Wednesday, September 15, 2004

Blue Blood Bush steals $1Million from taxpayers

By now everyone knows that George W Bush used his blue blood lineage to get into the National Guard to avoid the draft. Avoiding the draft is what many did at that time to avoid going to Viet Nam, so, by itself, taking advantage of what options one had to avoid the draft is not, by itself, an issue. What happened from that point on is.

Numerous documents have come to light showing that Mr Bush failed to fulfill his obligations and was AWOL for about half the time he was supposed to be serving his country.

The following, printed in today's NY Times, is rather telling:

One fall day in 1973, when Mr. Bush was a new student at Harvard Business School, he was wearing a Guard jacket when he ran into one of his professors. The professor, Yoshi Tsurumi, says he asked Mr. Bush how he wangled a spot in the Guard.

"He said his daddy had good friends who got him in despite the long waiting list," recalls Professor Tsurumi, who is now at Baruch College, part of the City University of New York. Professor Tsurumi says he next asked Mr. Bush how he could have already finished his National Guard commitment. "He said he'd gotten an early honorable discharge," Professor Tsurumi recalls. "I said, 'How did you manage that?' "

"He said, oh, his daddy had a good friend," Mr. Tsurumi said. "Then we started talking about the Vietnam War. He was all for fighting it."

Professor Tsurumi says he remembers Mr. Bush so vividly because he was always making outrageous statements: denouncing the New Deal as socialist, calling the S.E.C. an impediment to business, referring to the civil rights movement as "socialist/communist" and declaring that "people are poor because they're lazy."

From what has come to light so far, it would appear that in 1972 something went badly wrong. The politest comment being made so far is that perhaps "Mr. Bush went through personal difficulties that he's embarrassed to talk about today." Mr. Bush's performance ratings deteriorated, he skipped his flight physical, he stopped flying military planes forever, he transferred to Alabama, and he did not report to certain drills there as ordered. Mr. Bush was a no-show at required drills.

The next year Mr. Bush skipped off to Harvard Business School. He still had almost another year in the Guard he had promised to serve, but he drifted away, after taxpayers had spent $1 million training him, and he never entirely fulfilled his obligations.

Read More...

Taxes for an Ownership Society

NY Times
September 15, 2004

Taxes for an Ownership Society

When President Bush talks about an "ownership society," hold on to your wallet. The slogan, like "compassionate conservative" before it, is sufficiently vague to mean many things to many people, and the few details that Mr. Bush has provided - encouraging more home ownership and offering new tax-sheltered savings plans - seem innocuous enough. But in tax terms, "ownership society" means only one thing: the further reduction, if not the elimination, of taxes on savings and investments, including taxes on dividends and on capital gains on stocks, bonds and real estate. That, in turn, means, by definition, a shift in the tax burden onto wages and salaries - or, put more simply, a wage tax.

The regressive results would be appalling. The richest 1 percent of Americans earn just about one-tenth of total wages and salaries, but almost half of all income from savings and investments - income that would be largely, perhaps entirely, untaxed in an "ownership society." In contrast, taxable wages and salaries make up almost all of the income of most Americans.

The Bush camp has been floating the idea that what the president is getting at is a consumption tax. But the administration is not talking about a true consumption tax, which would apply to spending regardless of where the money comes from - from your paycheck, cashing in your stocks and bonds, selling your house, or borrowing. It is, in effect, talking about a tax on wages.

Properly understood, a consumption tax is intended to increase national savings by making it relatively more attractive to save than to spend. The main argument against it is that it hits hardest at low-income and middle-income families, who tend to spend most of what they earn. But as Peter Orszag, an economist at the Brookings Institution, pointed out in a recent speech at Georgetown University, Mr. Bush's de facto wage tax would be the worst of all worlds: it would have all the regressive aspects of a consumption tax and none of its potential for increasing national savings.

When Mr. Bush talks about new tax-favored savings accounts, he never mentions that most people don't even take full advantage of existing plans. They won't be turned into "owners" by new tax breaks for interest, dividends and capital gains. To increase Americans' financial stake requires a strong economy in which people who work for a living share in the benefits of growth.

A good place to start would be to tackle the obstacles to sustained growth that currently exist, like spiraling health care costs, dependence on foreign oil and the administration's mania for unaffordable tax cuts - in short, to reverse, not intensify, the trends in the current economy.

In the past nearly three years of economic recovery, the distribution of economic growth has become more skewed than at any other time in modern memory. Currently, 47 percent of growth is flowing to corporate profits, by far the largest share than that in any of the other eight post-World War II recoveries. Fifteen percent goes to wages and salaries, the smallest share of economic growth in more than 50 years. To make matters worse, the share of compensation that is devoted to health and pension benefits is far larger during this recovery than in any other, representing a further squeeze on the wages and salaries of ordinary Americans. In 2004, take-home pay as a share of the economy dropped to its lowest level since 1929, when the government started keeping records.

All of this would make the drive for a wage tax laughable, if only it were a joke. And yet, when he says "ownership society," a wage tax is exactly what Mr. Bush is driving at.

Read More...

Tuesday, September 14, 2004

Bush supports, then opposes assault weapons ban

"It makes no sense for assault weapons to be around our society."
-- George W. Bush, supporting the assault weapons ban in 1999

Read More...

