Public Misconduct
A Call to Investigate All of the President's Men
By Elizabeth de la Vega
Last week, apparently belatedly realizing the obvious -- that the attack on former Ambassador Joseph Wilson and his wife Valerie Plame was a White House family affair -- New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof called for the administration to come clean. Bush and Cheney owe "the American people a candid explanation" of their conduct with regard to the leaking of Plame's identity as a CIA agent, Kristof insisted.
If, after observing this administration for over six years, Nicholas Kristof thinks that the President and Vice President are going to suddenly be overcome by conscience and tell all because he has put his foot down, then Nicholas Kristof is downright adorable.
The trial of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby was merely a snapshot view of this administration in daily action; but incomplete as it was, it nevertheless starkly revealed what many had known all along: that the most powerful officials in the United States government -- including, but not limited to, the Vice President, the Vice President's Chief of Staff, the Deputy Secretary of State, the President's Press Secretary, the President's Chief of Staff, and, yes, the President himself -- had responded to the barrage of criticism being aimed at their fictitious case for war in the spring and summer of 2003 by focusing their sights on a man and woman who had devoted their lives to public service.
Such people -- those who will use the highest offices of the United States government to protect themselves and their prospects for reelection by whatever means they deem necessary, regardless of the damage they leave in their wake -- are not going to confess to anything…ever.
Indeed, in answer to questions from a reporter about this very issue on February 14, President Bush explained helpfully, "I'm not going to talk about any of it." We will surely all expire if we hold our collective breath waiting for the President to change his mind about this (or anything else, for that matter). Fortunately, we do not need to hear what Bush and Cheney have to say about "it" right now.
Nor do we have to wait for the outcome of any further investigation by Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald, even though it is entirely possible he and his eminently capable prosecutors Peter Zeidenberg, Debra Bonamici, and the rest of their team will continue to explore possible criminal activity on the part of Vice President Cheney and others. A continued investigation would, in fact, be both appropriate and warranted, given the abundant evidence of Cheney's wrongdoing.
As Fitzgerald implied on the day he announced the charges against Scooter Libby, however, the criminal justice system is not designed to address all the issues raised by the CIA leak affair, perhaps not even the major ones. The Libby case was not, Fitzgerald said, as he announced the indictment, about the validity or honesty of the President's arguments for an invasion of Iraq. In fact, the Libby case was not even about the conduct of other members of the administration; it was solely about I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby and whether he obstructed a grand jury investigation, lied to federal agents, and then lied to a grand jury.
Despite the spin immediately set in motion by Libby's cadre of supporters, Fitzgerald was not suggesting that the charges he was leveling were trivial, nor was he presuming to sanction the conduct of the Bush administration in the run-up to the war. As a seasoned prosecutor, he was merely making a simple, but necessary, point about the nature of criminal charges and the laws that govern them. The laws of perjury and obstruction of justice exist to vindicate an important government interest in the integrity of grand-jury proceedings. Once such charges are brought, however, they raise but a single issue: Is there proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the individual or individuals charged committed the conduct specified in the indictment?
From the perspective of the prosecution team, that question was, quite properly, the only one raised by the criminal trial of Scooter Libby. And within the confines of United States District Court Judge Reggie Walton's courtroom, the prosecutors were only entitled to offer evidence relating to that question. That is why the Libby trial has offered such an incomplete and unsatisfying picture.
Evidence in the trial showed, for example, that, on May 29, 2003, Libby first asked former Undersecretary of Defense Marc Grossman for information about an unnamed former ambassador's trip to Niger to inquire about possible Iraqi purchases of uranium. Evidence was also presented that such a trip had been mentioned in a May 6, 2003 op-ed written by Nicholas Kristof. But because the prosecution was limited to introducing evidence that tended to prove the charges in the indictment, the evidence did not indicate what else were reporters saying about the administration's case for war in the spring of 2003. From the Bush administration's perspective, it would be the height of understatement to say that there was not a whole lot of positive press.
For starters, by at least mid-May, the Democrats, with Jay Rockefeller leading the charge, were calling for an investigation into the intelligence cited repeatedly by senior administration officials as grounds for the invasion of Iraq. And here is a sampling of the accompanying media furor:
May 30 -- Nicholas Kristof, "Save our Spooks," the New York Times:
"According to a ‘torrent' of sources, there is reason to believe that intelligence about weapons of mass destruction was ‘deliberately warped…to mislead our elected representatives into voting to authorize [the war in Iraq]."
