Sunday, October 01, 2006
John McCain 2000: The Swiftboaters First Mission
Huffington Post
Dave Johnson
John McCain 2000: The Swiftboaters First Mission
This piece originally appeared on The Patriot Project
Imagine that it's 1997, and you're a strategist trying to figure out how to get George W. Bush, of all people, into the White House. Your candidate's record is, to put it mildly, not so great: he had been elected Governor of Texas in 1994 and before that ... well ... never mind.
His term as government is marked by cronyism and corruption, and if elected to the nation's highest office it promises to be more of the same.
If you're going to win this you will need to mask your candidate's record and agenda. You need a strategy that turns your opponents' advantages into disadvantages, and, most important, that distracts everyone from your own candidate's awful record. And to accomplish this you need a team that is willing and cynical enough to do what it is going to take to sell your guy. Bush's top strategist Karl Rove learned his licks alongside Lee Atwater. Rove and Atwater went back a long ways,
Back in 1972, the 22-year-old Rove was a candidate for chairman of the College Republicans. The rambunctious Atwater was his Southern regional coordinator.
What kind of campaigning schooling did Rove receive? In 1981 Atwater, then a Reagan strategist, said in an interview,
You start out in 1954 by saying, 'Nigger, nigger, nigger.' By 1968 you can't say 'nigger' - that hurts you. Backfires. So you say stuff like forced busing, states' rights and all that stuff.
In 1988, Atwater ran Bush's father's campaign against Michael Dukakis,
During the election, a number of false rumors were reported in the media about Dukakis, including the claim by Idaho Republican Senator Steve Symms that Dukakis's wife Kitty had burned an American flag to protest the Vietnam War, as well as the claim that Dukakis himself had been treated for a mental illness.
Rove's own background follows a similarly questionable ethical path,
Rove's first foray into politics involved gaining entry to the office of Alan Dixon--a candidate for state treasurer in Illinois in 1970--stealing some campaign stationery and printing and distributing a fake invitation to Dixon's campaign headquarters, promising "free beer, free food, girls, and a good time."
Later, working for Nixon's "dirty tricks" team,
...Rove infiltrated Democratic organizations on behalf of Nixon's infamous 1972 campaign. Rove's formidable talents came to the attention of George Bush Senior, then incoming Republican National Committee chairman, and the rest is history.
Finally, in Texas,
In 1986, Rove, by then in Texas, announced that his office had been bugged by Democrats during a gubernatorial race. The accusation, which spurred an FBI investigation, never panned out, leading some critics to charge that Rove had bugged his own phone.
So you've got your Rove on. Next, you line up your operatives - people like Tom Synhorst and Ralph Reed. If you've got a stinker to sell, it's a good idea turn to the very best at selling real stinkers. Tobacco marketers were so good that they could convince people to kill themselves with your product and hand over their money to you in the process!
Before moving into political consulting, Tom Synhorst had been employed by the R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company coordinating RJR's "grassroots" efforts. Later he had worked on George W Bush's 1994 campaign for Governor of Texas. Mother Jones, in 1996's groundbreaking story Tobacco Dole,
Synhorst ... illustrate[s] an important aspect of the tobacco industry's survival plan: Create grassroots front groups to make pro-tobacco legislation handed down by state and national politicians appear to be the public's will. These groups, many posing as "anti-tax" organizations, are key to the tobacco industry's efforts to win over the anti-big government segment of the electorate.
Known as the "Johnny Appleseed of Astroturf," Synhorst founded the firm Direct Connect, Inc., or DCI in 1988. DCI continued to work for tobacco companies as well as political campaigns and the NRA, specializing in "strategic message development and delivery," and using Astroturf methods to make it appear to members of Congress that there was popular support for their positions.
Ralph Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition (and now implicated as part of the Abramoff lobbying/corruption ring) is a help, because at some point you want to get your candidate in front of the leaders and followers of the theocratic Right - and especially get their machine behind you. Reed was probably helpful in facilitating a relationship between Bush and the Council for National Policy. (See here, here, here, here and here)
(And if you want to mask Reed's involvement, just "park" him at Enron and Microsoft. (see also) According to CNN,
The White House acknowledged Friday that in 1997, as George W. Bush was deciding whether to run for president, his senior political adviser Karl Rove recommended GOP strategist Ralph Reed for a consulting job with Enron Corp. Reed, former head of the Christian Coalition, went to work for Enron as a strategist, making from $10,000 to $20,000 a month, according to The New York Times.
After you've got your operative ducks in a row there's those pesky primaries to get through (ask Joe Lieberman about that). In the primaries you face John McCain, an experienced Senator, a man perceived as a military hero who had spent five years as a POW, and as an honest "straight talker." If you are a strategist for George W. Bush, of all people, how do you go up against that?
And following the primaries you still have the general election where you'll be up against Al Gore, the most involved Vice President in history, coming from four years of peace and prosperity, a former seminary student, Vietnam veteran, with one of the strongest records of any Senator.
One of the advantages you have for the coming campaign is... almost all the money in the world.
Turning McCain's record into a liability - how they did it.
If you're really, really cynical, why not turn a record of honorable record of military service and dedication to America into a liability!
From Patriot Project's The Swiftboaters Are Back in the Water,
... Bush surrogates (several later involved in the Kerry swiftboating effort) skillfully turned McCain's service record against him (thereby deflecting questions about Bush's own service record.) They planted stories that the torture McCain suffered as a POW had brought about mental instability, including rumors that he had been programmed as a "Manchurian candidate" who "collaborated with the enemy." No longer could McCain use the fact that he had endured torture as evidence of dedication to serving his country.
And as explained in Patriot Project's Did Paul Galanti Sell His Medals,
In the 2000 South Carolina Presidential primary Bush surrogates circulated stories that McCain's five years as a POW had made him "mentally unstable," gave him a "loose screw," that he "committed treason while a POW" and "came home and forgot us." The stories also called McCain "the fag candidate," called his wife a drug addict, said McCain "chose to sire children without marriage" and had "a black child" (the actual wording of that last smear from the flyers and e-mails that circulated is not printable here).
And when McCain responded by asking whether this kind of smear campaign showed that voters should think twice about trusting Bush, saying Bush was "twisting the truth like Clinton," Rove was able to turn that against McCain¸ by accusing McCain of "going negative." Unlike Rove and Bush, McCain hadn't understood the value of attacking with surrogates.
This information was passed using flyers, e-mails, word-of-mouth and "push polls." As McCain's campaign manager, Richard H. Davis, later wrote in his article about what happened, The anatomy of a smear campaign that,
Anonymous opponents used "push polling" to suggest that McCain's Bangladeshi born daughter was his own, illegitimate black child. In push polling, a voter gets a call, ostensibly from a polling company, asking which candidate the voter supports. In this case, if the "pollster" determined that the person was a McCain supporter, he made statements designed to create doubt about the senator.
But other Bush surrogates threw smoke into the air, accusing the media of making up the whole story
Synhorst's firm specialized in push-polling. According to a Feb. 11, 2000 Washington Post story,
[Bush campaign spokesman Ari] Fleischer said the advocacy calls were being made by the firm of Feathers, Hodges, Larson and Synhorst, a Phoenix-based company that has worked extensively for the Bush campaign to identify and turn out voters in key states.
Reed also had his own background in nasty, smearing push polling. According to Josh Marshall,
Back in 1996 Reed was the one who helped save Bob Dole in Iowa by orchestrating a campaign of so-called "push-polls" attacking rival candidate Steve Forbes for, among other things, tolerating his father's "alternative lifestyle."
And, also according to Marshall,
Reed's frequent partner in "astroturf" work is Tom Synhorst. Let's run through some of his exploits in the "astroturf" biz. Synhorst's main shop is Direct Connect Inc., DCI. DCI did the "astroturf" work for the 'Health Benefits Coalition,' trying to kill the Health Care Bill of Rights back in 1998 (Nat. Journal July 11, '98); DCI also spearheaded various efforts by the tobacco industry and the NRA; it also helped set up Americans for Competitive Technology and Americans for Technology Leadership, two Microsoft front groups agitating against the Justice Department's antitrust suit.
(Remember that Reed working for Microsoft at the same time as he was employed as a Bush campaign strategist.)