Read More...

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

washingtonpost.com

$3 Trillion Price Tag Left Out As Bush Details His Agenda

By Mike Allen
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, September 14, 2004; Page A01

The expansive agenda President Bush laid out at the Republican National Convention was missing a price tag, but administration figures show the total is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion over a decade.

A staple of Bush's stump speech is his claim that his Democratic challenger, John F. Kerry, has proposed $2 trillion in long-term spending, a figure the Massachusetts senator's campaign calls exaggerated. But the cost of the new tax breaks and spending outlined by Bush at the GOP convention far eclipses that of the Kerry plan.

Bush's pledge to make permanent his tax cuts, which are set to expire at the end of 2010 or before, would reduce government revenue by about $1 trillion over 10 years, according to administration estimates. His proposed changes in Social Security to allow younger workers to invest part of their payroll taxes in stocks and bonds could cost the government $2 trillion over the coming decade, according to the calculations of independent domestic policy experts.

And Bush's agenda has many costs the administration has not publicly estimated. For instance, Bush said in his speech that he would continue to try to stabilize Iraq and wage war on terrorism. The war in Iraq alone costs $4 billion a month, but the president's annual budget does not reflect that cost.

Bush's platform highlights the challenge for both presidential candidates in trying to lure voters with attractive government initiatives at a time of mounting budget deficits. This year's federal budget deficit will reach a record $422 billion, and the government is expected to accumulate $2.3 trillion in new debt over the next 10 years, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office reported last week.

The president has had little to say about the deficit as he barnstorms across the country, which has prompted Democrats and some conservative groups to say Bush refuses to admit there will not be enough money in government coffers to pay for many of his plans.

Although a majority of voters say they are concerned about the deficit, most view Kerry as only marginally better able to deal with it than Bush, according to polls. And Bush often invokes the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in justifying the mounting governmental red ink. The president's aides, ever cognizant of his father's failure to articulate a convincing vision, said it was crucial for Bush to offer an ambitious new plan for the coming four years, despite the surge in government borrowing.

Bush-Cheney campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt said the new proposals "are affordable, and the president remains committed to cutting the budget deficit in half over the next five years," although last week's CBO report indicates that goal may not be attainable.

The White House has declined to provide a full and detailed accounting of the cost of the new agenda. The administration last week provided a partial listing of the previously unannounced proposals, including "opportunity zones," that totaled $74 billion in spending over the next 10 years. But there was no mention of the cost of additional tax cuts and the creation of Social Security private accounts. Discussing his agenda during an "Ask the President" campaign forum in Portsmouth, Ohio, Bush said Friday that he has "explained how we're going to pay for it, and my opponent can't explain it because he doesn't want to tell you he's going to have to tax you."

Some fiscal conservatives who are dismayed by the return of budget deficits found little to cheer in the president's convention speech. Stephen Moore, president of the conservative Club for Growth, said that Bush's Social Security plan was money well spent by saving the system in the long run, but he added that Bush "has banked his presidency on the idea that people don't really care about the deficit, and he may be right."

"He's a big-government Republican, and there's no longer even the pretense that he's for smaller government," Moore said.

Kerry cited the deficit figures as fresh evidence that Bush's tax cuts were reckless and that he is taking the country in "the wrong direction."

The administration has been secretive about the cost of the war and the likely impact that the bulging defense budget and continuing cost of tax cuts will have on domestic spending next year. The White House put government agencies on notice this month that if Bush is reelected, his budget for 2006 may include $2.3 billion in spending cuts from virtually all domestic programs not mandated by law, including education, homeland security and others central to Bush's campaign.

But Bush has had little to say about belt-tightening and sacrifice on the campaign trail. Nor has he explained how he would reconcile all his new spending plans with the mounting deficit.

Jason Furman, Kerry's economic policy director, said that Bush "wants to hide the true costs of his plan" and that taxpayers "would be shocked" to find out what he was really advocating.

"The Bush team has gotten a lot of traction with the point that the Kerry numbers and rhetoric don't add up," said Kevin A. Hassett, director of economic policy studies at the conservative American Enterprise Institute. "It behooves them now to demonstrate that theirs do."

In his acceptance speech in Madison Square Garden on Sept. 2, the president called for the expansion of health savings accounts, which provide tax breaks for families and small businesses; creation of new tax-preferred retirement savings accounts; and creation of lifetime savings accounts, which allow tax-free savings for tuition, retirement or even everyday expenses.

The "Agenda for America" also includes increasing testing and accountability measures for high schools and opportunity zones to cut regulations and steer federal grants, loans and other aid to counties that have lost manufacturing and textile jobs -- a clear appeal to swing states such as Michigan, Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia.

Bush has also promised to "ensure every poor county in America has a community or rural health center" and "double the number of people served by our principal job training program and increase funding for our community colleges."

A number of Bush's initiatives could have a big price tag. An estimate from the Social Security actuary's office, included in the 2001 report of a Social Security commission appointed by Bush, put the cost of adding private accounts to the government retirement program at $1.5 trillion over 10 years. With inflation, the figure would now be about $2 trillion. Much of the expense comes from continuing to pay most retirees at current benefit levels, at the same time that some payroll taxes are being diverted to the stock and bond market.

