Thursday, October 07, 2004

U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's

The New York Times
October 7, 2004
INSPECTOR'S JUDGMENT
U.S. Report Finds Iraqis Eliminated Illicit Arms in 90's
By DOUGLAS JEHL

WASHINGTON, Oct. 6 - Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles within months after the Persian Gulf war of 1991, and its ability to produce such weapons had significantly eroded by the time of the American invasion in 2003, the top American inspector for Iraq said in a report made public Wednesday.

The report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer, intended to offer a near-final judgment about Iraq and its weapons, said Iraq, while under pressure from the United Nations, had "essentially destroyed'' its illicit weapons ability by the end of 1991, with its last secret factory, a biological weapons plant, eliminated in 1996.

Mr. Duelfer said that even during those years, Saddam Hussein had aimed at "preserving the capability to reconstitute his weapons of mass destruction when sanctions were lifted.'' But he said he had found no evidence of any concerted effort by Iraq to restart the programs.

The findings uphold Iraq's prewar insistence that it did not possess chemical or biological weapons. They also show the enormous distance between the Bush administration's own prewar assertions, based on reports by American intelligence agencies, and what a 15-month inquiry by American investigators found since the war.

Mr. Duelfer said he had concluded that between 1991 and 2003, Mr. Hussein had in effect sacrificed Iraq's illicit weapons to the larger goal of winning an end to United Nations sanctions. But he also argued that Mr. Hussein had used the period to try to exploit avenues opened by the sanctions, especially the oil-for-food program, to lay the groundwork for a plan to resume weapons production if sanctions were lifted.

In addition, the report concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether it had illicit weapons, mainly as a deterrent to Iran, its rival.

The American inspector presented his conclusions to Congress on Wednesday, including highly charged public testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

With Iraq figuring prominently in the last dash toward the presidential election, Democrats argued that the report had undermined the administration's case for war, while the White House and its Republican allies called attention to elements in the report that highlighted potential dangers posed by Mr. Hussein's government.

"There is no doubt that Saddam was a threat to our nation, and there is no doubt that he had W.M.D. capability, and the Duelfer report is very clear on these points,'' said James Wilkinson, a White House deputy national security adviser, using the abbreviation for weapons of mass destruction.

The three-volume report, totaling 918 pages, represented the most authoritative attempt so far to unravel the mystery posed by Iraq between 1991 and 2003, beginning with the point after the Persian Gulf war when Iraq still possessed chemical and biological weapons and an active nuclear-weapons program. The conclusions suggest that the main war aim cited by the White House in March 2003 - to disarm Iraq, which American intelligence agencies said possessed chemical and biological weapons and was reconstituting its nuclear program - was based on an outdated view of Iraq's weapons stockpiles.

At the time of the American invasion, Mr. Duelfer said in the report, Iraq did not possess chemical and biological weapons, was not seeking to reconstitute its nuclear program, and was not making any active effort to gain those abilities. Even if Iraq had sought to restart its weapons programs in 2003, the report said, it could not have produced militarily significant quantities of chemical weapons for at least a year, and it would have required years to produce a nuclear weapon.

"Saddam Hussein ended the nuclear program in 1991 following the gulf war,'' Mr. Duelfer said in the report. It said American inspectors in Iraq had "found no evidence to suggest concerted efforts to restart the program.''

After a closed briefing by Mr. Duelfer to the Senate Intelligence Committee, Senator John D. Rockefeller IV of West Virginia, the top Democrat on the committee, described the report as "a devastating account.''

"The administration would like the American public to believe that Saddam's intention to build a weapons program, regardless of actual weapons or the capability to produce weapons, justified invading Iraq,'' Mr. Rockefeller said in a statement. "In fact, we invaded a country, thousands of people have died, and Iraq never posed a grave or growing danger.''

In accounting for what happened beginning in 1991, Mr. Duelfer said Mr. Hussein made a fundamental decision after the Persian Gulf war to get rid of Iraq's illicit weapons and accept the destruction of its weapons-producing facilities as part of an effort to win an end to sanctions imposed by the United Nations to achieve those ends.

Although Mr. Duelfer concluded that Mr. Hussein had intended to restart his programs, the report acknowledged that that conclusion was based more on inference than solid evidence. "The regime had no formal written strategy or plan for the revival of W.M.D. after sanctions,'' it said.

The report notes that its conclusions were drawn in part from interrogation of Mr. Hussein in his prison cell outside Baghdad. Mr. Duelfer, a special adviser to the director of central intelligence, said he had concluded that Mr. Hussein had deliberately sought to maintain ambiguity about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons, primarily as a deterrent to Iran, Iraq's adversary in an eight-year war in the 1980's.

It was not until a series of meetings in late 2002, just months before the American invasion, that Mr. Hussein finally acknowledged to senior officers and officials of his government that Iraq did not possess illicit weapons, Mr. Duelfer said.

The report said American investigators had found clandestine laboratories in the Baghdad area used by the Iraqi Intelligence Service between 1991 and 2003 to conduct research and to test various chemicals and poisons, including ricin. As previously reported, it said those efforts appeared to be intended primarily for use in assassinations, not to inflict mass casualties.

Mr. Duelfer said in his report that Mr. Hussein never acknowledged in the course of the interrogations what had become of Iraq's illicit weapons. He said that American investigators had appealed to the former Iraqi leader to be candid in order to shape his legacy, but that Mr. Hussein had not been forthcoming.

The report said interviews with other former top Iraqi leaders had made clear that Mr. Hussein had left many of his top deputies uncertain until the eve of war about whether Iraq possessed illicit weapons. It said he seemed to be most concerned about a possible new attack by Iran, whose incursions into Iraq during the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-88 were fended off by Baghdad partly with the use of chemical munitions.

Mr. Duelfer said Iraq had tried to maintain the knowledge base necessary to restart an illicit weapons program. He said Iraq had essentially put its biological program "on the shelf," after its last production facility, Al Hakam, was destroyed by United Nations inspectors in 1996, and could have begun to produce biological questions in as little as a month if it had restarted its weapons program in 2003.

But the report said there were "no indications'' that Iraq was pursuing such a course, and it reported "a complete absence of discussion or even interest in biological weapons'' at the level of Mr. Hussein and his aides after the mid-1990's.

The report will almost certainly be the last complete assessment by the team led by Mr. Duelfer, which is known as the Iraq Survey Group. But he said he and the 1,200-member team would continue their work in Iraq for the time being. He said the team had not completely ruled out the possibility that some Iraqi weapons might have been smuggled out of Iraq to a neighboring country, like Syria.

The report did revise several earlier judgments, including a report by the Central Intelligence Agency in May 2003 that said mysterious trailers found in Iraq after the American invasion in 2003 were intended for use in a biological warfare program. Mr. Duelfer said that the trailers could not have been used for that purpose, and that their manufacturers "almost certainly designed and built the equipment exclusively for the generation of hydrogen,'' upholding claims by Iraqi officials that linked the trailers to weather balloons used for artillery practice.

Read More...

Wednesday, October 06, 2004

Spin, spin, spin.