And finally, let's bring in the Wyly Brothers. The Wyly Brothers ran their own smear-McCain operation. According to the Dallas Morning News,
During Mr. Bush's 2000 primary fight with John McCain, the [Wyly] brothers backed a $2.5 million television ad campaign praising Mr. Bush's environmental record in Texas and attacking Mr. McCain's Senate votes. Until that point, it was Mr. Bush whose record had come under fire from environmental groups.
The ad's sponsor was identified only as "Republicans for Clean Air," a new group at the time...
So what is up with McCain today, turning around and joining up with the very foes who smeared him in 2000?
From the Dallas News story,
Earlier this year, the Wylys' relationship with Mr. McCain took a surprising turn. They each sent $10,000 checks to his political action committee and were set to co-sponsor a Dallas fundraiser on his behalf.
And from ABC's April 23, 06 story, Gearing Up for '08? McCain Befriends Old Enemies,
Also co-chairing the [McCain] event are Rob Allyn, a Texas PR man who was paid $46,000 to produce the Wylys' "Republicans for Clean Air" ads, and businessmen Albert Huddleston and Harold Simmons, who gave $100,000 and $3 million respectively to the controversial independent group, "Swift Vets & POWs for Truth." McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable" the "Swift Vets" group's 2004 campaign ads that helped sink the presidential chances of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
... Also co-chairing the event are Rob Allyn, a Texas PR man who was paid $46,000 to produce the Wylys' "Republicans for Clean Air" ads, and businessmen Albert Huddleston and Harold Simmons, who gave $100,000 and $3 million respectively to the controversial independent group, "Swift Vets & POWs for Truth." McCain called "dishonest and dishonorable" the "Swift Vets" group's 2004 campaign ads that helped sink the presidential chances of Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass.
... McCain has been criticized by many liberals and pundits in recent weeks for agreeing to speak on May 13 at Liberty University, the school founded by Christian conservative Rev. Jerry Falwell, who McCain in 2000 labeled "an agent of intolerance." McCain told NBC's Tim Russert earlier this month that he no longer held that opinion.
"The, quote, 'Christian Right' has a major role to play in the Republican Party," McCain said. "One reason is because they're so active, and their followers are."
Interestingly the Wyly Brothers may have gotten the money to smear McCain from Texas taxpayers, with Bush's help. But that's a story for later...
John Dean, in the preface to his book Conservatives Without Conscience, writes,
How do people - particularly those who have never put their life on the line fot their country - engage in, or condone, attacks on Senator John McCain's life-defining experiences as a Vietnam POW or question Senator Ma Cleland's courage in building a new life after his loss of three limbs in Vietnam? What causes them to dispute Senator John Kerry's valor during voluntary combat duty in Vietnam or to contest Representative Jack Murtha's war record in Vietnam? ... These questions have clear answers. ... In fact, these people cannot be trusted to exercise the powers of government responsibly.
The Patriot Project is working to expose the front groups, their funding, their connections and their tactics.
CREW Calls For House To Appoint Outside Counsel To Investigate Foley Page Scandal
CREW Calls For House To Appoint Outside Counsel To Investigate Foley Page Scandal
Contact: Naomi Seligman Steiner of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, 202-841-5096; http://www.citizensforethics.org
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) today called upon the House of Representatives to appoint an outside counsel to investigate the House leadership's role in covering up Rep. Mark Foley's (R-FL) inappropriate email exchanges with a sixteen-year-old former House page.
Several members of the Republican leadership have now admitted to knowing for nearly a year that Rep. Foley engaged in email exchanges with a sixteen-year-old former House page. These members, including Majority Leader John Boehner (R-OH) and Reps. Rodney Alexander (R-LA), John Shimkus (R-IL) and Tom Reynolds (R-NY) have all claimed that they failed to take action because the boy's parents did not want to pursue the matter. The decision not to investigate further left other House pages unprotected and vulnerable to a potential sexual predator.
Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert's (R-IL) decision to have Rep. Shimkus review the page system is particularly ludicrous, given that it was Rep. Shimkus who, despite having been made aware that the boy and his parents were concerned about Rep. Foley's emails, readily accepted Rep. Foley's explanation that he was merely mentoring the boy. Rep. Shimkus is the chairman of the House page board.
Although the matter allegedly was raised before the House page board, the failure to insulate pages from further contact with Rep. Foley and the failure to implement measures to protect the pages suggests that the leadership failed to take the matter seriously.
Because the House leadership has demonstrated a shocking lack of judgment in dealing with Rep. Foley's conduct, those in charge cannot now be trusted to examine the matter candidly. To ensure a thorough investigation of this sordid episode and the roles of everyone involved, it is imperative that the House immediately appoint an outside counsel. To that end, the chairman and the ranking member of the House Committee on Standards of Official Conduct, Reps. Doc Hastings (R-WA) and Howard Berman (D-CA) respectively, should jointly choose an outside counsel with prosecutorial experience to get to the bottom of this sorry affair. It is the very least the House can do for the teenagers entrusted to its care.
Melanie Sloan, CREW's executive director, said today, "It is horrifying to learn that some members of Congress were more concerned with covering up a potentially embarrassing situation than with protecting the teenage pages." Sloan continued, "the American people, and particularly the parents of other pages, have a right to know if congressional leaders put politics above the safety of children."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
Congress Approves Reid/Clinton Legislation Requiring Bush Administration to Report Regularly on Conditions in Darfur
Congress Approves Reid/Clinton Legislation Requiring Bush Administration to Report Regularly on Conditions in Darfur
Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939, both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid; or Sen. Clinton's Press Office, 202-224-2243
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Legislation authored by Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) requiring the Administration to report regularly on violations of the peace and on U.S. assistance to peacekeeping in Darfur was included in the Department of Defense Authorization Act conference report. The Reid-Clinton measure combined amendments that were authored independently by Senators Reid and Clinton earlier this year, largely to sustain U.S. engagement on the crisis in Darfur. "The situation in Darfur is one of the most pressing humanitarian crises we face," said Reid. "The Defense Appropriations Bill included the funding needed for security, but we must make sure Congress has the information necessary to ensure that there is sustained U.S. engagement on this issue. Hopefully, this legislation will be another step towards bringing a comprehensive peace to the region." "The continued suffering of children and families in Darfur is unacceptable. More than 200,000 civilians have lost their lives and as many as three to four million now depend on aid.
The President of Sudan continues to defy the U.N. Security Council, the African Union, and even other Sudanese officials. Meanwhile, we continue to receive reports of a major Sudanese offensive that violates international laws. While we push for action to stop the violence, this reporting will help sustain attention to this crisis," said Senator Clinton. The first Darfur report is expected in 90 days, and like subsequent reports, it requires the Secretary of Defense in coordination with the Secretary of State to describe (1) violations of the Darfur Peace Agreement and delays in its implementation, including those related to demobilization of the Janjaweed, returns of displaced people, and security for relief operations; (2) the African Union Mission in Sudan's (AMIS) ability to perform its duties; (3) U.S. assistance to the AMIS and possible U.N. peacekeeping mission in Darfur; and (4) U.S. efforts to amass peacekeepers from other countries for the U.N. mission in Darfur. Senators Reid and Clinton also applauded Congressional passage of legislation they co-sponsored with Senators Obama and Durbin, providing an additional $20 million to peacekeepers in Sudan. This legislation was part of a Department of Defense Appropriations bill that will soon be signed into law by the President.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts
washingtonpost.com
Report Says Rove Aide Accepted Abramoff Gifts
By James V. Grimaldi and Susan Schmidt
Washington Post Staff Writers
A top aide to presidential adviser Karl Rove passed along inside White House information to superlobbyist Jack Abramoff at a time when she was also accepting his tickets to nine sports and entertainment events, according to e-mails released yesterday in a bipartisan congressional report.
The e-mails, released by the House Government Reform Committee, show that Susan Ralston also on occasion discussed possible business ventures with Abramoff. Ralston had worked for Abramoff before joining Rove in the White House in 2001.
White House contacts with Abramoff have been the focus of heated interest in Washington since he pleaded guilty to fraud and conspiracy charges earlier this year. Although the committee report documents that Abramoff's lobbying team billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials over three years, it remains unclear what results Abramoff obtained.
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) seized on the report yesterday: "A disgraced lobbyist traded perks and campaign contributions for special access to the Bush White House."
But White House press secretary Tony Snow disagreed.
"Jack Abramoff was an exuberant practitioner of sleaze to the point that it's very difficult within the report itself to figure out how many actual contacts there are," Snow said.