Although advocates of partial privatization contend that the transition can be financed without cutting benefits or raising taxes, the estimates mean the president's agenda could cost even more than the Bush projections of Kerry's proposal. Hassett, the AEI economist, said private accounts would lower the long-term cost of Social Security. "If you pay a few trillion in transition costs over a decade, then maybe the system doesn't go bankrupt," he said.

Bush also called for making permanent his tax cuts, which the administration has estimated at $936.2 billion to $989.75 billion over 10 years. The tax cuts include elimination of the inheritance tax, reductions in the top four income tax rates, an increase in the child tax credit, reduction in the marriage penalty, and cuts to the capital gains and dividend tax rates.

Robert Greenstein of the liberal Center on Budget and Policy Priorities put the figure for extending the tax cuts at $2 trillion over 10 years and said other tax breaks Bush mentioned in his speech -- mostly related to health care -- would likely cost $50 billion to $100 billion over the next decade.

Another expensive part of Bush's agenda is the expansion of health savings accounts and creation of lifetime and retirement savings accounts. The new accounts are designed to have minimal cost in the first 10 years but have very large costs in the long run because they provide tax breaks when the money is withdrawn rather than up front.

The Congressional Research Service has estimated those two types of accounts would eventually cost $30 billion to $50 billion a year.

Peter R. Orszag, a senior fellow in economic policy at the Brookings Institution, said a conservative estimate for the cost of Bush's permanent tax cuts and Social Security accounts would be about $4 trillion over 10 years. But Bush's agenda was vague and did not include details of how he would add Social Security accounts.

"It's hard to cost out rhetoric," Orszag said.

Read More...

Will voters get the debates they deserve?

Boston Globe

Will voters get the debates they deserve?

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | September 14, 2004

WASHINGTON
PRESIDENT BUSH has until Monday to decide which battleground state he wants to infuriate -- Florida, Ohio, Missouri, or Arizona.

Each of the four is a designated venue for one of the three proposed presidential and the one vice presidential debate. Months ago, when he was leading in the polls, John Kerry accepted all four invitations. But to this day, Bush has said nothing, and word is that he doesn't want to face Kerry three times. The first debate between Bush and Kerry is set for Sept. 30 in Miami. For security agencies and the bipartisan Commission on Presidential Debates, 10 days at the outside is required to prepare for a debate; the word is required, not desired, as far as the four, swing state venues are considered. Ten days is next Monday, simple as that.

Since the debate commission was set up by the political parties to replace the ad hoc affairs run from 1976 to 1984 by the League of Women Voters, two developments have occurred. The debates, as TV productions, have managed to focus all the attention on the candidates and away from moderators and verbose reporters.

In the process, research done every four years by the commission has repeatedly illustrated a very simple point: the public by gigantic margins has come to consider the debates as their property, not the Republicans' or the Democrats'. By now, it is not an extreme view that national conventions are scripted, campaigns themselves are scripted, and what we get from the candidates is the antithesis of candor and authenticity.

But the debates are different -- up to six hours of exposure to unscripted moments that can help voters decide on their candidate. Perhaps because the stakes are so high, the campaigns are always tempted to play games with the debates. Bush's dad cost the public one debate in 1988, and Bill Clinton did the same in 1996. Four years ago and in 1992, all three presidential debates and the vice-presidential tussle came off as planned. This time, it is Bush's opportunity either to behave or to show the politician's inbred tendency to ignore the public interest. To its credit, the bipartisan commission has made it clear that it is not going to play into the political silliness by negotiating about venues and dates that have been a matter of public record for months. To be bipartisan means being willing to take partisan heat in a larger cause, and ever since 1984, co-chairman Frank Fahrenkopf (Ronald Reagan's Republican national chairman), co-chairman Paul Kirk (who picked up the Democrats' pieces after Reagan's '84 landslide) and full-time boss Janet Brown (a protege of principled Republicans like Elliot Richardson and Jack Danforth) have been my favorite stand-up people in an increasingly discredited game. They have taken the heat and built the debates the public wants. Bush's negotiator will not be Karl Rove, it will be James Baker, former secretary of state and the treasury. Kerry's negotiator is super-lawyer Vernon Jordan. I have known all the players for years and offer the following roadmap for the mess that may lie immediately ahead:

In a hotly contested election, the public's interest in a full debate schedule will be served if the media, especially TV and newspapers in the four swing-state venues, is vocal.

In this hotly contested atmosphere that resembles 1992 without Ross Perot, Bush will take at least a big risk if he ducks one of those battleground state venues.

Kerry will take a big risk if he undercuts the commission and (dare I say it) flip-flops into connivance with Baker outside its auspices.

After dithering in '92 and getting hurt (remember Chicken Man?), Bush's dad did the right thing; after dithering in 2000 and getting hurt (Gore was ahead), Bush Jr. did the right thing. This time, with interest high, it would seem clear that debating is smarter than dithering. It's also in the public interest.

Read More...

Edwards's unheard message

Boston Globe
Edwards's unheard message

By Joan Vennochi, Globe Columnist | September 14, 2004

DICK CHENEY, the dour vice president with the downward-curling lip, is clobbering Democratic vice presidential nominee John Edwards.

