’s "No Heart".

This compilation also provides the work of the great West Coast guitarists. With the names Wes Montgomery and George Benson dominating the 1960s guitar media and hype, the masterful works of Jim Hall, Barney Kessel and Joe Pass are often neglected. Joe Pass provides "For Django" while Jim Hall can be heard playing on the remarkably original "Pickin’ em Up and Layin’ ‘em Down" with Jimmy Guiffre and trombonist Bob Brookmeyer. Hall also contributes to saxophonists Ben Webster’s "Georgia On My Mind"; saxophonist Bill Perkins/pianist John Lewis’ "2 Degrees East, 3 Degrees West"; and drummer Chico Hamilton’s " Blue Sands". The gifted Barney Kessel can be heard on The Poll Winners’ version of the standard "On Green Dolphin Street". The Poll Winners, which also consisted of Shelly Manne and Jim Pass, was given their name do to the fact that the three had won so many polls in their respective instrument’s categories. Kessel also plays on Benny Carter’s " A Walkin’ Thing" and Red Norvo’s "Red Sails". Two less popular guitarists, but equally talented, are Ray Crawford and Dennis Budimir who play on Curtis Amy’s "Katanga" and Chico Hamilton’s "Far East", respectively.

West Coast Jazz is simply a geographic term that has been misused over the years. West Coast Jazz, although predominantly Cool in nature, also had musicians that represented the bop and hard bop styles. The majority of the West Coasters played Cool jazz for they came from swing bands such as Woody Herman and Stan Kenton, but they also loved the soling techniques that dominated the East Coast. While Baker, Mulligan, Pepper and Getz were synonymous with the cool California sound, there were also Mingus, Coleman, Hawes, and Amy who deviated from the cool. In addition, West Coast Jazz has also been misrepresented as an uniquely Caucasian event. Automatically, there is going to be disparity between blacks and whites due to the disparity that existed on a cultural level up and down the West Coast. In Vermont, the same inequality occurs as well. You could say that the "Burlington Jazz Scene" is a predominantly white scene. Well, in a state that is almost 90% white, what would you expect. The same idea, but less extreme percentages, can be said about the West Coast scene.

The players who were considered the flag bearers of West Coast Jazz – Stan Getz, Gerry Mulligan, Dave Brubeck, Chet Baker, Art Pepper and Bob Brookmeyer – were all white players. This is the primary reason for the racial misconception. If you look at the other players who filled the next "level" of popularity, you will find a larger amount of Afro-Americans- bassist Curtis Counce and Leroy Vinnegar, saxophonists Buddy Collette and Wardell Gray; pianists Hampton Hawes and Art Tatum and drummers Chico Hamilton and Max Roach. Ironically enough, many of the Afro-American musicians emigrated from California to further accentuate the disparity. In addition to Roach and Hawes, Saxophonist Ornette Coleman and Dexter Gordon, trumpeter Don Cherry, bassist Charles Mingus, and flautist Eric Dolphy all contributed to the West Coast sound but also made their names elsewhere.

Even the bastion for West Coast Jazz, Hermosa Beach’s Lighthouse Café didn’t believe in one universally defined "West Coast Jazz sound". The Café’s matchbook stated the following words: " The policy of the Lighthouse has been to ignore the meaningless divisions between the various modern jazz groups, to bring together the finest available instrumentalists and writers, and to transform the Lighthouse into a workshop where their music could be heard by larger audiences."

Many of the players of the West Coast Jazz scene were also transplants from other regions of the United States. Even the dominating force of this compilation, Shelly Manne, was a native of New York City. One of the archetypal West Coasters, Gerry Mulligan, was also from the Big Apple. Richie Kamuca haled from Philadelphia, the home of definitive east coasters such as John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery and McCoy Tyner. Bud Shank came to age in Ohio and North Carolina. Shorty Rogers was born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts while Jimmy Guiffre was a Texan. The West Coast also had its natives – Howard Rumsey, Hampton Hawes, Dexter Gordon, Charles Mingus, Chico Hamilton, and Zoot Sims were all born along the pacific coast. Ironically, most of these players moved on from California and played in New York City and Europe.

Regardless of how long they stayed in Los Angeles or where they were born, the players on these discs, like so many people, most likely enjoyed California due to the fact they could play their music in Hawaiian shirts and enjoy the good weather. The West Coast Jazz scene, was not "an all-white, all-native, all-cool jazz scene" that allowed no exceptions. It was simply a gathering of musicians who felt that they didn’t have to make it big in New York City. Due to the cultural free spirits that are associated with the Pacific, the music reflected the mood of the coast – loose, less intense and freewheeling. This same thing happened years later in rock and roll as the cool sounds of the Eagles, the Grateful Dead and Crosby, Stills and Nash offered a less intense alternative to New York City’s Velvet Underground. There is a definitive California attitude and these players were attracted to it. They didn’t emigrate westward to join a sub cult of musical creation. They moved there to enjoy the good life and play their music. When you think about it, if you wanted to be a poor, destitute talented musician, wouldn’t you rather do it in a warm climate. I would.
Go to this interesting site by clicking on the following URL:

http://members.tripod.com/vermontreview/Jazz/westcoastjazz.htm lllllllllll

[the magnificent goldberg]

lllllllllllllllllJust a bit of history when they advertised this edition.
Fun in the Sun:
The West Coast Jazz Box Set
By
Brian L. Knight
There has been a geographical disparity with the jazz re-releases that have occurred in the last 12 months. Through the works of John Coltrane, Miles Davis, Herbie Hancock, Sun Ra, and labels such as Impulse and Blue Note, we have been inadvertently led to believe that jazz of yore strictly occurred east of the Mississippi. To any person born more than thirty years ago, this concept is absurd. To the younger generations, whose exposure to jazz most likely has begun with the fusion of Davis, the funk of Hancock or the innovation of Coltrane, the jazz sounds of the West Coast may be a mystery. Without being too stereotypical, most of today’s new jazz enthusiasts are initially attracted to jazz through the influences that jazz musicians have had on rock & roll. Viperhouse loves Sun Ra. Phish used to play Metheny. The Miracle Orchestra looks to Miles Davis for inspiration. Ulu is a reflection of the Headhunters. Santana claims Coltrane as a primary influence and cut many albums with John McGlaughlin.

When we listen to the new "jazz" of 1990s that has made the most commercial headway, we think of Medeski, Martin &Wood, Galactic and Charlie Hunter. When listening to these 1990s musicians, there is little reflection to the West Coast sounds of Chet Baker, Art Pepper, Zoot Sims and Shelly Manne. This is not due to the West Coast’s talent inferiority, but rather to the rock and roll/funk attraction of today’s music fans and the proliferation of fusion sounds on the East Coast. The fact of the matter, the West Coast during the 1950s and 1960s produced some of the best sounding jazz of the era. Instead of the brooding tones of Miles Davis, the atonalities of Coltrane or the 45-minute solos of Roland Kirk, the West Coast provided more upbeat, concise and easy-feeling music.

After years of planning, the minds of Los Angeles’ Contemporary and Pacific and San Francisco’s Fantasy labels have joined forces to release The West Coast Jazz Box: An Anthology of California Jazz. Through four discs, 62 songs and 56 bands and countless musicians, this box set provides a look into twenty exciting years of California jazz.

Just as the Blue Note Studios served as a farm system for modern jazz on the East Coast, the big bands of Woody Herman and Stan Kenton had a similar impact on the West Coast. Although the sounds, technique and popularity of Herman’s and Kenton’s bands were quite different, the two bands shared a similarity in the fact that they both played distinctly modern music and by doing so, their bands were able to survive the post-swing era. With the advent of the bop of Dizzy Gillepsie and Charlie Parker during the 1940s, swing met a quick demise. However Herman and Kenton were able to keep the swing sound going through the clever combination of big band and bop styles. From these two bands, the core for both the West Coast Jazz scene and these four discs found its roots. Between the straightforward swing of Herman and the somewhat controversial sounds of Kenton, West Coast players such as Art Pepper, Bud Shank, Jimmy Guiffre, Bill Holman, Bob Cooper, Shorty Rogers and Bill Perkins (even musicians such as Shelly Manne, Zoot Sims, Richie Kamuca and Conte Candoli played in both outfits.) found their springboard for successful careers.

The West Coast Jazz scene centered on Central Avenue in Los Angeles. Just as New York City had its 52nd Street, with its numerous jazz clubs; Los Angeles had its Central Avenue which contained a dense pack of clubs. Throughout the Los Angeles and Hollywood area, musicians played in intimate clubs such as Shelly’s Manne Hole, The Haig and Zardis. Coinciding with all of these live venues were the labels that brought these musicians to the national limelight. Thanks to Richard Bock’s Pacific Jazz and Lester Koenig’s Contemporary and many other smaller labels, the jazz musicians of West Coast were actively promoted. It wasn’t all Los Angeles though. San Francisco’s Fantasy Records, and Bay Area clubs like the Jazz Workshop worked hard to promote the music of talented players such as Vince Guaraldi, Ornette Coleman, and Dave Brubeck. It was all of these California labels and clubs that are responsible for this compilation.

There is a misunderstanding concerning the definitions of bop, cool jazz and West Coast Jazz. First of all, both West Coast Jazz and cool jazz are a variation of the bop sound. Bop was a post World War II movement, led by Charlie Parker and Dizzy Gillepsie that offered an intense alternative to the dominating swinging sounds. Gillepsie and Parker did not change the face of jazz overnight, as it was a slowly developing process in which Parker and Gillepsie both started in swing bands and then steadily made a transition.

Cool Jazz was a variation of bop in the sense that the style still employed the innovations of Parker and Gillespie (i.e. improvisation and soloing), but cool re-introduced "swing" back into the fold. Swing is much more than a word that describes and era of music; it also describes the way music is played. Music "swings" when the tempo is constant and there are minimal breaks and sudden changes. Even during the avant-garde hey-dey, musicians such as Albert Ayler who strove on cacophony, actually made their music swing for they never lost tempo.

In any compilation involving the sounds of the West Coast Jazz scene, the big players can not be neglected. The Stan Getz Quintet provides " Crazy Rhythm". The Gerry Mulligan Quartet plays "Bernies Tune" and "My Funny Valentine". The Chet Baker Quartet provides "Isn’t It Romantic" and "Maid in Mexico". San Franciscan pianist David Brubeck plays "Stardust" while saxophonist Art Pepper provides "Shaw Nuff" and " You’d be So Nice To Come Home To". Although these players and other such as Bud Shank and Bob Brookmeyer provided the quintessential West Coast sound, there are many more that comprised the meat and bones of the sound. This compilation brings many of those players and their works to the surface.

The hardest working man on the West Coast was drummer Shelly Manne and these discs do an excellent job of representing his work. Manne spent time in both Herman’s and Kenton’s Big Bands and then went off to be one of the most popular leaders and sideman in the Pacific region. As a leader, Manne had two groups – "Shelly Manne and his Friends" and "Shelly Manne and His Men". Between these two outfits, this compilation has three tunes – "Get Me To The Church On Time", "Etude de Concert" and "Theme: A Gem From Tiffany". As a sideman, Manne participates in saxophonist Sonny Rollins’ appropriately titled "Way Out West"; vibraphonist Red Norvo’s "Red Sails", saxophonist Lenny Niehaus’ "Whose Blues?", and the Clifford Brown Ensemble’s " Daahoud". Trumpeter Clifford Brown’s Ensemble also featured one of the greatest sounding names in jazz history (besides Thelonious Monk) – saxophonist Zoot Sims.

In addition, Shelly Manne participated in two ‘all-star’ bands that were synonymous with the West Coast Jazz sound. The first was bassist Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars. During the early stages of the West Coast movement, many of the players from the bands of Woody Herman and Stan Kenton were looking for new venues to ply their new music. Their first "home base" was the Lighthouse Café in Hermosa Beach, where marathon jam sessions would occur every weekend. Sometimes these jam sessions were caught on records and released to the public. On this compilation, there is a version of Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars’ "Swing Shift" and "Sunset Eyes" which features Rumsey, Manne, saxophonists Jimmy Giuffre and Bob Cooper and trumpeter Shorty Rogers. Manne, Guiffre and Rogers would also join up together for a version of "Popo" by Shorty Rogers and His Giants".

Some other interesting contributions to this album are a versions of Dizzy Gillepsie’s " A Night In Tunisia" by Harold Rumsey’s Lighthouse All-Stars. This version of the band features Max Roach on drums and Miles Davis on trumpet and signify a meeting of the two coasts. There is a cut of San Franciscan Ornette Coleman playing "The Sphinx". With his constant tempo changes, Coleman’s track stands out from the other tunes and signifies that the West Coast was not all about the "cool" sound. Eric Dolphy can be found playing the flute on Chico Hamilton’s "Far East" which provides an early glimpse of Dolphy before he headed East. And for all of us who believed that Vince Guaraldi only played the "Peanuts Theme", this compilation will revert our closed minds. The talented pianist is heard on his own "Cast Your Fate To the Wind", Richie Kamuca/Bill Holman Octet’s "Indiana" and the Brew Moore Quintet’s " Dues Blues." Saxophonists Kamuca and Holman (who was an arranger for Stan Kenton) also joined together for the Big Holman Band’s "No Heart".

This compilation also provides the work of the great West Coast guitarists. With the names Wes Montgomery and George Benson dominating the 1960s guitar media and hype, the masterful works of Jim Hall, Barney Kessel and Joe Pass are often neglected. Joe Pass provides "For Django" while Jim Hall can be heard playing on the remarkably original "Pickin’ em Up and Layin’ ‘em Down" with Jimmy Guiffre and trombonist Bob Brookmeyer. Hall also contributes to saxophonists Ben Webster’s "Georgia On My Mind"; saxophonist Bill Perkins/pianist John Lewis’ "2 Degrees East, 3 Degrees West"; and drummer Chico Hamilton’s " Blue Sands". The gifted Barney Kessel can be heard on The Poll Winners’ version of the standard "On Green Dolphin Street". The Poll Winners, which also consisted of Shelly Manne and Jim Pass, was given their name do to the fact that the three had won so many polls in their respective instrument’s categories. Kessel also plays on Benny Carter’s " A Walkin’ Thing" and Red Norvo’s "Red Sails". Two less popular guitarists, but equally talented, are Ray Crawford and Dennis Budimir who play on Curtis Amy’s "Katanga" and Chico Hamilton’s "Far East", respectively.

West Coast Jazz is simply a geographic term that has been misused over the years. West Coast Jazz, although predominantly Cool in nature, also had musicians that represented the bop and hard bop styles. The majority of the West Coasters played Cool jazz for they came from swing bands such as Woody Herman and Stan Kenton, but they also loved the soling techniques that dominated the East Coast. While Baker, Mulligan, Pepper and Getz were synonymous with the cool California sound, there were also Mingus, Coleman, Hawes, and Amy who deviated from the cool. In addition, West Coast Jazz has also been misrepresented as an uniquely Caucasian event. Automatically, there is going to be disparity between blacks and whites due to the disparity that existed on a cultural level up and down the West Coast. In Vermont, the same inequality occurs as well. You could say that the "Burlington Jazz Scene" is a predominantly white scene. Well, in a state that is almost 90% white, what would you expect. The same idea, but less extreme percentages, can be said about the West Coast scene.

The players who were considered the flag bearers of West Coast Jazz – Stan Getz, Gerry Mulligan, Dave Brubeck, Chet Baker, Art Pepper and Bob Brookmeyer – were all white players. This is the primary reason for the racial misconception. If you look at the other players who filled the next "level" of popularity, you will find a larger amount of Afro-Americans- bassist Curtis Counce and Leroy Vinnegar, saxophonists Buddy Collette and Wardell Gray; pianists Hampton Hawes and Art Tatum and drummers Chico Hamilton and Max Roach. Ironically enough, many of the Afro-American musicians emigrated from California to further accentuate the disparity. In addition to Roach and Hawes, Saxophonist Ornette Coleman and Dexter Gordon, trumpeter Don Cherry, bassist Charles Mingus, and flautist Eric Dolphy all contributed to the West Coast sound but also made their names elsewhere.

Even the bastion for West Coast Jazz, Hermosa Beach’s Lighthouse Café didn’t believe in one universally defined "West Coast Jazz sound". The Café’s matchbook stated the following words: " The policy of the Lighthouse has been to ignore the meaningless divisions between the various modern jazz groups, to bring together the finest available instrumentalists and writers, and to transform the Lighthouse into a workshop where their music could be heard by larger audiences."

Many of the players of the West Coast Jazz scene were also transplants from other regions of the United States. Even the dominating force of this compilation, Shelly Manne, was a native of New York City. One of the archetypal West Coasters, Gerry Mulligan, was also from the Big Apple. Richie Kamuca haled from Philadelphia, the home of definitive east coasters such as John Coltrane, Wes Montgomery and McCoy Tyner. Bud Shank came to age in Ohio and North Carolina. Shorty Rogers was born in Great Barrington, Massachusetts while Jimmy Guiffre was a Texan. The West Coast also had its natives – Howard Rumsey, Hampton Hawes, Dexter Gordon, Charles Mingus, Chico Hamilton, and Zoot Sims were all born along the pacific coast. Ironically, most of these players moved on from California and played in New York City and Europe.

Regardless of how long they stayed in Los Angeles or where they were born, the players on these discs, like so many people, most likely enjoyed California due to the fact they could play their music in Hawaiian shirts and enjoy the good weather. The West Coast Jazz scene, was not "an all-white, all-native, all-cool jazz scene" that allowed no exceptions. It was simply a gathering of musicians who felt that they didn’t have to make it big in New York City. Due to the cultural free spirits that are associated with the Pacific, the music reflected the mood of the coast – loose, less intense and freewheeling. This same thing happened years later in rock and roll as the cool sounds of the Eagles, the Grateful Dead and Crosby, Stills and Nash offered a less intense alternative to New York City’s Velvet Underground. There is a definitive California attitude and these players were attracted to it. They didn’t emigrate westward to join a sub cult of musical creation. They moved there to enjoy the good life and play their music. When you think about it, if you wanted to be a poor, destitute talented musician, wouldn’t you rather do it in a warm climate. I would.
Go to this interesting site by clicking on the following URL:

http://members.tripod.com/vermontreview/Jazz/westcoastjazz.htm lllllllllll

No mention of Teddy Edwards, Gerald Wilson, Les McCann, Groove Holmes, The Jazz Crusaders... Not minor figures.

MG

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllll
It's Me in That 9/11 Photo
Walter Sipser was in that picture Frank Rich wrote about. Here's what he thinks of Rich's column.
Posted Wednesday
Sept. 13, 2006, at 3:30 PM ET

Yesterday, Slate posted this piece criticizing Frank Rich's New York Times column about the 9/11 photo shown here. The picture was taken by Magnum photographer Thomas Hoepker on the afternoon of 9/11. Calling the image "shocking," Rich suggested that the five New Yorkers were "relaxing" and were already "mov[ing] on" from the attacks. Slate's David Plotz disputed that characterization of the picture, arguing that the subjects had almost certainly gathered to discuss the attacks and to find solace in others' company. Rather than showing callousness, as Rich suggested, it depicted civic engagement. But since neither Rich nor Plotz knew exactly what the five New Yorkers in the photo were doing or thinking, we invited them to contact Slate and tell us.

This morning, Slate received an e-mail from Walter Sipser, a Brooklyn artist who is the man on the far right of the photo. (How do we know? Sipser has confirmed his identity in several ways, most persuasively with current pictures of himself. Click here to see a blowup of the man in the photo next to pictures of Sipser taken today.) Here is what Sipser wrote:

A snapshot can make mourners attending a funeral look like they're having a party.

Thomas Hoepker took a photograph of my girlfriend and me sitting and talking with strangers against the backdrop of the smoking ruin of the World Trade Center on September 11th. Earlier, she and I had watched the buildings collapse from my rooftop in Brooklyn and had made our way down to the waterfront. The Williamsburg Bridge was filled with hundreds of people, covered in dust, helping one another make their way onto the street. It was clear that people who ordinarily would not have spoken two words to each other were suddenly bound together, which I suppose must be a fairly common occurrence in the aftermath of a catastrophe.

We were in a profound state of shock and disbelief, like everyone else we encountered that day. Thomas Hoepker did not ask permission to photograph us nor did he make any attempt to ascertain our state of mind before concluding five years later that, "It's possible they lost people and cared, but they were not stirred by it." Had Hoepker walked fifty feet over to introduce himself he would have discovered a bunch of New Yorkers in the middle of an animated discussion about what had just happened. He instead chose to publish the photograph that allowed him to draw the conclusions he wished to draw, conclusions that also led Frank Rich to write, "The young people in Mr. Hoepker's photo aren't necessarily callous. They're just American." A more honest conclusion might start by acknowledging just how easily a photograph can be manipulated, especially in the advancement of one's own biases or in the service of one's own career.

Still, it was nice being described as a young person. I was forty at the time the photograph was taken.

Addendum: On Wednesday evening, Slate received an e-mail from Chris Schiavo, who is the woman second from the right in the photo. (She titled her message: "From the contortionist sunbather.") Schiavo, who was Sipser's girlfriend at the time, has confirmed her identity with current photographs of herself. Schiavo writes:

I am one of the "disaffected sunbathing youth" in the photo. I think Walter Sipser and your readers have already voiced most of what should be considered when looking at this photo in conjunction with the New York Times article.

I am also a professional photographer and did not touch a camera that day. Why? For many reasons including a now-obvious one: This somewhat cynical expression of an assumed reality printed in the New York Times proves a good reason. (Shame on Mr. Rich and Mr. Hoepker—one should never assume.) But most of all to keep both hands free, just in case there was actually something I could do to alter this day or affect a life, to experience every nanosecond in every molecule of my body, rather than place a lens between myself and the moment. (Sounds pretty "callous," huh?) I also have a strict policy of never taking a photograph of a person without their permission or knowledge of my intent.

I am a third-generation native New Yorker, who knows and loves every square inch of this city, as did her ancestors before her. My mother and father are both architects and artists who have contributed much to the landscape of this city and my knowledge of the buildings that are my hometown and my childhood friends. (Ironically, my mother even worked for Minoru Yamasaki, the World Trade Center architect.) The point being, it was genetically impossible for me to be unaffected by this event.

Are the other subjects of this photo out there? If so, please e-mail us at plotzd@slate.com. On Thursday morning, photographer Thomas Hoepker wrote to Slate about how the photo came about and why he thought it was too "confusing" to publish in 2001.


Go on-site to view photo again, couldn't remember where it's posted here on AAJ, so let me know and I'll pull it over or "quote" so it can be seen again.
Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2149578/

Copyright 2006 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC
lllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::lll::
Hack the vote? No problem
Diebold, the e-voting-machine maker, has long sworn its systems are secure. Not so, says a new Princeton study. Converting votes from one candidate to another is simple.
By
Brad Friedman

Sep. 13, 2006 | Having reported extensively on the security concerns that surround the use of electronic voting machines, I anxiously awaited the results of a new study of a Diebold touch-screen voting system, conducted by Princeton University. The Princeton computer scientists obtained the Diebold system with cooperation from VelvetRevolution, an umbrella organization of more than 100 election integrity groups, which I co-founded a few months after the 2004 election. We acquired the Diebold system from an independent source and handed it over to university scientists so that, for the first time, they could analyze the hardware, software and firmware of the controversial voting system. Such an independent study had never been allowed by either Diebold or elections officials.

The results of that study, released this morning, are troubling, to say the least. They confirm many of the concerns often expressed by computer scientists and security experts, as well as election integrity activists, that electronic voting -- and indeed our elections -- may now be exceedingly vulnerable to the malicious whims of a single individual.

The study reveals that a computer virus can be implanted on an electronic voting machine that, in turn, could result in votes flipped for opposing candidates. According to the study, a vote for George Washington could be easily converted to a vote for Benedict Arnold, and neither the voter, nor the election officials administering the election, would ever know what happened. The virus could also be written to spread from one machine to the next and the malfeasance would likely never be discovered, the scientists said. The study was released along with a videotape demonstration.

"We've demonstrated that malicious code can spread like a virus from one voting machine to another, which means that a bad guy who can get access to a few machines -- or only one -- can infect one machine, which could infect another, stealing a few votes on each in order to steal an entire election," said the study's team leader, Edward W. Felten, professor of computer science and public affairs at Princeton.

The Princeton study is the first extensive investigation of the Diebold AccuVote DRE (Direct Recording Electronic) system, which is employed in Maryland, Florida, Georgia and many other states. Such touch-screen voting systems made by Diebold will be in use in nearly 40 states in this November's elections.

Felten and a small group of Princeton computer scientists implanted a nearly undetectable virus in a Diebold voting system. They managed to alter a voter's ballot -- after it had already been confirmed and cast -- and flip a vote to a candidate other than the one the voter had intended. As Felten explained, "We've also found how malicious code could also modify its own tracks [afterward] and remain virtually undetectable by elections officials. It wouldn't be found in the standard tests performed either before or after an election."

The Princeton report shows that a virus could be inserted onto a Diebold voting system by a single individual "with just one or two minutes of unsupervised access to either the voting machine or the memory card," which is used with the system to store ballot definitions and vote tabulations.

The question of unsupervised access to voting systems has long been at the core of the debate over the use and security of electronic voting machines. That debate reached a boiling point in California's June election, when programmed, election-ready Diebold voting machines were discovered to have been sent home overnight with poll workers on so-called sleepovers, in the days and weeks prior to the election, by San Diego County's registrar of voters. Poll workers in the county, and many others around the country, are given voting machines by elections directors to keep at home prior to the election. They are then deployed on election morning at polling sites. The vulnerabilities to hacking, however, in the newer electronic voting systems have made that practice a topic of great concern. Earlier this year the federal certification body for e-voting systems issued a memorandum requiring greater security for such systems.

As a result of the security breaches via the voting machine "sleepovers" in San Diego County, the special election between Francine Busby and Brian Bilbray for the House seat of jailed Rep. Randy "Duke" Cunningham was contested by voting rights advocates. The legal suit charged that unrestricted access to the machines by poll workers compromised the election and violated both state and federal law.

David Jefferson, a lead voting systems technology advisor for the California secretary of state and a computer scientist at Livermore National Laboratory, told "The PBS News Hour" just after California's primary election, "You can affect multiple machines from a single attack; that's what makes it so dangerous."

Jefferson's comment was based on a report by independent computer scientist Harri Hursti and the firm Security Innovation after a recent test of the systems in Emery County, Utah. Last March, the experts gained access to a Diebold touch-screen system in the county. Their report revealed that a "feature" built into Diebold's touch-screen system could allow an individual to overwrite the election software, operating system and computer firmware with just a minute or two of unsupervised access to the machines -- no password necessary.

Electronic voting systems such as those made by Diebold and a handful of other private corporations now dot the nation's electoral landscape. While virtually all of the systems currently set for use this November have been found to be vulnerable to hacking, tampering, inaccuracy and error, various elements of the Diebold voting systems have found their way into more independent hands-on investigations. A recent landmark report issued by New York University's Brennan Center for Justice detailed some 120 threats to e-voting security across all such systems.

The computer scientists and security experts who issued the Emery County report have not been alone in pointing out vulnerabilities in the Diebold touch-screen system. Johns Hopkins computer scientist and elections-security expert Aviel Rubin was one of the original voices to declare the dangers of Diebold's systems. He analyzed source code from its voting machines that was left, by the company, unsecured on a public Internet site. He recently told Newsweek: "If Diebold had set out to build a system as insecure as they possibly could, this would be it."

Diebold has repeatedly disputed the findings then as speculation. But the Princeton study appears to demonstrate conclusively that a single malicious person could insert a virus into a machine and flip votes. The study also reveals a number of other vulnerabilities, including that voter access cards used on Diebold systems could be created inexpensively on a personal laptop computer, allowing people to vote as many times as they wish.

Diebold spokesman David Bear did not return Salon's calls for comment on the Princeton study. In the past, he has denied that such security concerns are notable.

"[Our critics are] throwing out a 'what if' that's premised on a basis of an evil, nefarious person breaking the law," Bear told Newsweek after the March Emery County study. "For there to be a problem here," he further explained to the New York Times, "you're basically assuming a premise where you have some evil and nefarious election officials who would sneak in and introduce a piece of software … I don't believe these evil elections people exist."

While previous reports on security in electronic voting systems examined a limited set of vulnerabilities, the Princeton study looked at the entire voting machine system over an extended period. "These are, by far, the most serious electronic vulnerabilities that have been published to date," Felten said.

-- By Brad Friedman http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2006/09/13/diebold/print.html :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

No mention of Teddy Edwards, Gerald Wilson, Les McCann, Groove Holmes, The Jazz Crusaders... Not minor figures.

MG

Then there's where Howard is Harold, and it being said Shelly was the hardest working man in jazz, no, there were others who were every bit as dedicated, Gerald Wilson with his reams & reams of charts, and the fact that the East Coast players such as Charlie Parker, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Elvin Jones, just naming a few here myself, all worked as hard it seemed to me. Shelly was good, and he was dedicated, and his contributions to jazz were many, but others contributed a lot as well. There were so many others who, along with their sidemen, all stars in their own right, who worked just as hard. There were so many that I can't begin to name them all. The most neglected thing in the written history of jazz is that it was musicians from all over the country who contributed to the "West Coast Sound". This article does hit on this. They, our most famous jazz men, and women, were all there and there a lot. At least they were at the Lighthouse, and they were welcomed with open arms, and the music was fantastic because of it. You can't even begin to imagine.

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::lll::
The GOP wants to see your I.D.
Anger and outrage lit up Congress Thursday, as Republicans defended their voter I.D. bill against charges it will suppress minority turnout.
By
Michael Scherer

Sep. 15, 2006 | Rep. John Doolittle, a California Republican, was mad as hell and he wasn't going to take it anymore.

"It's outrageous to hear my colleagues sit there and say that the Republican Party is embarking on a move to suppress the vote of ethnic minorities throughout the country," he shouted Thursday at a meeting of the House Administration Committee. "That is blatantly false. I am not going to sit here and by my silence give any credence to that assertion. That's ridiculous."
The outburst was so remarkable that the ranking Democrat on the committee, a fellow Californian, couldn't resist prodding Doolittle a bit more. "Who is presenting the legislation here?" asked Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, who was speaking out of order.

That was, of course, a rhetorical question. For about an hour, the committee had been debating a GOP-sponsored bill that would require every voter in the nation to produce a government-issued photo I.D. to cast a ballot in federal elections. Most major civil rights organizations, from the NAACP to the National Council of La Raza, have said that the proposal will disproportionately prevent poor and minority citizens from voting. AARP, a nonpartisan lobby for the elderly, has cautioned that "many persons who are qualified to vote but do not have ready access to documents -- such as birth certificates, driver's licenses and passports -- that never have been deemed necessary in the past may lose the fundamental right to vote." Democrats have charged that Republicans are just trying to keep liberal voters from the polls.

Doolittle, for his part, had not been convinced by these claims. In fact, until he took the microphone, he appeared completely uninterested in the whole proceeding, choosing instead to carry on a side conversation with John Mica, a Republican representative from Florida. But now he was on a roll. "Let me tell you something: When we have fraud, it diminishes all of our right to vote," he shot back at Millender-McDonald, his voice growing even louder. "The incidents that I am aware of anecdotally are claims that there are urban situations where people have voted multiple times, which have been documented, and which have been on the Democrat side, not the Republicans."