Mike Malloy
The Mike Malloy Show
AirAmericaRadio

Spin, spin, spin. The talking heads on the alphabet networks are doing their best to nullify Sen. Edwards' absolute victory over the nihilism of the Cheney vampire last night. Is it working? Are our crack media pundits earning those Republican plaudits they so deeply cherish? Probably. They all live in the land of the Red Queen - the echo chamber - where "it's true because I say it's true!" Ah, but, what about the real world? What are they saying in the heartland? A quick example from the Philadelphia Inquirer: “Some of [Edwards’] most effective moments last night concerned Iraq. He hit Cheney on several fronts, and Cheney's answers -- when he chose to answer at all -- were not particularly persuasive…." the St. Louis Post-Dispatch: “If Vice President Dick Cheney was on the defensive in Tuesday night's debate with Democratic challenger John Edwards - and he often appeared to be -- he could thank a couple of sucker punches from his own side.” In the real America, the contrast between Cheney's manufactured fear and loathing and Sen. Edwards' optimism was starkly apparent.

Read More...


Read More...


Read More...

Cheney proves his irrelevance

Boston.com
The Boston Globe
THE VICE PRESIDENTIAL DEBATE | THOMAS OLIPHANT
Cheney proves his irrelevance

By Thomas Oliphant, Globe Columnist | October 6, 2004

CLEVELAND
THE COUNTRY doesn't need Dick Cheney any more. After his 90 minutes on the stage last night, it is clear he is no longer an essential person in politics and government. What he brings to the table are liabilities.

In debate against an opponent with the dangerously attractive attribute of freshness, Cheney paled -- literally. He's not special, it turns out. He doesn't know anything special, he hasn't done anything special, and for the future he doesn't offer anything special.

Cheney is now just another vice president who has had his hour on the stage without really mattering or making a difference. Four years ago, he had a glow of the Wizard of Oz about him, filling an obvious hole in his running mate's background; last night, Cheney was just the grumpy old man behind the curtain.

In presidential campaigns, that is the key to the veeps. They matter if they add something major, help solve a big problem, or provide the second element of a coalition. They are usually more important on the way into office than after they've been there, and last night was no exception.

In 2000, with George W. Bush running against an experienced, accomplished vice president, Cheney turned out to be important to the know-little Texas governor's election. His debate performance against Al Gore's running mate, Senator Joe Lieberman, provided the added element of reassurance that the one-time conservative congressman from Wyoming and defense secretary seemed a decent fellow who could help govern the country.

Cheney ceased to have that status a long time ago. Now he has to deal with the accumulating credibility detritus of his incumbency. Just this week, he ran into disclosures from an increasingly angry and bitter intelligence community that he suppressed requests for more troops in Iraq, couldn't even persuade Donald Rumsfeld about ties between Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda, and probably also suppressed dissenting opinions about the significance of those famous aluminum tubes that never ended up being used in Iraq's nonexistent nuclear weapons program.

Cheney went into office with the typical benefit of the doubt. Now, more people in polls express unfavorable views about him than favorable ones. As he showed last night, the only way he can deal with questions about his repeated misleading of the public on matters of war and peace is by ignoring the questions and launching into another effort to make Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda seem part of the same coalition and then questioning the patriotism of all who criticize him. It can seem like decent television, but in fact it undermines his president politically as much as it helps rally the Republican base.

John Edwards had the political discipline to resist the temptation to behave with Cheney's off-putting nastiness, restricting himself to one powerful recitation of the vice president's long record of extreme right-wing position on race relations and education. He helps John Kerry politically, but what was important last night was that he helped demonstrate that Cheney isn't a big player anymore, that Edwards can play on the same stage, and therefore that the country is free to change leaders next month.

Thomas Oliphant's e-mail address is oliphant@globe.com.

Read More...

Cheney sends voters to wrong Web site - Net surfers directed to anti-Bush site run by George Soros

MSNBC.com

Cheney sends voters to wrong Web site
Net surfers directed to anti-Bush site run by George Soros
The Associated Press
Updated: 3:54 p.m. ET Oct. 6, 2004

WASHINGTON - All he wanted were the facts. But Dick Cheney ended up generating confusion, and lots of it.

A slip of the tongue by the vice president during Tuesday night's debate with Sen. John Edwards led Web surfers to a site run by George Soros, a billionaire who makes no secret of his opposition to the Bush administration.

In answering a question about his involvement with Halliburton, Cheney meant to direct people to FactCheck.org, a nonpartisan site run by the University of Pennsylvania. He urged people watching the debate to go to the site for facts countering Edwards' statements about the corporation Cheney used to run.

But Cheney cited FactCheck.com, a for-profit advertising site based in the Cayman Islands.

The company decided to redirect traffic to the Soros site after it became inundated with hits, about 100 a second after the debate, John Berryhill, a Philadelphia lawyer for FactCheck.com, said Wednesday.

"This was to relieve stress on the service and to express a political point of view," said Berryhill, who spoke with the site's administrators shortly after the debate ended.

They picked Soros not only for his political views, Berryhill said, but because the billionaire could afford the costly deluge of hits the site would receive in the wake of the debate. Plus, the site administrators didn't want to point surfers to a candidate's site that was asking for money.

Web site operators typically pay fees to the companies that host their sites. The more hits a site receives, the more its operator pays.

Soros was not advised of the switch and did not know it had taken place until Wednesday, said a spokesman, Jeremy Ben-Ami.
© 2004 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

URL: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/6191971/

Read More...

The Running Mates Debate

The New York Times
October 6, 2004

The Running Mates Debate

During the final summation in last night's vice-presidential debate, John Edwards focused on the new Kerry campaign theme: that a vote for George Bush and Dick Cheney would mean "four more years of the same." And Mr. Cheney, when his turn came, said it was important to re-elect the president so he could keep doing what he has been doing. It was a rare moment of agreement.

Like the presidential foreign policy debate that preceded it, the clash of the vice-presidential candidates was 90 minutes of serious talk about the issues.

It was also very hard-fought - the contenders managed to be remarkably aggressive for two men who were sitting next to each other at a small table. Mr. Cheney called Mr. Edwards's remarks so thick with misrepresentation that he hardly knew how to respond. Mr. Edwards, when talking about the economy, said, "Mr. Vice President, I don't think the country can take four more years of this kind of experience."

Mr. Cheney, who won over many voters four years ago with his grandfatherly demeanor during a debate with Joseph Lieberman, seemed tired and angry. He was particularly dyspeptic when he responded to criticism of his relationship with Halliburton by claiming that Mr. Edwards had a bad attendance record in the Senate.

Mr. Edwards is normally known for his wide grin and boyish appearance, but he was serious and tough last night. If his main task was to show that he could stand up to the older and more experienced vice president, he did everything he needed to do, especially during the discussion of foreign policy - the area that is supposed to be his weak suit. Mr. Edwards was particularly on point when Mr. Cheney attacked John Kerry as a lawmaker who had consistently voted against military expenditures. Much of the arms spending Mr. Kerry voted against, Mr. Edwards noted, was for the same programs Mr. Cheney had fought to cut when he was secretary of defense.

When talk turned to Iraq, viewers must have wondered whether the two men were discussing the same war. Mr. Cheney stuck to the Bush administration's mantra, insisting that the invasion had been carried out for all the right reasons and that things were going well in Iraq, and very well indeed in Afghanistan. Mr. Edwards described a war that was badly planned, launched on the basis of incorrect intelligence and turned into a morass that sucks American attention away from a struggling Afghanistan and the war on terror.

Mr. Cheney had by far the harder job because even loyal supporters of the administration acknowledge that things are not going all that well overseas. It was hard to seem credible when he insisted repeatedly that the Bush administration had done "exactly the right thing" in Iraq and that if he had to do it again, he would recommend the "same course of action."