Everyone knew that Edwards brought good looks and charisma to the Democratic ticket. But the one-term senator and trial lawyer from North Carolina supposedly offered more. During the primary season, Edwards delivered a stump speech that made liberals' eyes mist: There are two Americas, he said, the haves and the have-nots, the people buying $800 Manolo Blahnik pumps at Neiman Marcus versus the people buying flip-flops at Wal-Mart.

As the senior George H.W. Bush would say, "Message: I care." Grafting that message onto the Kerry-Edwards campaign was supposed to make voters forget that neither Kerry nor Edwards is, by necessity, a bargain-hunter.

Cheney snidely sidetracked the Democrats' message with these words: "Kerry says he sees two Americas. It makes the whole thing mutual. America sees two John Kerrys." Then, he threw an even lower blow, warning that if Kerry is elected "the danger is that we'll get hit again."

To that, Edwards said Cheney had "crossed the line . . . This is un-American." Cheney is still smarting over that riposte, don't you think? Meanwhile, Edwards and his economic message are receding into the background.

"In a game of visibility, it's a technical knock-out," says Boston political consultant Joe Baerlein. "Dick Cheney is the designated pitbull. His job is to make news and stir up controversy." He believes the Kerry campaign is deliberately choosing another strategy, using Edwards to make the case to swing voters in select markets, "in a nonpolarizing way."

Nonpolarizing is not the Bush-Cheney way. Their campaign is based on two false premises: that the US invasion of Iraq was necessary because of 9/11; and that Bush cares equally about every American, rich or not-so-rich, and is pushing policies that take care of them equally. If Democrats can't pierce either one of those lies, they don't deserve to beat Bush. So far, they don't deserve to beat Bush.

From his hospital bed before undergoing heart bypass surgery, Bill Clinton told Kerry to forget about Vietnam and talk about health care. But first, Kerry has to talk about Iraq.

Recent polling numbers show that voters care more about protecting the country than creating jobs and they trust the Republicans over the Democrats to do it. According to a recent Newsweek poll, 42 percent of Americans continue to believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved in the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11. Debunking that mythological connection is not easy. But over the weekend, Kerry's cause was helped by Secretary of State Colin Powell, who told "Meet the Press": "I have no indication that there was a direct connection between the terrorists who perpetrated these crimes against us on the 11th of September, 2001, and the Iraqi regime . . . I have seen nothing that makes a direct connection between Saddam Hussein and that awful regime and what happened on 9/11."

Kerry picked up on the theme, telling The New York Times that the administration has "taken their eye off the real ball. They took it off in Afghanistan and shifted it to Iraq. They took it off in North Korea and shifted it to Iraq. They took it off in Russia and the nuclear materials there and shifted it to Iraq."

That at least is a way for Kerry to start reframing the debate and move away from the Vietnam era and his Senate vote authorizing war with Iraq. Now, how about getting more surrogates out there on his behalf on the domestic front?

Edwards is correct, there are two Americas and there are many ways to show it. Poverty is on the rise, fewer people have health care. Stretching income to cover basic costs is more difficult. A recent Businessweek.com article labeled shoppers as "Moneyed vs. Worried." August retail sales showed that discount stores like Wal-Mart, Costco, and Target fell below analysts' forecasts. Some blamed hurricane season, gas prices or the late start of back-to-school shopping. However, the same factors did not impede retail sales at high-end stores. "Wealthy Americans seem unshaken by current economic uncertainties and are still spending their money freely, while consumers in lower income brackets are feeling less secure," Businessweek concluded.

One America is worried about money and jobs. But the guy who turned it into a campaign theme has all but vanished from the front page. As usual, the pitbull wins the headlines.

Read More...

Fla. official defies Court order and allows Nader onto ballot

Boston Globe

Fla. official allows Nader onto ballot
Democrats howl; court review slated

By Jim Loney, Reuters | September 14, 2004

MIAMI -- Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader's name can appear on Florida ballots for the election, despite a court order to the contrary, Florida's elections chief told officials yesterday in a move that could help President Bush in the key swing state.

The Florida Democratic Party reacted with outrage, calling the move ''blatant partisan maneuvering" by Governor Jeb Bush, the president's younger brother, and vowed to fight it.

In a memo to Florida's 67 county supervisors of elections, Dawn Roberts, director of the Division of Elections, said the uncertainty of Hurricane Ivan forced her to act. The massive storm could hit parts of the state by week's end, forecasters say.

The ruling came in an ongoing legal battle over whether Nader should be allowed on the Florida ballot as the Reform Party candidate.

Nader, an independent nominated by the Reform Party, was a presidential candidate in 2000 when Bush won Florida, and the White House, by 537 votes over Al Gore. Analysts said most of the nearly 98,000 votes Nader got in Florida would have gone to Gore had Nader not been on the ballot.

Florida Circuit Court Judge Kevin Davey issued a temporary injunction last week preventing the state from putting Nader on the 2004 ballot, siding with a Democratic challenge that the Reform Party did not qualify as a national party under state law.

A hearing on a permanent injunction is scheduled for tomorrow. But Roberts said Hurricane Ivan had raised ''a substantial question as to when such a hearing" will be held.

As a result, she said, Florida's Department of State had filed an appeal against the temporary injunction. The appeal application automatically lifts the injunction, allowing the counties to put Nader's name on overseas absentee ballots, which must be mailed by Saturday.