Perhaps Doolittle had gone too far. He had begun his oratory by saying that Republicans held nothing against minority voters. Now he was suggesting that "urban situations," where minorities live in large numbers, were more prone to voter fraud, although, he said, "I will admit that sin spreads across both parties in terms of individual actions."

The debate was over by lunchtime. The Administration Committee voted along party lines to move the bill to the House floor just in time for an election year showdown next week. A similar bill has been introduced in the Senate, though no vote is planned.

Under the Republican proposal, all American voters will have to present valid government-issued photo identifications to vote in federal elections beginning in 2008. If voters do not have an I.D. handy on Election Day, they can cast a provisional ballot, but the ballot will be counted only if an actual photo I.D. is produced within 48 hours. The bill also provides federal money to provide free identification cards to any citizen who cannot afford the typical government processing fees.

Once it gets before the full House, the bill is sure to spark similarly inflamatory debate. Ever since the disputed 2000 presidential election, Republican and Democratic activists have been ratcheting up the rhetoric over issues of voter fraud and disenfranchisement. The protests include a broad swath of issues, from hackable electronic voting machines to draconian voter registration laws and the unequal distribution of polling places. But in this election year, Republicans have chosen to put forward only the voter I.D. bill, saying they are simply following one of many recommendations from the 2005 bipartisan Carter-Baker Commission on Federal Election Reform.

The truth is more nuanced. As voting rights advocates point out, the bill could affect traditionally liberal groups more than mainstream Republicans. Because ethnic minorities, students and seniors are less likely to possess photo I.D.s, they will be the ones hindered from voting or required to go the extra mile to attain a proper I.D.

The voter I.D. issue also has the advantage of appealing to conservative voter anger over illegal immigration, an issue that has divided Republicans in Congress and hurt them in public opinion polls. Earlier this summer, Southern California Democrat Francine Busby narrowly lost a special election for Congress after telling a largely Latino crowd, "You don't need papers for voting." Though she later apologized, her opponent, the Republican Brian Bilbray, charged that Busby was encouraging illegal immigrants to cast ballots.

Following this script, Republicans are sure to focus the debate next week on the issue of immigration. A vote against the bill, Republicans will likely charge, is a vote in favor of ballot fraud. "It seems we should all be able to agree that voting should be limited to citizens of the United States," said Michigan Rep. Vernon Ehlers, a relatively nonpartisan patrician who chairs the Administration Committee. "That has been the law for years."

But Democrats outside the interest groups point out that there are already laws on the books that make it a felony, punishable by up to five years in prison and deportation, for a noncitizen to vote in a federal election. In recent years, the Justice Department has prosecuted only handfuls of cases of voter fraud, and evidence of illegal immigrants casting ballots has surfaced only occasionally over the last several decades. As California Democratic Rep. Zoe Lofgren put it at Thursday's hearing: "Illegal aliens are sneaking across the border for a job, not to vote."

At the same time, there is scant historical data on how voter I.D. laws affect turnout. Federal data shows that about 91 percent of the voting age population has a state-issued driver's license, though other studies have shown economically disadvantaged Americans are more likely to lack photo identification.

Hans von Spakovsky, appointed by President Bush to the Federal Elections Commission, presented a paper to the Federalist Society on Wednesday that argued state I.D. laws had little impact on minority turnout, though his analysis was based on comparing turnouts in different election years. Eric Jaffe, a Washington lawyer at the Federalist Society who moderated the event, observed that arguments over voter turnout are perennially based on little more than anecdotes. "What always strikes me about these debates is the dearth of actual relevant evidence," he said.

In recent years, Missouri, Arizona and Georgia have passed laws requiring photo identification at the polls, prompting drawn-out court challenges in each case. (The number of states with some poll I.D. requirement grew from 11 in 2001 to 24 in 2005.) In September 2005, the Carter-Baker Commission recommended a federal voter I.D. law as a way to streamline the jumble of voting standards that now populate the nation. "There is no evidence of extensive fraud in U.S. elections or of multiple voting, but both occur, and it could affect the outcome of a close election," the commission concluded. "Our Commission is concerned that the different approaches to identification cards might prove to be a serious impediment to voting."

The commission's recommendations assumed, of course, that Congress would address the voter I.D. issue as part of a large-scale reform of the many electoral problems faced by the nation -- a list that includes the reinfranchisement of ex-felons, improved voting machine security and more inclusive voter registration procedures. At this point, however, no one should expect much more than shouting on the House floor to rally voters in November.


-- By Michael Scherer : Go on-site to view and to access any other information.

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2006/09/15/voterid/print.html ::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::lll::
Mutiny in America
By
Larry Johnson | bio

Shades of Herman Wouk! George Bush strolled into the Rose Garden today and channeled the behavior of Captain Philip Francis Queeg as described in the Caine Mutiny. He avoided grasping for small steel balls in his coat pocket and rolling them menacingly in his hand (no clack, clack to compliment the clicks of cameras) but he did have the shrill, hysterical tirade down pat. For those not familiar with the Queeg character, consider the following traits described courtesy of Wikipedia:

Queeg is assigned as captain of the U.S.S. Caine

Sort of like being named President by the Supreme Court--a command decision.
He is initially welcomed by the crew as a tough, no-nonsense veteran, who will shape up the ship after his slovenly predecessor's departure.

Oval Office oral sex does not qualify as "slovenly", but it certainly was tawdry. Despite the uproar surrounding his appointment, most of the country welcomed Governor Bush--the tough minded, compassionate conservative--as a tonic to restore honor to the Presidency.

After a honeymoon period, it becomes apparent that Queeg is prone to eccentric behavior. Queeg displays a micro-managing command style and (sometimes unprovoked) angry outbursts.

How about eccentric behavior? Does sitting immobile for several minutes in a Florida classroom on 9-11 after being told the United States was bombed count? Chopping wood on ones ranch while the city of New Orleans drowns in the aftermath of hurricane Katrina seems queer. The New York Times editorial from 19 July 2006 noted that, "the really weird thing is his (Bush's) sense of victimization. He's strangely resentful about the actual core of his job. Even after the debacles of Iraq and Katrina, he continues to treat the presidency as a colossal interference with his desire to mountain bike and clear brush."

Micro-manager? Okay, not so much. Manager? Not so much. The most vacationed President in the history, spends little time managing anything. But "anger"? That's another story. The jutting jaw tirade unleashed during today's press conference was occasionally interrupted by the Bush smirk. Doubt Bush was angry? Give NBC's David Gregory a shout.

As time passes, he begins to make mistakes that endanger his crew. He neglects to order the ship to stop turning while reprimanding a crew member for having his shirttail out, and so the ship steams over its own towline, parting it.

If you are going to invade a country, history demonstrates the invader should be prepared for the aftermath. George Bush ordered U.S. troops into Iraq but took a nap when it came to post-war planning. George Bush ordered U.S. troops out of Afghanistan before the Taliban were fully destroyed and Bin Laden in hand. Today, Iraq is embroiled in an escalating civil ware and the Taliban are back with a vengeance in Afghanistan. Bush actions and inactions are endangering America and, as noted just yesterday by former Secretary of State Colin Powell, undermining our nation's moral authority.

When called on the carpet by a superior after this incident, he refuses to acknowledge it happened, or to admit blame in any way.

Senate Intelligence Committee reports anyone? Last week's bipartisan report documents multiple examples of Bush ignoring and misrepresenting intelligence on Iraq to the American people. For example, Bush consistently portrayed Bin Laden and Saddam Hussein as partners in the crime of terrorism. The intelligence community, however, said no--there was no operational relationship. This was the consensus of the analysts. Yet Bush continued to insist the opposite.

. . .the Caine is ordered into combat. Queeg is observed to always frequent the sheltered side of the ship's bridge from the beach. When he orders the ship to withdraw before reaching the line of departure while escorting a Marine landing craft under hostile fire, his subordinates consider him either crazy or a coward.

George Bush, who hid out in the Alabama National Guard rather than serve in Vietnam, was crazy like a fox. Bush is Commander-in-Chief but accepts no responsibility for insufficient troop strength in Iraq. Bush claims the security of the United States depends on success in Iraq, but takes no action to boost the manpower and materiel of the U.S. military. No member of the Bush family has served in Iraq or Afghanistan during this war.

Another episode which highlights Queeg's behaviors occurs when a quart of strawberries go missing from the wardroom icebox. Remembering how he helped solve a mystery involving a similar theft when he was an ensign earlier in his career, Queeg attempts to recreate his former accomplishment by insisting the strawberries were pilfered by a crewmember with a duplicate key. Queeg orders every key on the ship collected, and a thorough search made. During the search, the captain is confronted with evidence that the messboys ate the strawberries. Queeg loses all enthusiasm for the search, though he orders it to continue, and it is continued in a desultory way amid public mocking of the captain.

Two words--Valerie Plame. Bush flim flams the American people with a false story that Iraq is buying uranium in West Africa. The husband of secret CIA operative Valerie Plame--Ambassador Joseph Wilson--alerts the press that the claim is bogus. Eager to discredit Wilson, Administration officials--including Richard Armitage, Karl Rove, and Scooter Libby--fan out thru the Washington press corps with the story that Wilson's wife sent him on a boondoggle. Following the public disclosure that Valerie Plame was an undercover CIA operations officer, George Bush vowed to punish the leakers. When he "learns" that Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are culprits, his enthusiasm for justice peters out.

George Bush is the Captain Queeg of the U.S.S. America. The ship and her crew--the American people--are endangered by his sins of omission and commission. When warned in August of 2001 by the CIA that Al Qaeda was ready to strike inside the United States, he did nothing to confront the threat. Then came 9-11. Since unleashing the dogs of war in Iraq, terrorist attacks in which people are killed and wounded have quadrupled. Surrendering the high ground earned during the Cold War against the Soviet Union, George Bush approves secret prisons, torture, and trials with secret evidence. Actions once considered unique to Soviet tyrants are now staining the garments of the cloak of American justice.

Instead of mature, measured leadership, America is saddled with a man that would probably frighten the fictional Captain Queeg. Like the character portrayed by Humphrey Bogart, George Bush compensates for his insecurity and inadequacy with shows of bravado and choleric indignation. But this ain't the movies folks. This is real. Like the crew of the U.S.S. Caine, there is a growing realization that the Captain is a little crazy. Mutiny anyone?

login or register to post comments
Sep 16, 2006 -- 02:29:23 AM EST | Tags:
On September 16, 2006 - 1:52pm phelicity said:
Even a quick study of George's resume would have revealed just exactly the kind of president he'd be.

The British Admiralty, when appointing Bly captain of the Bounty, had serious misgivings about his fitness for the job. He was the first captain of a British ship not to have come from the "gentleman" class and rightly or wrongly Brits do have a thing about class.

Here in the "classless" States, we have a thing about resumes - even though in electing a president they seem not to count for much. Like the Brits whose bout with Bly ultimately lost them a ship, our bout with Bush may ultimately lose us a country.

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 16, 2006 - 11:12am profmarcus said:
this is like the bank robber at the teller cage window who points the gun at his own head and says, "give me the money or i'll shoot..."

President Bush warned defiant Republican senators yesterday that he will close down a CIA interrogation program that he credited with thwarting terrorist attacks if they pass a proposal regulating detention of enemy combatants, escalating a politically charged battle that has exposed divisions within his party.

could we possibly hear a little bit about those terrorist attacks the program has supposedly "thwarted...?" and, why not have a little national discussion about how such information was obtained...? maybe we could talk about whether the methods by which such information was obtained mesh with the values and principles on which the united states was founded...? and, while we're at it, could we expand the discussion to include how such methods might impact how american military personnel might be treated in the event of capture...? and, gee, might it not also be a good idea to talk about, as colin powell rightly suggested, america's moral leadership in the world...?

oh, and before i forget to mention it... could you cool it with the tantrums, george...? they aren't working for you...

And, yes, I DO take it personally

login or register to post comments | link | Rated 4 by one user.
On September 16, 2006 - 10:36am Mickeygsepa said:
Larry: Excellent analogy between Bush & Capt. Queeg. The only difference is that in the end of the movie, Queeg is a sympathetic pitiful man. When Bush is impeached, I want to see the boy cry, and he will.....not for all the innocents he has killed, but for himself.

login or register to post comments | link | Rated 2.5 by 2 users.
On September 16, 2006 - 1:21pm Gettysburg said:
Bush is one of the more unpopular presidents in U.S. history.

This Congress is one of the more unpopular in U.S. history.

Yet victory at the polls is still very much an uncertainty for Democrats. If they can't figure out how to beat this group, I find it a bit unrealistic to expect they will bind together to impeach the president (assuming, of course, that they can even win back a house of Congress).

Even Al Franken is against impeaching the president.

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 16, 2006 - 10:05am PW said:
Larry -- the parallel of Bush/Queeg is perfect! (As long as we avoid the final ten minutes of the film.)

A quibble, but a serious one. The Oval Office (or its neighboring kitchenette?) has doors and its inhabitant-in-chief is an adult individual. What's wrong about oral sex in those precincts is much less than that it happened, but that people pointed at it, stared at it, featured it, described it, delighted in making it public, investigated it, revelled in the (private) physical details of it, discussed it at incredible length on the floor of Congress, used it to bring about an impeachment. I see it as a egotistical folly on the part of Bill Clinton but as a very significant embarrassment and disgrace on the part of the US Congress from which they have yet to recover. The disgust which is now felt towards Congress by a bipartisan majority of Americans got its biggest boost during that period, I betcha.

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 16, 2006 - 12:06pm ljohnson said:
I couldn't resist the alliteration. Also, I agree there is an enormous gulf between what two consenting adults do (that will get one of them in trouble with his wife) and the actions of a President who puts the country at risk.

login or register to post comments | link | Not yet rated.
On September 16, 2006 - 9:13am tlees2 said:
Step #1 in the mutiny - Democratic control of the House after November's election. Step #2 - subpoenas issued to many hundreds of Bush lackeys. Step #3 - impeachment of Bush and Cheney. Step #4 - either acquital in the craven Republican controlled Senate or maybe conviction in a Democratic Senate.

Either way we keep the morons busy so they can't bomb Iran before they leave office in January 2009.

Tom

login or register to post comments

Go on-site to access any links or photo's if they are in the article, by clicking on the following link:

http://www.tpmcafe.com/blog/coffeehouse/2006/sep/15/mutiny_in_america ::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

XXXlllXXXlllXXXKerry faults Bush's Afghanistan strategy

By
ANDREW MIGA
Associated Press Writer
Thu Sep 14, 9:43 PM ET

Democratic Sen. John Kerry, the party's 2004 presidential nominee, accused the Bush administration of pursuing a "cut and run" strategy in Afghanistan that has emboldened terrorists and made the U.S. less safe.

"The administration's Afghanistan policy defines cut and run," Kerry said in remarks at Howard University on Thursday. "Cut and run while the Taliban-led insurgency is running amok across entire regions of the country. Cut and run while Osama bin Laden and his henchmen hide and plot in a lawless no-man's land."


Kerry's "cut and run" accusation echoes criticism Republicans have leveled at Democrats who have challenged Bush's handling of the Iraq war.

A potential 2008 presidential candidate, Kerry lashed out at the administration on the same day the White House announced meetings later this month with the leaders of Afghanistan and Pakistan.

"John Kerry lacks the credibility on the war on terror to be taken seriously," said Republican National Committee spokesman Danny Diaz. "The junior senator from Massachusetts would be well served by not using his own agenda's mantra to falsely attack this administration's foreign policy."

Afghanistan has been plagued by an upsurge in violence by the Taliban, which is trying to topple the U.S.-backed government in Kabul. Military commanders have called for an extra 2,500 troops to help the NATO force in Afghanistan.

Kerry wants at least 5,000 additional troops sent there, contending that the Bush administration has focused on Iraq while failing to respond forcefully to threats in Afghanistan and Iran.

"The central front in the war on terror is still in Afghanistan, but this administration treats it like a sideshow," said Kerry, adding there are seven times more troops in Iraq than Afghanistan.

"When did denying al-Qaida a terrorist stronghold in Afghanistan stop being an urgent American priority?" Kerry said. "How is it possible that we keep sending thousands of additional U.S. troops into the middle of a civil war in Iraq but we can't find any more troops to send to Afghanistan?"

The Republican National Committee dismissed Kerry's criticism.

"John Kerry lacks the credibility on the war on terror to be taken seriously," said spokesman Danny Diaz of the four-term senator, a longtime member of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The junior senator from Massachusetts would be well-served by not using his own agenda's mantra to falsely attack this administration's foreign policy."

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

Privacy Policy -Terms of Service - Copyright/IP Policy - Ad Feedback http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060915/ap_on_go_co/kerry_afghanistan&printer=1
::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

*
President Clinton escorts Ann Richards' casket

POSTED: 2:15 p.m. EDT, September 16, 2006
AUSTIN, Texas (AP) -- President Clinton tearfully escorted a flag-draped casket Saturday carrying former Texas Gov. Ann Richards into the state Capitol, where she will spend the next two days lying in state before her funeral and burial.

Clinton delivered poignant and at times funny recollections of the woman he called "spontaneous, unedited, earthy, hilarious."
He told mourners about a lunch he once shared in New York with Richards and a group that included comedians Billy Crystal and Robin Williams.

"I thought to myself, I bet this is the only time in their entire lives that Billy Crystal and Robin Williams are the second and third funniest people at the table," he said, drawing chuckles from misty-eyed family members. (Watch Richards make people laugh -- 4:04)

Richards, the Democrat known for her big, frosty white hair and sharp wit, died Wednesday at the age of 73 from esophageal cancer. (Full story)

"In this case, goodbye is also a celebration, because of the big things that Ann Richards did," Clinton said.

A Texas Department of Public Safety honor guard rolled the casket into the Capitol rotunda, followed by Clinton and Richards' daughter, Cecile, as a girls' choir sang a hymn from a gallery above. Across the rotunda, Richards' painting hung next to one of President Bush, her successor as Texas governor, in its place among all their predecessors. Her portrait was draped in black.

Clinton called Richards "Texas on parade."

"For 30-plus years, that is certainly what she was to me and Hillary," he said. "First she was big. Big hair, big bright eyes, big blinding smile. She also had a big heart, big dreams. Big, big dreams."

During her one term as governor from 1991 to 1995 she championed what she called the "New Texas," appointing more women and minorities to state posts than any of her predecessors.

He described the world that Richards wanted for her grandchildren as one "where young girls grew up to be scientists, engineers, police officers and teachers ... where the dreams and the spirit were as big as the sky in her beloved home."

When Clinton finished speaking, Richards' daughter, Ellen, thanked him for "all the great times that you shared with our mom."

Clinton paused for a moment beside the casket, then greeted family members, hugging or shaking hands with each one in attendance. At one point, he bent down to comfort Richards' 8-year-old grandson Wyatt, who broke down in sobs.

Richards is survived by her four children -- Cecile, Daniel, Clark and Ellen Richards -- their spouses and eight grandchildren.

Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.[/
http://www.associatedpress.com :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~~~
Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object:
Abraham Lincoln

~~~

The statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.
Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger" (1910)