One of the most poignant moments in the evening occurred when Mr. Cheney, who has a gay daughter, was asked about the administration's support for a constitutional amendment against gay marriage. He danced gingerly around the topic, expressing loyalty to the president without indicating that he really agreed with him. After Mr. Edwards said he admired the vice president's support for his daughter, Mr. Cheney declined to discuss the matter further, limiting himself simply to thanking his opponent for his comments.

That moment of congeniality aside, if those famous few undecided voters were waiting for a real debate about different positions and philosophies, they got it last night.

Read More...

FACT CHECK: When Points Weren't Personal, Liberties Were Taken With the Truth

The New York Times
October 6, 2004
FACT CHECK
When Points Weren't Personal, Liberties Were Taken With the Truth
By DAVID E. ROSENBAUM

In a debate laden with detailed assertions and rebuttals more than with rhetorical flashes, Vice President Dick Cheney and Senator John Edwards often stretched the facts last night on issues including the war in Iraq and medical malpractice lawsuits.

Often the matters were old saws, like Mr. Edwards's suggestion of an improper relationship between the Bush administration and the Halliburton Company, or Mr. Cheney's assertion that Senator John Kerry, the Democratic presidential nominee and Mr. Edwards's running mate, had voted nearly 100 times to raise taxes.

But on matters like Iraq, taxes and jobs, the liberties the vice presidential candidates took with the truth are worthy of scrutiny.

Iraq and Al Qaeda

Mr. Edwards accused the vice president of having justified the invasion of Iraq by saying a link existed between Iraq and Al Qaeda. Mr. Cheney declared, "I have not suggested there is a connection between Iraq and 9/11."

What Mr. Cheney said was only partly true, because while he has never explicitly made the link, he has on several occasions strongly suggested that evidence pointed to such a connection.

The vice president went furthest along these lines on Sept. 8, 2002, on "Meet the Press" on NBC.

"I'm not here today to make a specific allegation that Iraq was somehow responsible for 9/11," he said. "I can't say that. On the other hand," he went on to say, since a previous interview on the show, "new information has come to light," adding "there has been reporting that suggest that there have been a number of contacts over the years."

He said that Mohamed Atta, one of the lead Sept. 11 hijackers, was "in Prague with a senior Iraqi intelligence official a few months before the attack on the World Trade Center. The debate's about, you know, was he there or wasn't he there. Again, it's the intelligence business."

Investigations later concluded that Mr. Atta was not in Prague at that time. Nor did Mr. Cheney's frequent accusations of deep contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda hold up, though there apparently were contacts. A bipartisan Senate Intelligence Committee report concluded, "The Central Intelligence Agency reasonably assessed that there were likely several instances of contacts between Iraq and Al Qaeda throughout the 1990's but that these contacts did not add up to an established formal relationship."

The Senate report added that the C.I.A.'s assessment that "there was no evidence proving Iraqi complicity or assistance in an Al Qaeda attack was responsible and objective."

Weapons Votes

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had repeatedly voted against spending for military weapons systems in the last years of the cold war. That is true. But Mr. Cheney, as secretary of defense in the first Bush administration, opposed some of the systems himself, including the Apache helicopter and the F-14 aircraft.

Halliburton

Mr. Edwards suggested an improper relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton, the company with large contracts in Iraq that Mr. Cheney led before he ran for vice president.

Mr. Edwards was right that Halliburton holds a no-bid contract for services in Iraq, is under investigation for overcharges and is still being paid by the government. But there is no evidence Mr. Cheney has pulled strings on Halliburton's behalf since becoming vice president. And the independent Government Accountability Office concluded that Halliburton was the only company that could have provided the services the Army needed at the outset of the war and was thus justified in having received the noncompetitive contract.

War Costs and Casualties

Some factual disputes were echoes from last week's debate between the presidential candidates, including the cost of the war - Mr. Edwards put the figure at $200 billion, but only $119 billion has been spent so far. Another issue was the proportion of casualties borne by the United States: Mr. Edwards said 90 percent of fatalities, but that includes only foreign troops killed, and does not count approximately 700 Iraqi security forces said to have died.

Taxes

Mr. Edwards said that under the Bush-Cheney tax laws, millionaires receiving dividends paid taxes at a lower rate than did troops fighting in Iraq. The 2003 tax law lowered the rate on stock dividends to 15 percent. Many soldiers pay a rate higher than that on some of their income.

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Kerry had voted 98 times to raise taxes. No question, he cast votes for higher taxes. But the number Mr. Cheney cited included multiple votes on the same legislation. Mr. Edwards said Mr. Kerry had voted against the overall legislation to cut taxes because the benefits went largely to the wealthy.

Mr. Cheney said that 900,000 small businesses would be affected by the Kerry proposal to raise taxes on individuals with incomes of more than $200,000. The Tax Policy Center found that only about 5 percent of small businesses would be affected by the Kerry plan and that much of the income of the business operators who would be affected came from sources other than their businesses.

Afghanistan

Mr. Cheney said that two and a half years ago, Mr. Edwards said the situation in Afghanistan "was chaotic, the situation was deteriorating, the warlords were about to take over." Noting that elections are scheduled to take place in four days, the vice president said his opponent "just got it wrong."

In an October 2002 speech in Washington, Mr. Edwards called Afghanistan "largely unstable," with much of the country "under the control of drug lords and warlords."

Last night Mr. Edwards stuck to essentially that description, saying that contrary to the "rosy scenario" described by Mr. Cheney, "What's actually happened is, they're now providing 75 percent of the world's opium" and "large parts of the country are under the control of drug lords and warlords."

The Drug Enforcement Administration has reported that opium production in Afghanistan has soared since the end of Taliban rule in 2001, from 74 metric tons in 2001 to 2,965 metric tons last year. The government of President Hamid Karzai does not control large parts of the country.

Jobs

Mr. Edwards said that the nation has lost 1.6 million private-sector jobs since Mr. Bush took office, while Mr. Cheney said the nation has added 1.7 million jobs in the past year.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the number of payroll jobs has declined by about 900,000 since Mr. Bush took office. Mr. Edwards's higher number comes from isolating private-sector jobs, not taking into account increases in state, local and federal government jobs.

Mr. Cheney was correct in saying that the nation has added about 1.7 million jobs in the past year. But employment has yet to return to its level before the 2001 recession and a sharp decline in manufacturing employment continued for nearly two years after the recession officially ended in November 2001.

More importantly, in the view of many economists, employment growth has lagged even further behind the growth in population. The nation's adult work force climbs by more than a million people every year. So even if the number of jobs returns to its level of January 2001, as many as three million more people would still be unemployed or underemployed than they were then.

Voting Records

Mr. Cheney said correctly that Mr. Edwards had missed most votes in the Senate this year, as well as many committee meetings. Candidates for president and vice president generally skip all but the most important votes because they are on the campaign trail.

Mr. Cheney said that Mr. Edwards had been absent so often that he had never even met him before last night. Mr. Edwards said later last night that he and Mr. Cheney had in fact met twice before, at a prayer breakfast in 2001 and at the swearing-in last year of Senator Elizabeth Dole of North Carolina.

Mr. Edwards was correct in saying that Mr. Cheney, as a member of the House, had voted against such measures as the Martin Luther King Jr. holiday, Head Start and creation of the Department of Education.

Contributing reporting for this article were David E. Sanger, Edmund L. Andrews, Robert Pear and ScottShane.