''I'm in disbelief," said Scott Maddox, chairman of the Florida Democratic Party. ''This is blatant partisan maneuvering on the part of Jeb Bush to give his brother a leg up" against Democratic presidential nominee John F. Kerry.

Governor Bush said he agreed with Roberts's decision.

''It's up to the judge to determine, based on the law, whether Nader should be on the ballot or not," Bush said. ''But while that process goes on, we cannot put ourselves in the position where the ministerial role of the supervisors cannot be fulfilled."

Tallahassee, the state capital where Davey sits, is not expected to be directly hit by the hurricane. Maddox said the circuit court could hear the case as scheduled tomorrow and rule immediately.

In addition, the case is before the Florida Supreme Court, which could also rule at any time.

Read More...

Taking On the Myth

NY Times
September 14, 2004

Taking On the Myth
By PAUL KRUGMAN

On Sunday, a celebrating crowd gathered around a burning U.S. armored vehicle. Then a helicopter opened fire; a child and a journalist for an Arabic TV news channel were among those killed. Later, the channel repeatedly showed the journalist doubling over and screaming, "I'm dying; I'm dying."

Such scenes, which enlarge the ranks of our enemies by making America look both weak and brutal, are inevitable in the guerrilla war President Bush got us into. Osama bin Laden must be smiling.

U.S. news organizations are under constant pressure to report good news from Iraq. In fact, as a Newsweek headline puts it, "It's worse than you think." Attacks on coalition forces are intensifying and getting more effective; no-go zones, which the military prefers to call "insurgent enclaves," are spreading - even in Baghdad. We're losing ground.

And the losses aren't only in Iraq. Al Qaeda has regrouped. The invasion of Iraq, intended to demonstrate American power, has done just the opposite: nasty regimes around the world feel empowered now that our forces are bogged down. When a Times reporter asked Mr. Bush about North Korea's ongoing nuclear program, "he opened his palms and shrugged."

Yet many voters still believe that Mr. Bush is doing a good job protecting America.

If Senator John Kerry really has advisers telling him not to attack Mr. Bush on national security, he should dump them. When Dick Cheney is saying vote Bush or die, responding with speeches about jobs and health care doesn't cut it.

Mr. Kerry should counterattack by saying that Mr. Bush is endangering the nation by subordinating national security to politics.

In early 2002 the Bush administration, already focused on Iraq, ignored pleas to commit more forces to Afghanistan. As a result, the Taliban is resurgent, and Osama is still out there.

In the buildup to the Iraq war, commanders wanted a bigger invasion force to help secure the country. But civilian officials, eager to prove that wars can be fought on the cheap, refused. And that's one main reason our soldiers are still dying in Iraq.

This past April, U.S. forces, surely acting on White House orders after American television showed gruesome images of dead contractors, attacked Falluja. Lt. Gen. James Conway, the Marine commander on the scene, opposed "attacking out of revenge" but was overruled - and he was overruled again with an equally disastrous decision to call off the attack after it had begun. "Once you commit," General Conway said, "you got to stay committed." But Mr. Bush, faced with the prospect of a casualty toll that would have hurt his approval rating, didn't.

Can Mr. Kerry, who voted to authorize the Iraq war, criticize it? Yes, by pointing out that he voted only to give Mr. Bush a big stick. Once that stick had forced Saddam to let W.M.D. inspectors back in, there was no need to invade. And Mr. Kerry should keep pounding Mr. Cheney, who is trying to cover for the absence of W.M.D. by lying, yet again, about Saddam's ties to Al Qaeda.

Some pundits are demanding that Mr. Kerry produce a specific plan for Iraq - a demand they never make of Mr. Bush. Mr. Kerry should turn the tables, and demand to know what - aside from pretending that things are going fine - Mr. Bush intends to do about the spiraling disaster. And Mr. Kerry can ask why anyone should trust a leader who refuses to replace the people who created that disaster because he thinks it's bad politics to admit a mistake.

Mr. Kerry can argue that he wouldn't have overruled the commanders who had wanted to keep the pressure on Al Qaeda, or dismissed warnings from former Gen. Eric Shinseki, then the Army's chief of staff, that peacekeeping would require a large force. He wouldn't have ignored General Conway's warnings about the dangers of storming into Falluja, or overruled his protests about calling off that assault halfway through.

On the other hand, he can argue that he would have fired Paul Wolfowitz, the deputy defense secretary who ridiculed General Shinseki. And he would definitely have fired Donald Rumsfeld for the failure to go in with enough troops, the atrocities at Abu Ghraib and more.

The truth is that Mr. Bush, by politicizing the "war on terror," is putting America at risk. And Mr. Kerry has to say that.

Read More...

Film Walks Line Between Kerry Ad and War Documentary

NY Times
September 14, 2004

Film Walks Line Between Kerry Ad and War Documentary
By SHARON WAXMAN

TORONTO, Sept. 13 - The premiere on Tuesday night of a sympathetic documentary about Senator John Kerry stakes out new territory at the crossroads of politics and cinema: will audiences pay to see what amounts to a two-hour political tribute to a man spotlighted free on the news every night? Can a theatrically released feature film create last-minute momentum for a presidential candidate? Could the effort boomerang?