~~~

"What kind of victory is it when someone is left defeated? What difference does it make to the dead, the orphans, and the homeless, whether the mad destruction is wrought under the name of totalitarianism or the holy name of liberty and democracy. What is a war criminal? Was not war itself a crime against God and humanity, and, therefore, were not all those who sanctioned, engineered and conducted wars, war criminals? The weak can never forgive. Forgiveness is the attribute of the strong. Non-cooperation with evil is a sacred duty."
Gandhi
~~~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::

Iraq al-Qaida says pope,
West are doomed
By
ANNA JOHNSON,
Associated Press Writer
Mon Sep 18, 10:53 AM ET

An al-Qaida-linked extremist group warned Pope Benedict XVI on Monday that he and the West were "doomed," as protesters raged across the Muslim world to demand more of an apology from the pontiff for his remarks about Islam and violence.

The Mujahedeen Shura Council, an umbrella organization of Sunni Arab extremist groups that includes al-Qaida in Iraq, issued a statement on a Web forum vowing to continue its holy war against the West. The authenticity of the statement could not be independently verified.

The group said Muslims would be victorious and addressed the pope as "the worshipper of the cross" saying "you and the West are doomed as you can see from the defeat in Iraq, Afghanistan, Chechnya and elsewhere. ... We will break up the cross, spill the liquor and impose head tax, then the only thing acceptable is a conversion (to Islam) or (killed by) the sword."

Islam forbids drinking alcohol and requires non-Muslims to pay a head tax to safeguard their lives if conquered by Muslims. They are exempt if they convert to Islam.

In Indian-controlled Kashmir, meanwhile, shops, businesses and schools shut down in response to a strike call by the head of a hard-line Muslim separatist leader to denounce Benedict. For the third day running, people burned tires and shouted "Down with the pope."

Protests also broke out in Iraq, where angry demonstrators burned an effigy of the pope in Basra, and in Indonesia, where more than 100 people rallied in front of the heavily guarded Vatican Embassy in Jakarta, waving banners that said the "Pope is building religion on hatred."

The pope on Sunday said he was "deeply sorry" about the angry reaction to his speech last week in which he cited the words of a Byzantine emperor who characterized some of the teachings of Islam's Prophet Muhammad as "evil and inhuman" and referred to spreading Islam "by the sword."

Benedict said the remarks came from a text that didn't reflect his own opinion.

"I hope that this serves to appease hearts and to clarify the true meaning of my address, which in its totality was and is an invitation to frank and sincere dialogue, with great mutual respect," he said during his weekly appearance before pilgrims in Italy.

The statement of regret — the pope's second in two days — helped ease some tensions.

In Turkey, where outrage against Benedict's remarks had been swift, Catholic bishops decided Monday that no changes were necessary in his upcoming visit in November — his first to a Muslim country, Vatican spokesman George Marovic said.

Marovic said the trip was expected to go on as planned, and the bishops had discussed the details of a religious ceremony the pontiff is to lead in Istanbul.

However, State Minister Mehmet Aydin, who oversees the religious affairs in Turkey, said he expected Turkish authorities to cancel the visit if Benedict does not offer a full apology.

"We are expecting the authorities to unilaterally cancel this visit. The pope's coming to Turkey isn't going to foment the uniting of civilizations, but a clash of civilizations," he said.

The secretary-general of the Turkish HUKUK-DER law association submitted a request to the Justice Ministry asking that the pope be arrested upon entering Turkey.

The appeal by Fikret Karabekmez, a former legislator for the banned pro-Islamic Welfare Party, called for Benedict to be tried under several Turkish laws, among them obstruction of freedom of belief, encouraging discrimination based on religion, and inciting religious hatred.

A prosecutor in the ministry will evaluate the request and decide whether to open a case.

Angry reactions also persisted in other corners of the Muslim world, where many demanded more of an apology by the pope than Sunday's statement of regret.

"Muslims have all this while felt oppressed, and the statement by the pope saying he is sorry about the angry reaction is inadequate to calm the anger — more so because he is the highest leader of the Vatican," Malaysian Foreign Minister Syed Hamid Albar said.

More than 200 Muslims staged a sit-in at a shrine in Damascus, Syria, heeding a call by the Damascus office of Iran's spiritual leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. A statement issued by the office urged the pope to "openly and plainly apologize for his remarks."

Protesters also rallied in the city of Muzaffarabad, in the Pakistani-controlled part of Kashmir. "His apology is not sufficient because he did not say that what he said was wrong," said Uzair Ahmed of Pasban-e-Hurriyat, a Pakistani political group.

Morocco's King Mohammed VI sent a letter to the Vatican in which he implored Benedict to show "the same respect for Islam that you have for the other religions," Moroccan media reported. Morocco withdrew its ambassador to the Vatican over the weekend.

Even in China, where the government exerts tight controls over religious activities, a top religious official said Benedict had insulted the nation's Muslims.

"This has gravely hurt the feelings of the Muslims across the world, including those from China," Chen Guangyuan, president of Islamic Association of China, was quoted as saying in an interview with the Xinhua news agency.

In the Middle East, where Muslims threw firebombs at seven churches in the West Bank and Gaza Strip over the weekend, Christian leaders posted guards outside some churches.

"We are afraid," said Sonia Kobatazi, a Christian Lebanese, after Mass at the Maronite Christian St. George Cathedral in Beirut, Lebanon, where about a dozen policemen carrying automatic weapons stood guard.
:: :: ::
Associated Press writers Maamoun Youssef in Cairo, Aijaz Hussain in Srinigar, India, Benjamin Harvey in Istanbul, Turkey, and Slobodan Lekic in Islamabad, Pakistan, contributed to this report.

Copyright © 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. .

Copyright © 2006 Yahoo! Inc. All rights reserved.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060918/ap_on_re_mi_ea/muslims_pope&printer=1;_ylt=AoFklf1ZlrR3b_Uvxx.LevwUewgF;_ylu=X 3oDMTA3MXN1bHE0BHNlYwN0bWE- ::lll::lll::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: ::::: ::The story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.
ON DVD SEPTEMBER 26. GRASSROOTS SCREENINGS OCT 8th-14th

What if Halliburton's CEO came clean?

View this clip: (Go on-site to view)
http://iraqforsale.org/index.php

"RIVETING, POWERFUL" "BLEW MY MIND"
Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed, and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

LATEST FROM THE MOVIE BLOG:
09/18: Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal -- if you don't sue by Jim Gilliam
09/18: C-SPAN 3 is airing war profiteering hearings live right now by Jim Gilliam
09/18: New must-read report: "Profits over Patriotism in Iraq" by Jim Gilliam
09/17: Halliburton and Cheney: War Profiteers in Chief Fight to Keep Their Wallets Fat by Rick Jacobs
09/17: War profiteering in the news this weekend by Jim Gilliam

The story of what happens to everyday Americans when corporations go to war.
ON DVD SEPTEMBER 26. GRASSROOTS SCREENINGS OCT 8th-14th

What if Halliburton's CEO came clean?

View this clip: (Go on-site to access)
http://iraqforsale.org/index.php


"RIVETING, POWERFUL" "BLEW MY MIND"
Acclaimed director Robert Greenwald (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price, Outfoxed, and Uncovered) takes you inside the lives of soldiers, truck drivers, widows and children who have been changed forever as a result of profiteering in the reconstruction of Iraq. Iraq for Sale uncovers the connections between private corporations making a killing in Iraq and the decision makers who allow them to do so.

LATEST FROM THE MOVIE BLOG:
09/18: Halliburton to wounded employee: You'll get a medal -- if you don't sue by Jim Gilliam
09/18: C-SPAN 3 is airing war profiteering hearings live right now by Jim Gilliam
09/18: New must-read report: "Profits over Patriotism in Iraq" by Jim Gilliam
09/17: Halliburton and Cheney: War Profiteers in Chief Fight to Keep Their Wallets Fat by Rick Jacobs
09/17: War profiteering in the news this weekend by Jim Gilliam

Private Army For-Hire
Learn more → Services for oil, gas, and construction
Learn more →

IT firm providing interrogators and translators
Learn more → IT firm providing interrogators and translators
Learn more →

We went to great lengths to get interviews with the CEOs of these four corporations. None of them cooperated at all. Instead we got a 'cease and desist' letter from CACI and Halliburton lying to the Washington Post.

Youtube video link: (Go on-site to view, and to access link) :: :: :: :: :: :: ::Halliburton and Cheney: War Profiteers in Chief Fight to Keep Their Wallets Fat
By
Rick Jacobs
September 17
1 Comments
(Originally on Huffington Post)
Halliburton woke up Friday, determined to debunk a film by Robert Greenwald that it has not seen. You have to wonder just what Halliburton's CEO and department of agitation and propaganda are thinking. The reaction to Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers is similar to CEO David Lesar's ads in which he says that Halliburton is doing a great job in Iraq: Both are without first hand knowledge, based on fantasy and hearsay.

It's worth pausing to recall the insidious nature of Halliburton's role in the invasion and occupation of Iraq. As with so much related to the Bush/Cheney Administration, the truth is stranger than fiction. We did not need Oliver Stone for this one; Robert Greenwald's fact-based documentary tells it better than any novelist could imagine.

We all by now know that Dick Cheney retired from the Pentagon in 1993 to accede to the thrown of Halliburton, an oil field services company based in Houston. Under Mr. Cheney's reign, Halliburton acquired Dresser Industries which included the Kellogg Company (the K of KBR), a major engineering firm. True to form, Mr. Cheney's acquisition did not include much due diligence. After Mr. Cheney left Halliburton with tens of millions of dollars in his pocket largely earned because of his connections to Middle East dictators, Halliburton had to cough up $2.3 billion in cash, about $1.2 billion in stock and another $55 million in IOUs to help pay off the tens of thousands of people in this country who had suffered and/or died of asbestos poisoning at the hand of Dresser, which Mr. Cheney had acquired and for which Mr. Cheney was (and apparently still is) handsomely compensated. If this sounds a bit like Mr. Cheney's due diligence with respect to weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, it should. He never bothered to look at what Dresser had before he bought it for Halliburton and he never bothered to look at what Iraq had before he broke it for the U.S.

As Messrs. Cheney and Rumsfeld planned the war in Iraq beginning during the first year of the Bush Administration, Mr. Cheney's Halliburton was the contractor of choice to do the work that the military had always done in past wars. This time, though, the war would be privatized to suit the ideology and obfuscation of the Bush team, which wanted to pretend that the number of people we'd need in Iraq would be small (so outsource it) and that the government can be privatized (so outsource it to friends).

The Iraq debacle is now the subject of at least a half a dozen books, including the terrific Fiasco, by Tom Ricks. Until very recently, however, there has been relatively little penetration into the popular psyche of the role played by Halliburton/KBR in particular and other private military contractors in general, such as Blackwater (runs a private army in Iraq), Titan and CACI (provided translation and interrogation services for places such as the Abu Ghraib prison and both still provide key services to the US military in Iraq and elsewhere).

The reason is simple: the Bush Administration and its Congressional foot soldiers ranging from George Allen and John Warner of Virginia to Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania have refused at every turn to allow for any oversight at all, even though Democratic Senators have asked for such bi-partisan review for years. Unlike their Republican friends, Democrats recall the historic role that Harry Truman played in conducting such oversight during World War II, uncovering $160 billion (in today's dollars) of waste, fraud, abuse and profiteering. I suppose Congress in World War II did not take bribes. Halliburton learned the lesson and this time has gotten its money's worth, having paid over $2 million in campaign contributions to Republicans as hush money to keep the terms of the contracts, and the human destruction those contracts have wrought, all locked up.

Even in Bush's America, where journalists often fear to write and careers end for truths told, the facts eventually speak for themselves. Friday, CBS News and Bloomberg broke the story of a lawsuit by families and survivors of the so-called Friday Massacre in Iraq, in which seven Halliburton/KBR truck drivers were brutally murdered because Halliburton/KBR insisted on sending a convoy of oil tankers out on roads that the US military had closed to all traffic due to extraordinarily high risk. But you gotta make a buck, so Halliburton sent the trucks out. Men died. And more hatred between US and locals ensued, further destabilizing the mess that is Iraq.

Iraq for Sale tells the story of that gruesome ride for profits, probably the most egregious example of out right war profiteering that we have yet seen in a killing field where the likes of Halliburton/KBR reap money with men's lives. Halliburton's stock has risen 200% since the invasion of Iraq three and a half years ago. David Lesar, its CEO, made over $40,000,000 (that's forty million dollars) in 2004 alone and by some calculations, has made at least $150,000,000 (one hundred fifty million) since the war began. It's hard to tell just how rich he has gotten on the intestinal tracts of our soldiers and the bodies of his former employees, but it's probably enough money for him to live happily ever after in several countries outside the U.S.

Let's keep following the money, though. In May, 2006, Halliburton filed a form S-1 with Securities and Exchange Commission announcing its intention to sell its KBR subsidiary to the public. KBR had sales in 2005 of over $10 billion and profits of over $200 million, according to the filing. The reason for the sale of the giant subsidiary, according to the filing, is that "the full value of KBR is not reflected in Halliburton's stock price."

A few weeks later, Halliburton canceled its sale of KBR, saying that it would instead explore a tax free spin off to shareholders. In other words, the news about KBR in Iraq was getting out, so KBR's share price, were it an independent company, would not fetch what Halliburton wants for it, so they'll just stick it to the shareholders. Besides, KBR's government contracts in Iraq are on the wane, because the government funding for Iraq is on the wane.

Mr. Lesar probably learned a lesson from his mentor, Mr. Cheney, who bought Dresser and with it billions of dollars of liabilities. With the truth coming out and law suits pending, Mr. Lesar may well think that by dumping KBR, he can shove the liabilities into the hands of new owners of KBR (think pension plans, index funds and individual investors), of which Halliburton will not be one.

And there's another related reason: Publicly traded companies such as Halliburton and Wal-Mart do not like "headline risk." That's the term for fear instilled in the hearts of stock pickers and analysts when they see a company's name all over the news, and not for saving the world. Who wants to own the stock of a company that might lose one of its major clients (the US Government) and that might face tens of millions or more in potential liability claims?

It's clear why Halliburton CEO David Lesar and his hyperbole machine attacked Iraq for Sale on Friday without even seeing it. On Monday, 18 September in Washington, Senator Dorgan, a crusader for truth and oversight of companies such as Halliburton, together with Senators Reid and Bingaman, is holding hearings with four witnesses from the film who will talk about the "Friday Massacre." The senators know that Halliburton has been profiteering at the expense of taxpayers, soldiers and its own employees. Mr. Lesar is scared that finally, with a film that everyone can see and hearings that everyone will watch, his reliance on the federal trough may come to an unhappy end. Having looked across town at his former Enron neighbors, even Mr. Lesar has to remember the old Wall Street adage: Bulls have their day. Bears have their day. But pigs always get slaughtered.

Read more about KBR.
Comments
mark rappaport said:
Great job. However, "thrown" para 3 should be spelled "throne"
September 18, 2006 9:32 AM
Go on-site to access the numerous links and other video's by clicking on the following link:http://iraqforsale.org/diaries/2006/09/halliburton_and_cheney_war_pro.php

This is quite a crew we have sitting in the White House. How did we ever come to this? SRH

[Saundra Hummer]

*AN ALERTSubject: Mexico Public Announcement

To: ACS_MEXICO@CALIST.STATE.GOV

Mexico Public Announcement
September 15, 2006
This Public Announcement alerts U.S. citizens to the rising level of brutal violence in areas of Mexico. This violence has occurred throughout Mexico, but has been particularly persistent in the city of Nuevo Laredo within the state of Tamaulipas. This Public Announcement expires on March 15, 2007.

U.S. citizens residing and traveling in Mexico should exercise extreme
caution when in unfamiliar areas and be aware of their surroundings at all times. Public sources suggest that narcotics-related violence has claimed 1,500 lives in Mexico this year. In recent months there have been execution-style murders of Mexican and U.S. citizens in Tamaulipas (particularly Nuevo Laredo), Michoacan, Baja California, Guerrero, and other states.

U.S. citizens have also been victims of random shootings on
major highways outside of Mexico City, Nuevo Laredo, Tijuana, and other
areas throughout Mexico. In recent years, dozens of U.S. citizens have been
kidnapped in Nuevo Laredo, with more than two dozen cases still unresolved; recent incidents indicate a possible resurgence of kidnappings for ransom. Mexican police and other government figures have been murdered in Guerrero, Nuevo Leon, the Federal District, Tamaulipas, and other states. Drug cartel members have been known to follow and harass U.S. citizens
traveling in their vehicles, particularly in border areas including Nuevo Laredo and Matamoros.

Though there is no evidence that U.S. citizens are targeted, criminals look for every opportunity to take advantage of unwary travelers. U.S. citizens who believe they are being followed should notify officials as soon as possible. U.S. citizens should make every attempt to travel on main roads during daylight hours, particularly the toll ("cuota") roads, which are generally more secure. It is preferable for U.S. citizens to stay in well-known tourist destinations and tourist areas of the cities with more adequate security, and provide an itinerary to a friend or family member not traveling with them. U.S. citizens should refrain from displaying expensive-looking jewelry, large amounts of money, or other valuable items.

For the latest security information, U.S. citizens traveling abroad should
regularly monitor the Department's Internet web site at: http://travel.state.gov/
where the current Worldwide Caution Public Announcement, Travel Warnings, and Public Announcements can be found.

Up-to-date information on security can also be obtained by calling 1-888-407-4747 toll free in the United States, or, for callers from Mexico, a regular toll line at 001-202-501-4444. These numbers areavailable from 8:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Eastern Time, Monday through Friday (except U.S. federal holidays). American citizens traveling or residing overseas are encouraged to register with the appropriate U.S. Embassy or Consulate on the State Department's travel registration website at:
https://travelregistration.state.gov/

For any emergencies involving American citizens in Mexico, please contact the closest U.S. Embassy or Consulate. The U.S. Embassy is located in Mexico City at Paseo de la Reforma 305, Colonia Cuauhtemoc, telephone from the United States: 011-52-55-5080-2000; telephone within Mexico City: 5080-2000; telephone long distance within Mexico 01-55-5080-2000. You may also contact the Embassy by e-mail at: ccs@usembassy.net.mx
<mailto:ccs@usembassy.net.mx>. The Embassy's Internet address is:
http://www.usembassy-mexico.gov/
::
Consulates:
Ciudad Juarez: Avenida Lopez Mateos 924-N, telephone
(52)(656) 611-3000.
Guadalajara: Progreso 175, telephone (52)(333) 268-2100.
Monterrey: Avenida Constitucion 411 Poniente, telephone
(52)(818) 345-2120.
Tijuana: Tapachula 96, telephone (52)(664) 622-7400.
Hermosillo: Avenida Monterrey 141, telephone (52)(662)
289-3500.
Matamoros: Avenida Primera 2002, telephone (52)(868)
812-4402.
Merida: Paseo Montejo 453, telephone (52)(999) 925-5011.
Nogales: Calle San Jose, Nogales, Sonora, telephone
(52)(631) 313-4820.
Nuevo Laredo: Calle Allende 3330, Col. Jardin, telephone
(52)(867) 714-0512."
::
A Retired Tug Boat Captain from the Port of Los Angeles, "Captain Bob" sent this to me, thought I would pass it along, you can do the same if you know of anyone traveling to Mexico.

My cousin's husband who lives in Texas had gone across the border for lunch with another fellow employee, and both were kidnapped down there and held for ransom, which his company did pay, however in the kidnapping my cousin's husband was shot twice, which, luckily, he survived.

It can be dangerous down there for anyone, but with this alert, I would be wary of travel, and never drive at night between towns and populated areas, although my friend Harvey had a funny experience when taking a shortcut through remote areas of Mexico, one which would cut at least a day off of their trip, luckily it was his sense of humor which saved the day, however, if you must drive down there, make sure you buy the Tourista Insurance, it will help keep you out of jail if you hit a road barrier or anything else. They will throw you in jail just for that.

Make sure you leave jewelry at home, wedding rings and all, as it's not worth chancing it being stolen, losing a finger over, or worse.:::::::

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::lll::
Indiana Sues Swift Boater's New Attack Group
By Paul Kiel
-
September 18, 2006, 11:54 AM

The state of Indiana sued the right-wing Economic Freedom Fund today, to stop it from harrassing residents with automated "robo calls" supporting a GOP congressional candidate. The suit, by Indiana Attorney General Mike Carter (R) seeks a preliminary injunction stopping the calls immediately.
The Economic Freedom Fund was responsible for an unknown number of calls last week in Indiana's ninth district, attacking the Dem challenger, Baron Hill. His opponent, Rep. Mike Sodrel (R-IN), who trails Hill by nine points according to the latest polls, has denied knowing anything about the calls. (For details and a recording of the call, see our story last week.)

As we reported last Thursday, Bob Perry, the money man behind the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth has put $5 million into a new organization to attack House Democrats. In addition to TV and print ads run in four different districts across the country, the group is behind a slew of robo calls that are in the form of push polls -- phony polls that serve to attack an opponent rather than collect data.

Staci Schneider, Carter's press secretary, said that the group notified the AG last week that they had halted the calls. But it was too late. At least seven Hoosiers filed complaints with the state, according to Schneider. The statute allows for a penalty of up to $5,000 per violation, meaning that the group could be hit with a $35,000 fine, based on the seven complaints, although the AG has not yet decided on the penalty it will seek. A hearing is scheduled for September 27th.

Update: TPM Reader DK writes: "The penalty would be assessed based on the number of violations, not just the number of complaints. So the AG could through discovery, etc. acquire the call records, billing records etc and see just how many calls were made. Never would anyone get nailed for every last call in court or in a settlement, but it means that the AG's negotiating position would start out much higher than $35,000."
http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/ ::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Man Accused of Fraud Blames Karl Rove
Prosecutors deny Karl Rove vendetta prompted them to file fraud charges against N.Y. defendant
By
LARRY NEUMEISTER
Associated Press Writer
NEW YORK, Sep. 12, 2006

(AP) Attorneys for a man accused of fraud say he was charged at the behest of presidential adviser Karl Rove in retaliation for a flood of spam e-mails sent to a campaign Web site. A federal prosecutor says the claim is "absurd."

Assistant U.S. Attorney David M. Siegal urged U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on Monday to reject arguments that Rove caused the criminal investigation that led to charges against Robert McAllister.

Siegal said lawyers for McAllister made the "patently absurd argument that the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District is a shill for Karl Rove and has arrested and indicted their client in some sort of vindictive retaliation."

McAllister's lawyer Gerald L. Shargel said Monday he plans to try to call Rove as a witness, if the court allows it.

McAllister, of Jupiter, Fla., is accused of conspiracy to commit wire fraud while he was chief executive officer and president of Millennium National Events Inc., an events promotion company. He was arrested in August 2005.

The government says McAllister and Millennium tried to inflate the price of the company's stock by "spreading false and misleading information" about the company via unsolicited e-mails, or spam, to potential investors. McAllister could face up to five years in prison if convicted.

Shargel said McAllister's efforts to grow his company were "thwarted by the wrongful conduct of stock promoters," one of whom sent e-mails to a presidential Web site, georgewbush.com. That Web address currently connects automatically to the Republican National Committee, http://www.gop.com.
"Mr. Rove used his power and influence at the White House to seek quick punishment of Millennium, and therefore also Robert McAllister, for daring to spam the president's personal Web site," Shargel said.

The Daily News reported Sunday that e-mails, phone records and transcripts of phone conversations indicate Rove contacted McAllister and at least three stock promoters. The newspaper reported that White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said Rove "vaguely remembered" the e-mail onslaught but could not recall whether he or any other White House worker contacted the Department of Justice.

MMVI The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/09/12/ap/national/mainD8K3E7CO0.shtml

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/15/more-legal-trouble-for-ro_n_29488.html ...........

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Col. Sam Gardiner on CNN, 9/18/06
BLITZER:How likely is the U.S. strike against Iran? And would it lead to all-out war? Joining us now is retired U.S. Air Force colonel Sam Gardiner. He has taught strategy and military operations at the National War College, the Air War College, and the Naval War College. Colonel thanks very much for coming in. He just prepared a paper for the Century Foundation entitled “Considering the U.S. Military Option For Iran.” You speak to a lot of people plugged in. What is your bottom line? How close in your opinion is the Bush Administration to giving that go ahead.

GARDINER: It’s been given. In fact, we’ve probably been executing military operations inside Iran for at least 18 months. The evidence is overwhelming

BLITZER: Wait. Wait. Let me press you.

GARDINER: Sure.

BLITZER: When you say it’s been given. The president says he wants diplomacy to work to convince the Iranian government to stop enriching uranium, not go forward. “I would tell the Iranian people that we have no desire for conflict.” He told David Ignatius of the Washington Post the other day. So what does that mean, the order has been given?

GARDINER: We are conducting military operations inside Iran right now. The evidence is overwhelming. From both the Iranians, Americans, and from congressional sources.

BLITZER: What is “military operation?” Define that.

GARDINER: Sure. They probably have had two objectives going back 18 months. The first was to gather intelligence. Where is the Iranian nuclear program? The second has been to prepare dissident groups for phase two which will be the strike, which will come as the next phase, I think.

BLITZER: Preparing intelligence, that’s understandable using all sorts of means. They want to know what the Iranians are up to in terms of their nuclear program. But are you suggesting that U.S. military forces, special operations forces, or others are on the ground right now in Iran.

GARDINER: Yes, sir. Certainly. Absolutely clear the evidence is overwhelming from lots of sources, and, again, most of them you can read in the public. Seymore Hersch has done good work on it. There are lots of other people who have done that. I have talked to Iranians. I asked an Iranian ambassador to the IAEA, what’s this I hear about Americans being there? He said to me, well, we’ve captured some people who worked with them. We’ve confirmed that they’re there.

BLITZER: Yeah, but, you know, these guys — the Iranians, you can’t necessarily believe what they’re saying. They could arrest some dissidents in Iran and say these are American spies. They do that all the time.

GARDINER: Sure. Sure. The House Committee on Emerging Threats tried to have a hearing some weeks ago in which they asked the Department of State and Defense to come and answer this question because it’s serious enough to be answered without congressional approval, and they didn’t come to the hearing. There are sources that I have talked to on the Hill who believe that that’s true and that it’s being done without congressional oversight.

BLITZER: Look, I was once a Pentagon correspondent many years ago, and in those days and in these days, as Jamie McIntire just reported, and as you well know from your time in active duty in the Pentagon, in the U.S. military, these guys are planning contingency operations for almost everything. If Canada goes to war against the United States, they have a contingency plan.

GARDINER: Okay, two differences. Number one, we have learned from TIME Magazine today that some U.S. naval forces had been alerted for deployment. That is a major step. That’s first. Second thing is the sources suggest the plan that’s not in the Pentagon. The plan has gone to the White House. That’s not normal planning. When the plan goes to the White House, that means we’ve gone to a different state.

BLITZER: You think it’s possible there is a little psychological warfare being played on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, to rattle him. To spread the word. To put out this kind of information. To get him nervous, perhaps a little bit more agreeable to the diplomatic option.

GARDINER: It’s possible. It’s also possible that this path was selected a long time ago. You recall that even before Gulf II that a time when the president said we have no plan. I have no plan on my desk. In the summer of 2002 we began bombing Iraq. Operation Southern Focus, without congressional approval, without the U.N. sanctions, we went ahead and began bombing.

BLITZER: The argument at that time is if there were violations of the no-fly zone, U.S. war planes were flying in the north and the south and there were rockets or anti-aircraft fire going up, they could take those out.

GARDINER: Yes, but it was a campaign to begin the war before the war began. You know, I would suggest the evidence is there.

BLITZER: You see a similar pattern right now.

GARDINER: Exactly.

BLITZER: We’re going to follow this closely. Colonel Sam Gardener, thank you very much. We look forward to reading your report that the Century Foundation is putting out as well.

http://thinkprogress.org/col-sam-gardiner-on-cnn-91806/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2006/09/18/video-fmr-colonel-says-_n_29738.html
...............

[Saundra Hummer]