The report identified 66 Abramoff contacts with the White House, more than half of them with Ralston. Members of Abramoff's lobbying team at Greenberg Traurig LLP contacted Ralston 69 times.
Ralston has declined to comment on the report.
The report indicates that Abramoff was largely ineffective at placing people in key positions in the administration, apparently failing to win any of the appointments he sought.
When Ralston came through for Abramoff, it often was in relatively minor ways. On Oct. 21, 2001, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff that Rove had read an Abramoff memo about a political endorsement in an obscure race in the Mariana Islands. Ralston reported back to Abramoff that Rove had agreed, writing in an e-mail the next day: "You win :)"
Ralston also informed the Abramoff team about possible political appointees. But there is no evidence that Rove knew or approved of Ralston's actions.
She told Abramoff and his associates that she passed messages and documents to Rove, but the committee report did not confirm that she had done so. On Feb. 21, 2001, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff lobbyist Todd A. Boulanger: "Thanks for breakfast. I showed KR the binder. . . . He gave the binder to Mehlman to read cover to cover and to be prepared." Ken Mehlman was then the White House political director.
Mehlman, now the chairman of the Republican National Committee, said yesterday that he talked on occasion with members of the Abramoff team but does not specifically recall the issues raised. "When they come to me with ideas and issues, I would let relevant policymakers know," he said. "The job of the political director is to meet with interested parties."
Mehlman said everything he engaged in "was aboveboard, all stuff that was appropriate."
Ralston also helped Rove get tickets from Abramoff for a game in the NCAA basketball tournament, but Ralston told Abramoff that he "has to pay." The White House confirmed yesterday that Rove paid for the tickets.
But Ralston apparently did not pay for tickets she accepted to MCI Center events -- including two concerts featuring rocker Bruce Springsteen and singer Andrea Bocelli, three Capitals hockey games and a Wizards basketball game -- and seats at a Baltimore Orioles baseball game at Camden Yards.
On seven occasions, Ralston requested tickets, the report said. "You got 'em," Abramoff e-mailed Ralston when she asked in December 2001 for four prime Wizards tickets valued at $1,300, the report said.
In 2004, Ralston e-mailed Abramoff that she was "willing to pay" for Capitals tickets, but he replied, "No problem, and you don't have to pay!" In 2003, she thanked him for his "generosity" in providing Orioles tickets.
White House spokeswoman Dana Perino said the counsel's office is examining the report to determine whether ethics regulations were violated. Rules prohibit the acceptance of gifts worth more than $20 from anyone doing business with the government.
Ralston and Abramoff also discussed future business plans at least twice, the report said.
In February 2002, Ralston, Abramoff and Ben Waldman, an Abramoff business partner in his fraudulent purchase of a casino cruise line in Florida, exchanged e-mails about an aircraft leasing venture. In November 2002, Ralston and Abramoff exchanged e-mails about an idea to form a defense or homeland security contracting company.
Ralston expressed interest but said she thought it would take a lot of research to get the company off the ground. But she was committed to the White House, she said. "It would take a serious amount of money for me to be lured away so unless you're really serious and can make it worth my while, let's wait until 2005." Abramoff agreed, writing, "I am not in a position to offer you serious money for this right now."
Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different; Roger Ailes Aided Bush 41 in Famous Dan Rather Interview
ABC News
Fox Chief's Tables Are Turned and Attitude is Different
Roger Ailes Aided Bush 41 in Famous Dan Rather Interview
By DEAN REYNOLDS
Sept. 29, 2006 — - Fox News Chief Roger Ailes says Bill Clinton's response to Fox anchor Chris Wallace's question about efforts he made to pursue Osama Bin Laden was an "assault on all journalists."
"If you can't sit there and answer a question from a professional, mild-mannered, respectful reporter like Chris Wallace, then the hatred for journalists is showing," Ailes said in an interview with The Associated Press on Wednesday. "All journalists need to raise their eyebrows and say, `hold on a second.'"
But Mr. Ailes is no stranger to interview subjects who fire back at journalists.
The year was 1988. Vice President George H. W. Bush was getting ready to run for the presidency, occupied for 8 years by Ronald Reagan.
Bush had been a good vice president -- meaning he had never gotten out of Reagan's shadow. That's when a big opportunity presented itself.
The CBS News beckoned. Anchorman Dan Rather was offering prime exposure: a live interview on the Evening News for Bush. It was too good to pass up.
And too dangerous not to be fully, and I mean fully, prepared.
So when the hour approached for the interview, Bush sat down with his campaign guru Roger Ailes (Yes, the same Ailes who now runs Fox News) and mapped out how the interview should go. Literally.
As ABC's Howard Rosenberg, then of CBS News, recalls:
"I was co-producer of the set-up piece for that interview. Not only was Ailes cuing then VP Bush, the former President himself told Sam Donaldson in an interview in 2000 that his campaign had a person on the inside at CBS who was feeding them intelligence about what questions Rather was going to ask.
"Bush's feigned surprise at the questioning about Iran-Contra (the scandal involving arms for hostages that almost capsized the Reagan presidency) set up the infamous assault on Rather.
Note: Rather was vulnerable because of his infamous departure from the Evening News set when the network permitted a televised tennis match to run into news time. When the match ended and the network switched to the Evening News, there was no Rather -- for many uncomfortable minutes.
So when Rather pressed Bush on his role, if any, in the scandal, the vice president pounced:
Reading from cue cards Ailes was holding up for him, Bush asked, "How would you like your whole career judged by that seven minutes when you walked off the set in Miami?"
Rather never really recovered.
Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says
The New York Times
Powell Tried to Warn Bush on Iraq, Book Says
By JOHN M. BRODER
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 — Colin L. Powell, in his last face-to-face meeting with President Bush before stepping down as secretary of state in January 2005, tried to impress upon him one last time the dangers he saw the United States facing in Iraq, according to a new Powell biography.
The insurgency was growing and the country was spiraling into sectarian bloodshed, Mr. Powell warned. Elections in Iraq would not solve the problems, and the president’s ability to act decisively was being crippled by divisions within his own administration, according to the account in "Soldier: The Life of Colin Powell
The book is among the latest accounts of the divisions in the administration as it hurtled toward war and stumbled through its aftermath. The Powell biography provides further detail on his early misgivings about the war and the size of the force assembled to fight it, doubts that have been reported in several other books, including those by Ms. DeYoung’s colleague at The Post, Bob Woodward.
Despite his doubts, however, Mr. Powell never threatened to resign or go public with his complaints, according to these accounts, because such acts would betray the ethic of the loyal soldier he felt he was.
A 7,600-word excerpt from the Powell biography appears in Sunday’s Washington Post Magazine. The book’s publication date is Oct. 10.
Mr. Powell, who gave Ms. DeYoung several interviews for her book and encouraged others to cooperate, said in a telephone interview on Saturday that he had not read the book or the excerpts. He did not take issue with portions read to him, except to question the context of one anecdote involving an exchange with Vice President Dick Cheney.
“The real issue right now is not the various books that are out but how things are going in Iraq and Afghanistan,” Mr. Powell said. He would not share his views on the current state of affairs there, however.
A White House spokesman said officials there had not read the book and would not comment.
Since leaving office last year, Mr. Powell has kept his views to himself, with a few notable exceptions. He was openly critical of the administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina last year and weighed in vigorously in the debate over treatment of detainees in the war on terror.
He has quietly cooperated with Ms. DeYoung, Mr. Woodward and other authors, while keeping his counsel in public on Iraq, the broader war on terrorism and the diplomatic struggles of his successor at the State Department, Condoleezza Rice. He does not want to undermine the president, but he also wants to make sure that his point of view is accurately reflected in histories, associates said.
“It’s a matter of behaving with dignity when you’re out of office,” said Richard L. Armitage, Mr. Powell’s former deputy and his closest confidant. “You don’t want to be seen as criticizing those who took your place. On differences of principle, like the Geneva Conventions, he will speak out. On differences of approach, he probably will not.”
In answer to those who ask why he has not been more outspoken, Mr. Powell generally replies, “There’s a war on.”
The common thread of many of the recent accounts is of warnings ignored about flaws in the prewar intelligence, in the war-fighting doctrine and in plans for occupying the shattered country. Tony Snow, the White House press secretary, dismissed some of these accounts as the grumblings of people on the losing side of internal arguments.