Those questions, similar to ones raised by Michael Moore's anti-Bush documentary, "Fahrenheit 9/11," loom large as "Going Upriver: The Long War of John Kerry," directed by a longtime friend of Mr. Kerry, George Butler, makes its debut at the Toronto Film Festival, with the window for finding out the answers excruciatingly small. The film will open in 200 theaters on Oct. 1, less than five weeks before the election.

Acquired just six weeks ago by ThinkFilm, based in Canada, "Going Upriver" has shifted in content and story line almost daily. Three weeks ago, the film was far different, before the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth emerged to attack Senator Kerry's wartime record, the filmmakers said.

"George took a hatchet to the film," said Mark Urman, the head of distribution for ThinkFilm, and the focus was tightened exclusively to the Vietnam era. "The film was suddenly printed in capital letters. He took out anything that didn't address the point: who is this man, and why do we care about him?"

Using interviews and thousands of photographs taken by Mr. Butler since the late 1960's, the film is a careful, detailed portrait that features footage from Mr. Kerry's service on Swift boats in the Mekong Delta and rare images of him as he led several days of antiwar protest in Washington in 1971, culminating in the veterans' medal-throwing ceremony.

The film seems intended to settle questions of whether Mr. Kerry was indeed a war hero, which the Swift boat veterans' group has questioned, and to explain his shift from soldier to leader of the antiwar movement, which has been criticized by some of his detractors as unpatriotic. The film includes footage of Mr. Kerry briefly questioning a veteran at the Winter Soldiers event in 1971, when veterans gave anguished testimony about their experiences in Vietnam, testimony that may still inflame anti-Kerry veterans today.

But no one knows if audiences will be interested - and whether the film will help Mr. Kerry or simply inflame those already angry with his antiwar role.

"I'm trying to figure out what this film will do," said Mr. Butler, who first met the candidate in 1964, and told of becoming convinced early on that he would one day be president. "John Kerry fascinates me. I decided to do the movie about Vietnam and the peace movement because in many ways, it's the best story about John Kerry. But it's more than a film about John Kerry. It's a film about my generation."

At a research screening last week in a major swing state, Ohio, 80 percent of audience members said they would recommend that others go see the movie; the recruited audience included undecided voters, though movie research can be an unreliable predictor of success.

Depending on how well the film is received in Toronto, there are plans to raise several million dollars to distribute free copies of the film on DVD on the pro-Kerry "Vote for Change" rock concert tour led by Bruce Springsteen, and to get the film in the hands of voters in swing states.

The Kerry campaign was at pains to say it had nothing to do with the film, particularly with the release falling so close to the election and thus subject to federal election laws. (The $1.2 million budget for the film was provided by Kerry supporters.) The candidate did not give Mr. Butler an interview for the film and appears only in historical footage.

Monday, the campaign issued this statement about the film: "When John Kerry was a young man, he showed physical courage in voluntarily fighting the war in Vietnam. When he came home, he showed moral courage in fighting to end a war where over 40,000 of the 58,245 Americans had already died. Any movie that educates the country on the Vietnam War and the troubled times that surrounded it, is an important lesson."

Michael Meehan, a senior adviser to the Kerry campaign, said that no one at the campaign had seen the film "that I know of," and that there had been no strategizing over how to use the film to help the candidate.

Senator Kerry did provide Mr. Butler with his own Super-8 footage taken when he was a commander of a Swift boat, a dangerous coastal patrol that, as the film notes, at times had 90 percent casualty rates. When Mr. Kerry cites the pathos of seeing a young Viet Cong soldier left to die in his blue shirt beside a burning hut with no honors or medals, there is film to match the memory.

Mr. Butler also acquired Super-8 footage from another Swift boat commander, and relied on interviews with Mr. Kerry's fellow soldiers and historians like Neil Sheehan to reconstruct the Vietnam service.

There are no interviews with Mr. Kerry's critics. Instead, the film notes that the leading attacker of Senator Kerry's Vietnam record now, John O'Neill, was recruited by the Nixon White House to discredit antiwar veterans in 1971. Mr. O'Neill, in a recent interview in The New York Times unrelated to the new movie, said it was Mr. Kerry's antiwar stance that propelled him to act. He said that as a young Vietnam veteran just home from the war, he was so troubled by Mr. Kerry's Senate testimony against the war that he went on the talk show circuit to promote an opposing view.

Asked if he considers the film a hagiography, Mr. Butler smiled: "It's a word I'm familiar with. It means saintly," he said. "Everyone said I couldn't make a good film about a friend. But there's no narration in the film. It's one of the things I'm most proud of. That way you can show what John Kerry is like and not have to tell it."

The film is still a gamble on many levels. Unlike Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11," the blockbuster anti-Bush documentary that ignited intense interest in political films this year, "Going Upriver" is not the comic rant of an angry polemicist, capitalizing on public anger over the war in Iraq. It is a close look at one man's experience during a war 30 years ago, not the sort of film that creates blockbuster interest.

And in creating such a positive portrait of a 27-year-old John Kerry, it seems fair to ask whether the current candidate may suffer by comparison. Mr. Butler said he was not worried. "People see this separation between John in Vietnam, and with Vietnam Veterans Against the War, and now," he said. "He's surprisingly much the same person." .