~~~~~

Our senses can grasp nothing that is extreme. Too much noise deafens us; too much light blinds us; too far or too short is beyond understanding: too much truth stuns us.
Blaise Pascal: Pensees, I 1670

~~~

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::
FactCheck.Org

Phoning It In: Attack in Indiana by New, Well-Funded Conservative Group

Conservative group's automated calls tar House candidate with voting to let unsavory material be sold to kids.

September 19, 2006

Summary
An automated attack call claims Indiana House candidate Baron Hill "voted to allow the sale of a broad range of violent and sexually explicit materials to minors." That's an apparent reference to a vote Hill cast in 1999 against a Republican-sponsored measure to bar the sale of certain items to kids. It's also misleading. Hill, along with a majority of Democrats and a significant number of House Republicans, voted to stick with existing law. Almost twice as many lawmakers opposed the bill as voted for it, with many making the argument that it was overly broad and a possible violation of the First Amendment.

The calls were sponsored by the conservative Economic Freedom Fund – an outside group wholly funded by Texas millionaire homebuilder Bob Perry. Perry was the main backer of the 2004 campaign by Swift Boat Veterans for Truth against John Kerry and he has already funded EFF, which was formed last month, at an even higher level – $5 million so far – than he funded the Swiftboaters. This indicates that the group could become a big player this fall. But it may have to alter its strategy in Indiana; the attorney general there has sued EFF, alleging the calls violate state law.

Analysis
Automated "robocalls," which have no live person on the originating line, are often used to turn people out to vote; sometimes they're celebrity endorsements of a candidate. In this one, the automated caller claims he is working for "Data Research," then asks a number of leading questions about former Indiana Rep. Baron Hill, a Democrat who is running for his old seat. This particular kind of voter contact, an attack masquerading as a survey, is a dark variety sometimes known as a "push poll." Such calls are almost never captured on tape, but this time Indiana resident John Vanderlippe managed to hit the "record" button to grab the audio, which was first posted on the political blog Taking Down Words on Sept 14.


Economic Freedom Fund:

Automated Phone Call (excerpt)

Vanderlippe: Hello?
Voice: This is Data Research with a 45 second public service. Are you registered to vote in Indiana?
Vanderlippe: What is this?
Voice: Please say "yes", "no" or "repeat" now.
...
Voice: Baron Hill voted to allow the sale of a broad range of violent and sexually explicit materials to minors. Does knowing this make you less likely to vote for Baron Hill?
Vanderlippe: Who's behind this call?
Voice: This survey will end without a "yes," "no" or "repeat" response now.
Vanderlippe: Who's behind this call?
Voice: Thank you for your time and views. This survey was conducted by the Economic Freedom Fund. Goodbye.

Allowing the sale of porn to kids?

The call ends with the claim that Hill voted "to allow the sale of a broad range of violent and sexually explicit materials to minors," and then asks "Does knowing this make you less likely to vote for Baron Hill?" EFF did not respond to our repeated phone and e-mail messages, so we were unable to confirm precisely which vote the call refers to.

However, it's almost certainly Hill's 1999 vote on a measure introduced by Illinois Republican Rep. Henry Hyde that would "restrict access to sexually explicit material" to children. Hyde's proposal came under instant criticism from Democrats and Republicans who claimed the bill was too broad and could potentially make it illegal for children to read material such as the Holy Bible or a daily newspaper. Critics also argued the amendment infringed on First Amendment rights and ran the risk of being declared unconstitutional. And some, like Republican Rep. James Rogan of California, just thought it was a bad idea:

Rogan: "I do not think that is an appropriate response from Congress. I do not think it will solve any of the troubles or the pathologies we are attempting to address. It is with that reluctance, Mr. Chairman, that I rise in opposition to the amendment."

The House voted on the measure as an amendment to a larger juvenile crime bill on June 16. It failed on a vote of 146-282 with 92 Republicans and 189 Democrats opposed. Hill joined staunch conservatives Rep. John Boehner of Ohio, currently the House Majority Leader, and then-GOP Rep., now MSNBC show host and political commentator Joe Scarborough in voting against it.

A June 2006 editorial in the Seymour, Indiana Tribune notes the same charge was lobbed by the NRCC against Hill in 2004:

Tribune: A little research on [the NRCC claim] shows that Hill voted in 1999 against an amendment proposed y Rep. Henry Hyde, R-Ill., concerning "explicit sexual material" and "explicit violent material" as part of a juvenile justice bill.

All context considered, we judge the call to be misleading. Hill did not vote to allow the sale of sexual or violent material to minors. He and a large number of Republicans and Democrats merely voted against placing restrictions on existing law that stood a good chance of being struck down as unconstitutional by the courts.

"Baron Hill doesn't support this," said Hill spokeswoman Abby Curran, referring to the sale of sexual and violent material to kids. "He never has and never will."

Curran told FactCheck the calls were made throughout the district, with Hill himself receiving one at his home.


The Economic Freedom Fund:
The call ends with the automated voice saying "this survey was conducted by the Economic Freedom Fund." EFF's sole cash source, as of their most recent Federal Election Commission filing is Houston home builder Bob J. Perry. Perry was the leading source of funding–$4.45 million-- for Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, the group that put up ads attacking Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry's Vietnam War record in 2004, which we reviewed then. Perry also paid $200,000 for an ad defending former House Majority Leader Tom DeLay, which we reported on earlier this year. He and his wife, Doylene, have given $850,750 to political campaigns, party committees and political action committees since 2000, plus the contributions to Swift Boat and $3 million to the pro-Republican group Progress for America, according to the Center for Responsive Politics .

But Perry has already put more money into EFF than he gave to the Swift Boaters, indicating he wants to make it a force to be reckoned with in the midterm elections. According to Federal Election Commission filings the group has received $5 million dollars from Perry and has spent $501,352.30 as of Sept 8. All of the money has gone to Meridian Pacific, Inc. a campaign strategy firm that recently hired John Peschong, formerly a political director for the Republican National Committee. EFF, with the help of Meridian Pacific, has funded a number of television advertisements and campaign mailers attacking House Democrats Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, John Marshall of Georgia, and Leonard Boswell of Iowa.

EFF isn't affiliated with the campaign of Republican incumbent Rep. Mike Sodrel, whose campaign manager, Cam Savage, said "We don't know anything about the group." Savage said he hadn't received one of the calls or listened to it on the web, and wouldn't comment on the content.

Illegal in Indiana?

The Indiana Attorney General's office sued EFF on Sept. 18 for initiating illegal, pre-recorded calls, and is seeking a preliminary injunction to force the group to discontinue them (which EFF says it has). Automated calls that are not preceded by a live operator or have not been authorized by the person receiving the call are against Indiana law. Vanderlippe, the person who recorded this call, has sued companies in the past for such transgressions.

Savage, Sodrel's campaign manager, said that his boss has been attacked for a year-and-a-half by "a variety of liberal groups" in similar calls. "We think the powers that be should do anything in their power to stop" such calls, he said.

-by Emi Kolawole and Viveca Novak

Sources
"Pre-recorded or Automated Calls Must Meet State Requirements," News Release. The Office of the Indiana Attorney General. 29 August 2006.

Editorial. "A Bumpy Ride due in 9th," The Tribune (Seymour, Indiana). 12 June 2006.

"House Bill Sex Provision Criticized," The Associated Press. 11 June 1999.

This message was sent from FactCheck.org
http://www.factcheck.org ::lll::

[Saundra Hummer]

...............
Steven Jonas: Why is George So Upset?
Published on BuzzFlash (http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)

By BuzzFlash
Created 09/19/2006 - 9:04am

by
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH

George Bush is presently engaged in yet another attempt to get Congress to pass the US equivalent of the March, 1933 Nazi-German Enabling Act (which gave Hitler dictatorial powers under the cloak -- yes, this is the one Hitler used -- of "dealing with matters of national security"). The main piece of legislation is the one that would allow the Georgites to unilaterally amend the Fourth Amendment on their own authority to permit warrantless wiretapping when they say that it is justified to do so. It has already been approved by the Senate Judiciary Committee (see BuzzFlash, Sept. 13, 2006 [0]). I have read the Constitution numerous times and I find nothing in it that permits such actions, other than going through the Constitutional amendment process itself. But Bush wants to be able to amend the Constitution on his own and the Republican Congress appears now to be giving him that power.
At the same time, Bush is in trouble with his "military tribunals" bill (see BuzzFlash, Sept. 15, 2006 [1]) which to the outside world is known as the "torture has been common practice under my Administration and now I want it codified" bill. In addition to empowering the Administration to torture at will, the bill would empower Bush, on his own authority, to lock up anyone he accused of being a "terrorist" or of aiding or abetting "terrorism" without having any of the Constitutional protections applying to criminal procedures, and then try that person, if he so chose, under a "military tribunal" system. In practice the latter means, in part: no right to confront accusers, no right to see evidence against, no right to legal representation of their choice, no right to be present at the trial. Bush knows that the system he established without Congressional authorization was recently ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court. He is counting on the Coulter "we-hope-the-liberal justices-will-succumb-to-mortality" doctrine to knock off one or more of the liberal Justices so that by the time his "law" got to the Court again, he would have his Scalia-ite majority.

So George has gotten the big fish: he can ditch the Fourth Amendment on his own authority. But he is still upset. He appears to have lost one in the vote of the Senate Armed Services Committee on this bill. (I said "appeared." Senate Republicans have caved to Bush on more than one occasion. "Discussions" are underway. This could become another caving episode.) But the question becomes why is Bush so upset about the refusal, for now at least, of the Armed Services Committee to approve the use of torture in violation of the Geneva Conventions?

Is it that he really thinks that torture is a good weapon in fighting terrorism? Well, Bush himself is a well-known bully from childhood and he personally may like the idea, but as far as Georgite policy concerned, that's not it. Virtually every interrogation expert who has expressed an opinion on the matter (and I am not including "Death Squad" Negroponte in the "expert" list on this subject, although he seems to be an expert on death squads) tells us that it is useless for extracting reliable and useful information from torturees.

Is it that he really thinks that Guantanamo would have to be shut down if torture is not permitted? Well, no, for Guantanamo could well stay in place, just without the use of torture and the provision of due process for its inmates. As for the CIA and its procedures themselves, the CIA has been operating under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions for decades and no one has ever complained, out loud at least, about them getting in the CIA's way, as written.

No, what the Georgites are really upset about is that if the Senate Committee decision stands, the Congress will have re-asserted itself, for the time-being at least, over the Executive Branch. It will have, on the Senate side and most tenuously to be sure, re-established some balance of powers within the Federal government. By golly, they would have actually checked and balanced him. So far, skillfully using the "terrorism" argument (just as Hitler did) the Georgites have been on their way, at a leisurely pace to be sure, to establishing a dictatorship for Bush. The Supreme Court threw up a roadblock in Hamdan, but as noted, Supreme Court justices, like the rest of us are mortal. One more Supreme Court seat and Bush will have his majority there.

So Bush views having the Senate, especially, say "hold on there" even on a relatively minor matter (except to those being tortured and/or being held without charges, and etc.) about the use of this useless technique in fighting the war on flanking maneuvers, as a serious setback on his road from being the decider to being THE DECIDER. And it could be. For violating the Geneva Conventions, which under Article VI of the Constitution are part of it, is violating the Constitution.

The only Constitutional way for the Georgites to "re-interpret" any part of the Geneva Conventions would be to re-negotiate them with all of their signatories. (Interestingly enough, the Republican rebels are not using Constitutional arguments, for the most part. The focus is on "morality" [as if the Geneva Conventions did not exist] and what might happen to captured US service people in the future if the torture system stays in place [that is, if any old country could then "interpret" the Geneva Conventions as they saw fit].) That's why George is so upset. Even though those Republicans aren't focused on the Constitution, this one could become a roadblock to Georgites proceeding upon their merry way to creating that "Unitary Executive" of their dreams, regardless of what the Constitution says about how our great nation is to be governed. Or it might not. George will continue to be very unhappy if it is. Do stay tuned.
* * *
Steven Jonas, MD, MPH is a Professor of Preventive Medicine at Stony Brook University (NY) a weekly Contributing Author for The Political Junkies (www.thepoliticaljunkies.net) and a Columnist for BuzzFlash.
...
Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/jonas/018
Links:
[1] http://buzzflash.com/articles/analysis/108[/...................

[Saundra Hummer]

::x::x::x::
James Moore Explains Karl Rove, the Architect of Bush's Master Plan
By BuzzFlash
Created 09/19/2006 - 1:50am
Published on BuzzFlash
(http://www.buzzflash.com/articles)
A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
Karl is doing in Washington precisely what he’s been doing since he came to Texas ... which is that he finds out who the players are -- the people with the money who want political power and influence -- and then he uses them. ... There’s no way Rove would let Abramoff go around Washington flinging money hither and yon without some sort of design and guidance about where that money needed to be placed. This is a complex and intricate relationship ... and the White House has thus far been successful at covering it up. -- James Moore

Imagine actors auditioning for the lead in a screenplay about the life of Karl Rove -- aka "Bush's Brain" or the "Architect" of Bush's power. They would have to ask: What motivates Rove? What's made him who he is? BuzzFlash talked to the man best qualified to address those questions, Texas journalist, James Moore, who has made a study of Karl Rove for decades now. His interviews with Rove and others contain intriguing facts and impressions, many of which are in the new book, The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power. [0] Understanding Rove, whose own power and motivations have helped shape GOP and Bush politics, is not just a matter of curiosity; it is imperative in understanding the alternative reality and "narrative" created to keep the Bush Administration in power, as well as the well-honed tactics of character assassination.

James Moore wrote "The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power [0]" with Wayne Slater. ::x::x::
BuzzFlash: How is this man Karl Rove still standing in the White House as the de facto president for domestic policy and political strategy? He is perhaps the most powerful person in the United States outside of the President and Vice President, who have actual Constitutional powers. It’s been a rocky time for Rove, but he’s still standing. The dust has settled and he’s still there, scheming away, right now.

James Moore: Karl is still there for the same reason he got there in the first place. He remains the master of image and message and denial. He packages these skills in such a way that, if you see lightning strike a tree and knock it down right in front of you, Karl can take the facts of what you just witnessed and eventually convince you it was something else. Maybe it was a weak tree, and it was going to fall anyway. Or that wasn’t lightning -- that was a flash of light, but the wind blew through. He just has an ability in terms of political communication skills and messaging that I don’t think we’ve ever experienced in our democracy.

I think he has figured out a way to game our democratic system with money, with message, with obfuscation and dissembling, and anything that’s necessary to acquire more political power. Because he has this unique skill, the President of the United States is uniquely dependent upon him and cannot separate himself from him. Nor can the troubled Republican Party. What you see, at the moment, with the President’s new round of speeches forthcoming, is precisely the unveiling of Rove’s plan, which is to label anyone who resists the war in Iraq and the President’s war on terrorism as someone who is unpatriotic and appeasing fascism. They’re just cranking up the volume on something they've tried before, and have used with great success in the past.

BuzzFlash: It is the third time around for this playbook, and the second time in terms of a prewar scenario. So, it’s almost like you know what’s coming. There’s going to be some sort of October surprise. Maybe we’ll drop a few bombs on Iran, precipitate a crisis there. It’s going to be either you’re for the Commander in Chief, or you’re for the "Islamic fascists." How can he get away with doing the same playbook three times?

James Moore: Well, because fear sells. And there are these uncertainties out there, and the American public remains unsure of what to believe. The longer that they can raise doubts about changing leadership, the better their chances are of survival.

Now what I will say is this -- and I’ve taken some criticism for saying this -- if they’re able to pull this off again in the midterms and retain control of the House and Congress, and if the Democrats don’t as a minimum take over the House of Representatives -- then to me it’s an indication that our democracy is fundamentally and fatally broken. I think it’s the beginning of the death rattle of our democracy. If immoral people who lie and kill for political and economic purposes can retain power over and over again, it raises the moral question about whether or not our own democracy has any right to exist in the future, and whether it should. If we don’t confront these people, and if we don’t stop them with our votes and our own voices, by paying attention, and being vigilant, involved, and informed citizens, then the future of our own republic is at stake.

BuzzFlash: Could Karl Rove have been as successfully politically as he’s been without television?

James Moore: No, absolutely not. Karl understands completely the value of that medium. In fact, he commented to one of our sources for Bush's Brain [1]that he runs all of his campaigns as if people were watching television with the sound turned down. What you end up with, then, is image over substance. Consider the couple having dinner with their children at the kitchen table with the TV on across the room and the sound turned down. They look over and see a smiling President on board an aircraft carrier with "Mission Accomplished" behind him. They might think, "Oh, good. That problem’s over. We can get on with our lives." They tend to compartmentalize and put that away, trusting that if the President of the United States is saying something to them, he’s speaking the truth, and not that it’s the latest of a series of messages to sustain a fiction.

And when one sound bite or image runs out, they come up with another one. That’s what Karl has done so effectively. He simplifies and encapsulates, and distills things to black and white, and right and wrong, and portrays people who are interested in subtlety and nuance and detail and a complete discussion of an issue, as dumb asses. And the American public, because they are busy with their lives, because they’re so worried about their mortgages and their retirement, and the future of their children, and everything else -- their default position is not to read the 3,000-word story in the newspaper, but to look at the thirty-second commercial and say: okay, I get it. I’m going to vote this way. To me, that may be the Achilles heel of our democracy -- if we don’t find a way to stop Karl Rove and his ilk from doing that.

BuzzFlash: Television seems to be a medium that’s uniquely made for his skills, because it tends to be ahistorical. It kind of rides the wave or emotion of the moment, but it almost never gives you context. Consequently, Rove can just come out with a new announcement every day. It may contradict the announcement from the day before, but no one tells the person who’s watching it to compare A and B, which contradict each other.

James Moore: There is context available in television, and it’s on programs like "NOW with Bill Moyers," [2] and it’s on "Nova," [3] and it’s on a number of important, longer-form programs. But the problem is again, the American public doesn’t want to be bothered with complex issues. They’re watching American Idol rather than watching "Nova" or Bill Moyers, so we get a less informed electorate.

We all have tough workaday lives, and jobs and responsibilities. When we come home, we want to turn our brains off, and the fact that we have this need is something that Karl takes advantage of. He understands television. He understands its sort of ephemeral, contemporaneous nature. And he understands the power and the impact when you combine the images with the message in the appropriate way.

I started out in journalism as a radio guy, and I used to constantly beat my competitors in television for a story. But nobody ever said, did you hear that thing on the radio the other day? They’re always saying, did you see what was on TV last night? When you combine the pictures with the actual sound of an event, and you take an individual into the experience, it can have a profound impact on the way they think. No one recognizes this more intelligently and critically than Karl Rove does.

BuzzFlash: You and Wayne Slater have coauthored two books on Rove which are full of fantastic insights. You’re sort of the unofficial chroniclers of the man, his psyche and so forth. Is he immoral? Amoral? What is his drive? Just the game?

James Moore: It’s a combination of things. I do think he is amoral. I think he is interested in the acquisition of power. I don’t think he’s truly an ideologue. If you will read this book, you will discover that he doesn’t particularly have any deeply held religious beliefs. He tends to view religion and the mega-churches as a sort of gigantic vote delivery system -- which is a very cynical approach, but it’s sort of a deal made with the devil, because the churches want particular things to happen. They realize that Karl is the guy to help them make it happen, and he realizes that these various congregations around the country are the way to help him achieve his goals. But he’s not driven by religion. He’s not driven by any strongly held belief system, though, you know, he wants conservative things to happen more than he does progressive things. I think for Karl, it’s fundamentally about power and the acquisition of more power, and to continue to make it possible for corporate America to make more money, and his belief that if that happens, everything will work out just fine for the little guy.

He also wants to be the hero -- the guy who saves the Republican Party from oblivion and sets them up for a dynasty for thirty-plus years. He wants his place in history.

But I’d also say that it’s clear that all of us never really leave high school. There’s something in Karl’s psyche that is driving him to prove he’s not the spectacled, tie-wearing geek that they all said he was when he was growing up in Salt Lake City. He wants to prove himself.

BuzzFlash: Is he invincible? It seems at this point he dodged a bullet on Plamegate. And when you read closely the political reporters, they write that Republicans are relying on Rove -- not on Bush, but on Rove -- to save the midterms. There is this aura of invincibility that’s been built up by both Democrats and Republicans. We have seen Tom DeLay go under, and that certainly gives some hope that people you think are invulnerable do have vulnerabilities. But Rove, at this point, seems to have a Teflon-coated vest on.

James Moore: Well, I think we’re about to discover the limit or the lack of limit of Karl's talent, because if in fact they pull it off this go-round, then he is without question invincible, and the greatest political mind that our country has ever produced. If Democrats cannot win in the current political environment, I’m convinced that either Democrats are pathetically hopeless or our democracy is irretrievably broken. Now, he may have some contemporary invincibility, but history will not judge him as such. History will judge him as a man who distorted the truth, and messed with the electoral process, and lied and did anything necessary to win -- as a man who is only marginally concerned about morality and ethics and the legality of the things that he does. He does whatever is necessary to win.

I did not expect him to get away scott free from Fitzgerald’s investigation, but I do have to say that his failure to be brought to justice was not a big surprise to me. I was probably the only guy in America who thought he was going to walk, but I also thought, if there was anyone who was going to get him, it was going to be a sort of dogged, apolitical prosecutor like Fitzgerald. But knowing that Karl Rove did something for political effect, and proving that he did something for political effect, is a very, very difficult thing. As somebody who’s been writing and reporting on Rove for a quarter of a century, I know the challenges that Fitzgerald faced.

BuzzFlash: You and Wayne Slater cover something that the White House and Rove very much tried to keep under wraps, which is his connection with Abramoff. Can you talk a little about that?

James Moore: Sure. During the course of doing research for this book, we figured the thing to do was to approach some of these Indian tribes, because they were aggrieved, and usually that’s a good place to get sources. Of course, one we knew best, and the people I’ve been writing and reporting on since the early 1980s, were the Tiguas. We discovered a guy namedMarc Schwartz, who was the Democratic consultant helping the Tiguas in their fight to retain their casino on their reservation near El Paso. Marc had gone to Washington and met with Abramoff. Abramoff had convinced him, if they would give him the money, he could have come up with the right people, and they could get this thing turned around.

Of course, the hypocrisy here was, at the same time, Abramoff was working with Ralph Reed to keep them shut down in order to make theLouisiana Coushatta Indian tribe happy -- but that’s another story. In any case, Marc brought Abramoff to the Tiguas, and they paid him $4.2 million. Marc detailed some of the meetings between himself and Abramoff and Rove, and the detail and the characterization of these meetings gives lie to the notion that the White House hardly knew Abramoff and didn’t work with him closely. The truth is that Karl did work with him on a regular basis, and they would meet outside of the White House in order to avoid White House recordkeeping. Karl would give Jack Abramoff his marching orders, and tell him what needed to get done, and it would get done.

And there were these casual meetings where Karl would describe how he could easily shut down the media in Washington. He was full of himself, and telling these stories to Abramoff while Mark Schwartz was sitting there.

It just shows that Karl is doing in Washington precisely what he’s been doing since he came to Texas, and when I first met him in the late 1970s, which is that he finds out who the players are -- the people with the money who want political power and influence -- and then he uses them. It’s really absurd for anyone to believe that a guy like Abramoff, with his money and his connections, would not be used by Karl Rove in Washington. There’s no way Rove would let Abramoff go around Washington flinging money hither and yon without some sort of design and guidance about where that money needed to be placed. This is a complex and intricate relationship that he had with Jack Abramoff, and the White House has thus far been successful at covering it up.

BuzzFlash: Well, Abramoff was a kindred spirit in the sense that, from his college days, he’s been quoted as saying he wanted to destroy the Democrats -- not just beat them, but decimate them, eliminate them as a political opposition party.

James Moore: Right.

BuzzFlash: He and Rove, you know, share that goal.

James Moore: That’s absolutely correct. They have been kindred spirits for a long time. They met each other back in the College Republican days. Rove, Ralph Reed, and Grover Norquist got together and decided that they were going to change the world and destroy the Democratic Party. What they didn’t plan on doing, I suppose, but what they are effectively doing at the moment, is destroying our country.

BuzzFlash: Here we have another Republican whose personal life growing up was anything but the kind of stereotype image of the "normal" American family that the Republicans like to portray. Actually Karl Rove had quite a dysfunctional set of parents. Are we seeing someone who’s psychically scared? Or should we just discount the sort of psychological family traumas that he grew up with? How should we deal with that?

James Moore: I think it’s the context for who he is as an adult. And I think that’s why Karl has worked so fervently to keep his personal family background hidden. I think it informs everything he is today.

It goes something like this: Karl’s father -- actually his stepfather -- was an oil company geologist, a bit of an itinerant. He was traveling the west as Karl was growing up, and was gone from home a lot. Karl's mother essentially raised the five children -- Karl and his brother, Eric, whose biological father was her first husband, and three daughters, whose biological father was Louis Rove.

In the course of doing research for the first book -- and Karl agreed to the interview for the first book -- I asked him questions about his family and his background. From the moment I asked those questions, until the time I discovered the truth, I wondered what was left out, because Karl has a very good skill of telling you something without really telling it to you, which is precisely the talent that I thought would get him in trouble in front of a grand jury. He always talks around the edges of things.

In the course of this interview, I asked him about his family -- did his parents stay married? Were they divorced? His response was: Well, my senior year in high school, my Dad was coming home on Christmas Eve. He had gotten a new job, a huge job as the chief geologist at Getty Oil Company in Los Angeles. We were going to celebrate my birthday the next day.

Karl said his father came home, and his parents went in the kitchen, and there was an argument or a discussion. His father left and checked into a hotel and flew back to Los Angeles the next day. Karl's comment was: my mother was very good at explaining things without really explaining them. She said that we weren’t going to be moving to L.A. Karl said obviously there was something wrong, but we didn’t know what, and the next thing we knew, a divorce was underway. Less than ten years later, Karl's mother committed suicide.

Karl, being the intuitive and intelligent man he is, was obviously aware of what was going on. His father, Louis Rove, had decided that he was not going to live his life repressed any longer, and he was going to come out of the closet and live as a gay man. And this has been kept secret by Karl forever and ever, obviously because it might change the perspective people have on him. He clearly loved Louis Rove, the man he calls his father, even though he’s not his biological father. He’s the only father Karl has ever known.

BuzzFlash: Can you back up a second there, because it’s a little confusing? He is not his biological father?

James Moore: Yes. Karl's mother had divorced her first husband, who was Eric and Karl's biological father, and married Louis shortly after Karl was born.

BuzzFlash: Did Karl have any relationship with his biological father?

James Moore: Never. He and Eric met their biological father one time, just to meet him and talk. They never had any subsequent meetings, and I don’t believe they even know his whereabouts or if he is still alive. The only father Karl has ever known has been Louis Rove.

BuzzFlash: So Louis Rove left the family, they were divorced, and several years later she committed suicide.

BuzzFlash: Karl still maintained, as you write in your book, that he visited his stepfather after that and they had a close relationship. But you have learned that Louis was living in a gay community in Palm Springs.

James Moore: That’s correct. Louis retired in Palm Springs, and his friends there were quite forthcoming. Louis was a large man, about 300 pounds, and a prolific smoker, which caused him to eventually develop emphysema, which ultimately took his life. When he arrived in Palm Springs, he met a number of retired gay men and became a part of the social groups there. For whatever reason -- because he was a large man, or because he smoked a lot, or whatever, after a certain period of time he just sort of withdrew, and his health was deteriorating. He was on an oxygen machine at home most of the time.

But he and Karl had a loving relationship. In fact, Karl took Louis to Norway to trace his roots, and he used to take him to Santa Fe. They traveled and had a close relationship. According to one of Louis’ closest friends, who is interviewed in the book, Louis was quite proud of Karl. And the friend says in the book, I don’t blame him. I’d love to have a son like that.

The ignominy of this is that, as much as Karl clearly loved the man who raised him, in spite of how close they were as father and son, Karl kept it hidden from friends and family, instead of saying I’m proud of my father for not living his life in a lie. Karl kept it hidden.

When his father died, there was no public notice in any newspapers. He is not buried in either of the Palms Spring cemeteries that I’m aware of. None of his friends heard anything about any type of memorial service. As soon as Karl’s father’s remains were disposed of in July of 2004, however that took place, Karl -- and after he closed up his father’s estate, Karl got on the campaign plane and took off. He travelled to the eleven swing states to help execute the anti-gay marriage amendment, which I just find astonishing. It’s probably best to leave the deconstruction of Karl’s actions to students of Freud, but any lay observer is going to look at his behavior and think that the zealousness with which Karl pursued this anti-gay marriage amendment raises all sorts of questions about what’s unsettled for Karl.

BuzzFlash: Does Karl do small talk?

James Moore: No. Everything’s whisper, whisper, whisper. Everything’s conspiratorial. He can be charming and entertaining, and he’s a pretty witty guy, but his conversation always has a point to it.

BuzzFlash: Would he talk sports?

James Moore: I’ve never heard him talk sports. There’s a great anecdote about him being invited to a Dallas Cowboys football game. He had fifty-yard-line tickets, about ten rows up, which, you know, you almost have to be born into a family to get tickets like that. Karl went to the game, and between plays, he was reading, I think, Shelby Foote’s History of the Civil War. He’s not the kind of guy who really cares about sports.

BuzzFlash: Do you think he’s the one reading Camus, rather than Bush?

James Moore: Karl is widely, widely read.

BuzzFlash: But he is a college dropout, right?

James Moore: He never graduated. He went to four or five different colleges. And at one point, when he lost his student deferment, he should have been drafted, but he was not. I can’t figure out why. It’s something I’ve never understood. I think he enrolled in a sort of last-minute way at the University of Maryland when he was in Washington. But he avoided the draft, just as capably as Dick Cheney and most of the other chickenhawks up there.

BuzzFlash: Again, we highly recommend this book as a companion piece to Bush’s Brain, and for an update on some of the activities of Mr. Rove. There’s a famous moment when Rove recalls sighting George W. Bush. George Herbert Walker Bush, who was head of the Republican National Committee in the early seventies, sent Rove with the family car to pick up George W. Bush and turn over the car to him. Rove sees Bush coming out of Union Station in Washington, D.C., and later describes Bush in terms almost like you would use to describe when you met your first love.

James Moore: You’re spot on in his description of George W. Bush. Karl was the student president of the RNC's College Republicans, so he was working for George H.W. Bush. Our current president was at Harvard Business School at the time, and he used to come down to Washington on weekends to party. Karl’s description of him when he first met him is precisely as you suggested. It is so detailed and so envious as to border on the amorous.

BuzzFlash: Again, neither you nor I have the ability to be Freudian about this, but when I reread Rove’s comments about meeting George W. Bush,I thought it bordered on the homoerotic. He described that he was in a leather jacket. He even got down to the level of detail that he had this crease in the back of his pocket that came from carrying chewing tobacco in that spot.

James Moore: Right.

BuzzFlash: It’s the kind of physical detail that you just don’t normally see if a person doesn’t have an emotional attraction to somebody.

James Moore: Right. He said, I saw him walking up, and he was wearing boots and blue jeans, and a brown leather bomber jacket, and he had these steely blue eyes, and he was smacking gum. He had this thick curly hair, and you could see the tobacco circle pouch in his back pocket. And Rove said, I thought he was just the coolest guy in the world. I wanted to be like him. The context, of course, is that George Bush was sort of the antithesis of what Karl was at that -- the glasses-wearing guy, a geek, and W. is cool. That’s why I’ve said their political union is also sort of a physical and spiritual union as well, because they’re two different kinds of characters.

But bear in mind, Karl isn’t the only one who’s offered up that sort of description. As you’ll recall, Mark McKinnon once described, I think in an interview with Tucker Carlson, how he got involved with Bush. McKinnon said, well I’m not a Republican. I’m a Bush guy. I was at a party, and I saw Bush across the room. I sort of felt the same way that a guy does when he goes to a party with his wife, and he sees a beautiful woman across the room, and he’s compelled to go talk to that person, even though he knows he shouldn’t. So this is a theme that has run throughout the Republican Party, in terms of its admiration for George W. Bush. What they had fundamentally managed to do is fall for the dumb blonde, from what I can tell.

BuzzFlash: I guess we’ll only finish this when we get Ken Mehlman to weigh in. Thanks for talking with us.


James Moore: Happy to.


Interview Conducted by Mark Karlin.

::x::x::

Resources:

The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power [3] (Hardcover), by James Moore and Wayne Slater, a BuzzFlash Premium.

The Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power [3] (Hardcover) [Autographed by James Moore], a BuzzFlash Premium.

Who is Bush's Brain? Karl Rove is, according to a New Book Chronicling the Political Life of the Machiavelli Behind the Throne of King George, [3] a BuzzFlash Interview (2003).

BuzzFlash Talks with Our Favorite Specialist on Karl Rove, Texas Journalist James Moore on "What's Next with Rove, America's Benedict Arnold of the New Millennium?" [3] a BuzzFlash Interview (2005).

A BUZZFLASH INTERVIEW
Source URL:
http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/articles/interviews/035
Links:
[1] http://www.amazon.com/Bushs-Brain-George-Bush-Presidential/dp/0471423270
[2] http://www.npr.org/programs/now/
[3] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/
::x::x::x::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
Backstory: 'St. Jack' hits the religious right

Former Senator Jack Danforth, an ordained priest and GOP elder, wants religion to be less overt in politics.

By Jane Lampman
Staff writer of
The Christian Science Monitor
from the September 20, 2006 edition

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0920/p20s01-lire.html

He still recalls vividly the moment that politics became his life ambition. On a trip east from their Missouri home, young Jack Danforth, just 10 years old, and his family visited the Senate gallery and watched the floor action below. It was instantly clear to him that he wanted to be a United States senator. He wasn't even put off by his father's departing comment: "What a bunch of windbags."

"How many people can say their childhood dream from age 10 became a reality?" chuckles the lifelong Republican, who served his state for 18 years in the Senate.

Now a senior statesman with a host of "formers" before his name - former presidential special envoy to Sudan, UN ambassador, investigator of the Branch Davidian disaster in Waco, Texas - you'd think he'd rest on his laurels.