Read More...

Cheney vs. the truth

At last night's debate, Vice President Cheney had a clear strategy:
refuse to respond to tough questions, attack Edwards personally and, when
necessary, deceive. Instead of taking responsibility for numerous
errors in judgment over the last four years, Cheney reiterated his faith in
failed policies. Instead of taking responsibility for his own voting
record, Cheney engaged in petty attacks. Instead of coming clean with the
American people, Cheney continued to play fast and loose with the
facts.

CHENEY DECEPTION #1: I'VE NEVER SUGGESTED A LINK BETWEEN AL QAEDA AND
9/11: Near the beginning of the debate, Cheney said, " I have not
suggested there's a connection between Iraq and 9/11
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/campaign/06dtext-full.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
." That isn't true. On multiple occasions Cheney has suggested a
connection, specifically emphasizing contacts between Iraqi officials and
Mohammed Atta, one of the 9/11 hijackers. Appearing on Meet the Press on
12/9/01, Cheney said, it's " been pretty well confirmed
(http://www.whitehouse.gov/vicepresident/news-speeches/speeches/vp20011209.html)
, that he [Atta] did go to Prague and he did meet with a senior
official of the Iraqi intelligence service in Czechoslovakia last April,
several months before the attack." (The 9/11 Commission looked into this
rumored meeting and found there was no evidence to suggest the meeting
occurred (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch7.htm) . On
the date of the supposed meeting, Atta's phone was used numerous times
from Florida and there is no evidence Atta ever left the country.)
Appearing again on Meet the Press on 9/14/03, Tim Russert mentioned that 69
percent of the public believed there was a connection between Saddam
Hussein and the 9/11 attacks. Cheney replied, " I think it's not
surprising that people make that connection (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3080244/)
." (The 9/11 Commission, after months of exhaustive study, found no
evidence (http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report_Ch2.htm)
"indicating Iraq cooperated with al Qaeda in developing or carrying out any
attacks against the United States.")

CHENEY DECEPTION #2: I'VE NEVER MET EDWARDS BEFORE TONIGHT: Cheney
later said he was going back to the Halliburton issue but instead of
addressing it, delivered a pre-packaged zinger: "I'm up in the Senate most
Tuesdays when they're in session. The first time I ever met you was when
you walked on the stage tonight." One problem: it's not true
(http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/2004/la-na-meet6oct06,1,7026204.story?coll=la-home-headlines)
. Check out the photo
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/%7b65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63%7d/CHENEY_EDWARDS.JPG)
, video
(http://www.americanprogressaction.org/atf/cf/%7b65464111-BB20-4C7D-B1C9-0B033DD31B63%7d/PRAYERBFAST.ASX)
and documentary
(http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:S4X7WDzDUcoJ:static.highbeam.com/w/washingtontranscriptservice/february012001/vicepresidentdickcheneyvicepresidentdickcheneydeli/+%22+friends+from+across+America,+and+distinguished+visitors+to+our+country+from+all+over+)
evidence.

CHENEY SAYS WE HAVE DONE "EXACTLY THE RIGHT THING" IN IRAQ: Cheney
continued the administration's refusal that there have been any mistakes
made in Iraq. He said, " What we did in Iraq was exactly the right thing
to do.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/campaign/06dtext-full.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
If I had it to recommend all over again, I would recommend exactly the
right same course of action." Cheney's comments came the same day
former Coalition Provisional Authority administrator Paul Bremer said the
U.S. " never had enough troops on the ground
(http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/10/06/MNGTU94EU21.DTL)
."

CHENEY HAS NO RESPONSE TO ERROR IN JUDGMENT AT TORA BORA: Edwards
stated that during the invasion of Afghanistan, " we had Osama bin Laden
cornered at Tora Bora
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/campaign/06dtext-full.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
...This is the man who masterminded the greatest mass murder and
terrorist attack in American history. And what did the administration decide
to do? They gave the responsibility of capturing or killing...Osama bin
Laden, to Afghan warlords, who just a few weeks before had been working
with Osama bin Laden." Cheney responded by discussing John Kerry's
congressional voting record in the 1970s.

CHENEY HAS NO RESPONSE TO HALLIBURTON CHARGES: Edwards explained that
he opposed no-bid contracts for Halliburton because, while Cheney was
CEO, Halliburton provided false information
(http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/archive.html?blog=/politics/war_room/2004/08/04/halliburton/index.html)
to the government (conduct for which the company was later fined
millions), did business with Iran
(http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/01/22/60minutes/main595214.shtml)
and is under investigation for having bribed foreign officials in
Nigeria (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4163810/) . Cheney said he didn't have
time to rebut the charge. So-called fact checkers from the New York
Times said that Edwards stretched the truth because there is " no evidence
Mr. Cheney has pulled strings
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/06/politics/campaign/06fact.html) on
Halliburton's behalf since becoming vice president." But Edwards never
made that charge. (Incidentally, there is evidence
(http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/30/cheney.halliburton/index.html)
that Cheney has pulled strings for Halliburton while in office.)

CHENEY REFUSES TO DEFEND HIS VOTING RECORD: Cheney, who spends much of
his time on the campaign trail parsing the details of John Kerry's
votes stretching back 30 years, refuses to defend his own record. Edwards
noted, "he was one of 10 to vote against Head Start, one of four to vote
against banning plastic weapons that can pass through metal detectors.
He voted against the Department of Education. He voted against funding
for Meals on Wheels for seniors.
(http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/politics/campaign/06dtext-full.html?pagewanted=print&position=)
He voted against a holiday for Martin Luther King. He voted against a
resolution calling for the release of Nelson Mandela in South Africa."
Cheney's entire response: "Oh, I think his record speaks for itself and,
frankly, it's not very distinguished."

Read More...

Tuesday, October 05, 2004

Kerry-Edwards 2, Bush-Cheney 0

Based on an instant poll on MSNBC.com, with over 376,000 votes,

In answer to the question "Who won?" the results:

Edwards 70%, Cheney 30%

With over 7700 votes, an LA Times poll gives Edwards 96.4%

With over 28,000 votes, on Ohio.com, Edwards 98%

In the Orlando Sentinel, 41284 votes, Edwards 78.4%

At Philly.com, 22641 votes, Edwards 99%



Read More...


Read More...


Read More...


Read More...


Read More...

The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't

The New York Times
October 5, 2004

The Nuclear Bomb That Wasn't

Of all the justifications that President Bush gave for invading Iraq, the most terrifying was that Saddam Hussein was on the brink of developing a nuclear bomb that he might use against the United States or give to terrorists. Ever since we learned that this was not true, the question has been whether Mr. Bush gave a good-faith account of the best available intelligence, or knowingly deceived the public. The more we learn about the way Mr. Bush paved the road to war, the more it becomes disturbingly clear that if he was not aware that he was feeding misinformation to the world, he was about the only one in his circle who had not been clued in.

The foundation for the administration's claim that it acted on an honest assessment of intelligence analysis - and the president's frequent claim that Congress had the same information he had - has been steadily eroded by the reports from the Senate Intelligence Committee and the 9/11 commission. A lengthy report in The Times on Sunday removed any lingering doubts.