The Powell biography fleshes out a tale already widely known in Washington of infighting among Mr. Powell, Mr. Cheney and Donald H. Rumsfeld, the secretary of defense. Mr. Powell, who served as secretary of state through Mr. Bush’s first term, came out on the losing end of the majority of their arguments.
The book provides an inside account of the preparation for Mr. Powell’s pivotal presentation before the United Nations six weeks before the start of the Iraq war in March 2003. Mr. Powell told Ms. DeYoung that he spent much of the five days he had to prepare for the presentation “trimming the garbage” that Mr. Cheney’s staff had provided by way of evidence of Iraq’s weapons programs and ties to Al Qaeda.
Mr. Powell later conceded that the United Nations speech was full of falsehoods and distorted intelligence and was a “blot” on his record.
Running throughout this book and other recent accounts are the defeats and humiliations Mr. Powell suffered in service to Mr. Bush. Though Mr. Powell remained an admired figure in America, it was not enough to protect him against attacks.
“There are people who would like to take me down,” he is quoted as saying while motioning toward the White House during his last year in office. “It’s been the case since I was appointed. By take down, I mean, ‘keep him in his place.’ ”
Reid: America Deserves Better on Port, Transit Security
Reid: America Deserves Better on Port, Transit Security
Contact: Jim Manley or Rebecca Kirszner, 202-224-2939, both of the Office of Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid
WASHINGTON, Sept. 29 /U.S. Newswire/ -- Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid today released the following statement, which was entered into the Congressional Record.
"Mr. President, the days before a long recess are always a hectic time as we scramble to complete our work. This conference took a lot longer then it needed to take and the events leading up to the filing of this report represents an abuse of the process. The Senate passed this bill three weeks ago, but the House waited until yesterday to appoint conferees. The conferees held one perfunctory public meeting last night where no bill language was provided, no amendments allowed and no votes taken in public. In fact, there seemed to be more interest by the majority conferees in determining what additional unrelated bills could be jammed into this conference overnight and not on improving our homeland security.
"These types of shenanigans really show a lack of respect for the members of this institution and a disregard for the serious task at hand.
"I was encouraged when this bill passed the Senate three weeks ago. Senators from both sides of the aisle worked together to pass a transportation security bill for seaports, mass transit, freight rail, and commercial aviation systems and actually extended expiring customs fees in an attempt to pay for some of the new port security initiatives.
"Three weeks later after negotiations with the House, all but the port security initiatives were dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans, despite overwhelming support in the Senate. The new initiatives for mass transit and freight rail systems would have fulfilled an important recommendation of the 9/11 Commission Report, which recommended that the Federal Government address a much broader range of transportation security issues in addition to those undertaken in commercial aviation.
"A Democratic amendment adopted in the Senate also would have provided a source of funding to fund some of the new port initiatives in the bill, given the fact that we are not adequately funding current port security programs. This meager attempt to begin to fund these programs was also dropped at the insistence of the House Republicans.
"It has now been five years since the attack on the World Trade Center and little has been done to make our transportation systems more secure other then the obvious improvements in commercial aviation. There is no urgency by this Administration. One gets the feeling that they believe these transportation security issues are really not a federal responsibility and instead should be funded by state and local governments or the private sector. Homeland Security Secretary Chertoff scoffed at the idea of spending money to protect Americans who use mass transit, noting that a bomb in a subway car would kill only 30 people. Other Republicans, including Assistant Secretary of Homeland Security Henkey, have said that they think rail and transit security should be a state and local or private responsibility.
"Democrats believe government cannot 'pass the buck' on protecting Americans from the threat of a deadly terrorist attack to the private sector or to our already-squeezed state and local governments.
"The U.S. mass transit industry has said it needs $5.2 billion in capital expenditures from the federal government to protect American citizens from deadly terrorist attacks. But, since 2003, the federal government has only invested a total of roughly $400 million in transit and rail security for the entire country, compared to $20 billion on aviation security during that same period. President Bush's FY2007 budget completely eliminated rail and transit security grants and intercity bus grants, which were funded at paltry amounts in 2006.
"This is just another example of misplaced priorities. According to the RAND Corporation, there are about 30 terrorist attacks on trains and rail-related targets per year. Our close allies in Britain, Spain, and India have been the victims of deadly terrorist attacks on rail and transit targets in recent years. Yet Republicans stripped rail security out of this bill so they could add unrelated provisions.
"I am proud of the work of the Democratic caucus on this bill and on earlier homeland security measures. It was a Democratically controlled Senate that passed a landmark aviation security bill and a comprehensive port security bill immediately after 9/11 -- over the objections of the Republican controlled House and the White House. These bills acknowledged for the first time that securing our maritime trade and our commercial air passenger system were national security responsibilities of the federal government and should not be relegated to contractors or the private sector. Similarly, Democrats have led the way in developing and pushing security measures during this Congress related to ports, freight rail, aviation and mass transit and I am proud of the work the caucus has done on this bill.
"The port security provisions in here reflect a lot of hard work and bipartisan effort, so are worthy of our support. But, I don't take a lot of pride in giving the American people half a loaf when it comes to security. I think all in all, this is another time that the Republican majority has let the American people down. And I hope that the American people are sick of half a loaf and will agree with me on the need for a new direction."
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
One Year After Florida Law Took Effect, Six Dead, Two Others Wounded, and Killers Hoping to Walk Away Scot Free
One Year After Florida Law Took Effect, Six Dead, Two Others Wounded, and Killers Hoping to Walk Away Scot Free
Contact: Peter Hamm of the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence, 202-289-5792
WASHINGTON, Sept. 30 /U.S. Newswire/ -- The following was released today by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence:
A year ago, when Florida became the first state in America to implement what the gun lobby calls the "Stand Your Ground" law and what others called the "Shoot First" law, opponents of the law said it would empower overly aggressive individuals to use more force than necessary, and because it could also weaken the criminal penalties against some individuals who ought to be punished severely for their actions.
Both those assertions have proven true. In five highly questionable Florida deaths, the law is being used by killers in efforts to avoid conviction for a crime, and one of those deaths predated the law by almost a year. Another homicide, in Kentucky, was downgraded to manslaughter after that state followed Florida's lead and passed an identical statute. In that case, a crack addict used the law to get off with a lighter sentence after beating his drug dealer to death with a lamp.
In Florida, two gang members are using it to avoid conviction for shooting a nine year old girl, a tow truck driver is using it to avoid a murder conviction after shooting an unarmed man whose car had been towed, another man shot a neighbor twice for putting too much garbage out at the curb and a shop owner shot a suspicious character in his store five times. Just two weeks ago, a South Florida man shot his neighbor for walking his dog on his lawn. He's been charged with murder but intends to use a "shoot first" defense.
In another case, a taxi driver who killed an unarmed, nearly incoherently drunk passenger for not getting out of his cab fast enough nearly a year before Florida's law took effect is hoping to be able to use it as a defense because it might get him acquitted
The parents of a young Miami girl who was caught in the crossfire of a gang shootout say they want to collect enough signatures on a petition to get the law repealed, and a Tampa man who is still stunned that the neighbor who shot him hasn't been charged wants to become an activist also. "I want, with every fiber in my being, to have this law changed," wrote Jason Rosenbloom, 30. "It is too vague and too dangerous and allows not only civilians the freedom to shoot, but sociopaths, also."
Following are summaries of most of the cases so far.