But Mr. Danforth has a new ambition: rescuing his beloved Republican Party and country from what he sees as a great danger - the too-intimate fusing of religion with politics. And his crusade is causing a stir within GOP circles because of who he is: Not just a party elder, but also a man of the cloth - an ordained Episcopal priest. "The question is not whether people of faith should engage in politics, but how we should go about doing so ... and whether we become a divisive or reconciling force in our country," says Danforth in a phone interview.

***

Danforth is a lanky Midwesterner with a man-of-the-mountain visage and a thick shag of gray hair. While in college, though still harboring political ambitions, he was inspired by religion courses enough that he began questioning his long-held plans for law school.

He even stunned his fiancée, Sally Dobson, by announcing in her family's living room that he'd decided to go to seminary - a declaration not greeted with enthusiasm by a young woman who'd seen clergy life close up. Pulled in two directions, Danforth earned law and divinity degrees from Yale University in the same year. Though he opted for the law, he has stayed active in some aspect of ministry ever since - and even presided at President Reagan's funeral.

It's not discomfort with religious values in public life that's behind his new drive, the senator insists, but concern that religion is being used to deliberately divide Americans. Politics practiced rightly is the glue that keeps a diverse nation together and the catalyst that moves it forward, he believes. Yet today the political arena is plagued by rancor and incapable of resolving the most crucial issues confronting America. He sees a link between that unhappy state and the power of Christian conservatives within his own party. He's stirring a ruckus, he hopes, so that others will speak up.

He wrote two blunt op-eds in The New York Times last year decrying the "takeover" of the Republican Party by the Christian right and calling for recognition that people of faith can disagree on issues.

This week, as the US political campaign intensifies, he hopes to spur more discussion with the publication of "Faith and Politics." Both a memoir and a presentation of the issues posed by today's religio-political agenda, the book offers what he views as a desirable alternative. Describing bipartisan achievements by centrists in the Senate, it asserts that the center is where action beneficial to the nation occurs.

Danforth hasn't been averse to adopting a moral tone himself. During his senate career (1976-95), he put such a premium on taking the moral high road that he was dubbed "St. Jack" by his critics. He fell from that high horse in the eyes of some when he marshaled support for Clarence Thomas's nomination to the Supreme Court in 1991. Mr. Thomas was a close friend and a former aide, and the senator has acknowledged that he played tough in denigrating Anita Hill and her charge of sexual harassment.

But that didn't lose him friends among the more conservative Republicans. His latest move, however, stirs a bit of ire. "It's my understanding that in a democratic country it's up to the people to decide what's best for the country, not its self-appointed advisers like St. Jack," says Richard Land of the Southern Baptist Convention, a prominent White House adviser from the religious right. "I'd point out that when people like Jack Danforth were in control, it was a minority party. It's now a majority party, and one reason is the major element in its coalition of social conservatives, both Catholic and Protestant."

What ultimately drove Danforth to action was the Terri Schiavo case. To him, Republican leaders "abandoned with ease" the party's principles against government intervention in individual lives and federal intervention in state matters when they sought to block the removal of her feeding tube - just to please the Christian right.

Then there are the stances on stem-cell research and the federal marriage amendment, which he says are attempts to legislate a particular religious view. Republicans in Missouri are trying to make stem-cell research a criminal offense, and Danforth, an abortion opponent, has done a TV ad opposing the legislation.

Dr. Land questions his criticism of the Christian right's use of wedge issues: "Who was it that made same-sex marriage a political issue? Who made abortion on demand an issue? The activist courts. Most of the activity he's upset about is defending against attacks on the status quo."

Danforth isn't interested in exchanging one agenda for another, he says, but in seeing faith put its best foot forward in politics. "What religion should do is bring a degree of humility and a recognition that 'I'm not God's oracle, and others with whom I disagree are equally well motivated and trying to live faithful lives,' " he says.

Instead of a crusade of wedge issues, he proposes a Christian ministry of reconciliation to address unresolved problems: the budget deficit, a policy to make America energy-independent, the looming entitlement program shortfall, and "how we deal with a post-9/11 world."
***
In 2001, President Bush sent Danforth to Sudan to work for an end to the decades-long civil war between the north and south, which revealed something about his principles and political style. He supported Africans in brokering a comprehensive peace agreement, which is fragile but has so far held.

Early on, he brought Christian and Muslim religious leaders in Khartoum together, hoping for mediation. The Christians rejected the idea. The one kindred spirit he found was a prominent Muslim clergyman. After several private meetings, Ahmed al-Mahdi hosted a dinner on the banks of the Nile, inviting many of his coreligionists. In a speech, he promoted the vision of Sudan in which everyone could live "together as equals."

"In my lifetime, I have met two people whose physical appearances have exuded their inner spirituality.... One was Pope John Paul II, the other was Ahmed al-Mahdi," Danforth says.

During his 2004-05 posting at the UN, Danforth got then-Secretary of State Colin Powell's approval to discuss setting up a mediation service with other countries to address the religious aspects of conflicts. To his disappointment, people responded that the problems were difficult enough without addressing religion.

What most moves him now is the divisive role of religion at home and abroad - and the need to think about it more seriously. "It's hard for the US to talk about religion as a reconciling or divisive force in the Middle East while it is being used in a political, wedge-issue fashion in the United States," he says. "We can't leave this debate to people who are the more militant or divisive."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

http://www.csmonitor.com

Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

::lll::lll::

Dear Subscriber:

With a staff of five we work hard to monitor nearly all the TV ads in the 2006 House and Senate campaigns. But despite our best efforts some politicians will slip through false or misleading claims in direct mail, by e-mail or in organized "attack calls" like the one described in the article we emailed to you Tuesday. These messages, often aimed at specific groups of voters, get by under the radar of most political reporters.

You can help us. If you receive a campaign message in the mail, or by email, or over the telephone, please consider sending it to us for evaluation. With the help of our nearly 66,000 subscribers we can do an even better job of holding politicians accountable.

Brooks Jackson, Director
FactCheck.org
Annenberg Public Policy Center
320 National Press Building
Washington DC 20045
editor@FactCheck.org

PS: Be careful about recording telephone calls. In some states the law requires that both parties consent to a recording. For details, check this guide posted by the Reporters Committee on Freedom of the Press. Consult an attorney if you are not sure. We don't want anyone getting into trouble on our account.
http://www.factcheck.org :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

...........
Halliburton unlawfully sent civilian truckers into combat in Iraq

WASHINGTON, Sept. 19 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- Former Halliburton employees in Iraq told a Senate committee yesterday that the company's KBR subsidiary
(1)knowingly puts unarmed civilian truck drivers into extremely dangerous war zones in violation of military law,
(2)hires employees through a Cayman Island subsidiary in order to avoid U.S. laws,
(3)deliberately overcharges U.S. taxpayers "in true Enron-style" for recreational services provided to the troops, and
(4)escapes punishment because the Bush administration successfully circumvents "whistleblower" laws that expose unscrupulous contractors.

Listen to the audio of the 1 hour and 44 minute hearing at this link. Go on-site to access by clicking on the following link: http://halliburtonwatch.org

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/ealert.html

I posted the complete article on the Halliburton thread, but to make sure it was seen by more of you, I've posted just the intro and link to the audio here as well.
.............

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: ::
Swiftboating the Swiftboaters
By
William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t | Perspective
Wednesday 20 September 2006

The Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth were back in the news last week, brought up by Massachusetts senator and former presidential candidate John Kerry. Asked in an interview with the Examiner about the effect of the Swift Boat group on his campaign, Kerry was blunt.

"Kerry says the only reason he didn't compete in more states in 2004," read the article, "was that he ran out of money. He says this was also the reason he did not adequately respond to a series of devastating TV ads by Swift Boat Veterans for the Truth, a group that questioned Kerry's service in Vietnam and criticized his later opposition to the war. 'They had money behind the lies, and we did not have sufficient money behind the truth,' Kerry laments."

It all sounds like something from the dim and distant past, but in fact, the Swiftboaters are still out in force today. More specifically, the money behind the Swiftboaters is out in force, attempting to swing close elections in several states over to the GOP.

A 527 organization called the Economic Freedom Fund (EFF) has been formed in California to do just that. According to its FEC filing, the Economic Freedom Fund was formed to "promote policies and issues favoring economic freedom, growth and prosperity of the economy." The group's sole donor is a man named Bob J. Perry from Texas. Recently, Perry gave $5 million to the EFF, one of the largest single donations to any 527 organization this year, an amount that exceeds the $4.5 million Perry gave to the Swift Boat Veterans in 2004.

In short, Mr. Perry was the main force behind the Swift Boat Veterans, and is today the main force behind the Economic Freedom Fund. The EFF just made the largest media buy to date in a close Iowa race, to the tune of $446,850, for ads seeking to undercut Democratic incumbent Leonard Boswell. Huge expenditures by EFF for television ads, direct mailings and robo-calls have also been made to affect races in Georgia, West Virginia and Indiana.

This time, however, the Swiftboaters are not going unanswered. James Boyce, a fifteen-year marketing and advertising veteran who served as a senior advisor to Kerry's presidential campaign, has organized a watchdog group called The Patriot Project. Its mission, according to Boyce, is to "defend any man or woman, regardless of party or affiliation, who is attacked or defamed and whose patriotism is questioned simply because they exercise their rights as Americans. The primary way we do this is to expose and make transparent front groups so that voters who hear their advertising and charges can make an informed decision about those claims.

I asked Mr. Boyce what Perry and the EFF are trying to promote with all this spending. "I'm not sure what they're really trying to promote," said Boyce, "but I can promise you that it has precious little to do with either the economy or freedom. What everyone needs to be aware of is that this is a classic right wing 527 front group, nothing more, nothing less. In this case, a very wealthy Republican donor has given an enormous sum of money to a prominent Republican lawyer who is running a 527 out of his law office. There is one donor, one contact for EFF listed in the filing documents and $5,000,000 in the bank."

"Bob Perry is a wealthy Texas Republican donor," continued Boyce, "who invests heavily in Republican candidates and causes. He runs Perry Homes, is one of the top ten political donors in the country, and has been reported, by many sources, to be a good friend of Karl Rove's. Mr. Perry can speak to his motivations but it's been my experience that successful businessmen don't invest a penny without an expectation of a positive return on their investments."

"Public records show that not only was Mr. Perry an early donor to the Swift Boat Veterans For Truth," continued Boyce, "giving $100,000 on June 30, 2004, well before they launched their public efforts that August, but that he also gave $1,000,000 on October 18, 2004, to fund the final advertising push against Senator Kerry. Mr. Perry gave the Swift Boat Veterans $4,450,000 in total in less than four months and was one of three men who essentially funded the Swift Boat attacks. Bob Perry, T. Boone Pickens and Harold Simmons gave the Swift Boaters close to $10,000,000. This is a core fact of right wing front groups. They are not grassroots movements but political operations funded by a small group of very wealthy donors for political gain."

Mr. Perry and the EFF do not appear to be operating wholly in the shadows this time around. The attorney general of Indiana has sued EFF to stop automated telephone calls funded by EFF that are targeting Democratic candidate Baron Hill in the 9th District congressional race.

"The attorney general's office filed a lawsuit in Brown Circuit Court in Nashville seeking temporary and permanent injunctions against the calls as violations of Indiana's telemarketing law and fines of $5,000 for each violation," according to a report by the Associated Press. "A hearing in the case is set for September 27. Attorney General Steve Carter received 12 consumer complaints over the calls, including one from Philip Wilkinson, 41, of Bloomington, who said he was on the state's do-not-call list and is offended by negative political ads."

This is heartening, but Perry and EFF are still making significant waves in several important races. "Let the voter beware," warns Boyce. "At the Patriot Project, we firmly believe that freedom of speech is a cornerstone of our democracy, but we also believe that it's pretty important you know who it is you're actually speaking to. I think the surge of skepticism regarding this group is very encouraging. People are really starting to wonder where these groups come from, who's behind them and what their true goals really are. I think that's a great sign, and we're certainly doing everything we can to aid that process."

Go on-site to view this article and any pictures and to access links to the information if it's provided.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/printer_092006J.shtml
:: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-l-
False Claims About Body Armor
A new group falsely accuses Republicans of voting against body armor for troops. Both sides have misled the public about this issue.

September 20, 2006

Summary
A new ad claims Republican Sen. George Allen of Virginia "voted against giving our troops" modern body armor. He did no such thing. The ad cites a vote on an appropriations amendment that had nothing whatever to do with body armor.

The ad also claims troops were sent to Iraq with flak vests "left over from the Vietnam war," another falsehood. The ad actually shows an improved vest that wasn't available until the 1980's.

The newly formed group responsible for the ad, VoteVets.org, is reported to be considering similar ads attacking several other Republican incumbents, and has already announced their intention to start running them against Sen.Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania.

This is a nasty tactic – accusing an opponent of playing with the lives of American troops – and both sides have stooped to it. This line of attack actually began with Republicans in 2004, when President Bush's campaign repeatedly accused his Democratic opponent John Kerry of voting against body armor.

We de-bunked Bush's claim at the time, but now there is even less excuse to make such an accusation because later investigations have made it clear that the initial shortage of up-to-date body armor was not the result of any vote in Congress, but instead was a classic supply-chain foul-up. The nonpartisan Government Accountability Office laid the shortage to the inability of manufacturers to meet the Pentagon's sudden increase in demand, and logistical mistakes by the Pentagon in getting the gear shipped to Iraq and distributed.

Analysis
The ad is shocking and visually powerful. It shows Pete Granato, an Army reservist who served in Iraq, firing several rounds from an AK-47 assault rifle into a pair of mannequins at a distance of about 50 feet. Granato then rips open the vests to show bullet holes in the abdomen of the figure wearing what he described as a "vest left over from the Vietnam War," but none in the dummy protected by what he refers to as "modern body armor, made for today's weapons."


VoteVets Ad: "Armor"
Granato: AK-47, the rifle of choice for terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan. This is a vest left over from the Vietnam War. It's the protection we were given when we deployed to Iraq.
(Granato shoots AK-47 at vest)
Granato: This is modern body armor, made for today's weapons.
(Granato shoots AK-47 at vest)
Granato: The difference is life or death.

(Mannequins underneath show that modern vest stops bullets but Vietnam-era vest does not.)
Granato: Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him.

On Screen: Source: Vote #116, 108th Congress, 1st Session.

Announcer: Vote Vets is responsible for the content of this advertisement.

A False Statement:
"Voted against" body armor

Granato says of the newer armor, "Senator George Allen voted against giving our troops this. Now it's time for us to vote against him."

That's false. Allen did not vote against giving troops modern body armor. What the ad cites is a vote on an amendment April 2, 2003, just days before the fall of Baghdad, that would have appropriated just over $1 billion for unspecified "National Guard and Reserve Equipment." It made no mention of body armor. And when the admendment's sponsor, Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, took the Senate floor to give examples of the kinds of equipment that might be purchased with this money, she cited "skin reduction exposure paste," "mobile chemical agent detectors," and "collective shelters" for chemical attacks – but didn't once mention buying body armor. Neither did any other senator. Her amendment was killed by a mostly party-line vote.

It is true that in a press release Landrieu quoted the Marine Corps Reserve as saying it needed more "bullet-proof inserts, and tactical vests" before another wave of reservists went to Iraq, among many other items. But neither Landrieu nor any other senator mentioned that during debate.

More importantly, there was already money for buying body armor. As we explain in more detail later in this article, the Pentagon was already in the process of vastly increasing its orders for the latest-model armored vests, and the shortages that plagued some units in Iraq for the first few months of the war were due not to a lack of money, but to the inability of Pentagon contractors to manufacture the vests fast enough to meet the sudden spike in demand, and problems getting the gear shipped to the troops. A report issued in April 2005 said:

GAO: Temporary shortages of the Interceptor body armor occurred because of
acquisition delays related to lack of key materials and distribution problems in theater.

Blaming Sen. Allen for this, or Sen. Kerry for that matter, is just plain wrong.

Another False Statement: "Leftover from Vietnam"

The ad also exaggerates the body-armor problem by falsely claiming that troops were sent to Iraq using vests " left over from the Vietnam War." What the ad actually shows, however, is not a Vietnam-era vest at all but an improved vest the Pentagon adopted in the 1980's, and which was standard issue until the current "Interceptor" armor began to be phased in starting in 1999.

We first became aware of this after seeing a blog post on the subject, and confirmed it with some further research. As you can see for yourself on the well-researched website www.VietnamGear.com, the body armor used in the Vietnam war, for example the M-69 flak vest, came only in shades of olive drab, not the camouflage pattern shown in the ad.

We showed the ad to Simon Shaw, co-founder of the VietnamGear website, who said the vest shown "is not from the Vietnam war." He identified the vest the ad is showing as a Ground Troops Fragmentation Protective Vest that was part of the Personnel Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) introduced after . These later vests were made of Kevlar, not nylon, and offered somewhat greater protection against shrapnel. The Kevlar vests replaced the old nylon vests during the 1980's. It wasn't until 1999 that the Pentagon began to equip troops with the current Interceptor body armor, which uses ceramic plates to stop small-arms rounds.

It is true that the Kevlar vest shown is the type that some troops, especially Reservists, were using in the early months of the Iraq conflict. But calling them "left over from Vietnam" is false. To be accurate on this count, Granato would should have said, "This is a vest left over from 1999."

Other Ads

This ad is just one of many to raise this bogus issue in the 2006 House and Senate elections. We found seven ads, by candidates from both parties and from outside groups such as MoveOn.org, that mention body armor. These ads either fault an opponent for not giving our troops adequate body armor, or highlight a candidate's own support for funding for body armor.

For example, MoveOn.org has used it against six Republican incumbents, claiming they were indifferent to overcharges by Pentagon contractors "at a time when soldiers didn't have enough body armor." And Republican challenger John Raese has claimed that "Robert Byrd voted against a bill that would have provided money for body armor," sending to our troops a message "that we don't care."

But our research leads us to conclude that all these ads are off base. For one thing, all troops in Iraq (and all Pentagon civilians, for that matter) have had the bullet-stopping Interceptor body armor since January 2004. But more importantly, the shortages that existed for the first eight or nine months of the Iraq conflict weren't the fault of Congress. Furthermore, we see nothing Congress could have done that would have ended the shortage sooner.

Because there has been so much misinformation purveyed about this subject by political ads we offer here a brief chronology of how modern military body armor developed, and when it was issued to troops.

Body Armor Timeline

1941-1945 - During World War II dozens of different types of flak jackets and armor are issued to pilots and gunners in the U.S. Air force and the British Royal Air force. The first types consist of heavy steel plates sown into cloth. Different types of armor for ground troops is combat-tested but none are issued as standard equipment.
("Body Armor History," GlobalSecurity.org)

1950-1953 - The Korean War is the first military campaign during which the U.S. military issued body armor to ground soldiers. By the end of the war, soldiers are using vests made of nylon or of Doron, a laminated plastic fiberglass substance. The nylon vests weigh 12 pounds. Both types of vests stopped shrapnel, but not rifle bullets.
("Body Armor History," GlobalSecurity.org; "Armored Vest Fact Sheet," Office of the Quartermaster General. 23 December 1952)

1965-1975 - Vietnam War. The M-69 flak jacket is issued standard to troops. Jackets were made of ballistic nylon. A medium-sized vest weighed about 8 pounds and stopped shrapnel but not rifle bullets.
("Body Armor History," GlobalSecurity.org; "M69 Flak Jacket," Vietnamgear.com)

1980's - The Personal Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) vest is introduced and issued to soldiers. The vest is made of ballistic nylon and Kevlar. A medium sized vest weighs 8.5 pounds and can stop shrapnel.
("Personal Armor System for Ground Troops (PASGT) Vest," GlobalSecurity.org)

1996 - The Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest (ISAPO) is approved for procurement by the armed forces on a limited basis. The ISAPO contains ceramic protective plates that can stop small-arms fire, including that of an AK-47. It weighs 16.5 pounds and is worn over the PASGT vest, for a total weight of 25 pounds.
("Interim Small Arms Protective Overvest," GlobalSecurity.org)

Summer, 1999 - The Interceptor body armor replaces the PASGT as standard issue body armor for front-line soldiers in the Army. The vest weighs 8 pounds, and two ceramic Small Arms Protective Inserts (SAPI) each weigh 4 pounds, for a total of 16 pounds. It can stop shrapnel and small-arms fire, including that of an AK-47. The Army plans to issue Interceptor body armor to U.S. forces gradually, over an eight-year period ending in 2007.
("Interceptor Body Armor," GlobalSecurity.org; Cox, Matthew, "Enter the Interceptor: Light Infantry Gets Even Lighter with New Armor," Army Times. July 1999. GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

October 7, 2001 - Operation Enduring Freedom commences to remove the Taliban from power in Afghanistan. Army distributes Interceptor armor to military personnel during this operation.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

March 20, 2003 - Operation Iraqi Freedom begins. At the time, the Interceptor body armor is issued standard to Army and Marine ground troops. Most support troops (such as truck drivers) and National Guard and Reserve troops still lack the bullet-stopping Interceptor armor, however. In anticipation of the war, the Pentagon already has increased its orders sharply. As the war starts quarterly orders for vests reach 77,000 – nine times higher than pre-war levels. Orders for plates reach 109,000, eleven times higher than previously.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

April 9, 2003 - Baghdad falls. Around this time the Army stops ordering Interceptor body armor, according to a later investigation by the Army Inspector General, as quoted in The New York Times.
(Moss, Michael, "Many Missteps Tied to Delay of Armor to Protect Soldiers," New York Times .)

May 2003 - Army reverses course, orders Interceptor body armor be issued to all soldiers, including support troops.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations ," April 2005)

October 2003 - Military commanders order that Interceptor armor be given to all military and civilian personnel in Iraq, Kuwait, and Afghanistan.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

October 21, 2003 - At a House subcommittee hearing , Lt. Gen. Richard A. Cody, an Army Deputy Chief of Staff, is asked several times if the Army has enough money to cover the costs of buying Interceptor body armor for all soldiers. Cody repeatedly says "yes."

November 19, 2003 - Senate Armed Services Committee holds hearings on delays in supplying troops in Iraq amidst reports of families buying armor privately and sending it to soldiers.

December, 2003 - Back orders for Interceptor vests and protective plates spike to their highest levels. Over 300,000 vests are on back order; over 500,000 plates. (GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

January 2004 - All soldiers serving in Iraq have been issued body armor according to US Central Command.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

April, 2005 - The Government Accountability Office reports that the initial shortage of Interceptor body armor resulted from the sudden surge in demand which manufacturers couldn't meet, due to shortages of Kevlar fabric and of a critical material used in ceramic plates. It also faults the Pentagon logistics system, which it says was trying to ship units so fast (sometimes directly from the factory to the troops) that it lost track of thousands of vests and plates.
(GAO, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005)

January 7, 2006 - The New York Times reports a secret Marine Corps study showing that 80 per cent of fatalities in Iraq from upper-body wounds could be avoided with expanded body armor that covers sides of torso. However, this expanded body armor can add 12.4 pounds, bringing the total weight of the armor to as much as 31 pounds for a medium sized vest.
(Moss, Michael, "Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor," New York Times; "Interceptor Body Armor Fact Sheet," Program Executive Office Solider.)

March 17, 2006 - In response to reports of soldiers employing alternative types of body armor, such as Dragon Skin, the army announces that all commanders should ensure that soldiers are only using the Interceptor body armor and its components. Depending on modifications, the Dragon Skin can actually be heavier than the Interceptor, though supporters prefer its flexibility. The product is sold privately, but not approved by the Army because it failed ballistics tests.

May 31, 2006 - Army deadline for proposals to develop a new generation of body armor that is lighter and less cumbersome than the Interceptor armor.

October 3, 2006 - Deadline for soldiers to file with the army for reimbursement for body armor purchased by them or their families.

by Brooks Jackson and Justin Bank

Sources
Government Accountability Office, "Defense Logistics: Actions Needed
to Improve the Availability of Critical Items during Current and Future Operations," April 2005.

Moss, Michael, "The Conflict in Iraq: Protection," New York Times . 7 March 2005.

Hedges, Michael, "Bulletproof vests target of debate," The Houston Chronicle . 18 Oct. 2003.

Loeb, Vernon and Labbe, Theola, "Body Armor Saves Lives in Iraq; Pentagon Criticized for Undersupply of Protective Vests," Washington Post . 4 Dec. 2003.

Kennedy, Edward M. and Hart, Brian and Alma, "Pentagon Still Failing to Protect the Troops," Boston Globe . 3 Feb. 2005.

Moss, Michael, "Pentagon Study Links Fatalities to Body Armor," New York Times. 7 Jan. 2006.

"All Deployed Soldiers Should Have Body Armor by November," Association of the United States Army. 21 Oct. 2003.

"Army Speeds Body Armor Buys," Association of the United States Army. 9 Oct. 2003.

This message was sent from FactCheck.org to %Member:Email%. It was sent from FactCheck.org, 320 National Press Building, Washington, DC 20045

http://www.FactCheck.org

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllHalliburton ambush in Iraq caught on video

WASHINGTON, Sept. 21 (HalliburtonWatch.org) -- HalliburtonWatch has obtained the first video of an ambush against a Halliburton convoy in Iraq that resulted in the deaths of three truckers who worked for the company's KBR subsidiary.

First video link: http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/reports/ambush_abb.ram

Watch the video by clicking this link. (same as above)

The video, shot on Sept. 20, 2005 by KBR truck driver Preston Wheeler, shows what initially appears to be a routine convoy of sixteen-wheeler trucks delivering supplies to U.S. troops.

But the convoy enters tiny Iraqi towns along the highway and children begin throwing rocks at the trucks.

KBR's drivers are heard on the radio communicating with each other:

"KBR just took two rocks [on the] right side, no glass broke," one driver reported.

"It's raining rocks," another driver exclaims.

Wheeler, the trucker videotaping the ride, hits a power line above the road. "I took out some of their power lines," he says for the camera. "It'll give them something to fix, won't it?" he asks.

It later becomes apparent that the convoy is on the wrong road because the road map provided by KBR and the military was incorrect.

"We made a wrong turn. Our military took us the wrong way," Wheeler tells his camera. A soldier is heard on the radio saying, "My map is evidently wrong." So, the convoy was forced to turn-around and head back through the same town that greeted the convoy with "raining rocks" only a few minutes earlier. "We're going back through hell," Wheeler laments. He nervously comments on the danger that awaits him and his fellow truckers by saying, "This is gonna be one good video right here, boy ... it's gonna be good."

In Iraq for Sale, http://www.iraqforsale.org/ Robert Greenwald's new film, a widow of one the dead drivers in another convoy massacre in 2004 complained that KBR drivers are not given road maps. Another widow said, "These men went to do the right thing [and] they were totally taken advantage of ... [Halliburton] knew, they knew, that there was more than a good chance that they would be killed." And one of the drivers who survived said, "It's about contracts ... fulfilling the contract and replacing us if we died."

But KBR and the military prepared for troop safety and logistics matters like road maps only after the fall of Baghdad, according to a KBR executive. http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/troop_safety.html

Apparently, flawed maps used in Wheeler's convoy played a role in causing the Sept. 20, 2005, massacre.

After the convoy began retracing its route to find the correct road, Wheeler's ominous prediction of imminent danger was proven correct by erupting gunfire and exploding bombs, proving resistance fighters prepared for the convoy's return through the town.

Suddenly, a bomb explodes and a bullet hole is seen in Wheeler's windshield. "God damn, IED on the left side!" he reports to the military on the radio, referring to improvised explosive devices (IEDs) that have claimed hundreds of American lives. Small arms fire is heard again. "Jesus Christ!" Wheeler cries. "Help us all, Lord!"

One of the truckers on the radio can be heard saying, "I'm hit, I'm hit!"

As gunfire pounds the convoy, a soldier is heard on the radio confidently saying, "Keep moving guys! Get out of the kill zone!"

Wheeler proclaims "I got it on video, by God!" Again, he says, "God, help us all, Lord!"

Moments later, Wheeler calls for help because enemy fire has forced his truck to stall. In fact, the entire convoy is stalled and taking pot-shots by the resistance. An IED has caused a truck to overturn ahead of Wheeler's truck. "I am down!" Wheeler screams into the radio. Small arms fire continues. "Truck Five cannot move!" he says. "Please help me! I'm taking fire!"

Despite the threat to his life, Wheeler is relatively composed and able to deal with the harrowing situation. He even continues holding the camera and videotaping the unfolding massacre.

As the military fails to offer aid, he angrily screams into the radio for help: "I'm fixing to get killed, God dammit! I cannot move! Truck Five cannot move! Copy? I am getting shot! Someone get their ass back here now, please!"

Other drivers in the crippled convoy can be heard on the radio imploring the military for help and screaming "Gun truck! Gun truck! Gun truck!" But the gun truck fails to arrive.

"Sir, I have no gun back here and ... I am by myself," Wheeler, hoping the military will hear his plea, reports into the radio. (KBR employees are forbidden to carry weapons.)

Realizing no help is coming as enemy fire continues, Wheeler narrates for his camera, saying, "You're damn right I'm scared! I'm going home when this shit's done! When this shit's done, I'm fucking out of here!"

As small arms fire intensifies against the truck ahead, Wheeler witnesses the killing of a fellow driver ahead of him. He screams into the radio, "They just killed him! Oh Jesus! Oh, my God!"

The video ends.

Three KBR truck drivers were killed that day. They are Keven Dagit, 42 (in truck 3), of Jefferson, Iowa; Christopher Lem, 40, (in truck 1) of Lyndon Station, Wisconsin; and Sascha Grenner-Case (in truck 4) of Sierra Vista, Arizona. Wheeler, who lives in Arkansas, was shot and barely survived. Two other drivers, including Terry Steward (in truck 2) of Idaho, were also injured.
:: :: :: :: ::
More Information:

Watch the short version of the ambush video:

http://www.halliburtonwatch/reports/ambush_abb.ram

Watch the long version of the ambush video:
http://www.halliburtonwatch/reports/KBR_ambush.ram


Link to original article:

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/news/ambush.html

To view the video, you'll need RealPlayer Version 10 (or later) on your computer. Download the latest version of RealPlayer onto your computer at this link. (go on-site to do this.)

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org
lllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
States say new IDs could cost billions
By
ANDREW WELSH-HUGGINS,Associated Press Writer
2 hours, 3 minutes ago

COLUMBUS, Ohio - New federal security rules for issuing driver's licenses could cost $11 billion to implement, raising concerns among states about paying for the changes, according to a national survey of states released Thursday.
"There's no question that state legislators believe driver's licenses should be as secure as is possible," said William Pound, executive director of the National Conference of State Legislatures which helped conduct the survey. "The $11 billion question is, 'Who's going to pay for it?'"

The requirements — which are not final — are part of the Real ID Act of 2005, which grew out of a recommendation by the Sept. 11 commission.

The law requires states to incorporate common security features to prevent tampering or counterfeiting, such as using standard materials in every state to print the cards. States will have to verify the legitimacy of documents used to obtain a license and buy equipment to digitally store those documents.

Without such features on their licenses, people would not be allowed to board an airplane or enter a federal building.

Seven of the Sept. 11, 2001, hijackers exploited a loophole that allowed people to obtain driver's licenses and ID cards by submitting sworn statements instead of proof of residency or identity.

The biggest cost, about $8.5 billion, would come in re-enrolling the 245 million people who already have driver's licenses and identification cards, the survey found. Those people would have to show documents like birth certificates and Social Security cards at motor vehicle offices.

"If you can't find those documents, you might find yourself walking instead of driving," Tom Wolfsohn, chief policy officer for the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators, said Thursday.

The Department of Homeland Security said the government worked closely with associations representing states as it prepared the report.

"Congress passed the Real ID act to help ensure that other potential terrorists don't similarly use fraudulent documents to board planes, enter nuclear facilities or gain authorized access to federal facilities," Homeland Security spokesman Jarrod Agen said Wednesday.

The agency will release its own cost estimates with its final rules by the end of the year, he said.

The law authorizes Congress to pay for the changes but doesn't specify an amount. Pound said the government has released $6 million to date for state pilot programs.

Typically, state motor vehicle agencies are financed by a combination of gasoline taxes, fees and fines. So the extra costs tied to the new security rules could be passed along to consumers.

The survey does not break down the costs by state. States earlier released estimates to The Associated Press, based on equipment they expect to buy, training they must do and the potential hiring of new employees.

Officials in California, with 25 million licensed drivers and ID card holders, said it would cost $500 million over five years to comply with the law. Texas, with 15 million licensed drivers, said startup costs could reach $167 million with annual, ongoing costs of $101 million a year.

Ohio, with a stubbornly high unemployment rate and a recent history of tight budgets, said implementation could cost about $45 million, with about $15 million in new, annual costs.

North Dakota, with a motor vehicle department budget of just $5 million, estimated it would cost up to $15 million to implement the changes.

The survey released Thursday was conducted by NCSL, the National Governors Association and the American Association of Motor Vehicle Administrators.
:: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::
On the Net:
Homeland Security: http://www.dhs.gov

National Governors Association: http://www.nga.org

National Conference of State Legislatures: http://www.ncsl.org :: :: :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Sirotablog
Real-world wisdom from outside the beltway.
9.21.06

The tidal wave heading straight for the hall of mirrors

There are times every now and again where you just have to step back and behold the absurdity of it all. You have to step back from the day-to-day trench wars and just marvel at how entrenched power really is in this, the country where we still cling to Horatio Alger fables or "anyone can grow up to be president" myths. What I find particularly fascinating is the intricacy and careful calibration of the propaganda system that holds this whole structure up. Like a hall of mirrors, our political debate is, in every way, designed to perpetuate the status quo. But no hall of mirrors can withstand the impact of a big enough tidal wave, which is why those inside the hall are freaking out.
Consider, for a moment, the frothing, fulminating bile now being spit from the highest reaches of Washington, D.C.'s media establishment. A few months ago, we saw one major columnist at the largest newspaper in the world say voters should not have the right to decide elections in America anymore. Not only was he not shunned for his screed, he continues to appear regularly on television as an objective, god-fearing patriotic American. Soon after that, in the face of polls showing the vast majority of Americans oppose the Iraq War, a top Washington blowhard from one of the largest television networks in the country appeared on TV to label every Democrat who has questioned the war "as weak, Jane Fonda-type Democrats."