The only physical evidence the administration offered for an Iraqi nuclear program were the 60,000 aluminum tubes that Baghdad set out to buy in early 2001; some of them were seized in Jordan. Even though Iraq had a history of using the same tubes to make small rockets, the president and his closest advisers told the American people that the overwhelming consensus of government experts was that these new tubes were to be used to make nuclear bomb fuel. Now we know there was no such consensus. Mr. Bush's closest advisers say they didn't know that until after they had made the case for war. But in fact, they had plenty of evidence that the claim was baseless; it was a long-discounted theory that had to be resurrected from the intelligence community's wastebasket when the administration needed justification for invading Iraq.

The tubes-for-bombs theory was the creation of a low-level C.I.A. analyst who got his facts, even the size of the tubes, wrong. It was refuted within 24 hours by the Energy Department, which issued three papers debunking the idea over a four-month period in 2001, and by the International Atomic Energy Agency. A week before Mr. Bush's 2003 State of the Union address, in which he warned of an Iraqi nuclear menace, international experts in Vienna had dismissed the C.I.A.'s theory about the tubes. The day before, the International Atomic Energy Agency said there was no evidence of an Iraqi nuclear program and rejected the tubes' tale entirely.

It's shocking that with all this information readily available, Secretary of State Colin Powell still went before the United Nations to repeat the bogus claims, an appearance that gravely damaged his reputation. It's even more disturbing that Vice President Dick Cheney and Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, had not only failed to keep the president from misleading the American people, but had also become the chief proponents of the "mushroom cloud" rhetoric.

Ms. Rice had access to all the reports debunking the tubes theory when she first talked about it publicly in September 2002. Yet last Sunday, Ms. Rice said that while she had been aware of a "dispute" about the tubes, she had not specifically known what it was about until after she had told the world that Saddam was building the bomb.

Ms. Rice's spokesman, Sean McCormack, said it was not her job to question intelligence reports or "to referee disputes in the intelligence community." But even with that curious job disclaimer, it's no comfort to think that the national security adviser wouldn't have bothered to inform herself about such a major issue before speaking publicly. The national security adviser has no more important responsibility than making sure that the president gets the best advice on life-and-death issues like the war.

If Ms. Rice did her job and told Mr. Bush how ludicrous the case was for an Iraqi nuclear program, then Mr. Bush terribly misled the public. If not, she should have resigned for allowing her boss to start a war on the basis of bad information and an incompetent analysis.

Read More...

The Falling Scales

The New York Times
October 5, 2004

The Falling Scales
By PAUL KRUGMAN

Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.

Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics.

Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance.

Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story."

But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises."

Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't.

It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.

The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war.

Now it's Dick Cheney's turn.

Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.

Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.

In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.

After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses.

No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.

So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush.

Read More...

Republicans Try to Dilute Provisions in Tax Bill

The New York Times
October 5, 2004

Republicans Try to Dilute Provisions in Tax Bill
By EDMUND L. ANDREWS

WASHINGTON, Oct. 4 - Despite widespread agreement that abusive tax shelters are costing the federal government billions of dollars a year, House Republicans are working to eliminate or dilute provisions in a new corporate tax bill aimed at cracking down on illegal shelters.

The provisions, opposed by a range of business lobbyists and tax lawyers, are part of a larger battle in Congress over how hard to attack the rapidly expanding use of complex transactions that turn real-world profits into tax-world losses.

The issue is coming to a boil in a House-Senate conference committee that Monday night resumed considering a corporate tax bill that would provide up to $170 billion in tax breaks.

With only a few days left before Congress is supposed to adjourn, lawmakers are trying to make hundreds of last-minute changes that could affect tens of billions of dollars in tax revenue. Business groups, ranging from the National Association of Manufacturers to the Business Roundtable, have worked with tax lobbyists and accounting firms to protect the tax shelters.

A study prepared last year for the Internal Revenue Service estimated that abuse of tax shelters cost the federal government $12 billion to $18 billion a year.

A study last week by Citizens for Tax Justice, a liberal research organization, reported that 82 of the nation's most profitable companies paid no corporate taxes in at least one of the last three years.

Both the House and Senate have passed bills that would raise billions of dollars by shutting certain kinds of tax shelters. But House Republicans have balked at several provisions that the Senate passed with broad bipartisan support.

One crucial Senate provision, for example, would greatly increase penalties on people who spin complex transactions that serve no other purpose except to avoid taxes.

Supporters of the Senate bill say it would address a glaring weakness of the system: even when a court finds that a tax deal is abusive, it rarely imposes penalties beyond making a company or a person pay back taxes.

"Multinational corporations use complicated schemes to claim they've had losses when they've really had gains," said Representative Lloyd Doggett, a Texas Democrat who has been pushing for such a provision since 1999. "These schemes are so complicated that even the experts have difficulty getting to the bottom of them. One way of challenging these apparent tax losses is to say this complex scheme that may involve many different entities has no economic substance."

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation, which provides the revenue estimates on proposed tax bills, estimated that just one of the disputed provisions would raise about $15 billion over the next 10 years.

But House Republicans oppose that measure. Representative Bill Thomas, chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, said two weeks ago that the provision was unnecessary and would have a chilling effect on legitimate business deals.

Mr. Thomas also opposes a provision in the Senate bill that would allow the Internal Revenue Service to demand that companies promoting tax shelters turn over a list of their customers.

Opponents of the Senate bill's tax shelter provisions are particularly incensed about a provision that has strong support from Senator Charles Grassley, Republican of Iowa and chairman of the Senate Finance Committee.

That provision would tighten the definition of tax shelters, putting into legislation the well-established judicial doctrine that a financial transaction has to have "economic substance," which means it has to have a purpose beyond reducing taxes.

Kenneth J. Kies, a prominent corporate tax lobbyist in Washington who has defended some of the biggest tax shelters, said the Senate bill would have ensnared scores of companies engaged in routine transactions.

"This is a much broader provision than its being made out to be," Mr. Kies said. "It would set up a standard for economic substance that would be very hard for garden-variety business transactions."

But supporters said the provision would simply add some teeth to a concept that courts have used for years.

The dispute goes to the heart of all kinds of tax shelters, but it could have a big impact on one of the biggest kinds of transactions in recent years: leasing deals in which cities, including New York City, sell subway trains and other public infrastructure to private investors, who then lease them back and take advantage of tax write-offs for equipment depreciation.

The goal of the deals is to give investors tax breaks that are of no use to municipal governments, including many cities and organizations outside the United States, that pay no federal taxes. For the cities, the deals reduce the cost of new equipment at the expense of the federal Treasury.

Both the House and Senate bills would prohibit such deals in the future, but the Senate bill could invalidate many deals that are already in existence. As a result, the Senate bill would raise about $45 billion over 10 years, while the House bill would raise about $19 billion.

But if the final law includes the Senate provisions on "economic substance," investors who entered into such deals could face stiff penalties on top of losing their tax shelters.

Joseph Bankman, a professor of tax law at Stanford University, says California has already reaped $1.3 billion from a similar provision it passed one year ago. The California law declared that any tax shelter that fails the test for economic substance could be subject to penalties but it offered an amnesty to people who came forward voluntarily.

"It is still very much the exception rather than the rule that people have to pay penalties," Mr. Bankman said.

Calvin Johnson, a professor of tax law at the University of Texas in Austin, said the Internal Revenue Service would have to impose "gargantuan" penalties before it really frightened off companies or individuals trying to shelter tens of millions of dollars.

But Mr. Johnson said there was a pressing need to attack the widespread view, which he said was generally accurate, that people can avoid penalties simply by obtaining an opinion from tax lawyers in advance of a deal that says the transaction fits the letter of the law.