-- Sherdavia Jenkins, 9, of Liberty City, Miami died July 1, 2006. Sherdavia was shot on her front porch by a stray bullet from a gunfight between two men. Defendants Damon "Red Rock" Darling and Leroy "Yellowman" Larose intend to use the Shoot First Law as their defense at trial: Since they were firing at each other, whichever is charged with firing the bullet that struck Sherdavia is expected to use the law's blessing of accidentally shooting bystanders while defending oneself to avoid conviction. ( Miami Herald, 8-22-06, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15329156.htm )
-- James Adam Clem, 27, beat Keith Newberg to death with a bronze lamp in Clem's apartment on August 9, 2004 in Lexington, Kentucky. This summer, he accepted a manslaughter deal and will be eligible for parole in several months. "One of our concerns was, if we couldn't understand it (the law) ourselves, how are we going to get a jury to understand it?" said Assistant Commonwealth's Attorney Kimberly Henderson Baird. (Lexington Herald Leader, 8-3-06)
-- Robert Lee Smiley Jr. a West Palm Beach taxi driver who killed a drunk fare, Jimmie Morningstar, 43 in November 2004. His first trial ended in a hung jury in June. He is now to start a retrial in December and awaits a Florida Supreme Court ruling next year on whether "Shoot First" applies retroactively. Smiley is arguing the shooting was in self-defense. The prosecutor disagrees "'What he is is a killer,' (prosecutor Andy) Slater told jurors. 'Mr. Smiley was an agitated, angry man with a short fuse.'" (Palm Beach Post, 7-1-06)
-- Kenneth Allen, 58, twice shot his neighbor, Jason Rosenbloom, 30, in early June 2006. Rosenbloom went to Allen's house to complain that Allen had complained to the local government about trash and debris in Rosenbloom's yard. "I was no threat. I had no weapon... He had a gun. I turned around to put my hands up. He didn't even say a word, and he fired once into my stomach. I bent over, and he shot me in the chest," Rosenbloom told the New York Times. (New York Times, 8-7-06)
-- Doug Freeman, shot Vincent Hudson, 26, five times in his electronics store in Jacksonville May 31, 2006 because he was reaching for a bulge in his pocket. Hudson survived. Freeman says he shot and killed another man in self-defense 10 years ago, a shooting in which he wounded his wife. Duval County State Attorney Harry Shorstein has sided with Hudson but said the new law played a role in the decision not to prosecute. "It's caused a general expansion of self defense, which makes all issues of self defense more favorable to the defendant or the suspect than ever before. It's also created a greater propensity to use deadly force than existed before. There's a lesser sensitivity to gun violence and death, and that's not good. The last thing we need in Jacksonville is a greater use of deadly force." ( Florida Times-Union, www.jacksonville.com/tu- online/stories/071006/met_22294481.shtml )
-- Michael Brady, 43, shot and killed Justin Boyette, 23, a drunk man, on his lawn in Winter Haven, Florida on April 12, 2006. Boyette's friend, Eric Wagner, said Boyette was not going to strike Brady, but wanted to shake his hand. "A lot of people are going to die as soon as people figure out this law. All you have to say is 'I was afraid,' and you can blow someone away." Brady said "I'm having a hard time dealing with this psychologically. Unfortunately, I had to make a decision that day that changed my life forever. I wish I could turn back time." (Orlando Sentinel, 6-11-06)
-- Donald Montanez, 45, a Tampa tow truck driver, shot and killed Glen Demar Rich in a tow lot Jan. 8, 2006. He was charged with second-degree murder and intends to defend himself under the year-old law. (Tampa Tribune, 2-4-06) "When the victim and three friends arrived to retrieve the car, Montanez pointed a handgun at them. The victim unlocked his vehicle and attempted to drive away. Montanez then fired his weapon - a .40-caliber Sig Sauer with laser sights - shattering the front passenger window and hitting the victim under his right arm." (Hillsborough County Sheriffs Office press release)
-- Christopher Cote, 19, of The Acreage, Florida was shot twice with a shotgun and killed by his neighbor, Jose Tapanes, 62, September 17 after an argument began when Cote walked his dog on Tapanes' property. Tapanes has been charged with first-degree murder and intends to defend himself under the young law. "Tapanes' behavior has concerned (neighbor Wade) Taylor for years. Like the time Tapanes said he thought Osama Bin Laden lived in the home next door. Or when Tapanes yelled at Taylor for cutting his grass because Tapanes wanted it to grow wild so snakes could live there." (Miami Herald, 9-18-06, http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/15545041.htm)
As the nation's largest, non-partisan, grassroots organization leading the fight to prevent gun violence, the Brady Campaign, working with its dedicated network of Million Mom March Chapters, is devoted to creating an America free from gun violence, where all Americans are safe at home, at school, at work, and in our communities.
http://www.usnewswire.com/
-0-
New video shows 9/11 hijackers in Afghanistan
Reuters
New video shows 9/11 hijackers in Afghanistan
LONDON (Reuters) - A new video tape has emerged which shows two of the September 11 hijackers, including ringleader Mohammed Atta, at a hideout of Osama bin Laden's in Afghanistan, Britain's Sunday Times newspaper reported.
The paper said it had obtained a copy of the video through "a previously tested channel", without giving details.
It said U.S. and al Qaeda sources had verified the authenticity of the tape, which it said would be available on its Web site www.timesonline.co.uk/sundaytimes from noon (1100 GMT) on Sunday.
The paper said the video showed Egyptian-born Atta alongside another of the hijackers, Lebanese Ziad Jarrah.
Jarrah piloted United Flight 93, which crashed in Pennsylvania on September 11, 2001.
The two men are seen laughing and joking and then apparently reading their wills to camera. There is no sound on the tape and lip-readers have failed to decipher their words, the paper said.
The Sunday Times said the footage, dated January 18, 2000, was the first to show Atta and Jarrah together, and helped fill in a gap in the chronology of Atta's life.
Until now, investigators had not known where he had been in early 2000, but the tape shows he was in Afghanistan at bin Laden's Tarnak Farm hideout, the paper said.
The footage also shows bin Laden addressing a crowd of around 100 al Qaeda members on January 8, 2000 -- 10 days before the footage of the hijackers.
Many similar video tapes have surfaced on Web sites used by Islamist militant groups since the September 11 attacks, lots of them showing the al Qaeda leader in person.
At least 36 messages have been broadcast since Arabic television station Al Jazeera aired the first statement by bin Laden in 2001.
Bin Laden and his deputy Ayman al-Zawahri are believed to be hiding in the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.
U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges
Reuters
U.S. terrorism trials face court challenges
By James Vicini
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - New military trial rules for terrorism suspects that President George W. Bush endorsed and Congress approved will draw vigorous court challenges and could be struck down for violating rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, critics and legal experts said.
The legal battle will likely be ultimately decided by the U.S. Supreme Court, which could be troubled the rules unconstitutionally restrict the suspects' rights, they said.
They cited the bill's provisions that strip foreign suspects of the right to challenge their detentions in U.S. courts, the broad definition of enemy combatants and what they described as unfair rules for military trials, including some use of hearsay and coerced evidence.
"I have no doubt that this is headed for the Supreme Court. Once again, the administration has overreached, and that makes it more likely that the court will strike it down," Stanford University law professor Jenny Martinez said.
"It allows the use of coerced evidence, which our laws have rejected since the founding of this country. It also denies noncitizens, including those in the U.S., access to court for fundamental human rights violations like torture," she said.
Justice Department spokesman Brian Roehrkasse defended the legislation as "plainly constitutional" and denied it foreclosed all judicial review.
'FAIR AND EFFECTIVE TRIALS'
"The military commissions established under the act provide the accused with the fundamental rights that will ensure fair and effective trials that fully satisfy all applicable standards under the Geneva Convention and our Constitution," he said.
The Supreme Court, by a 5-3 vote on June 29, struck down as illegal Bush's original system of military trials established after the September 11 attacks for prisoners at the U.S. Navy base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.
The ruling said the administration could either rely on the traditional U.S. court-martial system or seek congressional approval of rules to prosecute and interrogate the prisoners. The issue has become a major political battle before the November 7 elections in which control of Congress is at stake.
Democrats and even some Republican lawmakers said taking away the prisoners' right to have habeas corpus hearings in federal court was unconstitutional and would be struck down by the Supreme Court. The experts agreed.
"I believe that the court will conclude that the habeas- stripping provision is unconstitutional," said Eugene R. Fidell, a Washington attorney and military law expert who is president of the National Institute of Military Justice.
The bill expands the definition of "enemy combatants" to those who provide weapons, money and other support to terrorist groups. It defines conspiracy as a war crime, although four Supreme Court members in the majority in June said it was not a war crime.
"Just because Congress puts a stamp of approval on something, it does not necessarily mean it will pass constitutional muster before the Supreme Court," said Scott Silliman, a Duke University law professor and executive director at its Center on Law Ethics and National Security.
He predicted the legality of the new rules would be a close issue for the courts. At the Supreme Court, it could come down to Justice Anthony Kennedy, the swing vote with four liberals and four conservatives.
Michael Ratner, president of the New York-based Center for Constitutional Rights, which represents hundreds of Guantanamo prisoners, vowed to challenge the removal of the habeas corpus rights.