But really, that was only the beginning. Since then, as voter discontent with the war, stagnating wages, job outsourcing and the general direction of the country has escalated, Washington has battened the hatches, and gone from spitting bile to firing tank ordnance at the oncoming battalions of ordinary people who, goddamned them, dare to think they should be able to have some say in their own country. Washington Post columnist David Broder - the so-called dean of the Washington press corps - called voters who want change "elitist insurgents" - a not-so-subtle attempt to conflate American voters with terrorists. Then there was my personal favorite - David Brooks sitting there in his pink shirt with a smarmy half-grin in Northwest Washington telling the country "Don't Worry, Be Happy." Brooks breathed a sigh of relief that "the Clintonite centrists are reasserting their intellectual, financial and political supremacy" and that Hillary Clinton gave a speech that scholars at the fringe-right-wing American Enterprise institute "called remarkably centrist." Thank god, said Brooks, that the "renegades who rail against the establishment are being eclipsed by the canny establishmentarians" because, according to him, "They're the ones who know how to use the levers of government to get things done." Ah yes, with war raging in the Mideast, poverty rising in America, people struggling to pay their bills, Clinton-backed free trade deals shipping jobs overseas - thank the lord that the same old crew was supposedly reasserting itself because that record shows "they know how to get things done."

He's not 100 percent wrong, of course - these people do know "how to get things done" - but only exclusively for the fat cats who pay to get a seat at the table - the fat cats that people like David Brooks feel most comfortable with; the fat cats that way too many Democratic officials are more than happy to go brag to reporters about shaking down even as they deride the GOP's culture of corruption.

Incredibly, however, none of the establishment's old tricks seem to be working anymore. All of the Jedi mind tricks, all of the false storylines, all of the Clockwork Orange-style indoctrination efforts just don't seem to be sticking. And that's why it's gotten so ugly of late.

Today, we see David Broder quite literally losing control of his faculties on the pages of the Washington Post. You can almost see the veins popping out of that shiny white forehead you've gotten so used to seeing on Meet the Press. Like the bad, overdone stereotype of the crotchety senior who is angry that the world around him is changing, Broder declares that there needs to be "a new movement in this country" to "resist "the extremist elements in American society." Who are these extremists? Why, people who use the Internet to politically organize and engage. Yes, according to Broder, "bloggers" are the moral equivalent of "doctrinaire religious extremists" - yet again, another not-so-subtle effort to portray anyone who dares to excercize their democratic rights as an Osama bin Laden supporter. He then fires off a screed about various politicians such as Rep. Sherrod Brown. He calls him "a loud advocate of protectionist policies that offer a false hope of solving our trade and job problems." Right, becaue in David Broder's cloistered world, the "free" trade deals Brown has opposed have done such wonders for places like Ohio. In David Broder's world, those hundreds of thousands of blue collar workers who have been thrown out onto the street thanks to NAFTA and China PNTR are the filth of the earth that high and mighty elite Washington journalists like him cannot be bothered with. In David Broder's world, any request for our trade pacts to include restrictions on child slavery, environmental degradation, and pharmaceutical industry profiteering off desperately poor people, positively un-American. Why? Because David Broder lives in a place where all of these critical issues are merely just more fodder and gossip for a newspaper column - not real challenges in his life, nor in the life of the people he spends his time with in the Washington Beltway.

At the very least, Broder realizes that the American public is outraged at the twisted moral compass that govern him and his buddies. That's why he is freaking out. But there are still some who are prancing around, spewing happy talk, making a fast buck, totally unaware of what's really going on out here in the real world, and perhaps even more insulting, totally unconcerned about their own naked hypocrisy. For instance, just this week, we see former Treasury Secretary Robert Rubin, now the head of Citigroup, standing on a stage with a straight face and holding a seminar about the best ways to alleviate international poverty. That this man was the top architect of the international trade policies that have exacerbated both domestic and international poverty is an afterthought. That this same man holding this seminar still refuses to acknowledge the culpability of the trade policies he has jammed down the world's throat is not to be mentioned. All that matters to the fawning media and political establishment is that this much-worshipped moneyman is on stage saying we need to help poor people. It makes you wonder if at some point soon, we'll be seeing Jack Abramoff holding a seminar on ethics and morals in the political arena. Simultaneously, courageous reformers like Sen. Byron Dorgan (D) who has written a serious, bestselling book about how to really fix our economic policies are shoved to the side, barely getting mentioned in the press, while financial-industry-hack-turned-congressmen Rahm Emanuel and his buddy Bruce Reed who heads a corporate front group are given oodles of press attention for publishing a barely-selling pamphlet of warmed-over hollow talking points perpetuating the status quo and reinforcing negative stereotypes about those who want real change.

At this same conference, we see images of New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman laughing it up with Pakistani dictator Pervez Musharraf. That's right, the columnist who piously champions his supposed commitment to spreading democracy is happily, publicly hamming it up with a brutal central Asian dictator. Ah yes, because it's all just so goddamned hilarious to a New York Times columnist who can sit back in his 12,000 square foot Bethesda mansion, count his $2 billion family fortune, tell the world how much he really truly cares about freedom, push American soldiers into the Baghdad shooting gallery, advocate destructive trade policies that he brags about not having even read, and blaming Americans whose economic lives have been decimated by those trade policies for not better educating themselves. It's all just so goddamned funny for Tom Friedman, because he gets to do all that, yet still also gets to ham it up every few weeks on national television with Tim Russert, and gets to be on stage with his good friend Bill Clinton and pretend to be serious.

Of course, Clinton, who convened the conference that featured Rubin and Friedman, was recently the recipient of a 20,000 word New Yorker article that was the journalistic equivalent of what Monica Lewinsky did to him in those steamy Oval Office days. In the article, New Yorker editor David Remnick proclaims from the mountaintop Clinton's supposed devotion to solving the African AIDS crisis, but never once - not once - bothers to take a moment in between lavish banquets and starfucking exchanges to actually ask Clinton why, if he was so committed to stopping this awful plague, he insisted on passing trade deals that included provisions specifically designed to allow pharmaceutical companies to inflate AIDS drug prices in the developing world? But then, if you are David Remnick and all that really gives you a professional hard-on is getting to eat barbeque in Bill Clinton's private apartment in his palatial presidential library, why would you ask such a question? Because really, the only ones who care about the answer to such a question are the millions of impoverished peasants who were never able to afford AIDS medications thanks to those trade provisions - and those aren't the people David Remnick hangs out with or is writing for.

The same disconnection from reality is prevalent among many politicians - which might explain why some of them now are reacting so angrily to the fact that yes, they do have to face voters for reelection. Take Joe Lieberman. When confronted with the fact that he skipped more than half of all U.S. Senate votes on the Iraq War and most of the votes on the destructive Medicare bill so as to attend fundraisers for himself, he angrily claimed there is a moral equivalence between him as a full-time, $160,000-a-year U.S. Senator skipping decisions on the most pressing national security and health care questions in American history, and his opponent missing 6 votes on a part-time town council 15 years ago. He also says with a straight face that the reason he worked so hard to stop health care reform in the 1990s was because he cared about small business - but then he conveniently forgets to mention that he authored legislation to raise taxes on small business health benefits.

Then there is Rep. Nancy Johnson (R) who is now airing television ads saying that asking President Bush to obtain search warrants after he's wiretapped phones as the law requires would dangerously slow down the original wiretapping. Put another way, she's actually asking audiences to quite literally believe that the basic laws of space and time do not exist. Meanwhile, chickenhawks who refused to serve in the military when they had the chance continue to sit comfortably in their Washington think tank offices and transform their sick insecurities of personal weakness and frailty into screams for more American soldiers to be sent to die in Iraq.

What you see here, folks, is that all of it - the elections, the public policies, the future of the country - is one big joke to the people in power, and they are willing to lie, cheat and distort anything to protect the integrity of that joke they are so happily enjoying. They don't want anyone asking questions of them. They don't want anyone thinking they have a right to use democracy to change things. They are fat and happy and putting the pedal to the metal in their sleek sports car on the great American highway overpass - and anyone who tries to slow them down, run them off the road or make them just glance at the blight below gets the big, road-raged middle finger.

When I get up everyday at 5:30am to start working, it is still dark out. I read through the clips and digest the daily does of ever-more raw hatred coming from our nation's capital and directed at the majority of Americans. Then I try to have some breakfast without feeling totally demoralized. But as I look out on the darkness outside, I always remind myself of the famous parable: "It is always darkest before the dawn." Win or lose, November 7th isn't going to change everything. But win or lose, it's clear that things are already changing. The rising anger coming from the halls of power are a reflection of the establishment's deep understanding that change is coming. The screams from the angry pundits and the desperate politicians and the paying-to-play lobbyists are like the early warning sirens at a beach. And just over the horizon, they see that tidal wave coming.

Posted by David Sirota at 11:58 AM

categories: Out-of-Touch Elitists

http://www.workingforchange.com/blog/

Go on-site to view article and any links if posted by clicking on the link above. :: :: :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

*
Remembering Ann Richards
Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

09.15.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- She was so generous with her responses to other people. If you told Ann Richards something really funny, she wouldn't just smile or laugh, she would stop and break up completely. She taught us all so much -- she was a great campfire cook. Her wit was a constant delight. One night on the river on a canoe trip, while we all listened to the next rapid, which sounded like certain death, Ann drawled, "It sounds like every whore in El Paso just flushed her john."

She knew how to deal with teenage egos: Instead of pointing out to a kid who was pouring charcoal lighter on a live fire that he was idiot, Ann said, "Honey, if you keep doing that, the fire is going to climb right back up to that can in your hand and explode and give you horrible injuries, and it will just ruin my entire weekend."

She knew what it was like to have four young children and to be so tired you cried while folding the laundry. She knew and valued Wise Women like Virginia Whitten and Helen Hadley.

At a long-ago political do at Scholz Garten in Austin, everybody who was anybody was there meetin' and greetin' at a furious pace. A group of us got the tired feet and went to lean our butts against a table at the back wall of the bar. Perched like birds in a row were Bob Bullock, then state comptroller, moi, Charles Miles, the head of Bullock's personnel department, and Ms. Ann Richards. Bullock, 20 years in Texas politics, knew every sorry, no good sumbitch in the entire state. Some old racist judge from East Texas came up to him, "Bob, my boy, how are you?"

Bullock said, "Judge, I'd like you to meet my friends: This is Molly Ivins with the Texas Observer."

The judge peered up at me and said, "How yew, little lady?"

Bullock, "And this is Charles Miles, the head of my personnel department." Miles, who is black, stuck out his hand, and the judge got an expression on his face as though he had just stepped into a fresh cowpie. He reached out and touched Charlie's palm with one finger, while turning eagerly to the pretty, blonde, blue-eyed Ann Richards. "And who is this lovely lady?"

Ann beamed and replied, "I am Mrs. Miles."

One of the most moving memories I have of Ann is her sitting in a circle with a group of prisoners. Ann and Bullock had started a rehab program in prisons, the single most effective thing that can be done to cut recidivism (George W. Bush later destroyed the program). The governor of Texas looked at the cons and said, "My name is Ann, and I am an alcoholic."

She devoted untold hours to helping other alcoholics, and anyone who ever heard her speak at an AA convention knows how close laughter and tears can be.

I have known two politicians who completely reformed the bureaucracies they were elected to head. Bob Bullock did it by kicking ass at the comptroller's until hell wouldn't have it. Fear was his m.o. Ann Richards did it by working hard to gain the trust of the employees and then listening to what they told her. No one knows what's wrong with a bureaucracy better than the bureaucrats who work in it.

The 1990 race for governor was one of the craziest I ever saw, with Ann representing "New Texas."

Republican nominee Claytie Williams was a perfect foil, down to his boots, making comments that could be construed as racist and sexist. Ann was the candidate of everybody else, especially for women. She represented all of us who have lived with and learned to handle good ol' boys, and she did it with laughter. The spirit of the crowd that set off from the Congress Avenue Bridge up to the Capitol the day of Ann's inauguration was so full of spirit and joy. I remember watching San Antonio Mayor Henry Cisneros that day with tears running down his cheeks because Chicanos were finally included.

Ann got handed a stinking mess: Damn near every state function was under court order. The prisons were so crowded, dangerous convicts were being let loose. She had a long, grinding four years and wound up fixing all of it. She always said you could get a lot done in politics if you didn't need to take credit.

But she disappointed many of her fans because she was so busy fixing what was broken, she never got to change much. The '94 election was a God, gays and guns deal. Annie had told the legislature that if they passed a right-to-carry law, she would veto it. They did, and she did. At the last minute, the NRA launched a big campaign to convince the governor that we Texas women would feel ever so much safer if we could just carry guns in our purses.

Said Annie, "Well, you know that I am not a sexist, but there is not a woman in this state who could find a gun in her handbag."

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21364

Go on-site to view this article and others by Molly Ivins, as well as the several Columinists, and cartoonists who contribute to this site lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

*
The presidential 3-year-old

Molly Ivins - Creators Syndicate

09.20.06 - AUSTIN, Texas -- Is it just me, or was that the worst presidential press conference in history? So I went back and read it over. Of course, in print you don't get the testy tone: I heard it on radio and thought the man was about to blow up -- not just because he was being questioned, which Bush appears to consider an offensive action in the first place, but because people continue to refuse to see things the way he does. How can they be so stupid or malign, he appears to wonder.

I ask: How can he be so repetitive, repeatedly using the oldest tactic of a verbal bully -- saying the same thing louder, as though that would make it true?

Last Friday's Rose Garden press conference seemed so awful I thought it worth wading through it again to see what set him off. Maybe if you saw it on television, it seemed better. Perhaps his banter with reporters works better on TV. But I left with the impression that this is a spoiled man whose frustration level when someone disagrees with him is that of a 3-year-old and that he's the last person you want to see operating under a lot of stress because he doesn't handle it well.


See what you think:

Q: "On both the eavesdropping program and the detainee issues --"

A: "We call it the terrorist surveillance program, Hutch."

Yo. Sometimes I'm convinced this is a war of words. Should we call it surveillance or eavesdropping? Is the detainee issue about holding terrorists, or is it about torturing them and then trying them without telling them what evidence we have against them? If we stop calling it eavesdropping plus torture with kangaroo trials, will it stop being eavesdropping, torture and kangaroo trials, and become "anti-terrorist activity"? Who gets to name things? Would a rose by any other name, like skunkwort, smell as sweet?

Sen. John McCain, who knows more than President Bush about torture in captivity, thinks abandoning the Geneva Convention rules leaves American soldiers in peril of being tortured in turn and us without a court of resort to look to.

It's a thorny issue, but Bush kept getting more and more annoyed as he reiterated, "And I will tell you again, David, you can ask every hypothetical (question) you want, but the American people have got to know the facts. And the bottom line is simple: If Congress passes a law that does not clarify the rules, if they do not do that, the program is not going forward." (In other words, we will not hold tribunals for suspected terrorists.) In what court in what world is not allowing the defendant to hear the evidence against him held to be just?

Bush kept insisting the legislation to permit such tribunals is vital and "the program will not go forward without it" because young intelligence officers might be accused of breaking the law(!).

"Let's see if I can put it (Article III of the Geneva Convention) this way for people to understand. There is a very vague standard that the (U.S. Supreme) Court said must kind of be the guide for our conduct in the war on terror and detainee policy. It's so vague that it's impossible to ask anybody to participate in the program for fear ... of breaking the law. That's the problem."

Actually, the problem is the proposed program of tribunals is illegal -- and not just young intelligence officers, but potentially old war criminals are at risk, as well.



Now here's a Bush classic, clarifying the matter with exquisite precision:

Q: "Well, recently you've also described bin Laden as sort of a modern-day Hitler or Mussolini. And I'm wondering why, if you can explain why you think it's a bad idea to send more resources to hunt down bin Laden, wherever he is? "

A: "We are, Richard. Thank you. Thanks for asking the question. They were asking me about somebody's report, well, special forces here -- Pakistan -- if he is in Pakistan, as this person thought he might be, who is asking the question -- Pakistan is a sovereign nation. In order for us to send thousands of troops into a sovereign nation, we've got to be invited by the government of Pakistan.

"Secondly, the best way to find somebody who is hiding is to enhance your intelligence and to spend the resources necessary to do that; then when you find him, you bring him to justice. And there is a kind of an urban myth here in Washington about how this administration hasn't stayed focused on Osama bin Laden. Forget it. It's convenient throw-away lines when people say that."

Now that's a problem. Because in the summer lead-up to the war in Iraq, both administration officials and Bush himself repeatedly deemphasized the importance of Osama bin Laden. This was, of course, after they had let him slip away at Tora Bora, a mistake increasingly denounced within the military itself.

As resources were transferred out of Afghanistan and toward Iraq, we were repeatedly told that bin Laden was not central to the war on terror, it would continue with or without him, he was no longer our focus. There was a flurry of commentary at the time about this odd decision, but Saddam Hussein was being presented as the great menace and monster, and bin Laden was off the table.


You might think this is a classic fork: either they were lying then or they are lying now. But it would just take Bush longer to explain.

(c) 2006 Creators Syndicate

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21388 :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: ::
9/11 plus 5
Will Durst
-
WorkingForChange.com

09.08.06 - Monday is the fifth anniversary of IX-XI, and President Bush has apparently decided to prepare us for our national day of mourning by delivering a weeklong series of seminars on fear-mongering. Okay, okay, maybe "fear-mongering" is a bit much. Perhaps a better phrase would be "PR campaign of cheap political calculation," or "systematic exploitative pandering" or "a typical sleazy example from the Karl Rove electioneering handbook." Or as we have to come know it during the last six years: "business as usual."

First Dubyah played the Nazi card, comparing Democratic plans for a phased withdrawal of our forces from Iraq to Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler in '39. I'm surprised he didn't unveil secret footage of Nancy Pelosi brandishing a rolled-up umbrella. Then he played the Red Menace card, invoking Lenin and intimating a hammer and sickle tattoo on Howard Dean's forehead -- invisible only due to a thickly slapped-on layer of Dark Egyptian Number 4 make up.

And if these two jackbooted images don't do the trick, expect to hear him summon up other, more ancient scourges -- the Huns and the Mongols and the Visigoths -- in his never ending quest to keep Americans all aquiver so we run and hide behind his urban camouflaged pants right up until the clock strikes 8 pm PST, November 7, 2006. Screw Hawaii.

Uncharacteristically, Democrats refused to curl up in their customary fetal position at the sound of the President's big bad rhetoric. Dems ratcheted up their criticism of his war policies, calling for the institutionalized bitch-slapping of Donald Rumsfeld in a transparently futile attempt to get the Secretary of Defense to join 10,000 Intel workers in next month's unemployment line. Predictable as a papier mache roof in a Category 3 Hurricane? Yes. But as they say about fire, it take politics to fight politics.

White House spokesman Tony Snow knee-slapped and guffawed and scoffed at the Democrats' proposal, stating that portraying Rumsfeld as a bogeyman "may make for good politics but makes for lousy strategy." And one can't immediately discount that opinion, because if anybody has experience with lousy strategies, it's this White House.

An administration that strategized the best way to stem terrorist activity was to invade a country that had none. An administration that stragetized that applying car battery contacts to a prisoner's nipples was not torture because it wasn't life threatening. An administration that stragetized that causing the death of over 100,000 noncombatant Iraqis was going to win over the hearts and minds of their countrymen. An administration that considers the best strategist to be the one who finds the biggest stick. Do the names Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld and John Bolton have any meaning here?

In just one of his series of deep tissue massages of fear and loathing, Bush mentioned Osama bin Laden by name 18 times, conveniently neglecting to mention it was BUSH HIMSELF who DISBANDED the CIA division devoted to FINDING the six-foot seven-inch Arabian guy traipsing around the Kyhber Pass dragging behind him a solar-powered kidney dialysis machine from the Islamabad Sharper Image Catalogue.

A long long time ago, in a galaxy far far away, the President spoke to the country of bin Laden: "He can run but he can't hide." You know what, it's been five years. I think they're both hiding. One behind the billowing skirts of the other.

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, burden to his family Will Durst, after his vacation, doesn't need Dark Egyptian Number 4.

Catch Durst in standup form at 142 Thockmorton in Mill Valley on Thursday, September 7, @ 8 pm, and at the Last Day Saloon in Santa Rosa, on Saturday, September 9, @ 8 pm. And in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7-10 am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21334 :: :: :: :: :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::
The victims of 9/12
Will Durst - WorkingForChange.com

09.14.06 - With Labor Day over, it took stores about 14 seconds to get rid of their "back-to-school" displays and replace them with shelves of Halloween regalia. Never missing a beat, Karl Rove had George W. Bush get an early start on the pagan celebration: Donning the most frightening disguise available, Bush headed out to spook the countryside in a weeklong variation on the old "trick and treat" trek. This "fear and smear" tour featured the President digging deep into the pockets of his Pumpkin King costume, tossing seeds of dread and horror to all who watched the media deluge of mourning in America on the 5th anniversary of 9/11.

I know I cowered. But I can't figure out if my reflex recoil was caused by the sight of the super-serious mask Bush uses to hide his condescending smirk; the sheer gall of his distorted reasoning; or the threat that Cheney was going to detach his jaw and swallow Tim Russert whole. Maybe these guys really do believe the BS that oozes out of their mouths. Or maybe they're just testing the limits of the whole Joseph Goebbels Big Lie propaganda theory. Wouldn't that explain a lot, if this were all just a failed senior thesis? Just take the incomplete and get it over with.

"The lessons of 9/11." "The horrors of 9/11." "The victims of 9/11." It's all become... "The dial tone of 9/11." They chanted it like an airplane hangar full of Buddhist initiates. Mr. Solemn and Mr. Sober. Pouring their hearts out for the families of the victims of 9/11. Yeah, right. Apparently, Messrs. Bush & Cheney have so much respect for the victims of 9/11 that they molded their ashes into a football and kicked them around the country for a week of electioneering photo ops. "The hardest part of my job is linking Iraq with the war on terror." Well, yeah. Rumpelstiltskin's hardest job was spinning gold out of straw.

You aren't honoring the victims of September 11th. You're dishonoring them by kicking their remains around for petty partisan purposes. Why don't you honor the survivors of 9/11 by telling the truth for once? Iraq was a mistake. And when I say survivors of 9/11, I mean us. The victims of 9/12. This is an election year, and we know your scary overture was just the beginning of a five act opera. It's time to get out our BS umbrellas, and keep them upraised for seven more weeks. Hopefully enough time for we victims of 9/12 to band together and kick you heartless, greedy, sanctimonious thugs out of office. Nothing personal, I mean that in a good way.

I hope the point of diminishing returns has been reached. That these guys have gone to the well one too many times and there's a hole at the bottom of their bucket. That the boys who cried Wolfowitz will finally get their comeuppance and the 110th Congress will wreak holy nonsecular havoc. That the people have had it with their load of Iraq BS and ain't buying it no more. That the message we will hear rain down from the purple mountain's majesty will be, "Stop it, Mr Bush, and get thee away from us now. And take that hideous Cheney thing with you."

Comic, writer, actor, radio talk show host, and Wookie fan Will Durst thinks the scariest costume this Halloween will be a Vice Presidential mask.

Catch Durst in radio talk show host mode on Keeping it Real With Will & Willie. Monday through Friday. 7-10am. PDT. On KQKE. 960 AM. The QUAKE. San Francisco. Or listen long distance @ quakeradio.com.

(c) 2006 WorkingForChange. All Rights Reserved

URL: http://www.workingforchange.com/article.cfm?ItemID=21361

[Saundra Hummer]

I never thought that hearing the phrase "For God and Country" would become something to dread. It has come to just that for me. I'm also amazed that it is driving our having become such a cruel people. Not how I always saw it. Not how I have always believed, and how I do view religion. If one more politician makes political hay off of those words or any like them, then it's me you'll hear saying once again "God Help Us." What an abuse.

It's like this; if we don't wear hair shirts and beat on ourselves with chains, then part of the world believes none of us are rightious, we are all just lowly heathen. And it is so wrong of the "Red States" to believe we in the "Blue States", are sinners. I know that these category's are a generalization. Lumping us all into categorys of Red and Blue, but you know what I mean.

Just because we aren't marching down isles proclaming our own purity, our own beliefs, our own Godliness, doesn't mean we don't have strong beliefs of our own, and, to think that we will have to put another radical person in power because they beat their own drum about how rightious they are; how religious they are, well, this quote always comes to mind, "Going to church, no more makes you a Christian than sleeping in a garage makes you a car."

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: :: :: ::
Democrats Need To Be Real Choice On War
Helen Thomas, Hearst White House columnist
WGAL.com
http://www.wgal.com/print/9764802/detail.html

Not New - But Interesting Nonetheless
POSTED: 5:26 pm EDT August 30, 2006
UPDATED: 5:38 pm EDT August 30, 2006


The war and the U.S. occupation of Iraq are certainly going to be the crowning issues in the Nov. 7 mid-term elections. That's why it's time for the Democratic candidates to bite the bullet (excuse the expression) and call for an immediate withdrawal of American troops from Iraq.



We don't need more phony timetables to prolong the agony. We need a quick exit from a bad show.

It's distressing that the Washington Post has found that most Democrats in competitive congressional races are resisting pressure to call for a speedy pullout. These spineless Democrats are apparently frightened by the prospect that the Bush administration would use the "cut-and-run" fear card against them.



Where is the opposition in the opposition party?

If politicians live and die by the polls, the evidence is there to support a strong anti-war position. I refer to polls that show the American people are losing faith in this no-win war. For example, a Newsweek poll conducted Aug. 24-25 said 63 percent of those polled disapprove of President George W. Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. Approval was 31 percent.

Maybe Americans have had it with all the deception that led to the invasion of Iraq in the first place. Bush continues to brand the war in Iraq as part of the "global war on terror." However, when the president was asked at a news conference last week what Iraq had to do with the 9/11 terrorist attacks, he replied, "Nothing."

New York Times columnist Frank Rich doesn't believe that Bush will leave it at that when the fifth anniversary of the al-Qaida attack rolls around. Bush will go back to his drumbeat, subtly trying to link Iraq to 9/11.

"The new propaganda strategy will be right out of Lewis Carroll (Alice in Wonderland)," Rich wrote last Sunday. "If we leave the country that had nothing to do with 9/11, then 9/11 will happen again."

Despite growing proof that the Iraqi resistance to the U.S. presence is becoming more lethal, the president insists on adhering to his unpopular course.

"Leaving before the job is done would be a disaster," he told reporters.

"What all of us in this administration have been saying is that leaving Iraq before the mission is complete will send the wrong message to the enemy and will create a more dangerous world," he said.



Where have we heard this familiar refrain before?

Of course, this baloney is almost verbatim from President Lyndon B. Johnson during the Vietnam War era, when protesters hit the streets en masse to express their disenchantment with the war.



In his book "The Logic of Withdrawal," author-journalist Anthony Arnove wrote:

During the Vietnam War, the U.S. government learned how quickly the discipline of an army fighting an unjust war can break down.

Today the soldiers in the field can see contradictions between the claims of their officers* -- and especially the politicians who sent them to war -- and the reality of the conflict on the ground. They now know that Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction and posed no imminent threat.

And as the resistance grows, more soldiers have come to see they are fighting not to liberate Iraqis but to pacify them."

Arnove rebuts some arguments against pulling up stakes and leaving Iraq. One is that the U.S. presence is preventing a civil war. He points out that the various religious factions in Iraq are already pitted against each other.



If it's not a civil war, it's a reasonable facsimile.

Then there is the contention that Iraq is the "central front in the war on terror," a popular refrain from the Bush administration.

Arnove points out that al-Qaida made its first appearance in Iraq after the U.S. invasion in 2003.

If they fail to take a courageous stand against an impossible war, the "me too" Democrats will deny the voters a choice.



(Helen Thomas can be reached at the e-mail address:
hthomas@hearstdc.com

Discuss Helen Thomas' Opinion

Copyright 2005 by Hearst Newspapers. All rights reserved :: :: ::

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllCHAVEZ' COMMENTS:
STRATEGY OR RAVINGS OF MADMAN?

September, 21, 2006*****From The Progressive
By
Greg Palast

You'd think George Bush would get down on his knees and kiss Hugo Chavez's behind. Not only has Chavez delivered cheap oil to the Bronx and other poor communities in the United States. And not only did he offer to bring aid to the victims of Katrina. In my interview with the president of Venezuela on March 28, he made Bush the following astonishing offer: Chavez would drop the price of oil to $50 a barrel, "not too high, a fair price," he said -- a third less than the $75 a barrel for oil recently posted on the spot market. That would bring down the price at the pump by about a buck, from $3 to $2 a gallon.

But our President has basically told Chavez to take his cheaper oil and stick it up his pipeline. Before I explain why Bush has done so, let me explain why Chavez has the power to pull it off -- and the method in the seeming madness of his "take-my-oil-please!" deal.

Venezuela, Chavez told me, has more oil than Saudi Arabia. A nutty boast? Not by a long shot. In fact, his surprising claim comes from a most surprising source: the U.S. Department of Energy. In an internal report, the DOE estimates that Venezuela has five times the Saudis' reserves. However, most of Venezuela's mega-horde of crude is in the More...form of "extra-heavy" oil -- liquid asphalt -- which is ghastly expensive to pull up and refine. Oil has to sell above $30 a barrel to make the investment in extra-heavy oil worthwhile. A big dip in oil's price -- and, after all, oil cost only $18 a barrel six years ago -- would bankrupt heavy-oil investors. Hence Chavez's offer: Drop the price to $50 -- and keep it there. That would guarantee Venezuela's investment in heavy oil.

But the ascendance of Venezuela within OPEC necessarily means the decline of the power of the House of Saud. And the Bush family wouldn't like that one bit. It comes down to "petro-dollars." When George W. ferried then-Crown Prince (now King) Abdullah of Saudi Arabia around the Crawford ranch in a golf cart it wasn't because America needs Arabian oil. The Saudis will always sell us their petroleum. What Bush needs is Saudi petro-dollars. Saudi Arabia has, over the past three decades, kindly recycled the cash sucked from the wallets of American SUV owners and sent much of the loot right back to New York to buy U.S. Treasury bills and other U.S. assets.

The Gulf potentates understand that in return for lending the U.S. Treasury the cash to fund George Bush's $2 trillion rise in the nation's debt, they receive protection in return. They lend us petro-dollars, we lend them the 82nd Airborne.

Chavez would put an end to all that. He'll sell us oil relatively cheaply -- but intends to keep the petro-dollars in Latin America. Recently, Chavez withdrew $20 billion from the U.S. Federal Reserve and, at the same time, lent or committed a like sum to Argentina, Ecuador, and other Latin American nations.

Chavez, notes The Wall Street Journal, has become a "tropical IMF." And indeed, as the Venezuelan president told me, he wants to abolish the Washington-based International Monetary Fund, with its brutal free-market diktats, and replace it with an "International Humanitarian Fund," an IHF, or more accurately, an International Hugo Fund. In addition, Chavez wants OPEC to officially recognize Venezuela as the cartel's reserve leader, which neither the Saudis nor Bush will take kindly to.

Politically, Venezuela is torn in two. Chavez's "Bolivarian Revolution," a close replica of Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal—a progressive income tax, public works, social security, cheap electricity -- makes him wildly popular with the poor. And most Venezuelans are poor. His critics, a four-centuries' old white elite, unused to sharing oil wealth, portray him as a Castro-hugging anti-Christ.

Chavez's government, which used to brush off these critics, has turned aggressive on them. I challenged Chavez several times over charges brought against Sumate, his main opposition group. The two founders of the nongovernmental organization, which led the recall campaign against Chavez, face eight years in prison for taking money from the Bush Administration and the International Republican [Party] Institute. No nation permits foreign funding of political campaigns, but the charges (no one is in jail) seem like a heavy hammer to use on the minor infractions of these pathetic gadflies.

Bush's reaction to Chavez has been a mix of hostility and provocation. Washington supported the coup attempt against Chavez in 2002, and Condoleezza Rice and Donald Rumsfeld have repeatedly denounced him. The revised National Security Strategy of the United States of America, released in March, says, "In Venezuela, a demagogue awash in oil money is undermining democracy and seeking to destabilize the region."

So when the Reverend Pat Robertson, a Bush ally, told his faithful in August 2005 that Chavez has to go, it was not unreasonable to assume that he was articulating an Administration wish. "If he thinks we’re trying to assassinate him," Robertson said, "I think that we really ought to go ahead and do it. It's a whole lot cheaper than starting a war . . . and I don't think any oil shipments will stop."

There are only two ways to defeat the rise of Chavez as the New Abdullah of the Americas. First, the unattractive option: Cut the price of oil below $30 a barrel. That would make Chavez's crude worthless. Or, option two: Kill him.

Q: Your opponents are saying that you are beginning a slow-motion dictatorship. Is that what we are seeing?

Hugo Chavez: They have been saying that for a long time. When they're short of ideas, any excuse will do as a vehicle for lies. That is totally false. I would like to invite the citizens of Great Britain and the citizens of the U.S. and the citizens of the world to come here and walk freely through the streets of Venezuela, to talk to anyone they want, to watch television, to read the papers. We are building a true democracy, with human rights for everyone, social rights, education, health care, pensions, social security, and jobs.

Q: Some of your opponents are being charged with the crime of taking money from George Bush. Will you send them to jail?

Chavez: It's not up to me to decide that. We have the institutions that do that. These people have admitted they have received money from the government of the United States. It's up to the prosecutors to decide what to do, but the truth is that we can't allow the U.S. to finance the destabilization of our country. What would happen if we financed somebody in the U.S. to destabilize the government of George Bush? They would go to prison, certainly.

Q: How do you respond to Bush's charge that you are destabilizing the region and interfering in the elections of other Latin American countries?

Chavez: Mr. Bush is an illegitimate President. In Florida, his brother Jeb deleted many black voters from the electoral registers. So this President is the result of a fraud. Not only that, he is also currently applying a dictatorship in the U.S. People can be put in jail without being charged. They tap phones without court orders. They check what books people take out of public libraries. They arrested Cindy Sheehan because of a T-shirt she was wearing demanding the return of the troops from Iraq. They abuse blacks and Latinos. And if we are going to talk about meddling in other countries, then the U.S. is the champion of meddling in other people's affairs. They invaded Guatemala, they overthrew Salvador Allende, invaded Panama and the Dominican Republic. They were involved in the coup d'etat in Argentina thirty years ago.

Q: Is the U.S. interfering in your elections here?

Chavez: They have interfered for 200 years. They have tried to prevent us from winning the elections, they supported the coup d'etat, they gave millions of dollars to the coup plotters, they supported the media, newspapers, outlaw movements, military intervention, and espionage. But here the empire is finished, and I believe that before the end of this century, it will be finished in the rest of the world. We will see the burial of the empire of the eagle.

Q: You don't interfere in the elections of other nations in Latin America?