"There is a common view that you can set up an elaborate scheme and that if you have the opinion of a respectable attorney that you can't be assessed any penalties," he said.

But the conventional wisdom may be changing. In a decision that electrified tax-shelter promoters, a court ruled in August that Long-Term Capital Management, the huge hedge fund that nearly went bankrupt in 1998, took $106 million in improper tax deductions and owed $56 million in taxes and penalties.

"The Long-Term Capital case showed that the I.R.S. has many arrows in its quiver," said Tim McCormley, executive director of the Tax Executives Institute, an association of tax professionals who work at major corporations. "In the past, taxpayers had what they viewed as a 'get out of jail free' card if they had an opinion from a highly respected law firm. That's not the case anymore."

Read More...

Bush Calls Kerry's Policies a Danger 'for World Peace'

The New York Times
October 5, 2004

Bush Calls Kerry's Policies a Danger 'for World Peace'
By ELISABETH BUMILLER

CLIVE, Iowa, Oct. 4 - President Bush charged Monday that Senator John Kerry's policies were "dangerous for world peace" as his campaign suddenly changed plans for an event on medical liability on Wednesday and scheduled a speech by Mr. Bush on terrorism and the economy instead.

On the eve of the vice-presidential debate, with polls showing that Mr. Bush lost ground after his debate with Mr. Kerry on Thursday, the pressures on the White House to regain the upper hand appeared to be mounting.

To that end, Mr. Bush flew to Iowa, one of the most closely contested states, to sign into law extensions of three popular middle-class tax cuts that he said Mr. Kerry had opposed and that Mr. Kerry's campaign said he did not.

Then the president attacked the senator in harsh terms on national security by referring to Mr. Kerry's vote against the first gulf war, in 1991, which drove Iraq from Kuwait.

"In 1991, when my dad was president, he saw a threat, and that was that Saddam Hussein was going to overrun Kuwait," said Mr. Bush, who appeared relaxed and in good spirits at an Ask President Bush forum despite the generally negative reviews of his debate performance.

If Mr. Kerry's vote had carried the day, the president said, "Saddam would not only have been in his palaces, that means he would have been in Kuwait, as well.''

"The policies of my opponent are dangerous for world peace,'' Mr. Bush said. "If they were implemented, they would make this world not more peaceful, but more dangerous."

The president also stepped up his ridicule of Mr. Kerry for his plan to hold a summit meeting to help solve the problems in Iraq.

"I've been to summits," Mr. Bush said as he paced in his shirtsleeves at the 7 Flags recreation center in Clive, eight miles north of Des Moines. "You don't bring terrorists to justice at summits. I can imagine him walking into the leaders of the world saying, 'We need your help, but Iraq is a mistake.' "

Mr. Kerry, Mr. Bush said, "has no plan.''

"A summit,'' he said, "won't solve the problem. Strong, consistent leadership is what this world needs."

A spokesman for the Kerry campaign, Phil Singer, responded: "If George Bush thinks John Kerry's plans to strengthen the military, build alliances and implement the 9/11 commission's intelligence reforms will make the world a more dangerous place, he's even more detached from reality than he demonstrated at the debate the other night."

The White House press secretary, Scott McClellan, said that Mr. Bush would travel Wednesday to Wilkes-Barre, Pa., as scheduled, but that the medical liability event had been postponed and that Mr. Bush would deliver a speech "on our nation's two highest priorities." Mr. McClellan said those were the economy and the campaign against terrorism. He said it would be a "significant speech."

It is unusual for the tightly scheduled White House to change plans so suddenly. But polls show that Mr. Bush's greatest electoral strength against Mr. Kerry remains his record on fighting terrorism. Medical liability is a far less potent issue.

Asked by reporters en route to Iowa on Air Force One whether the change in Wilkes-Barre was because of polls that show the race tightening, Mr. McClellan demurred.

"We're very well aware of those, of the polls," he said. "At this stage in the campaign, you always want to have some flexibility in your schedule."

Mr. Bush's first stop on Monday was in Des Moines, where he signed the tax legislation in a Y.M.C.A. gymnasium. The setting was in striking contrast to the splendors of the White House East Room, where Mr. Bush normally holds his signing ceremonies for significant bills.

The economy remains a major issue in Iowa, a state that Mr. Bush lost by a slim margin in 2000 and where polls now show him with a slight lead.

"The law I sign this morning comes at just the right time for America," Mr. Bush said.

The signature on the bill, which affects an estimated 94 million Americans, keeps three tax breaks from expiring on Jan. 1: a $1,000-a-child tax credit, a provision providing lower taxes for some married couples and a reduction of the tax rate from 15 percent to 10 percent on some income.

The president did not mention Mr. Kerry at the signing ceremony, which was officially a nonpartisan event. But he wasted no time in attacking the senator at his "Ask President Bush" campaign forum in Clive an hour later. Mr. Kerry, the president said, had voted against the very tax cuts he had just extended, and would raise taxes once in office.

"But we're not going to let him tax you,'' Mr. Bush said. "We're going to carry Iowa and the country in November."

In fact, Mr. Kerry has supported the three tax breaks that Mr. Bush extended, but he voted against them in 2001 because they were part of a broad tax-cut bill that he opposed. Mr. Kerry voted against the overall legislation on the ground that it primarily benefited the wealthy.

When the tax cuts are fully in place, more than 50 percent of the savings will go to the richest 1 percent of taxpayers.

Mr. Bush touched briefly on Mr. Kerry's proposals to pay for health care, which he said were "creeping toward 'Hillary Care,' " a reference to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's failed efforts as first lady to overhaul health care.

Mr. Kerry has called for expanding existing government programs for the poor and increasing subsidies for employer-based coverage.

Mr. Bush also promised that the government would continue the all-volunteer Army and that "we will not have a draft, so long as I am president of the United States."

Mr. McClellan said Mr. Bush had a session on Sunday to prepare for the second presidential debate with Mr. Kerry on Friday in St. Louis, a town-hall-style forum with audience questions, and would have more sessions this week. Aides said Ask President Bush forums were preparation, as well, even though participants were invited by Republicans and past questions have included many statements that simply praised Mr. Bush.

"There is some of that," Mr. McClellan acknowledged to reporters.

Read More...

Will They Ever Trust Us Again? Letters from the Warzone

[Note to readers. The following are actual letters sent to Michael Moore by members of the US Armed Forces. Some contain profanities. They appear in a new book "Will They Ever Trust Us Again? Letters from the Warzone to Michael Moore." Also note that these excerpts have, so far, only been published in a British publication, The Guardian. This is why any dollar amounts stated are parenthetically converted to pounds.]

Dear Mike, Iraq sucks

Civilian contractors are fleecing taxpayers; US troops don't have proper equipment; and supposedly liberated Iraqis hate them. After the release of Fahrenheit 9/11, Michael Moore received a flood of letters and emails from disillusioned and angry American soldiers serving in Iraq. Here, in an exclusive extract from his new book, we print a selection

Tuesday October 5, 2004
The Guardian
http://www.guardian.co.uk

From: RH
To: mike@michaelmoore.com
Sent: Monday, July 12, 2003 4:57 PM
Subject: Iraqi freedom veteran supports you
Dear Mr Moore,
I went to Iraq with thoughts of killing people who I thought were horrible. I was like, "Fuck Iraq, fuck these people, I hope we kill thousands." I believed my president. He was taking care of business and wasn't going to let al Qaeda push us around. I was with the 3rd Squadron, 7th Cavalry, 3rd Infantry division out of Fort Stewart, Georgia. My unit was one of the first to Baghdad. I was so scared. Didn't know what to think. Seeing dead bodies for the first time. People blown in half. Little kids with no legs. It was overwhelming, the sights, sounds, fear. I was over there from Jan'03 to Aug'03. I hated every minute. It was a daily battle to keep my spirits up. I hate the army and my job. I am supposed to get out next February but will now be unable to because the asshole in the White House decided that now would be a great time to put a stop-loss in effect for the army. So I get to do a second tour in Iraq and be away from those I love again because some guy has the audacity to put others' lives on the line for his personal war. I thought we were the good guys.