Ratner said such an opportunity could arise when the administration moves to dismiss pending Guantanamo cases in order to apply the new rules. Defense lawyers could then respond by challenging the rules' constitutionality.
U.S. homework outsourced to India as "e-tutoring" grows
Yahoo! News
U.S. homework outsourced as "e-tutoring" grows
By Jason Szep
Private tutors are a luxury many American families cannot afford, costing anywhere between $25 to $100 an hour. But California mother Denise Robison found one online for $2.50 an hour -- in India.
"It's made the biggest difference. My daughter is literally at the top of every single one of her classes and she has never done that before," said Robison, a single mother from Modesto.
Her 13-year-old daughter, Taylor, is one of 1,100 Americans enrolled in Bangalore-based TutorVista, which launched U.S. services last November with a staff of 150 "e-tutors" mostly in India with a fee of $100 a month for unlimited hours.
Taylor took two-hour sessions each day for five days a week in math and English -- a cost that tallies to $2.50 an hour, a fraction of the $40 an hour charged by U.S.-based online tutors such as market leader Tutor.com that draw on North American teachers, or the usual $100 an hour for face-to-face sessions.
"I like to tell people I did private tutoring every day for the cost of a fast-food meal or a Starbucks' coffee," Robison said. "We did our own form of summer school all summer."
The outsourcing trend that fueled a boom in Asian call centers staffed by educated, low-paid workers manning phones around the clock for U.S. banks and other industries is moving fast into an area at the heart of U.S. culture: education.
It comes at a difficult time for the U.S. education system: only two-thirds of teenagers graduate from high school, a proportion that slides to 50 percent for black Americans and Hispanics, according to government statistics.
China and India, meanwhile, are producing the world's largest number of science and engineering graduates -- at least five times as many as in the United States, where the number has fallen since the early 1980s.
Parents using schools like Taylor's say they are doing whatever they can to give children an edge that can lead to better marks, better colleges and a better future, even if it comes with an Indian accent about 9,000 miles away.
SLANG & AMERICAN ACCENTS
"We've changed the paradigm of tutoring," said Krishnan Ganesh, founder and chairman of TutorVista, which offers subjects ranging from grammar to geometry for children as young as 6 years old to adults in college.
"It's not that the U.S. education system is not good. It's just that it's impossible to give personalized education at an affordable cost unless you use technology, unless you use the Internet and unless you can use lower-cost job centers like India," he said over a crackly Internet-phone line from Bangalore. "We can deliver that."
Many of the tutors have masters degrees in their subjects, said Ganesh. On average, they have taught for 10 years. Each undergoes 60 hours of training, including lessons on how to speak in a U.S. accent and how to decipher American slang.
They are schooled on U.S. history and state curricula, and work in mini-call centers or from their homes across India. One operates out of Hong Kong, teaching the Chinese language.
As with other Indian e-tutoring firms such as Growing Stars Inc., students log on to TutorVista's Web site and are assigned lessons by tutors who communicate using voice-over-Internet technology and an instant messaging window. They share a simulated whiteboard on their computers.
Denise Robison said Taylor had trouble understanding her tutor's accent at first. "Now that she is used to it, it doesn't bother her at all," she said.
TutorVista launched a British service in August and Ganesh said he plans to expand into China in December to tap demand for English lessons from China's booming middle class. In 2007, he plans to launch Spanish-language lessons and build on Chinese and French lessons already offered.
A New Delhi tutoring company, Educomp Solutions Ltd., estimates the U.S. tutoring market at $8 billion and growing. Online companies, both from the United States and India, are looking to tap millions of dollars available to firms under the U.S. No Child Left Behind Act for remedial tutoring.
Teachers unions hope to stop that from happening.
"Tutoring providers must keep in frequent touch with not only parents but classroom teachers and we believe there is greater difficulty in an offshore tutor doing that," said Nancy Van Meter, a director at the American Federation of Teachers.
But No Child Left Behind, a signature Bush administration policy, encourages competition among tutoring agencies and leaves the door open for offshore tutors, said Diane Stark Rentner of the Center on Education Policy in Washington.
"The big test is whether the kids are actually learning. Until you answer that, I don't know if you can pass judgment on whether this is a good or bad way to go," she said.
Saturday, September 30, 2006
Consti2tion
Huffington Post
Davis Sweet
Consti2tion
(Editors note: this article contains explicit language)
Now that the United States, or whatever the new incarnation will be called, has torched its inconvenient constitution specifically to please Osama bin Spookymonster, it'll probably need a new one. Just for looks, since we know constitutions are about as vital to a nation as celebrity memoirs.
The original constitution, the always-buggy 1.0 version, was based on a couple radical ideas: that this country is not a monarchy; that people have freedoms beyond the reach of the government; that if the government gets up your ass (figuratively or otherwise), you'll get a fair chance at justice.
Good stuff. But the framers may as well have made the whole thing one of those "You might be a redneck" chainmails, since as soon as it showed up on Bush's desktop, he giggled himself into fits of involuntary urination and then deleted it.
The constitution's system of laws (R.I.P.) was based on proof. Evidence. Magna Carta stuff like the requirement that the government demostrate, not just assert, "Her blood is in the flippin' Bronco, Your Honor!" (That's in there, but in Olde English. "Har blud bee narf veeking Broncoe, Yore Honour!" I was surprised too.) Rumors, suspicions, and fantasies might take the place of evidence for kings and despots, but not this new nation of the brave and civilized. Inspiring, really. Ideals so strong you could build a superpower on 'em, with bold citizens and non-citizens willing to die to make sure that core document stood for something.
Until it got too weird for Sleepy Bush, that is. "Proof?!" he whined. "Like those millions of scientific studies by la-di-dah eggheads with their thermometers and compasses and spatulas that show all kinds of evidence and crap, like that oh-so-convenient theory about the moon goin' 'round the... or is it earth goin' 'round the... where's my soft pillow Pilly?" Again thanks to one way-too-churchy psychopathic spoiled brat caveman (not Bush in this case; Osama), evidence is now actually beneath fantasy and suspicion in the American book of "Why We Get To Lock You in a Cage and Do Horrible Things To You, Nyah."
So let's recap. No mo constitutio. What do we put in its place?
I humbly suggest an honest document, just to quash the howling hypocrisy. Now that Bush has all the privileges of a monarch, put it right there in the title. "constitution 2.0: The constitution of King George." Since we've totally rejected any kind of morality, civilization, and even physical reality, go ahead and make that the text. "His Majestic Codpiece gets to do whatever he likes, even if it's retarded or impossible, end of conversation, zzzip!" There's something appealing about a one-line constitution, like Burger King has. "Have it your way." In this case, "Have it George's way." Put that on the money in place of those creepy cyclops pyramids and way-too-spread eagles.
When our foreign cousins ask, "What does your country stand for?" we'll no longer have to say, "Well... technically we have laws, and a citizen president, and all kinds of things you could see yourself charging onto Omaha Beach to protect, but in practice it's pretty much North Korea with food." We'll be able to say, "Read the money, Czech Republic-y!"
Of course, we could just introduce the old constitution as a replacement for the heavily stained and redacted version Bush and his co-conspirators have left us with. Like in 1995, when Newt and his knee-breakers took over Congress, Congressman and relatively brave soul Mel Watt introduced the entire text of the Fourth Amendment as a bill. The fourth pillar in the flippin' Bill of Rights was presented to the flag-humpin' Republicans for their approval and... thanks for playin', you old bit of yellowing paper, we have some lovely parting gifts for you. What do you think this crowd of the loudly cowed would do if they got to vote on the entire, no-asterisks-needed big-C Constitution? Well, we know now, don't we? They'd let urine sprinkle on it through an air vent, "accidentally" flush it down a toilet, and treat it with the same contempt they display whenever anything stands between them and a sadomasochistic orgy.
Not that there was ever a risk that someone would cock-block the horny-for-torture majority, of course, because that would require people in government with working cojones. Senators who would say, "You know that oath I took to protect this centuries-old scribble that made my country the light of the world? Maybe I should honor that oath, even if it means I'll get one less lobbying gig after I leave office."