Even less than 24 hours before the premiere, "Going Upriver" is not quite finished. The print being shown at the festival is an incomplete digital version that will be transferred to 35-millimeter film for the national release in two weeks. The film's distributors concede they are in uncharted waters, and are trying to figure out as they go how to make the $1.2 million budget movie a success.

"This film is being made as history as being made," Mr. Urman said. "I've never been involved with something that is so now. It's film distribution as performance art, and it's very exciting. We're making it up as we go along."

Read More...

The Urgent Task Left From 9/11

The New York Times
September 14, 2004

The Urgent Task Left From 9/11

It was good news when President Bush flip-flopped on intelligence reform and endorsed giving the proposed new post of national intelligence director some real authority. That removed any excuse for the House and Senate to delay. It is time for them to enact true reform of the government's failure-ridden patchwork of 15 competing agencies.

Last week, after weeks of resistance, Mr. Bush agreed that the new national intelligence director should have "full budgetary authority" over the various intelligence organs at the Central Intelligence Agency, the Defense Department and other places. Critical details remain to be spelled out in the White House's reform bill, but giving the new supermanager the power to defy the Pentagon and shift funds and priorities as threats change was one of the crucial recommendations of the independent commission's report on the failures of 9/11.

The president's decision ended his earlier talk of a director who could merely recommend budget changes. The shift was prodded by public pressure in the campaign season, but we hope it signals the start of the real leadership that is required from Mr. Bush on this urgent issue, particularly in the face of the resistance toward serious reform already palpable in much of the Republican-controlled Congress.

As briefly sketched so far, Mr. Bush's proposal would have the new director control as much as 75 percent of the estimated $40 billion annual intelligence budget, leaving the rest to the Pentagon, which is already fighting on Capitol Hill to retain its current 80 percent domination of the money flow. The Pentagon's argument that this would leave troops exposed on the battlefield is a diversion. No serious proposal would remove the armed forces' tactical battlefield intelligence operations from Pentagon control.

To be effective, the White House bill, and whatever Congress eventually passes, had best guarantee the new director the fullest possible powers to manage personnel and to cut through the "groupthink" inertia, bureaucratic rivalries and failure to share information that were underlined by the 9/11 commission. As terrorist threats shift, the new director must be able to "move money and people quickly," in the apt summary of John McLaughlin, the acting director of central intelligence.

Whether much of this happens is an open question in Congress. The Senate has moved more determinedly than the House in promising to shape a reform bill this month. House leaders have been passive from the start. It was discouraging to hear Tom DeLay, the House majority leader, claim that "incredible progress" in intelligence gathering has already occurred since 9/11. Incredible, indeed, considering the intelligence bureaucracy's "slam dunk" certitude about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and its failure to foresee the bloody insurrection that has mired American troops.

This burning issue demands true bipartisan momentum as well as stronger leadership if an effective restructuring plan is to emerge from Congress. A worthy bipartisan benchmark has been set in both houses in a joint bill rooted in the main proposals of the 9/11 commission. The approach of Election Day presents a deadline by which voters will be able to see either true change at hand or more decades of dangerous procrastination.

Read More...

Bush Team Implicated in Prisoner Abuse

Bush Team Implicated in Prisoner Abuse

Investigative journalist Seymour Hersh's new book "Chain of Command: The Road From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib" claims that not only was the Bush administration aware of the torture of prisoners in Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib but had put the mechanics of inmate abuse in place.

"Hersh provides details of how President George Bush signed off on the establishment of a secret unit that was given advance approval to kill or capture and interrogate "high-value" suspects - considered by many to be in defiance of international law - an officially 'unacknowledged' programme that was eventually transferred wholesale from Guantánamo to the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

Evidence of prisoner abuse and possible war crimes at Guantánamo Bay reached the highest levels of the Bush administration as early as autumn 2002, but Donald Rumsfeld, the defence secretary, chose to do nothing about it. Hersh, quotes one former marine at the camp recalling sessions in which guards would 'f..k with [detainees] as much as we could' by inflicting pain on them." Read the Guardian report at http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1303106,00.html.

Read More...

Army Censors Soldier's Blog

Army Censors Soldier's Blog

A young soldier blogging about his experiences in Mosul has been banned from patrols and confined to base. Army Specialist Colby Buzzell, who uses the alias CBFTW (Colby Buzzell F . . This War) was getting 10.000 hits a day on his blog which the Wall Street Journal described as "a mixture of gripping accounts of caffeine-driven battle maneuvers and amusing vignettes from the dusty grind of life in Iraq's third-largest city." You can read his blog at http://cbftw.blogspot.com/

Read More...


Read More...


Read More...

Monday, September 13, 2004

POWELL DISSES CHENEY

NATIONAL SECURITY -- POWELL DISSES CHENEY: Just days after Vice
President Dick Cheney embarrassed himself
(http://www.boston.com/news/politics/president/bush/articles/2004/09/13/powell_targets_terror_comment_kerrys_response_would_be_robust/)
by claiming terrorists would attack America if people voted for John
Kerry, he and the Bush campaign sought to " clarify his remarks
(http://edition.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/09/10/cheney.kerry.ap/) ." They
said Cheney actually meant that Kerry would not respond as forcefully
as Bush when an attack occurs. But Secretary of State Colin Powell
disagreed. Asked how he believes Sen. John F. Kerry would respond to a
terrorist attack, Powell said, "As commander in chief, I think he'd respond
to it in a robust way
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16707-2004Sep12.html) ."
Powell had already made news earlier in the week, as British journalist
James Naughtie reported the Secretary of State called neo-cons Cheney,
Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Deputy Defense Secretary Paul
Wolfowitz " f---ing crazies
(http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/people/190325_people13.html) ."