Chavez: Absolutely not. I concern myself with Venezuela. However, what's going on now is that some rightwing movements are transforming me into a pawn in the domestic politics of their countries, by making statements that are groundless. About candidates like Morales [of Bolivia], for example. They said I financed the candidacy of President Lula [of Brazil], which is totally false. They said I financed the candidacy of Kirchner [of Argentina], which is totally false. In Mexico, recently, the rightwing party has used my image for its own profit. What’s happened is that in Latin America there is a turn to the left. Latin Americans have gotten tired of the Washington consensus -- a neoliberalism that has aggravated misery and poverty.

Q: You have spent millions of dollars of your nation's oil wealth throughout Latin America. Are you really helping these other nations or are you simply buying political support for your regime?

Chavez: We are brothers and sisters. That's one of the reasons for the wrath of the empire. You know that Venezuela has the biggest oil reserves in the world. And the biggest gas reserves in this hemisphere, the eighth in the world. Up until seven years ago, Venezuela was a U.S. oil colony. All of our oil was going up to the north, and the gas was being used by the U.S. and not by us. Now we are diversifying. Our oil is helping the poor. We are selling to the Dominican Republic, Haiti, Cuba, some Central American countries, Uruguay, Argentina.

Q: And the Bronx?

Chavez: In the Bronx it is a donation. In all the cases I just mentioned before, it is trade. However, it's not free trade, just fair commerce. We also have an international humanitarian fund as a result of oil revenues.

Q: Why did George Bush turn down your help for New Orleans after the hurricane?

Chavez: You should ask him, but from the very beginning of the terrible disaster of Katrina, our people in the U.S., like the president of CITGO, went to New Orleans to rescue people. We were in close contact by phone with Jesse Jackson. We hired buses. We got food and water. We tried to protect them; they are our brothers and sisters. Doesn't matter if they are African, Asian, Cuban, whatever.

Q: Are you replacing the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund as "Daddy Big Bucks"?

Chavez: I do wish that the IMF and the World Bank would disappear soon.

Q: And it would be the Bank of Hugo?

Chavez: No. The International Humanitarian Bank. We are just creating an alternative way to conduct financial exchange. It is based on cooperation. For example, we send oil to Uruguay for their refinery and they are paying us with cows.

Q: Milk for oil.

Chavez: That's right. Milk for oil. The Argentineans also pay us with cows. And they give us medical equipment to combat cancer. It's a transfer of technology. We also exchange oil for software technology. Uruguay is one of the biggest producers of software. We are breaking with the neoliberal model. We do not believe in free trade. We believe in fair trade and exchange, not competition but cooperation. I'm not giving away oil for free. Just using oil, first to benefit our people, to relieve poverty. For a hundred years we have been one of the largest oil-producing countries in the world but with a 60 percent poverty rate and now we are canceling the historical debt.

Q: Speaking of the free market, you've demanded back taxes from U.S. oil companies. You have eliminated contracts for North American, British, and European oil companies. Are you trying to slice out the British and American oil companies from Venezuela?

Chavez: No, we don't want them to go, and I don't think they want to leave the country, either. We need each other. It's simply that we have recovered our oil sovereignty. They didn’t pay taxes. They didn't pay royalties. They didn't give an account of their actions to the government. They had more land than had previously been established in the contracts. They didn't comply with the agreed technology exchange. They polluted the environment and didn't pay anything towards the cleanup. They now have to comply with the law.

Q: You've said that you imagine the price of oil rising to $100 dollars per barrel. Are you going to use your new oil wealth to squeeze the planet?

Chavez: No, no. We have no intention of squeezing anyone. Now, we have been squeezed and very hard. Five hundred years of squeezing us and stifling us, the people of the South. I do believe that demand is increasing and supply is dropping and the large reservoirs are running out. But it's not our fault. In the future, there must be an agreement between the large consumers and the large producers.

Q: What happens when the oil money runs out, what happens when the price of oil falls as it always does? Will the
Bolivarian revolution of Hugo Chavez simply collapse because there's no money to pay for the big free ride?

Chavez: I don't think it will collapse, in the unlikely case of oil running out today. The revolution will survive. It does not rely solely on oil for its survival. There is a national will, there is a national idea, a national project. However, we are today implementing a strategic program called the Oil Sowing Plan: using oil wealth so Venezuela can become an agricultural country, a tourist destination, an industrialized country with a diversified economy. We are investing billions of dollars in the infrastructure: power generators using thermal energy, a large railway, roads, highways, new towns, new universities, new schools, recuperating land, building tractors, and giving loans to farmers. One day we won't have any more oil, but that will be in the twenty-second century. Venezuela has oil for another 200 years.

Q: But the revolution can come to an end if there's another coup and it succeeds. Do you believe Bush is still trying to overthrow your government?

Chavez: He would like to, but what you want is one thing, and what you cannot really obtain is another.

*******

Greg Palast is the author of the just-released New York Times bestseller, "ARMED MADHOUSE: Who's Afraid of Osama Wolf?, China Floats Bush Sinks, the Scheme to Steal '08, No Child's Behind Left and other Dispatches from the Front Lines of the Class War" from which this is adapted. Go to www.GregPalast.com.

For Media Requests contact: interviews (at) GregPalast.com

"I've known Hugo Chavez for years, let me tell you that man knows a diablo when he sees one." -- Greg Palast

Watch my recent exclusive BBC interview with President Chavez

Read the article here

Also watch my LinkTV Chavez Special "Finding Bolivar's Heir"

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Large File)

"Finding Bolivar's Heir" (Small File)

Is Chavez just following Fidel in denying any plans to become another Castro? Seems we heard this from Fidel early on as well. We all know how that turned out. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely! Too bad, as Castro could have become a true hero to those south of our border, and in the Caribbean as well. An opportunity missed, much suffering and such loss! He could have and should have become a beacon of hope, instead, well.... SRH
*******

[Saundra Hummer]

.............
Watch our Rosslyn Chapel videos
SCOTSMAN.COM are delighted to offer you an insight into Rosslyn Chapel. If you've read the book, intend seeing The Da Vinci Code in the cinema or you just want to find out what all the fuss is about, then these podcasts are for you.

GO ON-SITE TO VIEW AND ACCESS ALL LINKS, ETC BY CLICKING THE FOLLOWING ONE:

http://heritage.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=611222006

Let Heritage & Culture lead you down the aisle of this extraordinary chapel and explore the myths and mysteries associated with it. You can view these features on your iPod or on your personal computer.

Subscribe here to receive each new scotsman.com podcast as they are delivered. Go on-site to do this
Day One: a stone enigma - the myths and mysteries of Rosslyn

Day Two: the history

Day Three: the Knights Templar

Day Four: the carvings

Day Five: The Da Vinci Code

For our podcasts we have gathered together a group of experts to help you explore Rosslyn inside and out:

Stuart Beattie: a member of Rosslyn Chapel Trust, and the care and preservation of the building lies in his hands
Mark Oxbrow: the author of Rosslyn and the Grail
Robert Brydon: a Templar historian.

Some of the music you hear on the podcasts was written by composer Stuart Mitchell – who cracked the code of the musical notation embedded in the ceiling in Rosslyn.

If this is your first time to the Heritage & Culture website, produced by scotsman.com in Edinburgh, we say "welcome!". A quick tour of the site and you will see that we offer all things to all people: video archive footage, a history timeline, interactive maps, plus, in our humble opinion, some of the greatest feature writing you will ever find on the web. Just one look at our Myths & Mysteries section and you'll see what we mean!

As part of our coverage we recently offered readers a chance to play the Rosslyn Chapel Quiz. The competition to win a prize is over - sorry! - but you still have a chance to test your knowledge of Rosslyn (How do I get to the chapel on time?) and The Da Vinci Code.

In the spirit of Rosslyn, we also offer an information-filled line-up of new stories for you to enjoy.

Tune into the Da Vinci coda

From St Clair to Sinclair – the family who built Rosslyn

Restoration or dilapidation for our historic buildings

Images of an enigma: Rosslyn Chapel inside and out

Battle of Roslin

Rosslyn Chapel in The Scotsman's 19th century archives
And those stories are just the latest offerings from Heritage & Culture. The site has been publishing features about the chapel, the Knights Templar and a whole lot more for more than a year. Here's a glance at the Top Ten most-read Rosslyn-related features from the site:

1. The many mysteries of Rosslyn Chapel, 20 January 2005

2. The Grail, Jesus's children and Stone Age lasers: Scotland's madder myths, 15 April 2005

3. Rosslyn Chapel's extraordinary carvings explained at last, 13 October 2005

4. In search of the Holy Grail, 7 July 2005

5. Rosslyn, ley lines and the baron knights, 22 September 2005

6. The ship of dreams, 12 May 2005

7. Picture-mystery tour of Rosslyn Chapel, 21 July 2005

8. Knights Templar, 8 February 2005

9. Rosslyn, Templars, Gypsies and the Battle of Bannockburn, 10 November 2005

10. Esoteric secrets, Scottish Freemasonry and the building of the American dream, 20 April 2006

We have even grouped together all stories from Heritage & Culture and our sister newspapers - The Scotsman, Edinburgh Evening News and Scotland on Sunday - into one convenient package:

Rosslyn Chapel

You can also receive a feed of Rosslyn Chapel stories as they are published by signing up here.

And subscribe here to receive each future podcast as they are delivered. There are plans to present new audio podcasts in the coming weeks!

We hope you enjoyed the Rosslyn Chapel podcasts, the stories and plan to visit Heritage & Culture again.

Related topics

scotsman.com Podcast
http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=499
Dan Brown & The Da Vinci Code
http://living.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=1068
This article: http://heritage.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=611222006

Last updated: 30-Jun-06 09:43 BST

Comments Add your comment

1. Donald, Kirkwood, Missouri, USA / 7:18am 18 Jun 2006 We, over here accross the pond, recon that the Roslyn chapel is the point of conception or origination of what we call Fremasonry today. the laird sinclair had family connections to the Templars all the way back to the first ones you know. The chapel is thought to be a very good replica of "the Temple" at Jerusalam that is the "Wailing Wall replica you see, not an un finished mini-catadral at all. Beyond that , W.Bush doesn't stand for all of us over here, It wasn't jesus who snapped his ears and got him of the dopin & drinkn band wagon. it was his Ma and a gang of high dollar bodygaurds.

2. Debbi, Dallas, TX / 10:48pm 20 Jun 2006 Donald, were you drinking when you wrote that? ;-) While I am no fan of Bush, there are better ways of showing your ire for the .... man. For instance, just cite his record.

Having said that, been to Rosslyn Chapel in 02, and all I can say is that everywhere I went in Scotland was so beautiful. You that live there are very lucky.

Debbi

3. Michael, Boston, MA / 3:51pm 30 Jun 2006 In 1876, a group of businessmen left Boston to visit Rosslyn Castle. The area in which they lived was called South Street Crossing just south of Boston, Mass. After seeing Lord Rosslyn's estate and it's hills and dales the men returned to Boston and renamed their area which had a similar topography: Roslindale. Roslindale residents are proud of their connection not only to Scotland but to the 'Code" for highlighting some of the twisted history of the Church.

4. T.J, U.S.A / 4:48pm 15 Jul 2006 It is amazing, that the Holy Grail is right there on the news...in a Cathedral in Valencia, Spain. Not hidden, not part of a secret code etc. Secret Societies and Gnostic gospels are blinded by the simplicity of the truth... There is no secret about Jesus and His Church...or His Holy Grail. Seek and ye shall find... it is FOUND... sorry Dan Brown and all those others who are making fortunes out of the so called secrets that don't exist... What does it profit a man if he gains the whole world and suffers the loss of his own soul. Better that those who are seeking truth go on a pilgrimage to Valencia, Spain

5. ronnie, hartlepool / 7:12pm 2 Sep 2006 i have been there quite a lot ,a very peaceful and holy place. bright blessings

6. geoff, marco island florida / 4:29pm 5 Sep 2006 The Sinclairs travelled to the USA in1399 and came to Westford Mass not to far from Boston. While there one member died and his picture is carved in granite. He is called the Westford knight .see westford knight.com I visited the site last summer as my wifes family live 1 mile from the site. They were told as young kids of the site at school but forgot until i asked about it. Could this be where they took the Holy Grail ? I await any responses .

7. THOMAS, USA-IL-Springfield area / 10:41pm 6 Sep 2006 It is a fine thing that you do such a story.. Is it the beginning of revelations?
As for Mr. Bush, I do believe that he is trying his best, perhaps to little and a bit late, as that lovable rouge of a president Mr. Clinton, dropped the ball and gave liberal Europe their high tech. workers, the Kosovo Affair, instead of going after the low tech. jihadist, that are a force that can't be negotiated with. Now they have the capabilities to have the bomb, and are going for the Big One. I think the idea to contain the carnage to their neck of the earth is just, but it may not work..
I came to your site through a news story on yahoo about the war in Afghanistan and noted that the picture of the mortar position so typifies how things are going. It must have took days to build.
Anyway, faith in GOD is a MUST needed element in the days to come and a good remembrance of history (GOD can't help you if you don't try)..

8. Florjan / 4:57pm 15 Sep 2006 .......

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllll
Will the Next Election Be Hacked?
By Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Rolling Stone
Thursday 05 October 2006 Issue

Fresh disasters at the polls - and new evidence from an industry insider - prove that electronic voting machines can't be trusted.

Read Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" in the June 15th, 2006, issue of "Rolling Stone," his investigation into how Republicans prevented more than 350,000 voters in Ohio from casting ballots or having their votes counted - enough to have put John Kerry in the White House. ~~~
The debacle of the 2000 presidential election made it all too apparent to most Americans that our electoral system is broken. And private-sector entrepreneurs were quick to offer a fix: Touch-screen voting machines, promised the industry and its lobbyists, would make voting as easy and reliable as withdrawing cash from an ATM. Congress, always ready with funds for needy industries, swiftly authorized $3.9 billion to upgrade the nation's election systems - with much of the money devoted to installing electronic voting machines in each of America's 180,000 precincts. But as midterm elections approach this November, electronic voting machines are making things worse instead of better. Studies have demonstrated that hackers can easily rig the technology to fix an election - and across the country this year, faulty equipment and lax security have repeatedly undermined election primaries. In Tarrant County, Texas, electronic machines counted some ballots as many as six times, recording 100,000 more votes than were actually cast. In San Diego, poll workers took machines home for unsupervised "sleepovers" before the vote, leaving the equipment vulnerable to tampering. And in Ohio - where, as I recently reported in "Was the 2004 Election Stolen?" [RS 1002], dirty tricks may have cost John Kerry the presidency - a government report uncovered large and unexplained discrepancies in vote totals recorded by machines in Cuyahoga County.

Even worse, many electronic machines don't produce a paper record that can be recounted when equipment malfunctions - an omission that practically invites malicious tampering. "Every board of election has staff members with the technological ability to fix an election," Ion Sancho, an election supervisor in Leon County, Florida, told me. "Even one corrupt staffer can throw an election. Without paper records, it could happen under my nose and there is no way I'd ever find out about it. With a few key people in the right places, it would be possible to throw a presidential election."

Chris Hood remembers the day in August 2002 that he began to question what was really going on in Georgia. An African-American whose parents fought for voting rights in the South during the 1960s, Hood was proud to be working as a consultant for Diebold Election Systems, helping the company promote its new electronic voting machines. During the presidential election two years earlier, more than 94,000 paper ballots had gone uncounted in Georgia - almost double the national average - and Secretary of State Cathy Cox was under pressure to make sure every vote was recorded properly.

Hood had been present in May 2002, when officials with Cox's office signed a contract with Diebold - paying the company a record $54 million to install 19,000 electronic voting machines across the state. At a restaurant inside Atlanta's Marriott Hotel, he noticed the firm's CEO, Walden O'Dell, checking Diebold's stock price on a laptop computer every five minutes, waiting for a bounce from the announcement.

Hood wondered why Diebold, the world's third-largest seller of ATMs, had been awarded the contract. The company had barely completed its acquisition of Global Election Systems, a voting-machine firm that owned the technology Diebold was promising to sell Georgia. And its bid was the highest among nine competing vendors. Whispers within the company hinted that a fix was in.

"The Diebold executives had a news conference planned on the day of the award," Hood recalls, "and we were instructed to stay in our hotel rooms until just hours before the announcement. They didn't want the competitors to know and possibly file a protest" about the lack of a fair bidding process. It certainly didn't hurt that Diebold had political clout: Cox's predecessor as secretary of state, Lewis Massey, was now a lobbyist for the company.

The problem was, Diebold had only five months to install the new machines - a "very narrow window of time to do such a big deployment," Hood notes. The old systems stored in warehouses had to be replaced with new equipment; dozens of state officials and poll workers had to be trained in how to use the touch-screen machines. "It was pretty much an impossible task," Hood recalls. There was only one way, he adds, that the job could be done in time - if "the vendor had control over the entire environment." That is precisely what happened. In late July, to speed deployment of the new machines, Cox quietly signed an agreement with Diebold that effectively privatized Georgia's entire electoral system. The company was authorized to put together ballots, program machines and train poll workers across the state - all without any official supervision. "We ran the election," says Hood. "We had 356 people that Diebold brought into the state. Diebold opened and closed the polls and tabulated the votes. Diebold convinced Cox that it would be best if the company ran everything due to the time constraints, and in the interest of a trouble-free election, she let us do it."

Then, one muggy day in mid-August, Hood was surprised to see the president of Diebold's election unit, Bob Urosevich, arrive in Georgia from his headquarters in Texas. With the primaries looming, Urosevich was personally distributing a "patch," a little piece of software designed to correct glitches in the computer program. "We were told that it was intended to fix the clock in the system, which it didn't do," Hood says. "The curious thing is the very swift, covert way this was done."

Georgia law mandates that any change made in voting machines be certified by the state. But thanks to Cox's agreement with Diebold, the company was essentially allowed to certify itself. "It was an unauthorized patch, and they were trying to keep it secret from the state," Hood told me. "We were told not to talk to county personnel about it. I received instructions directly from Urosevich. It was very unusual that a president of the company would give an order like that and be involved at that level."

According to Hood, Diebold employees altered software in some 5,000 machines in DeKalb and Fulton counties - the state's largest Democratic strongholds. To avoid detection, Hood and others on his team entered warehouses early in the morning. "We went in at 7:30 a.m. and were out by 11," Hood says. "There was a universal key to unlock the machines, and it's easy to get access. The machines in the warehouses were unlocked. We had control of everything. The state gave us the keys to the castle, so to speak, and they stayed out of our way." Hood personally patched fifty-six machines and witnessed the patch being applied to more than 1,200 others.

The patch comes on a memory card that is inserted into a machine. Eventually, all the memory cards end up on a server that tabulates the votes - where the patch can be programmed to alter the outcome of an election. "There could be a hidden program on a memory card that adjusts everything to the preferred election results," Hood says. "Your program says, 'I want my candidate to stay ahead by three or four percent or whatever.' Those programs can include a built-in delete that erases itself after it's done."

It is impossible to know whether the machines were rigged to alter the election in Georgia: Diebold's machines provided no paper trail, making a recount impossible. But the tally in Georgia that November surprised even the most seasoned political observers. Six days before the vote, polls showed Sen. Max Cleland, a decorated war veteran and Democratic incumbent, leading his Republican opponent Saxby Chambliss - darling of the Christian Coalition - by five percentage points. In the governor's race, Democrat Roy Barnes was running a decisive eleven points ahead of Republican Sonny Perdue. But on Election Day, Chambliss won with fifty-three percent of the vote, and Perdue won with fifty-one percent.

Diebold insists that the patch was installed "with the approval and oversight of the state." But after the election, the Georgia secretary of state's office submitted a "punch list" to Bob Urosevich of "issues and concerns related to the statewide voting system that we would like Diebold to address." One of the items referenced was" Application/Implication of '0808' Patch." The state was seeking confirmation that the patch did not require that the system "be recertified at national and state level" as well as "verifiable analysis of overall impact of patch to the voting system." In a separate letter, Secretary Cox asked Urosevich about Diebold's use of substitute memory cards and defective equipment as well as widespread problems that caused machines to freeze up and improperly record votes. The state threatened to delay further payments to Diebold until "these punch list items will be corrected and completed."

Diebold's response has not been made public - but its machines remain in place for Georgia's election this fall. Hood says it was "common knowledge" within the company that Diebold also illegally installed uncertified software in machines used in the 2004 presidential primaries - a charge the company denies. Disturbed to see the promise of electronic machines subverted by private companies, Hood left the election consulting business and became a whistle-blower. "What I saw," he says, "was basically a corporate takeover of our voting system."

The United States is one of only a handful of major democracies that allow private, partisan companies to secretly count and tabulate votes using their own proprietary software. Today, eighty percent of all the ballots in America are tallied by four companies - Diebold, Election Systems & Software (ES&S), Sequoia Voting Systems and Hart InterCivic. In 2004, 36 million votes were cast on their touch-screen systems, and millions more were recorded by optical-scan machines owned by the same companies that use electronic technology to tabulate paper ballots. The simple fact is, these machines not only break down with regularity, they are easily compromised - by people inside, and outside, the companies.

Three of the four companies have close ties to the Republican Party. ES&S, in an earlier corporate incarnation, was chaired by Chuck Hagel, who in 1996 became the first Republican elected to the U.S. Senate from Nebraska in twenty-four years - winning a close race in which eighty-five percent of the votes were tallied by his former company. Hart InterCivic ranks among its investors GOP loyalist Tom Hicks, who bought the Texas Rangers from George W. Bush in 1998, making Bush a millionaire fifteen times over. And according to campaign-finance records, Diebold, along with its employees and their families, has contributed at least $300,000 to GOP candidates and party funds since 1998 - including more than $200,000 to the Republican National Committee. In a 2003 fund-raising e-mail, the company's then-CEO Walden O'Dell promised to deliver Ohio's electoral votes to Bush in 2004. That year, Diebold would count the votes in half of Ohio's counties.

The voting-machine companies bear heavy blame for the 2000 presidential-election disaster. Fox News' fateful decision to call Florida for Bush - followed minutes later by CBS and NBC - came after electronic machines in Volusia County erroneously subtracted more than 16,000 votes from Al Gore's total. Later, after an internal investigation, CBS described the mistake as "critical" in the network's decision. Seeing what was an apparent spike for Bush, Gore conceded the election - then reversed his decision after a campaign staffer investigated and discovered that Gore was actually ahead in Volusia by 13,000 votes.

Investigators traced the mistake to Global Election Systems, the firm later acquired by Diebold. Two months after the election, an internal memo from Talbot Iredale, the company's master programmer, blamed the problem on a memory card that had been improperly - and unnecessarily - uploaded. "There is always the possibility," Iredale conceded, "that the 'second memory card' or 'second upload' came from an unauthorized source."

Amid the furor over hanging chads and butterfly ballots in Florida, however, the "faulty memory card" was all but forgotten. Instead of sharing culpability for the Florida catastrophe, voting-machine companies used their political clout to present their product as the solution. In October 2002, President Bush signed the Help America Vote Act, requiring states and counties to upgrade their voting systems with electronic machines and giving vast sums of money to state officials to distribute to the tightknit cabal of largely Republican vendors.

But according to recent e-mails obtained by Rolling Stone, Diebold not only failed to follow up on most of the recommendations, it worked to cover them up. Michael Wertheimer, who led the RABA study, now serves as an assistant deputy director in the Office of the Director of National Intelligence. "We made numerous recommendations that would have required Diebold to fix these issues," he writes in one e-mail, "but were rebuffed by the argument that the machines were physically protected and could not be altered by someone outside the established chain of custody."

In another e-mail, Wertheimer says that Diebold and state officials worked to downplay his team's dim assessment. "We spent hours dealing with Diebold lobbyists and election officials who sought to minimize our impact," he recalls. "The results were risk-managed in favor of expediency and potential catastrophe."

During the 2004 presidential election, with Diebold machines in place across the state, things began to go wrong from the very start. A month before the vote, an abandoned Diebold machine was discovered in a bar in Baltimore. "What's really worrisome," says Hood, "is that someone could get hold of all the technology - for manipulation - if they knew the inner workings of just one machine."

Election Day was a complete disaster. "Countless numbers of machines were down because of what appeared to be flaws in Diebold's system," says Hood, who was part of a crew of roving technicians charged with making sure that the polls were up and running. "Memory cards overloading, machines freezing up, poll workers afraid to turn them on or off for fear of losing votes."

Then, after the polls closed, Diebold technicians who showed up to collect the memory cards containing the votes found that many were missing. "The machines are gone," one janitor told Hood - picked up, apparently, by the vendor who had delivered them in the first place. "There was major chaos because there were so many cards missing," Hood says. Even before the 2004 election, experts warned that electronic voting machines would undermine the integrity of the vote. "The system we have for testing and certifying voting equipment in this country is not only broken but is virtually nonexistent," Michael Shamos, a distinguished professor of computer science at Carnegie Mellon University, testified before Congress that June. "It must be re-created from scratch."

Two months later, the U.S. Computer Emergency Readiness Team - a division of the Department of Homeland Security - issued a little-noticed "cyber-security bulletin." The alert dealt specifically with a database that Diebold uses in tabulating votes. "A vulnerability exists due to an undocumented backdoor account," the alert warned, citing the same kind of weakness identified by the RABA scientists. The security flaw, it added, could allow "a malicious user [to] modify votes."

Such warnings, however, didn't stop states across the country from installing electronic voting machines for the 2004 election. In Ohio, jammed and inoperable machines were reported throughout Toledo. In heavily Democratic areas of Youngstown, nearly 100 voters pushed "Kerry" and watched "Bush" light up. At least twenty machines had to be recalibrated in the middle of the voting process for flipping Kerry votes to Bush. Similar "vote hopping" was reported by voters in other states.

The widespread glitches didn't deter Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell - who also chaired Bush's re-election campaign in Ohio - from cutting a deal in 2005 that would have guaranteed Diebold a virtual monopoly on vote counting in the state. Local election officials alleged that the deal, which came only a few months after Blackwell bought nearly $10,000 in Diebold stock, was a violation of state rules requiring a fair and competitive bidding process. Facing a lawsuit, Blackwell agreed to allow other companies to provide machines as well. This November, voters in forty-seven counties will cast their ballots on Diebold machines - in a pivotal election in which Blackwell is running as the Republican candidate for governor.

Electronic voting machines also caused widespread problems in Florida, where Bush bested Kerry by 381,000 votes. When statistical experts from the University of California examined the state's official tally, they discovered a disturbing pattern: "The data show with 99.0 percent certainty that a county's use of electronic voting is associated with a disproportionate increase in votes for President Bush. Compared to counties with paper ballots, counties with electronic voting machines were significantly more likely to show increases in support for President Bush between 2000 and 2004." The three counties with the most discrepancies - Broward, Palm Beach and Miami-Dade - were also the most heavily Democratic. Electronic voting machines, the report concluded, may have improperly awarded as many as 260,000 votes to Bush. "No matter how many factors and variables we took into consideration, the significant correlation in the votes for President Bush and electronic voting cannot be explained," said Michael Hout, a member of the National Academy of Sciences.

Charles Stewart III, an MIT professor who specializes in voter behavior and methodology, was initially skeptical of the study - but was unable to find any flaw in the results. "You can't break it - I've tried," he told The Washington Post. "There's something funky in the results from the electronic-machine Democratic counties."

Questions also arose in Texas in 2004. William Singer, an election programmer in Tarrant County, wrote the secretary of state's office after the vote to report that ES&S pressured officials to install unapproved software during the presidential primaries. "What I was expected to do in order to 'pull off' an election," Singer wrote, "was far beyond the kind of practices that I believe should be standard and accepted in the election industry." The company denies the charge, but in an e-mail this month, Singer elaborated that ES&S employees had pushed local election officials to pressure the secretary of state to accept "a software change at such a last minute there would be no choice, and effectively avoid certification."

Despite such reports, Texas continues to rely on ES&S. In primaries held in Jefferson County earlier this year, electronic votes had to be recounted after error messages prevented workers from completing their tabulations. In April, with early voting in local elections only a week away, officials across the state were still waiting to receive the programming from ES&S needed to test the machines for accuracy. Calling the situation "completely unacceptable and disturbing," Texas director of elections Ann McGeehan authorized local officials to create "emergency paper ballots" as a backup. "We regret the unacceptable position that many political subdivisions are in due to poor performance by their contracted vendor," McGeehan added.

In October 2005, the government Accountability Office issued a damning report on electronic voting machines. Citing widespread irregularities and malfunctions, the government's top watchdog agency concluded that a host of weaknesses with touch-screen and optical-scan technology "could damage the integrity of ballots, votes and voting-system software by allowing unauthorized modifications." Some electronic systems used passwords that were "easily guessed" or employed identical passwords for numerous systems. Software could be handled and transported with no clear chain of custody, and locks protecting computer hardware were easy to pick. Unsecured memory cards could enable individuals to "vote multiple times, change vote totals and produce false election reports."

An even more comprehensive report released in June by the Brennan Center for Justice, a nonpartisan think tank at the New York University School of Law, echoed the GAO's findings. The report - conducted by a task force of computer scientists and security experts from the government, universities and the private sector - was peer-reviewed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology. Electronic voting machines widely adopted since 2000, the report concluded, "pose a real danger to the integrity of national, state and local elections." While no instances of hacking have yet been documented, the report identified 120 security threats to three widely used machines - the easiest method of attack being to utilize corrupt software that shifts votes from one candidate to another. Computer experts have demonstrated that a successful attack would be relatively simple. In a study released on September 13th, computer scientists at Princeton University created vote-stealing software that can be injected into a Diebold machine in as little as a minute, obscuring all evidence of its presence. They also created a virus that can "infect" other units in a voting system, committing "widespread fraud" from a single machine. Within sixty seconds, a lone hacker can own an election.

And touch-screen technology continues to create chaos at the polls. On September 12th, in Maryland's first all-electronic election, voters were turned away from the polls because election officials had failed to distribute the electronic access cards needed to operate Diebold machines. By the time the cards were found on a warehouse shelf and delivered to every precinct, untold numbers of voters had lost the chance to cast ballots. It seems insane that such clear threats to our election system have not stopped the proliferation of touch-screen technology. In 2004, twenty-three percent of Americans cast their votes on electronic ballots - an increase of twelve percent over 2000. This year, more than one-third of the nation's 8,000 voting jurisdictions are expected to use electronic voting technology for the first time.

The heartening news is, citizens are starting to fight back. Voting-rights activists with the Brad Blog and Black Box Voting are getting the word out. Voter Action, a nonprofit group, has helped file lawsuits in Arizona, New York, Pennsylvania, Colorado and New Mexico to stop the proliferation of touch-screen systems. In California, voters filed suit last March to challenge the use of a Diebold touch-screen system - a move that has already prompted eight counties to sign affidavits saying they won't use the machines in November.

It's not surprising that the widespread problems with electronic voting machines have sparked such outrage and mistrust among voters. Last November, comedian Bill Maher stood in a Las Vegas casino and looked out over thousands of slot machines. "They never make a mistake," he remarked to me. "Can't we get a voting machine that can't be fixed?" Indeed, there is a remarkably simple solution: equip every touch-screen machine to provide paper receipts that can be verified by voters and recounted in the event of malfunction or tampering. "The paper is the insurance against the cheating machine," says Rubin, the computer expert.

In Florida, an astonishing new law actually makes it illegal to count paper ballots by hand after they've already been tallied by machine. But twenty-seven states now require a paper trail, and others are considering similar requirements. In New Mexico, Gov. Bill Richardson has instituted what many consider an even better solution: Voters use paper ballots, which are then scanned and counted electronically. "We became one of the laughingstock states in 2004 because the machines were defective, slow and unreliable," says Richardson. "I said to myself, 'I'm not going to go through this again.' The paper-ballot system, as untechnical as it seems, is the most verifiable way we can assure Americans that their vote is counting."

Paper ballots will not completely eliminate the threat of tampering, of course - after all, election fraud and miscounts have occurred throughout our history. As long as there has been a paper trail, however, our elections have been conducted with some measure of public scrutiny. But electronic voting machines are a hacker's dream. And today, for-profit companies are being given unprecedented and frightening power not only to provide these machines but to store and count our votes in secret, without any real oversight.

You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests.

Go on-site to view article and any links if given by clicking on the following address:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092106R.shtml
IIIIIIIIIIII

[lotech]

Ironic that it's a Kennedy saying this, but his last paragraph says it all, and I agree.


"You do not have to believe in conspiracy theories to fear for the integrity of our electoral system: The right to vote is simply too important - and too hard won - to be surrendered without a fight. It is time for Americans to reclaim our democracy from private interests."


I find this true, every day, in my working life: no paper = no accountability.

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllll
France investigates bin Laden death report

By
Anna Willard
Sat Sep 23, 2006 1:15 PM ET

PARIS (Reuters) - France and the United States said on Saturday they could not confirm a report that Osama bin Laden had died and France launched a probe into how a secret document containing the claim was leaked.

The French regional daily L'Est Republicain, published in Nancy, quoted a document from France's DGSE foreign intelligence service as saying the Saudi secret services were convinced the al Qaeda leader had died of typhoid in Pakistan in late August.

President Jacques Chirac told reporters bin Laden's death "has not been confirmed in any way whatsoever, and so I have no comment to make".

"I was a bit surprised to see that a confidential note from the DGSE had been published," he said after a summit with leaders of Germany and Russia.

The Saudi Interior Ministry was not available for comment and officials in the United States, which has made capturing bin Laden a priority in its war on terrorism, were also unable to confirm the account.

"We don't have any confirmation of that report," said State Department spokesman Sean McCormack.

"We've heard these things before and have no reason to think this is any different," added a U.S. intelligence official, who asked not to be named.

"There's just nothing we can point to say this report has any more credence than other reports we've seen in the past."



LEAK PROBE
In Paris, Defense Minister Michele Alliot-Marie ordered an investigation into the leaking of the classified DGSE document.

The French newspaper printed what it said was a copy of the report, dated September 21, and said it had been passed to Chirac and Prime Minister Dominique de Villepin the same day.

"According to a usually reliable source, the Saudi services are now convinced that Osama bin Laden is dead," it read.

"The information gathered by the Saudis indicates that the head of al Qaeda fell victim, while he was in Pakistan on August 23, 2006, to a very serious case of typhoid that led to a partial paralysis of his internal organs."