As we approach Electionlet 2006, with hundreds of millions of dollars in teevee ads telling us why one bozo will be able to suck up more government money for the local economy than the other bozo, a lot of us have been thinking, "This time, if we get some more Democratic bozos in there, maybe we can restore some balance and sense to this intentionally messy system." But this week's constitution evisceration party -- with about a quarter of ostensible Democrats tripping over themselves to get in their stabs -- means that there's zero point in voting. Neither the Congress nor the Supreme Court they confirm has any impact on how this place is run. Both houses could go 110% Democratic, and America would still suffer under one-ruler rule. The three-branch government laid out by the so-cute-you-just-want-to-pinch-their-naïve-little-oojie-boojie-cheeks founders has collapsed, under the weight of Bush's monumental weakness, into one big finger.
Come to think of it, that single finger is probably a pretty accurate replacement for the constitution. C2: Fuck you.
See also Tony Hendra's newly accurate Bill of Rights. Somewhat wordier than the single-finger constitution, but the spirit's still there.
New Slogan: Clinton Tried; Bush Lied
Huffington Post
Joshuah Bearman
New Slogan: Clinton Tried; Bush Lied
Let's play another round of Condi: Liar or Stupid or Both?
Here's Rice on Hannity still trying to tar Clinton for Bush's mistakes: "What we did in the eight months was at least as aggressive as what the Clinton administration did in the preceding years...The notion that somehow for eight months the Bush administration sat there and didn't do that is just flatly false."
Well, the 9/11 Commission Report says otherwise. Now, I'm not one to give Clinton a free pass. He had his weaknesses. Although I think all rational people can agree that philandering is preferable to a destabilizing war under false pretenses and violating the basic tradition of due process and rule of law by selectively suspending habeas corpus. I'm not sure Clinton was as dedicated to fighting Bin Laden as was necessary in retrospect. But hey -- those are the breaks when you're being hounded by the high horsemen of the moral apocalypse. When Clinton bombed Bin Laden's camps, he was accused of wagging the dog. He probably was, to some extent. But at least he did something. Unlike Bush, who never had a passport before becoming President and leaves details to incompetent (but loyal!) subordinates, Clinton was actually interested in the nitty gritty of solving problems around the world. He engaged the terrorist threat rather than pretending to clear woods on his ranch for photo-ops during a month-long vacation.
Remember, that's where Bush was on August 6, 2001, when received the President's Daily Brief entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike U.S." According to the 9/11 Commission Report, here's how the Bush administration reacted:
"[President Bush] did not recall discussing the August 6 report with the Attorney General or whether Rice had done so." [p. 260]
And:
"We have found no indication of any further discussion before September 11 among the President and his top advisers of the possibility of a threat of an al Qaeda attack in the United States. DCI Tenet visited President Bush in Crawford, Texas, on August 17 and participated in the PDB briefings of the President between August 31 (after the President had returned to Washington) and September 10. But Tenet does not recall any discussions with the President of the domestic threat during this period." [p. 262]
Now here how Clinton responded when he received a President's Daily Brief in December 1998 entitled "Bin Ladin Preparing to Hijack US Aircraft and Other Attacks," according to the 9/11 Commission report:
"The same day, [Counterterrorism Czar Richard] Clarke convened a meeting of his CSG [Counterterrorism Security Group] to discuss both the hijacking concern and the antiaircraft missile threat. To address the hijacking warning, the group agreed that New York airports should go to maximum security starting that weekend. They agreed to boost security at other East coast airports. The CIA agreed to distribute versions of the report to the FBI and FAA to pass to the New York Police Department and the airlines. The FAA issued a security directive on December 8, with specific requirements for more intensive air carrier screening of passengers and more oversight of the screening process, at all three New York area airports." [pg. 128-30]
How about a new slogan? Maybe:
CLINTON TRIED / BUSH LIED
Bush chief of staff urged Rumsfeld be fired: book
Reuters
Bush chief of staff urged Rumsfeld be fired: book
By David Alexander
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President George W. Bush's former chief of staff tried twice to persuade Bush to fire Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld but failed, according to a new book by investigative reporter Bob Woodward.
The book describes a White House divided by infighting over how to handle the unexpectedly tough Iraqi insurgency. It claims Bush resisted demands to increase the number of U.S. troops and is misleading Americans about the level of violence in Iraq, according to news accounts of "State of Denial."
Woodward wrote that White House chief of staff Andrew Card urged Bush to replace Rumsfeld with former Secretary of State James Baker following the 2004 election, The Washington Post reported on its Web site.
Bush decided not to do so after Vice President Dick Cheney and political adviser Karl Rove convinced him it would be seen as an expression of doubt about the direction of the war and expose him to criticism, according to the book.
Card, with the backing of first lady Laura Bush, tried a second time to persuade Bush to fire Rumsfeld around Thanksgiving 2005, the book says. But the president again refused to act.
But Card, in a telephone interview, denied pushing for Rumsfeld's resignation. He said he kept a list of potential Cabinet and staff changes for Bush to consider after the 2004 election as he did after other important dates.
"To say that it was a campaign or an orchestrated effort would be wrong," he said.
"But were there times that we talked about potential changes in the Cabinet? Yes. Did they center around Rumsfeld? Not necessarily. They were in a broader context."
The book raises many questions about the administration's handling of the Iraq war less than six weeks before November 7 congressional elections that Democrats hope will be a referendum on the unpopular war.
White House press secretary Tony Snow, besieged by questions about it at his daily briefing, said the book was similar to others critical of the war effort and that much of it was less than meets the eye.
"In a lot of ways, the books are like cotton candy. They kind of melt on contact," he said.
But Snow did not deny the account of Card's actions, saying he had not talked to either Card or the president about it. But he said Mrs. Bush had denied pushing for Rumsfeld's scalp.
RENEWED CALLS FOR RUMSFELD TO RESIGN
A group of top Senate Democrats promptly renewed calls for Rumsfeld's resignation.
"We believe, many of us, that he has to go and we are going to be renewing our efforts in a number of ways to urge the president to find a new secretary of defense," Sen. Charles Schumer of New York said on Capitol Hill.
Snow could neither confirm nor deny a Woodward claim that there was an attack every 15 minutes against U.S.-led coalition forces in Iraq, saying Woodward was referring to a report that remains classified.
Woodward reported that both Bush and Rumsfeld had resisted recommendations to increase troop levels in Iraq, which Snow said was not new. "Quite often in a book like this, you're going to see people who are on the losing side of arguments being especially outspoken about their opinions that nobody listened to them," he said.
"As a matter of fact, the average Washington memoir ought to be subtitled, 'If Only They'd Listened to Me,'" he said.
The book, written by the Post assistant managing editor well known for his role in forcing President Richard Nixon to resign in 1974 in the Watergate scandal, was tougher than the two others he has written about the Bush White House since the September 11 attacks. It is scheduled for release next week.
Some in the administration felt Woodward was trying to get his reputation back after he was accused of being too soft in his earlier works.
While the earlier books were criticized by some as painting Bush as a hero, the current work portrays senior administration officials as unable to face the consequences of their Iraq policy, the Post reported.
(Additional reporting by Steve Holland and Caren Bohan)
US and UK must end "megaphone" diplomacy on Darfur
Reuters
US and UK must end "megaphone" diplomacy on Darfur
By Jeremy Lovell
LONDON (Reuters) - Britain and the United States must stop making threats over the crisis in Sudan's Darfur region because the Khartoum government knows they cannot back them up with action, a top U.N. official said on Friday.
Mark Malloch Brown, Britain's outgoing U.N. deputy secretary-general, told the Independent newspaper that London and Washington needed to tone down the rhetoric and build an international consensus.
"The megaphone diplomacy coming out of Washington and London: 'you damn well are going to let the U.N. deploy and if you don't beware the consequences' isn't plausible," Malloch Brown said in an interview published on Friday.
"So Tony Blair and George Bush need to get beyond this posturing and grandstanding," he said.
In response, U.S. Ambassador John Bolton said Malloch Brown should apologize to Bush and Blair, the British prime minister.
"These remarks bring discredit on the United Nations and are a stain on its reputation," Bolton told reporters in New York. "We are proud that we have called the attention of the international community to the tragedy in Darfur."
"To have Mr. Malloch Brown attack those efforts" gives a terrible signal to the government in Khartoum, he said.
Fighting among militias, government forces and rebel groups has ravaged the vast region for three years, resulting in the killing of an estimated 200,000 people and the displacement of 2.5 million others.
The Sudanese government, accused of supporting the militias, has refused to allow the United Nations to send in a 22,000-strong force to replace the African Union and has accused it of attempting to recolonize the country.