Read More...

HOMELAND SECURITY -- INSECURE BORDERS

HOMELAND SECURITY -- INSECURE BORDERS: An investigation by Time
Magazine supports 9/11 Commission findings
(http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=3859756) that the Bush
administration has failed to establish effective border security since
9/11. Time reports, "Despite all the talk of homeland security, sneaking
into the U.S. is scandalously easy?and on the rise. Millions of illegal
aliens will pour across the U.S.-Mexican border this year, many from
countries hostile to America...The U.S.'s borders, rather than becoming
more secure since 9/11, have grown even more porous
(http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101040920/story.html) . And the trend
has accelerated in the past year." A nationwide survey of the U.S.
Border Patrol conducted last month found the majority of the nation's
customs and border officials believe " they are ill-equipped to prevent
another terrorist attack
(http://www.govexec.com/story_page.cfm?articleid=29264&dcn=todaysnews)
." Read more about the Bush administration's inadequate efforts to
improve border control and plug other gaps in Homeland Security in American
Progress' report, " Failing Grades
(http://www.americanprogress.org/site/pp.asp?c=biJRJ8OVF&b=183682) ."

Read More...

FOREIGN POLICY -- FREUDIAN SLIP

FOREIGN POLICY -- FREUDIAN SLIP?: Apparently, the Bush administration
has conflated Saddam Hussein with Osama bin Laden
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/politics/whitehouse/la-na-gop10sep10,1,3026441.story?coll=la-news-politics-white_house)
so many times that even its own officials have become confused.
Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld mixed up the names of bin Laden and
Hussein
(http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-rummy11sep11,1,2859808.story?coll=la-headlines-world)
twice in a speech at the National Press Club on Friday, at one point
referring to Hussein as the leader of the al Qaeda-backed Northern
Alliance in Afghanistan. At another point Rumsfeld said, "Saddam Hussein, if
he's alive, is spending a whale of a lot of time trying to not get
caught. And we've not seen him on a video since 2001." He meant bin Laden.
Rumsfeld might just be following the White House script. After all, in
2002 Bush said, "You can't distinguish
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/09/20020925-1.html)
between al Qaeda and Saddam when you talk about the war on terror."

Read More...

US Government Cover-up: "Up to 400,000 New Yorkers breathed in the most toxic polluting cloud ever recorded"

9/11 -- MORE POTENTIAL DEATHS THAN ACTUAL ATTACKS: According to the UK
Independent, which cited a new report by the U.S. Government
Accountability Office, "Up to 400,000 New Yorkers breathed in the most toxic
polluting cloud ever recorded after the twin towers were brought down three
years ago, but no proper effort has been made to find out how their
health has been affected." The report "provides the latest evidence of a
systematic cover-up of the health toll
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0912-01.htm) from pollution
after the 9/11 disaster, which doctors fear will cause more deaths than
the attacks themselves." The Bush administration "suppressed evidence of
increasing danger" and officially announced that the air around the
felled buildings was "safe to breathe." Another report reveals that it has
since "failed at least a dozen times to correct its assurances, even
when it became clear that people were becoming sick." Just days after
9/11, the White House's Council of Environmental Quality -- headed by a
former asbestos industry
(http://www.earthjustice.org/policy/profiles/display.html?Department=Council%20On%20Environmental%20Quality)
lawyer-lobbyist -- doctored EPA press releases
(http://www.fortwayne.com/mld/newssentinel/news/editorial/6754648.htm)
to claim the air was safe to breathe. In fact, "Asbestos was found at
27 times acceptable levels" near Ground Zero. After that, the White
House refused to immediately fund critical health screening tests for those
exposed to toxic chemicals during the attack, instead waiting
two-and-a-half years
(http://www.house.gov/maloney/press/108th/20040319HealthScreening911.htm)
to address the situation.

Read More...

Novak's Duplicity

From Progressreport.org

Novak's Duplicity

In a move of stunning hypocrisy this weekend, journalist Bob Novak went
on CNN to demand CBS News reveal the confidential sources
(http://www.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0409/11/cg.00.html) which gave them
President Bush's National Guard records. On the Capital Gang, Novak, who
has strenusously claimed his right as a reporter not to reveal his
sources to law enforcement officials
(http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000591250)
in the leak of an undercover CIA agent, said, "I'd like CBS, at this
point, to say where they got these documents from." He then repeated
himself: "I think they should say where they got these documents." The Wall
Street Journal's Al Hunt was perplexed, asking Novak, "You're saying
CBS should reveal its source?" He replied, "Yes." Hunt asked again, "You
think reporters ought to reveal sources?" Novak, then embarrassed said,
"No, no. Wait a minute...I'm just saying in that case." Hunt summed up,
"So in some cases, reporters ought to reveal sources?" Novak replied,
"Yes."

Read More...