The report, which was stamped "defense confidential" and with the initials of the French secret service, said Saudi Arabia had first heard the information on September 4 and was waiting for more details before making an official announcement.

"If anyone was in the picture, I doubt it would be Saudi intelligence," said a Western diplomat in Riyadh.

"Even if Saudi Arabia had information, they'd pass it on to the United States, not France. It doesn't ring true."

A senior Pakistani government official said Islamabad had not received any information from any foreign government that would corroborate the story.

The Saudi-born bin Laden was based in Afghanistan until the Taliban government there was overthrown by U.S.-backed forces after al Qaeda's September 11, 2001 attacks on the United States.

Since then, U.S. and Pakistani officials have regularly said they believe he is hiding somewhere on the rugged border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

Bin Laden is rumored to have been suffering from kidney ailments and receiving dialysis treatment.

His last videotaped message was released in late 2004, but several low-quality audio tapes have been released this year.

Senior U.S. intelligence figures have cautioned against assuming that bin Laden's death or capture would automatically have a substantial impact in the war on terrorism.

They note that the death in June of al Qaeda's leader in Iraq, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, has failed to lead to any let-up in the violence there.

(Additional reporting by Jon Boyle, Islamabad bureau, Mark Trevelyan in London, Andrew Hammond in Riyadh and David Morgan in Washington)© Reuters 2006. All rights reserved.


http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-23T171534Z_01_L23793153_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BINLADEN.xml
http://today.reuters.com/misc/PrinterFriendlyPopup.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-09-23T171534Z_01_L23793153_RTRUKOC_0_US-SECURITY-BINLADEN.xml

It's not that Iraqi's are fighting Osama bin Ladens fight from what we now know. They are in it for themselves now that we put them in the situation they've found themselves in, that they're trapped in. If all of al Qaida were to perish, if every last one of them in their ranks were to just vanish, taking all of their doctrine with them, none of them or their cause, such as it is, even being remembered, the Iraqi's would still be fighting us, & fighting each other, as that's just how it goes - with brutality being the theme of the day?

Have we learned nothing from our past?

We, after WWII, evidently from all we have learned, and seen, re-established Germany, and Japan, doing what was right (for the most part) for them and the rest of the war torn world. We know what to do, but no! We're going about this like some evil dictator. More are dying under us, more innocents are dying, we've been told, than died by Saddams orders. Our policies in Iraq are mind numbing boondoggles, shameful enterprises, and these terrible happenings are accepted by too many of us don't you think? Our methods are already causing us immeasurable grief, with no end in sight. Dumb, dumb, dumb. SRH
lllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

llllllllllllllll
Pakistan given no info to back report bin Laden dead
Sat Sep 23, 2006 7:55am ET

ISLAMABAD (Reuters) - Pakistan has received no information from any foreign government that would corroborate a French newspaper report on Saturday that al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan, a senior government official said.

"No government has shared any such information with us so far, which is the normal thing to do under such circumstances," the official, who has close knowledge of intelligence matters, told Reuters on condition of anonymity.

A senior official in Pakistan's Interior Ministry also said: "We have no information about Osama's death."

The daily L'Est Republicain reported that, according to a French secret service report, Saudi Arabia was convinced that bin Laden died of typhoid in Pakistan in late August.


High-ranking diplomats in the Pakistani capital also doubted the French regional newspaper's report.

The French government has said it could not confirm the report and would investigate the intelligence leak.

The al Qaeda leader fled to Pakistan after U.S.-backed forces drove his Taliban hosts from power in late 2001, following al Qaeda's September 11 attacks on Washington and New York, but his pursuers soon lost track of him.

While U.S. and Pakistani officials have regularly said since that they believe bin Laden has been hiding somewhere on the rugged border between Afghanistan and Pakistan, intelligence officials have also said that the trail went cold some time ago.

There have been no intelligence "hits" on bin Laden, either through tip-offs or electronic surveillance, for at least two years, Pakistani security officials said earlier this month.
The last videotaped message released by bin Laden was in late 2004, but several low-quality audio tapes were issued earlier this year.

Pakistani President Pervez Musharraf held a joint news conference with President George Bush in Washington on Friday in which the two leaders said their countries were continuing to cooperate closely in the hunt for bin Laden.

The two men also sought to paper over a disagreement prompted by Bush's statement to CNN on Wednesday that he would order troops into Pakistan if he had firm intelligence on bin Laden.

Musharraf, facing anti-U.S. sentiment at home, had said Pakistan would want to handle such a situation itself.

A senior Taliban official, whose fighters are allied to the remnants of al Qaeda in Afghanistan, also poured cold water on the French newspaper story.

"Taliban have no information about the death of Osama. It's only baseless propaganda against mujahideen (Muslim holy warriors)," Mullah Obaidullah told Reuters by satellite telephone from an undisclosed location.
© Reuters 2006. All Rights Reserved.
http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=topNews&storyID=2006-09-23T115424Z_01_SP264082_RTRUKOT_0_TEXT0.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2 lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

.............What Does Your Car Color Say About Your Personality and Car Insurance Premiums?
Do people with red cars really get more speeding tickets than those with blue cars? Do car insurance companies use the color of your car to determine your rates? Do certain colors increase your chance of an accident? What does the color of your car SAY about your personality?

How Fast IS That Red Car?
According to the Web site Colormatters.com there may be some truth the urban legends surrounding car color and speeding tickets … at least anecdotally.

You & Your Car Color

Visitors to that site say that when they drive red cars they seem to get more speeding tickets. Although there seems to be no official statistics kept for such things, and the police aren’t talking about it, the stories reinforce the urban legend that many have heard.

In general, driving the speed limit is usually a good idea no matter what color car you drive. If you keep your red car at or near the limit, the chances you will get a ticket are much smaller. In fact, they are probably exactly the same as the guy next to you driving the speed limit in his purple car.



Color and Personality
In Great Britain there was actually some research done that suggested that the colour (they really like that spelling for some reason) of your car says something about your personality type. And accordingly, based on your personality type, your likeliness to be involved in an accident (in the U.K. at least). That research showed that black cars are twice as likely to be involved in crashes as cream-color cars. Whether this is true in the United States is unclear.

Here is what it said about certain car colors (listed in order of most dangerous to least)*

Match? No Match?

Black cars denote an aggressive personality or someone who's an outsider or rebel.
Silver cars indicate someone who's cool, calm and slightly aloof.
Green cars can often be chosen by people with hysterical tendencies.
Yellow cars signify someone who is idealistic and novelty loving.
Blue cars are chosen by the more introspective, reflective and cautious driver.
Gray cars represent those who are calm, sober and dedicated to their work.
Red cars denote those who are full of zest, energy and drive and who think, move and talk quickly.
Pink cars are chosen by gentle, loving and affectionate drivers.
White cars represent status-seeking extrovert drivers.
Cream cars are the least likely to be involved in accidents and denote self-contained and controlled owners.



Best for Your Family?

Top Insurance TipsThe Color of Money
What about the car insurance rates question? Does your car insurance company use color to determine your premium? The answer is … no.

Some people have suggested that insurers use the Vehicle Identification Number (VIN) to determine the car color and use that information, in part, to set the rate for each car. But the fact is that car color is not one of the details encoded into a VIN number. So technically, unless they ASK you the color of your car when you buy your car insurance policy, they really have no idea what color it is. And thus has no affect on your rate.

Additionally, according to an article in the Chicago Sun-Times in 2005, despite the mistaken belief by 25 percent of drivers that color affects your car insurance rates, it really has no effect on your insurance at all. Factors like year, make, model, body type (of the car, not YOU) and engine size are taken into consideration along with the driver’s personal information.

So, if you want that little red sports car, go right ahead and get it. Does it mean you are full of zest, energy and drive and think, move and talk quickly? Only you can answer that.

The fact is, if you keep the speed of that little red number somewhere around the posted limit, stop at red lights, yield to oncoming traffic, and make your cell phone calls when you are stopped, you will probably do a lot more for your car insurance rates than any color ever could.

For more on car insurance savings see our 10+ Tips to Help You Save on Car Insurance article

*Quoted from the “Fun at Work” blog by Robin Thompson who quoted from an article in the June 20th 2005 edition of the Register-Herald in Beckley, West Virginia.
http://money.aol.com/insurancecom/insurance/canvas3/_a/what-does-your-car-color-say-about-your/20060830134109990001

[Saundra Hummer]

:: :: :: :: ::

Not coming soon: US troop cuts in Iraq

from the September 22, 2006 edition
-
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0922/p01s03-usmi.html

The Pentagon may have to boost the Army's size or call up more reserves to ease the war's burden.
By
Peter Grier
Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON
In recent days, US military commanders have delivered a bleak message about Iraq: The number of American troops there is not likely to be substantially reduced anytime soon.

Yet the current force may have been strained near the breaking point by frequent deployments to the region, say experts. That means in the months to come, the Pentagon could face increased pressure to expand the size of the active-duty Army, or rely even more heavily on call-ups of National Guard and Reserve units.

Recruiting more soldiers would take time. But any kind of action might be welcomed by those already in uniform, many of whom have served multiple tours of duty in the Middle East.

"As a matter of fairness, we should be trying to help these people," says Michael O'Hanlon, a military expert at the Brookings Institution in Washington.

Currently, about 144,000 US troops are in Iraq, said Army Maj. Gen. William Caldwell, chief US military spokesman in Iraq, at an operational briefing in Baghdad this week. There is no predetermined force level set months in advance, said General Caldwell. Instead, the numbers depend on the requirements necessary to carry out the US mission at any given point in time.

"What we've always said is that the level of troops here in the country of Iraq [is] conditions-based," said Caldwell.

Late last year, US military officials said they hoped the number of US troops on the ground could be cut to the 100,000 level by the end of 2006. But like so many other US expectations about progress in the region, that turned out to be overly optimistic.

A surge in sectarian violence, and continued insurgent activity, means that the US force in Iraq will stay at current levels through the beginning of next year, Army Gen. John Abizaid, chief of US Central Command, told a group of military reporters in Washington this week.

"We clearly did not achieve the force levels we had hoped to," said General Abizaid.

In the short run, violence against US troops may even increase in Iraq, as Al Qaeda fighters there step up activity during the Islamic holy month of Ramadan. Already, the past week has seen an increase in execution-style murders in Baghdad, according to US officials.

Meanwhile, the pace of deployments to Iraq has battered the US military, particularly the Army and Marine Corps.

Army officials would like to have a cushion of two brigades training and resting at home for every one brigade of approximately 3,500 personnel deployed overseas. But real-world conditions have meant the actual ratio is one brigade at home to one overseas.

In practical terms, this means that active-duty brigades get only one year at home in between tours of duty in Iraq or Afghanistan, as opposed to the goal of two years.

"Five years into major combat operations in Afghanistan and Iraq, our nation's armed forces are under enormous strain," concludes a recently released report on the region by the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington.

This strain affects more than people, according to CSIS. Army leaders now consider all nondeployed Army brigade combat teams in the United States - both active and National Guard - to be unready for operations. Equipment and personnel shortfalls may mean the US does not have the forces it needs to respond to a terrorist attack or unexpected crisis.

"National leaders need to honestly debate whether the country can continue to prosecute multiple overseas operations without increasing the size of US ground forces," says the CSIS study.

About 500,000 soldiers are currently in the Army. Plans call for it to increase to about 512,000 in the foreseeable future.

But even reaching that level may take time. Growing beyond that, if authorized, would take even longer. And the need is pressing now, note experts.

Short of obligatory national service, moves such as opening the US military to foreigners with no US ties, but who wish to move toward US residence or citizenship, might be necessary for the Army to grow in a reasonable amount of time.

"It takes a couple of years to make a meaningful increase in the size of the Army," says Mr. O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution.

The US could send National Guard and Reserve units back to Iraq on a faster deployment schedule, but many such units have already hit legal limits that allow them to be sent overseas only two years out of every five.

Given the level of violence and the pace of training of Iraqi forces, substantial numbers of US troops may well remain in Iraq at least through the presidency of George W. Bush, and perhaps beyond.

It will be two to three years at the earliest before Iraq's regular military forces can stand on their own against Iraqi insurgents and militias, according to CSIS military expert Anthony Cordesman. It will be five years before they will be strong enough to defend against neighboring states.

"There can be no fixed time scale for US reductions," writes Mr. Cordesman in an analysis released earlier this year.

• Wire services were used in this report.

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links.

www.csmonitor.com
Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved.

[Saundra Hummer]

lllllllllllllllll
Falwell Says Faithful Fear Clinton More Than Devil

By
Peter Wallsten
The Los Angeles Times
Sunday 24 September 2006

The evangelical leader tells a conference that the New York senator will mobilize his base like no one else if she runs for president.
Washington - Nothing will motivate conservative evangelical Christians to vote Republican in the 2008 presidential election more than a Democratic nominee named Hillary Rodham Clinton - not even a run by the devil himself.

That was the sentiment expressed by the Rev. Jerry Falwell, the longtime evangelical icon and founder of the once-powerful Moral Majority, during private remarks Friday to church pastors and activists as part of the Values Voter Summit hosted this weekend by the country's leading Christian conservatives.

A recording of Falwell's comments was obtained by The Times, and his remarks were confirmed by eyewitnesses.

"I certainly hope that Hillary is the candidate," Falwell said, according to the recording. "She has $300 million so far. But I hope she's the candidate. Because nothing will energize my [constituency] like Hillary Clinton."

Cheers and laughter filled the room as Falwell continued: "If Lucifer ran, he wouldn't."

At that moment in the recording, Falwell's voice is drowned out by hoots of approval. But two in attendance, including a Falwell staff member, confirmed that Falwell said that even Lucifer, the fallen angel synonymous with Satan in Christian theology, would not mobilize his followers as much as the New York senator and former first lady would.

One critic who has been observing the conference said Saturday that Falwell's words offered a rare glimpse into how religious conservative leaders were planning to inflame opposition to the Democrats with below-the-radar messages that are often more scorching than the ones showing up in public.

"He was calling Hillary Clinton a demonic figure and openly arguing that God is a Republican," said the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, executive director of the advocacy group Americans United for Separation of Church and State. "It's hard to know whether people thought he was joking or serious, but once you start using religious imagery and invoking a politician in this way, it's not funny. A lot of people who listen to him do think that she's a dark force of evil in America."

Such controversy is nothing new for Falwell, who once described Islam's prophet Muhammad as a terrorist and said that abortion providers, feminists, gays and lesbians were to blame for the 9/11 attacks.

An aide to Falwell said Saturday that the Lucifer reference was an "off the cuff" comment and that Falwell "had no intentions of demonizing her."

Falwell's remarks about Clinton were part of a 40-minute address at a private breakfast that included assurances that God would preserve a Republican majority in Congress and that moderates such as former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani could not be allowed to win the GOP presidential nomination.

Falwell's estimation of Clinton's campaign war chest appeared to be hyperbole; she has raised about $47 million for her Senate account this cycle, according the Center for Responsive Politics. But she has raised millions more for other candidates, and many strategists believe that if she decides to run, Clinton will amass record-level contributions.

Falwell wasn't the only public figure to invoke Satan in reference to a political adversary last week. Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez referred to President Bush as the devil before the United Nations General Assembly, speaking the day after Bush had stood at the same rostrum.

About two hours after Falwell's speech at the Values Voter Summit, James Dobson, founder of the influential group Focus on the Family, spoke publicly at the same conference. Dobson denounced what he said was a limp response by both political parties to Chavez's comment. Dobson, whose group was a sponsor of the weekend gathering, told the nearly 2,000 activists crammed into a hotel ballroom near downtown Washington that Chavez had "attacked our president viciously."

"And there has hardly been a statement of defense out of members of Congress about that," Dobson said. "There's been [only] a few pantywaist comments."

Neither Falwell nor Dobson responded to interview requests.

One conference official, Family Research Council President Tony Perkins, said Saturday that he believed Falwell intended his comment to be a "humorous remark."

Asked if he was comfortable with the connotation, Perkins deferred questions to Falwell.

"I can only be responsible for what I say," Perkins said, adding that he disagreed with Falwell that a Clinton candidacy would be good for conservatives. "I think it would be a little too risky. Anything could happen, and that's just one step closer to her actually being elected."

Falwell's remarks about Clinton were not the only indication this weekend that the evangelical movement was focused on the senator from New York.

One meeting on the agenda featured three analysts from the conservative Heritage Foundation for a discussion of health policy titled "The Future of Health Care: HillaryCare or Values-Driven Health Care?" The title was referring to Clinton's 1993 efforts to draft a national health plan that conservatives continue to deride as a form of big-government socialism.

But Falwell's speech captured the spirit of much of the weekend, which was devoted to revving up the GOP base for November and beyond, and included appearances from several prospective Republican presidential candidates - Massachusetts Gov. Mitt Romney, Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee and Sens. George Allen of Virginia and Sam Brownback of Kansas.

At the breakfast, Falwell made it clear that he thought the 2008 nominee must be a true conservative.

"It can't be a Giuliani and it cannot be a [New York Gov. George E.] Pataki," he said. "It cannot be a pro-choice. It cannot be a person on the wrong side of the social issues. We've got to have somebody worth fighting for because we will be energized if Hillary is the standard-bearer."

Falwell predicted that this year's midterm elections would go in the GOP's favor, despite polls showing Democrats in position to make gains.

"I think we're going to keep the House and the Senate," he said. "I think the Lord will take care of that."

(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. t r u t h o u t has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is t r u t h o u t endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)

"Go to Original" links are provided as a convenience to our readers and allow for verification of authenticity. However, as originating pages are often updated by their originating host sites, the versions posted on TO may not match the versions our readers view when clicking the "Go to Original" links.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/092406D.shtml lllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

.............Terrorism & Securityposted
September 25, 2006 at 12:30 p.m.
US intelligence report: Iraq war breeding more terrorists
White House 'strongly disagrees' with spy agencies' assessment.By Tom Regan
csmonitor.comA classified National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) contends that the war in Iraq has increased Islamic radicalism, and has made the terror threat around the world worse. Based on information from US government officials who had seen the document and spoke on condition of anyonymity, The New York Times reports that the NIE document, titled "Trends in Global Terrorism: Implications for the United States," says the war plays a much more direct role in the spread of Islamic radicalism around the world than has previously been indicated by the White House, or in a recent report by the US House intelligence committee.
The intelligence estimate, completed in April, is the first formal appraisal of global terrorism by US intelligence agencies since the March 2003 invasion of Iraq, and it represents a consensus view of the 16 different spy services inside government. The estimate asserts that Islamic radicalism, rather than being in retreat, has metastasized and spread around the globe.

An opening section of the report, "Indicators of the Spread of the Global Jihadist Movement," cites the Iraq war as a reason for the diffusion of jihad ideology. The report "says that the Iraq war has made the overall terrorism problem worse," one US intelligence official said.

The Los Angeles Times reports that the 30-page report presents "an array of disturbing trends in the war on terrorism." The report focuses primarily on the forces that are changing the structure of the Islamic terrorist movement, as it evolves from a highly centralized organization to a much more fragmented ideological movement.

"It paints a fairly stark picture of what we all know, and that this is a movement that is spreading and gaining momentum around the world," said the official familiar with the document. "Things like the Iraq war have given the terrorists recruiting tools and places to ply their trade and a training ground." The official said the estimate touches on a number of factors fueling the jihadist movement, but that "the reference to Iraq was the main one."

A US intelligence official who has seen the document said that many of the report's findings were outlined in a speech in San Antonio in April by Gen. Michael V. Hayden, the former principal deputy director of national intelligence. Hayden has since become director of the CIA. Hayden did not single out the Iraq war in the speech as a particularly powerful force shaping terrorist networks. But he did acknowledge "the centrality of Iraq" and said the conflict there and how it is portrayed in Islamic media continue to cultivate support for the global jihadist movement.


The Guardian reports that the NIE document "contradicts" recent optimistic assessments from the Bush administration. It also "furthers the divisions between the military and politicians in their assessment of the impact of US policy in Iraq."

The Los Angeles Times reports that the White House, sensing the importance of the issue of Iraq during an election year, moved quickly to counter the impact of the NIE report. White House spokesman Peter Watkins said the Bush administration "sharply disagreed" with the findings of the 16 intelligence agencies, saying "anti-American fervor in the Muslim world began long before the Sept. 11 attacks."

"Their hatred for freedom and liberty did not develop overnight," Watkins said. "Those seeds were planted decades ago." He said the administration has sought in Iraq to root out hotbeds of terrorism before they grow. "Instead of waiting while they plot and plan attacks to kill innocent Americans, the United States has taken the initiative to fight back," Watkins said.

President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney also have highlighted the war in Iraq as the main thrust in the fight against terrorism, contending that the world is safer overall without Saddam Hussein in power in Iraq. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), a member of the Senate Armed Services Committee and a likely presidential candidate in 2008, agreed with the White House view that radicalism predates the toppling of Saddam, and that fundamentalists are always looking for reasons to recruit new jihadists.

Reuters reports that US Intelligence Director John Negroponte said the sections of the document reported on by the media show "only a small handful" of the conclusions from a broad strategic assessment of global terrorism.

But The New York Times reports that some Democratic and Republican politicians felt the report was another indication of an already bad situation in Iraq. Democratic Sen. John Kerry of Massachusetts said it showed that the Bush administration policy in Iraq was acting as a "recruiting poster" for terrorists. Republican Sen. Arlen Spectre of Pennsylvania said on CNN that "the war in Iraq has intensified Islamic fundamentalism and radicalism," although he added "that's a problem that nobody seems to have an answer to."

In a related story, CBSNews reports that Al Qaeda has scaled down its leadership structure in Afghanistan, and is preparing to shift its main decisionmaking component to somewhere else in the Middle East, probably Iraq.

[An Arab diplomat in Pakistan] said there were reports recently of al Qaeda ordering its Arab members who remained in the Pakistan-Afghan border region to move to the Middle East, after the group's leaders concluded that their followers in local militant groups around the region were capable of carrying on al Qaeda's work. "This decision was meant to close the Al Qaeda Arab chapter in this part of the world. But Al Qaeda remains in the shape of local non-Arab militants who would carry on its work" he added. A Saudi security advisor told CBS News that the exodus of Arab Al Qaeda members, mostly originating from the Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, began in mid to late July, and continued throughout August. Saudi intelligence has not yet determined why this exodus has taken place, says the advisor.

Another Arab diplomat said he had seen reports just in the past fortnight of Arab fighters moving from the Pak-Afghan region, either using the land route via Iran or one of the central Asian countries, with some trying to pass through Pakistan.

"The destination of these people is back to the Middle East. Iraq we know is right now the biggest battleground for such people and I have heard enough on the subject of Iraq working as a magnet for militant groups to go along with the view that some may be heading to Iraq," said the diplomat who also spoke on the condition of anonymity.

Pakistani officials said the reports of Al Qaeda movement might be connected with recent reports of the death of Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden from an illness, or they could just be an indication of the continuing decentralization of the terrorist movement.

Go on-site to view any link and/or photo's which may or may not accompany this text and to access other stories pertaining or linked to this article or issue.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/dailyUpdate.html...............

[Saundra Hummer]

...............
Another federal budget mess looms
By
David R. Francis
from the September 25, 2006 edition -
http://www.csmonitor.com/2006/0925/p17s01-cogn.html
Many conservatives and liberals agree on one Washington phenomenon: The budgets emerging from Congress under the Bush administration are a mess.
"Bush is the second-most fiscally irresponsible president ever," says Richard Kogan, a budget expert at the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, a liberal Washington think tank. (The worst, by his measure, was Ronald Reagan.)

At the libertarian CATO Institute, budget expert Steven Slivinski refers to the "Grand Old Spending Party": "President Bush has presided over the largest overall increase in inflation-adjusted federal spending since Lyndon B. Johnson," he writes in a policy analysis.

In other words, the two, politically far apart, agree that Republicans have not walked their talk of "fiscal discipline."

The fiscal year 2006 ends Saturday. Members of Congress hope to head to the hustings Friday. In theory, by then Congress should have passed all 13 appropriations bills for fiscal 2007. But at this writing, only two - for defense and for Homeland Security - are thought to have a chance of passage.

Those not dealt with in the next several days are likely to be considered in a postelection congressional session in November. It's been speculated, though, that a stopgap continuing resolution will be passed to provide the federal government with enough money to keep going until a new Congress convenes next year.

It has become common for Congress not to pass all appropriations legislation before a fiscal year starts - relying on a continuing resolution to pay the bills. Spending disagreements and deadline bargaining cause frequent delays.

Democrats are chuckling at the situation today. Republicans, supposedly organized and parsimonious, control both houses of Congress plus the White House. But there's no budget yet.

Stan Collender, a veteran budget observer, offers this explanation: "The White House and congressional Republicans have obviously realized that 'cutting spending' won't work as a political strategy." What is different this time, he holds, is that the Republican leadership has consciously decided not to force action on the appropriations bills.

Congressional procedures, even the veto in the Senate, are not a real impediment to making budget cuts, Mr. Collender maintains. But the conservative Republican leadership knows that Democrats and a small group of moderate Republicans could combine at this pre-election stage to block some cuts in discretionary spending, say, on social programs. After the election, such cuts become more politically feasible for moderate Republicans, perhaps even if defeated. So it's expedient to put off these votes for now.

When it comes to allocating blame for the budget mess, conservatives and liberals differ.

Mr. Kogan largely blames the tax cuts endorsed by the Bush administration. Minus them, the 2006 budget would be in balance. Instead, the deficit is expected to run somewhere around $260 billion this fiscal year. It's likely to grow in coming years - unless some tax cuts die.

What bothers Kogan is that the economic burden represented by Uncle Sam's debt has seriously deteriorated by one measure. Outstanding federal debt held by the public has climbed as a ratio of the nation's gross domestic product (GDP) from 26 percent when Bush took office to 37 or 38 percent now.

As a result, interest on that federal debt is the fastest-growing major expense category in the budget. About 40 percent of federal debt rolls over each year, and rising interest rates make new and rolled-over debt more costly.

Under Reagan, who tried to shrink government by starving it of tax revenues, this debt-GDP ratio deteriorated even faster. It rose from 26 percent at the start of his eight years to almost 50 percent at the end. Reagan was "the most profligate" of the presidents, says Kogan.

Nor does the rising cost of the Iraq war give Bush an excuse, Kogan says. That war is cheap compared to the Korean War or the Vietnam War during the times of Presidents Eisenhower and Johnson. Yet during their presidencies the debt-GDP ratio hardly changed.

But while liberals want to maintain revenues for social programs, conservatives are "aghast," writes Michael Franc, vice president of the Heritage Foundation in Washington, at "the way supposedly conservative lawmakers have spent money." His comments were in Human Events, a conservative magazine.

Federal spending grew by 33 percent during Bush's first term. Outlays were $1.86 trillion in 2001 and about $2.7 trillion in the fiscal year ending this month.

Conservatives can list hundreds of programs they want trimmed or eliminated.

The budget's long-term outlook looks even worse. "Incredibly worrisome," says Adam Hughes, an economist with OMB Watch, a Washington budget observer. "The country is headed toward a fiscal crisis."

Full HTML version of this story which may include photos, graphics, and related links

www.csmonitor.com | Copyright © 2006 The Christian Science Monitor. All rights reserved. .................

[Saundra Hummer]

llllllllllllllllllllEven More U.S. Generals Blast Rumsfeld Over Iraq, Call for Replacement
Submitted by BuzzFlash
on
Mon, 09/25/2006 - 1:56pm.
Alerts
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/alerts/122

The war in Iraq is a disaster, and Rumsfeld needs to be replaced. But don't just take our word for it - this reiteration comes today from a pair of recently retired two-star army generals with more than sixty years of military experience between them. They testified today in a hearing before the Democratic Policy Committee, called in absence of adequate official hearings in Congress.

Despite an open invitation to leaders, the only elected Republican to attend the hearing was Rep. Walter Jones, a self-described conservative from North Carolina, who has become one of the strongest critics of the war after originally voting to authorize it.

Major General John Batiste said that he is a life-long Republican and was on the verge of getting his third star, but retired after deciding he could do more for his soldiers out of uniform than in it. "Bottom line, our nation is in peril, our Department of Defense’s leadership is extraordinarily bad, and our Congress is only today, more than five years into this war, beginning to exercise its oversight responsibilities," he said.

"Secretary Rumsfeld’s dismal strategic decisions resulted in the unnecessary eaths of American servicemen and women, our allies, and the good people of Iraq," Batiste added.

During questioning, Batiste told the Committee that he and other generals on the ground in Iraq had repeatedly requested more troops but were denied by the Bush Administration, leaving them unable to achieve their objectives.

Major General Paul Eaton, who was the Commanding General of the Coalation Military Assistance Training Team and charged with building the Iraqi army after the invasion, also blasted the mismanagement of the war by Bush and Rumsfeld. "Stay the course is not a strategy," he said, noting that the "planning was amateurish at best, incompetent a better descriptor."

According to Eaton, Rumsfeld made it clear that establishing the Iraqi army was the "last priority" in restoring security. Eaton said Rumsfeld did not provide him with the resources he requested and desperately needed for success.

"The President charged Secretary Rumsfeld to prosecute this war, a man who has roven himself incompetent strategically, operationally, and tactically. Mr. Rumsfeld ame into his position with an extraordinary arrogance, and an agenda," Eaton said. As a result of the war, Iraqis have told Eaton that it is "better to live for 40 years under a dictatorship with order than 40 days of chaos."

(No word yet on when the White House plans to denounce the generals as defeatists or cowards)

Click here to read Batiste's opening statement (pdf) -
Click here to read Eaton's opening statement (pdf)
Go on-site to read links
A BUZZFLASH NEWS ALERT lllllllllllllllll

[Saundra Hummer]

Casting Credentials Away in the Old Dominion
Incumbent Sen. underplays challenger's service under Reagan.

September 25, 2006 .......
Summary
An attack ad by Republican Sen. George Allen tries to portray his opponent, Democrat James Webb, as a lightweight, identifying the Marine-turned-novelist as a "fiction writer" who served under former President Ronald Reagan for only 10 months before quitting. It also criticizes Webb's continued use, in his own ad, of a clip of Reagan praising him in a 1985 speech despite widow Nancy Reagan's request that he stop using the footage.

The Allen ad is wrong about Webb's service in the Reagan administration. It's true Webb served only 10 months as Secretary of the Navy but he was an Assistant Secretary of Defense for three years under Reagan before that. And Webb is legally entitled to use the footage of Reagan's speech, which did in fact praise the future Democratic candidate profusely.

Analysis
Allen's attempt to undermine Webb's credentials comes as the race that the incumbent was favored to win has tightened.


Friends of George Allen Ad: "Fiction"

Announcer: Twenty years ago, fiction writer James Webb served in the Reagan Administration. After 10 months, he quit. Webb attacked

Reagan policy. Now Webb wants you to believe the late President would support him. Nancy Reagan doesn't
(On Screen: News clipping and headline "Nancy Reagan tells Webb to pull footage of husband from ads," The Virginian Pilot. Also a letter from Nancy Reagan's office. )

Announcer: She called on Webb to take down his ad, Webb refused. Would Ronald Reagan really endorse a candidate who hires people who call him a fool? And disrespects the wishes of his widowed wife? That's just fiction.
Allen: "I'm George Allen and

I approve this message."

Multiply by Four
The announcer tells us that Webb "served in the Reagan administration. After 10 months, he quit." This misstates Webb's service. He actually joined the administration in 1984, when he was nominated and confirmed as Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs. The Vietnam veteran, who was awarded the Navy Cross, the Silver Star, two Bronze Stars and two Purple Hearts for his military service, resigned to write another book in 1987, but almost immediately then-Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger asked him to become Secretary of the Navy.

Webb was confirmed to that post, but it was a short stay. He had conflicts with Weinberger's successor, Frank Carlucci, and didn't agree with the way Carlucci wanted to implement cuts in the Pentagon's budget that had been mandated by Congressional and White House agreement. Specifically, Webb publicly objected to cutting the Navy fleet as Carlucci proposed. Webb's leavetaking was indeed turbulent.

A small quibble: Webb became Secretary of the Navy 19 years ago, and resigned from the job 18 years ago – not 20. "Nearly 20 years ago" would have been correct.

Ouija Board Politics

Allen's ad implies that Webb is engaging in "fiction" by using an old clip of President Reagan in one of his own ads. The GOP ad says, "Would Ronald Reagan really endorse a candidate who hires people who call him a fool? And disrespects the wishes of his widowed wife? That's just fiction." In fact, Webb never claimed the late President endorsed his current candidacy, and we find that the Webb ad is historically accurate, whatever Mrs. Reagan may think of it.

Political decisions are out of our bailiwick, so we won't comment on the calculation by Webb, a former Republican who said he became a Democrat in part because of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to use the 1985 clip of Reagan giving a speech at the Naval Academy. At the very least, it is an unusual tactic. Here's what Reagan said in 1985:

Reagan: One man who sat where you do now and graduated from the Naval Academy in 1968 is another member of our Administration--Assistant Secretary of Defense James Webb, the most decorated member of his class. James' gallantry as a Marine officer in Vietnam won him the Navy Cross and other decortions, including two Purple Hearts. James wrote several books about American servicemen and women. In his book, a Sense of Honor, he describes the life that you have chosen.

Reagan then quotes from Webb's book.

Distrespecting Mrs. Reagan?

Whether Webb "disrespected" Mrs. Reagan's wishes, we can't say. He certainly didn't follow them.

Shortly after Webb began running the ad, Nancy Reagan's chief-of-staff Joanne Drake wrote to him, stating in part:

Drake: The use of video footage of President Reagan, or the use of photographs, likenes