From: Michael W
Sent: Tuesday July 13 2004 12.28pm
Subject: Dude, Iraq sucks

My name is Michael W and I am a 30-year-old National Guard infantryman serving in southeast Baghdad. I have been in Iraq since March of 04 and will continue to serve here until March of 05.
In the few short months my unit has been in Iraq, we have already lost one man and have had many injured (including me) in combat operations. And for what? At the very least, the government could have made sure that each of our vehicles had the proper armament to protect us soldiers.

In the early morning hours of May 10, one month to the day from my 30th birthday, I and 12 other men were attacked in a well-executed roadside ambush in south-east Baghdad. We were attacked with small-arms fire, a rocket-propelled grenade, and two well-placed roadside bombs. These roadside bombs nearly destroyed one of our Hummers and riddled my friends with shrapnel, almost killing them. They would not have had a scratch if they had the "Up Armour" kits on them. So where was [George] W [Bush] on that one?

It's just so ridiculous, which leads me to my next point. A Blackwater contractor makes $15,000 [£8,400] a month for doing the same job as my pals and me. I make about $4,000 [£2,240] a month over here. What's up with that?

Beyond that, the government is calling up more and more troops from the reserves. For what? Man, there is a huge fucking scam going on here! There are civilian contractors crawling all over this country. Blackwater, Kellogg Brown & Root, Halliburton, on and on. These contractors are doing everything you can think of from security to catering lunch!

We are spending money out the ass for this shit, and very few of the projects are going to the Iraqi people. Someone's back is getting scratched here, and it ain't the Iraqis'!

My life is left to chance at this point. I just hope I come home alive.

From: Specialist Willy
Sent: Tuesday March 9 2004 1.23pm
Subject: Thank you

Mike, I'd like to thank you for all of the support you're showing for the soldiers here in Iraq. I am in Baghdad right now, and it's such a relief to know that people still care about the lemmings who are forced to fight in this conflict.

It's hard listening to my platoon sergeant saying, "If you decide you want to kill a civilian that looks threatening, shoot him. I'd rather fill out paperwork than get one of my soldiers killed by some raghead." We are taught that if someone even looks threatening we should do something before they do something to us. I wasn't brought up in fear like that, and it's going to take some getting used to.

It's also very hard talking to people here about this war. They don't like to hear that the reason they are being torn away from their families is bullshit, or that their "president" doesn't care about them. A few people here have become quite upset with me, and at one point I was going to be discharged for constantly inciting arguments and disrespect to my commander-in-chief (Dubya). It's very hard to be silenced about this when I see the same 150 people every day just going through the motions, not sure why they are doing it.

[ Willy sent an update in early August ]

People's perceptions of this war have done a complete 180 since we got here. We had someone die in a mortar attack the first week, and ever since then, things have changed completely. Soldiers are calling their families urging them to support John Kerry. If this is happening elsewhere, it looks as if the overseas military vote that Bush is used to won't be there this time around.

From: Kyle Waldman
Sent: Friday February 27 2004 2.35am
Subject: None

As we can all obviously see, Iraq was not and is not an imminent threat to the United States or the rest of the world. My time in Iraq has taught me a little about the Iraqi people and the state of this war-torn, poverty-stricken country.

The illiteracy rate in this country is phenomenal. There were some farmers who didn't even know there was an Operation Iraqi Freedom. This was when I realised that this war was initiated by the few who would profit from it and not for its people. We, as the coalition forces, did not liberate these people; we drove them even deeper into poverty. I don't foresee any economic relief coming soon to these people by the way Bush has already diverted its oil revenues to make sure there will be enough oil for our SUVs.

We are here trying to keep peace when all we have been trained for is to destroy. How are 200,000 soldiers supposed to take control of this country? Why didn't we have an effective plan to rebuild Iraq's infrastructure? Why aren't the American people more aware of these atrocities?

My fiancee and I have seriously looked into moving to Canada as political refugees.

From: Anonymous
Sent: Thursday April 15 2004 12.41am
Subject: From KBR truck driver now in Iraq

Mike, I am a truck driver right now in Iraq. Let me give you this one small fact because I am right here at the heart of it: since I started this job several months ago, 100% (that's right, not 99%) of the workers I am aware of are inflating the hours they claim on their time sheets. There is so much more I could tell you. But the fact is that MILLIONS AND MILLIONS of dollars are being raped from both the American taxpayers and the Iraqi people because of the unbelievable amount of greed and abuse over here. And yes, my conscience does bother me because I am participating in this rip-off.

From: Andrew Balthazor
Sent: Friday August 27 2004 1.53pm
Subject: Iraqi war vet - makes me sound so old

Mr Moore, I am an ex-military intelligence officer who served 10 months in Baghdad; I was the senior intelligence officer for the area of Baghdad that included the UN HQ and Sadr City.

Since Bush exposed my person and my friends, peers, and subordinates to unnecessary danger in a war apparently designed to generate income for a select few in the upper echelon of America, I have become wholeheartedly anti-Bush, to the chagrin of much of my pro-Republican family.

As a "foot soldier" in the "war on terror" I can personally testify that Bush's administration has failed to effectively fight terrorists or the root causes of terror. The White House and the DoD failed to plan for reconstruction of Iraq. Contracts weren't tendered until Feb-Mar of 2003, and the Office of Reconstruction and Humanitarian Assistance (the original CPA) didn't even come into existence until January 2003. This failure to plan for the "peace" is a direct cause for the insecurity of Iraq today.

Immediately after the "war" portion of the fighting (which really ended around April 9 2003), we should have been prepared to send in a massive reconstruction effort. Right away we needed engineers to diagnose problems, we needed contractors repairing problems, we needed immediate food, water, shelter, and fuel for the Iraqi people, and we needed more security for all of this to work - which we did not have because we did not have enough troops on the ground, and CPA decided to disband the Iraqi army. The former Iraqi police were engaged far too late; a plan should have existed to bring them into the fold right away.

I've left the military. If there is anything I can do to help get Bush out of office, let me know.

From: Anthony Pietsch
Sent: Thursday August 5 2004 6.13pm
Subject: Soldier for sale

Dear Mr Moore, my name is Tony Pietsch, and I am a National Guardsman who has been stationed in Kuwait and Iraq for the past 15 months. Along with so many other guard and reserve units, my unit was put on convoy escorts. We were on gun trucks running from the bottom of Iraq to about two hours above Baghdad.

The Iraqi resistance was insanity. I spent many nights lying awake after mortar rounds had just struck areas nearby, some coming close enough to throw rocks against my tent. I've seen roadside bombs go off all over, Iraqis trying to ram the side of our vehicle. Small children giving us the finger and throwing rocks at the soldiers in the turrets. We were once lost in Baghdad and received nothing but dirty looks and angry gestures for hours.