"The Sudanese know we don't have troops to go in against a hostile Khartoum government; if Sudan opposes us there's no peace to keep anyway; you're in there to fight a war," he added. "It's just not a credible threat," Malloch Brown said.
The African Union mandate in Darfur had been set to expire at the end of September but the AU mission has now been extended by three months with additional logistical and material support from the United Nations and a funding commitment from the Arab League.
CARROT AND STICK
Britain, which has called repeatedly for action to resolve the Darfur crisis, has also called for a concerted political effort to turn a shaky peace agreement signed by one rebel faction and the government in May into practice.
Malloch Brown said the veiled threats left the Sudanese government free to portray itself as the "victims of the next crusade after Iraq and Afghanistan."
What was needed instead was a carrot-and-stick package, backed by an international consensus, of incentives and sanctions that could be clearly understood by Khartoum.
He said Khartoum wanted normalized relations with Britain and the United States, the ability to use its new oil wealth, a supportive U.N. deployment and protection from the International Criminal Court.
"But in the other pocket there needs to be sanctions. And those pluses and minuses need to be echoed not just by a group of Western leaders but by a much broader cross-section of countries that Sudan respects and trusts," he said.
He noted efforts to bring China, a major oil client of Sudan, into the international coalition to bring pressure to bear on Khartoum.
Malloch Brown also urged the West to fill the $300 million shortfall in aid to the starving millions in Darfur.
(Additional reporting by Evelyn Leopold at the United Nations)
Senate rejects mining safety nominee again
Reuters
Senate rejects mining safety nominee again
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - For the second time in two months, the U.S. Senate rejected President George W. Bush's nominee to head the federal mine safety agency, former energy executive Richard Stickler, West Virginia Democrat Sen. Robert Byrd said on Friday.
"The fact that the nomination has twice failed to receive Senate confirmation reflects a strong lack of confidence in the president's choice for this critical position. By continuing to insist on a nominee with a weak safety record, the White House is playing political games with mine safety," Byrd said in a statement.
Byrd originally put a hold on Stickler's nomination for three months. When Congress adjourned for its August recess, the nomination was automatically rejected.
Bush then renominated Stickler at the beginning of September. Once again, the nomination will be sent back to Bush when Congress ends its current session this week.
Bush can nominate Stickler yet again or choose a new candidate. He can also appoint someone to the post while Congress is in recess, a choice he made when appointed John Bolton the ambassador to the United Nations.
A spokeswoman from Byrd's office said that under Senate rules, the Senate could also meet during its break in a special session to appoint him, but that was unlikely.
Stickler, who currently has a six-month contract to work as an adviser to the Department of Labor, which oversees the Mine Safety and Health Agency, oversaw Pennsylvania's mine safety for six years. He also worked for Massey Energy and the former Bethlehem Steel.
The position has been vacant for about two years, with David Dye acting as MSHA's temporary head.
Internet gambling ban added to U.S. port security bill
Reuters
Internet gambling ban added to U.S. port security bill
By Susan Cornwell
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Congress was pushing on Friday to finish legislation that would boost security at U.S. ports, but at the last minute lawmakers added provisions to prohibit Internet gambling.
Rushing to finish their work by the weekend to go home and campaign for elections in which control of Congress is at stake, lawmakers were linking up unrelated measures in an effort to get them approved.
The House passed an Internet gambling ban earlier this summer, but the bill had difficulty moving in the Senate. However it was a priority of Senate Republican Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee, and attaching it to the popular port security bill appeared aimed at insuring its passage.
Votes were expected by midnight Friday in both the Senate and the House of Representatives.
Port security advanced as an issue in Congress this year after an outcry over the Bush administration's decision to allow an Arab company, Dubai Ports World, to buy major U.S. port assets.
House and Senate negotiators agreed late on Thursday on the outlines of the port security legislation. It would authorize $3.4 billion over five years for actions such as installing radiation detectors at the largest U.S. ports.
There were attempts on Friday to add other unrelated amendments, but apart from the Internet gambling provisions, the others were rejected, a top House leadership aide said.
Those rejected included an attempt to shield telephone companies from liability for privacy violations if they supply the U.S. government with access to customer records. This idea came from Alaskan Sen. Ted Stevens, Republican sources said.
"Our bill is slimming down and I'm very pleased with the port security portions," said Rep. Dan Lungren, a California Republican and one of the key negotiators on the legislation.
Another proposed add-on that was rejected would have tightened security at courthouses and stiffened penalties for attacks on judges.
Language that would have added billions more for rail and mass transit security had been stripped out of the port security bill earlier, lawmakers and their aides said. So was language to lift a cap on federal airport security screeners.
The heart of the port security bill deals with cargo container security. Only a fraction of the millions of containers that enter U.S. ports each year are inspected. That has prompted warnings that sea cargo remains a serious security risk, five years after the September 11 attacks.
The issue languished in Congress until earlier this year when lawmakers said they had security concerns Dubai Ports World's acquisitions at six major U.S. ports. To quell the uproar, the company said it would sell the port assets.
The ports bill requires the government to finish installing radiation-screening equipment at 22 major U.S. ports, which handle 98 percent of all containers, by the end of 2007.
It also sets up a pilot program at three foreign ports to test the feasibility of scanning cargo headed for the United States while it is still overseas.
But another bill that was inspired by the Dubai furor -- proposed tightening of the rules governing approval of foreign takeovers -- has stalled in Congress. The two chambers passed competing versions and have not reached a compromise.
Friday, September 29, 2006
Zawahri calls Bush a failure over war on terrorism
Reuters
Zawahri calls Bush a failure over war on terrorism
By Firouz Sedarat
DUBAI (Reuters) - Al Qaeda's second-in-command Ayman al-Zawahri called President Bush a lying failure for talking of progress in the war on terrorism, according to a video posted on the Internet on Friday.
In the 18-minute tape posted by al Qaeda's media arm al-Sahab, the Egyptian militant leader referred to the arrest of al Qaeda figures such as Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the suspected mastermind of the September 11, 2001, attacks on the United States.
"Bush, you are a lying failure and a charlatan. It has been three and-a-half years (since the arrests)...What happened to us? We have gained more strength and we are more insistent on martyrdom," he declared.
"Bush, O failure and liar, why don't you be courageous for once and confront your people and tell them the truth about your losses in Iraq and Afghanistan?" said Zawahri, wearing a black turban and sitting in front of a banner with Islam's statement of faith: "There is no god but Allah, Mohammad is his prophet."
A U.S. intelligence official in Washington dismissed the video as a "typical al Qaeda propaganda stream" but said analysts were scrutinising its contents for clues that might aid U.S. efforts to track down the militant leader.
Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) spokeswoman Michele Neff said: "After conducting a technical analysis of the videotape, the CIA can confirm with confidence that the voice on the tape is that of Ayman al-Zawahri."
In a second portion of the tape, apparently shot at a different location, Zawahri labeled Pope Benedict a "charlatan" because of his remarks on Islam.
"This charlatan accused Islam of being incompatible with rationality while forgetting that his own Christianity is unacceptable to a sensible mind," Zawahri said, this time wearing a white turban.
He also compared the Pope to the 11th century Pope Urban II who backed the first crusade.
In a speech to a university in his native Germany on September 12, Pope Benedict quoted criticism of Islam and the Prophet Mohammad by 14th century Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Palaeologus, who wrote that Mohammad commanded that Islam be spread by the sword.
HOLY WAR IN DARFUR
Zawahri urged Muslims to launch a holy war against proposed U.N. peacekeepers in Sudan's Darfur region.
"O Muslim nation, come to defend your lands from crusaders masked as United Nations (troops). Nothing will protect you except popular jihad (holy war)," Zawahri said on the video, that showed the date of the Muslim lunar month that ended about a week ago.
The European Commission said on Friday its President Jose Manuel Barroso and a top EU aid official would go to Sudan this weekend to try to persuade Khartoum to allow U.N. peacekeepers into Darfur.
The Sudanese government has repeatedly rebuffed a United Nations offer to send 22,000 peacekeepers to replace an ill-equipped and under-funded African Union force.
Zawahri's last video was issued on the fifth anniversary of the September 11 attacks on U.S. cities by al Qaeda.
Zawahri and al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden are believed to be hiding in tribal borders areas between Pakistan and Afghanistan.
(Additional reporting by Diala Saadeh in Dubai and Washington bureau)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