I have personally been afraid for my life more days than I can count. We lost our first man only a few weeks before our tour was over, but it seems that all is for nothing because all we see is hostility and anger over our being there. They are angry over the abuse scandal and the collateral damages that are always occurring.

I don't know how the rest of my life will turn out, but I truly regret being a 16-year-old kid looking for some extra pocket money and a way to college.

From: Sean Huze
Sent: Sunday March 28 2004 7.56pm
Subject: "Dude, Where's My Country?"

I am an LCPL in the US Marine Corps and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. Mr Moore, please keep pounding away at Bush. I'm not some pussy when it comes to war. However, the position we were put in - fighting an enemy that used women, children, and other civilians as shields; forcing us to choose between firing at "area targets" (nice way of saying firing into crowds) or being killed by the bastards using the crowds for cover - is indescribably horrible.

I saw more than a few dead children littering the streets in Nasiriyah, along with countless other civilians. And through all this, I held on to the belief that it had to be for some greater good.

Months have passed since I've been back home and the unfortunate conclusion I've come to is that Bush is a lying, manipulative motherfucker who cares nothing for the lives of those of us who serve in uniform. Hell, other than playing dress-up on aircraft carriers, what would he know about serving this nation in uniform?

His silence and refusal to speak under oath to the 9/11 Commission further mocks our country. The Patriot Act violates every principle we fight and die for. And all of this has been during his first term. Can you imagine his policies when he doesn't have to worry about re-election? We can't allow that to happen, and there are so many like me in the military who feel this way. We were lied to and used. And there aren't words to describe the sense of betrayal I feel as a result.

From: Joseph Cherwinski
Sent: Saturday July 3 2004 8.33pm
Subject: "Fahrenheit 9/11"

I am a soldier in the United States army. I was in Iraq with the Fourth Infantry Division.

I was guarding some Iraqi workers one day. Their task was to fill sandbags for our base. The temperature was at least 120. I had to sit there with full gear on and monitor them. I was sitting and drinking water, and I could barely tolerate the heat, so I directed the workers to go to the shade and sit and drink water. I let them rest for about 20 minutes. Then a staff sergeant told me that they didn't need a break, and that they were to fill sandbags until the cows come home. He told the Iraqis to go back to work.

After 30 minutes, I let them have a break again, thus disobeying orders. If these were soldiers working, in this heat, those soldiers would be bound to a 10-minute work, 50-minute rest cycle, to prevent heat casualties. Again the staff sergeant came and sent the Iraqis back to work and told me I could sit in the shade. I told him no, I had to be out there with them so that when I started to need water, then they would definitely need water. He told me that wasn't necessary, and that they live here, and that they are used to it.

After he left, I put the Iraqis back into the shade. I could tell that some were very dehydrated; most of them were thin enough to be on an international food aid commercial. I would not treat my fellow soldiers in this manner, so I did not treat the Iraqi workers this way either.

This went on for eight months while I was in Iraq, and going through it told me that we were not there for their freedom, we were not there for WMD. We had no idea what we were fighting for anymore.

Read More...

Senate Amendments Propose PATRIOT 2, Threaten Civil Liberties

CDT POLICY POST Volume 10, Number 16, October 4, 2004

A Briefing On Public Policy Issues Affecting Civil Liberties Online
from The Center For Democracy and Technology (cdt.org)

(1) Senate Amendments Propose PATRIOT 2, Threaten Civil Liberties

(2) Background: 9/11 Commission Legislation Has Serious Implications for Privacy and Civil Liberties

(3) What Should -- and Should Not -- Be Part of the Intelligence Reform Legislation


(1) Senate Amendments Propose PATRIOT 2, Threaten Civil Liberties

Today, the U.S. Senate begins voting on amendments to legislation to reform the intelligence agencies. Two amendments in particular threaten civil liberties. Both are sponsored by Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ).

The Senate intelligence reform legislation would create a Civil Liberties Board in the Executive Branch of the federal government to oversee counter-terrorism programs that have implications for privacy or free speech. The Senate bill also would create Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers in various federal agencies that handle personal information. Together, these two mechanisms could provide important checks on government overreaching.

One of Senator Kyl's amendments would weaken the proposed Civil Liberties Board and would remove the provision creating Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers. The amendment goes against one of the key recommendations of the 9/11 Commission, which is that we need a cross-agency oversight board to protect privacy and civil liberties in an age of greater information sharing and powerful new technologies. CDT believes that the provisions under attack by Sen. Kyl must be part of any legislation to implement the 9/11 Commission's report.

* CDT Letter Opposing the Kyl Amendment to Gut the Civil Liberties Board: http://www.cdt.org/security/patriot2/20041001cdt.pdf

Sen. Kyl (R-AZ) has also introduced an amendment to the Senate bill that would expand the USA PATRIOT Act with a variety of new powers, including giving the FBI so-called "administrative subpoena" authority, meaning that FBI agents could demand paper and electronic documents without judicial approval. A broad coalition of public interest groups from across the political spectrum is opposing the Kyl PATRIOT 2 amendment.

* Right-Left Coalition Letter Opposing Kyl "Patriot 2" Amendment: http://www.cdt.org/security/patriot2/20041001coalition.pdf


(2) Background: 9/11 Commission Legislation Has Serious Implications for Privacy and Civil Liberties

Under the pressure of election year politics, both the House and Senate are considering legislation to reform the nation's intelligence agencies. In the process, privacy and other civil liberties are at risk.

The legislation is intended more or less to implement the recommendations of the commission that studied the intelligence failures associated with the 9/11 attacks. The bipartisan commission issued its best-selling report on July 22, 2004. Immediately, some politicians called for swift adoption of the Commission's recommendations, which include the establishment of a National Intelligence Director and the creation of a government-wide information sharing capability.

The Senate bill has been reported by Committee and is pending on the Senate floor, to be voted on this week. The House will take up its bill on Wednesday, October 6. The Senate bill addresses only issues raised by the 9/11 Commission, but the House bill extends far beyond the scope of the Commission's report.

* 9/11 Commission Report: http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/index.htm
* Senate Bill, S. 2845 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:s.02845:
* House Bill, H.R. 10 http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d108:h.r.00010:


(3) What Should -- and Should Not -- Be Part of the Intelligence Reform Legislation

The legislation to implement the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission should do just that - and no more. Yet the House bill contains many controversial provisions that are well outside the scope of the Commission's report. Among the far-reaching proposals in the House bill that were not recommended by the 9/11 Commission is the creation of a de facto national identification card based on requiring states to link together all of their drivers license databases. While CDT has long argued that identification documents need to be made more secure, we should not - and need not - create a national ID card.

The House bill does contain a provision creating Privacy and Civil Liberties Officers, but it does not include the Civil Liberties Board that can look at issues that cut across agencies, such as information sharing and watch lists. Lacking from both bill at this point is a clear prohibition against the CIA and defense intelligence agencies engaging in covert operations in the United States.

Information sharing is an important issue that CDT believes is unquestionably an important part of intelligence reform. The Senate bill is intended to promote information sharing and bring it within a framework of transparency, guidelines and accountability. CDT believes that the Senate language should be maintained and clarified to make it clear that the system could be used only for counter-terrorism purposes and that major implementation will not occur until after Congress has had a chance to review the Administration's plan and privacy guidelines.

Read More...