June 2 -- Jim Lobe, "Credibility Gap over Iraq WMD Looms Larger," Foreign Policy in Focus:
"When all three major U.S. newsweeklies -- Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report -- run major features on the same day on possible government lying, you can bet you have the makings of a major scandal."
June 7 -- "Questions Swirl Around WMD Charges," CBS/AP
"President Bush's administration distorted intelligence and presented conjecture as evidence to justify a U.S. invasion of Iraq, according to a retired intelligence official who served during the months before the war.
"‘What disturbs me deeply is what I think are the disingenuous statements made from the very top about what the intelligence did say,' said Greg Thielmann, who retired last September. ‘The area of distortion was greatest in the nuclear field.'"
June 9 -- Unnamed reporter to White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer at White House
Press Briefing
"Q. You said in April that the war was about weapons of mass destruction. The war resulted in tens of thousands of innocent civilian deaths -- thousands of innocent civilian deaths, according to The Los Angeles Times. Do you personally feel any remorse, given the public case that's being made that this war was based on that false pretext?"
It was, in short, a public relations nightmare, involving a sudden upsurge in calls for an investigation as well as a surge of reports, stories, and questions about government lying, warped intelligence, distortions, and false pretexts for war. And the criticisms were aimed not only at the White House but at the State Department, which was the likely reason for the appearances of both National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice and former Secretary of State Colin Powell on the June 8, 2003 Sunday morning talk shows.
To make things worse, the Bush-Cheney '04 Campaign was about to rev up, with major fundraisers scheduled for mid-June. Given this context, "no sane person" (to borrow Patrick Fitzgerald's phrase from his closing argument in the Libby case) could possibly believe that anyone in the Bush administration was not involved in the smears, selective declassifications, ongoing deceit, and cover-up that spun out of control in the spring and summer of 2003. Indeed, we know that at least one key re-election campaign committee member, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, was involved as well, acting as an intermediary between reporter Robert Novak and former Deputy Secretary of State Richard Armitage.
No criminal investigation, and certainly no criminal trial, is ever going to illuminate these White House machinations. In addition, as significant as the criminal issues that arise from the circumstances of the CIA leak may be -- and they are significant -- whether any members of the administration violated any federal statutes in conducting their attack on Joseph Wilson and Valerie Plame has never been the most important issue raised by this whole tawdry affair.
The paramount issue is one of abuse of power by our highest executive branch officials and their stable of White House staffers, lobbyists, Republican operatives and other surrogates. The criminal justice system was never intended by the framers of the Constitution to be the sole, or even primary, means of investigating and redressing what the late Congresswoman from Texas Barbara Jordan described during the Watergate investigations as "the misconduct of public men." On the contrary, it is Congress that is both entitled and obligated to oversee the conduct of the Executive Branch.
So yes, the trial of Scooter Libby has raised as many questions as it has answered, but we need not wait for the President and Vice President to answer them; nor should we wait for the outcome of any further criminal investigation. What is needed is a full-scale congressional hearing by the House Oversight Committee on Government Reform. Representative Henry Waxman (D. Ca.), the chair of the committee, has subpoena power and can subpoena telephone records, meeting notes, daily calendars, memos, and a host of key players whose testimony was not legally relevant in the Libby trial, but who obviously have intimate knowledge of the entire CIA leak case and cover-up. These figures would include Karl Rove, Richard Armitage, lobbyist Ken Duberstein, Colin Powell and Stephen Hadley among others. Finally, unlike the prosecutor in a grand jury investigation, Waxman can hold hearings that are public -- in Room 2154 Rayburn Office Building, Washington, D.C. So the misconduct of these public men and women, our highest elected and appointed officials in the Executive Branch, can finally be judged by a much larger jury of their peers, the people of the United States.
Elizabeth de la Vega is a former federal prosecutor with more than 20 years of experience. During her tenure, she was a member of the Organized Crime Strike Force and Chief of the San Jose Branch of the U.S. Attorney's Office for the Northern District of California. Her pieces have appeared in the Nation Magazine, the Los Angeles Times, and Salon. She writes regularly for Tomdispatch.com. She is the author of United States v. George W. Bush et al.
She may be contacted at ElizabethdelaVega@Verizon.net.
Copyright 2007 Elizabeth de la Vega
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Thursday, March 1, 2007
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Gen. Clark; We should Listen to This Guy
Gen. Wesley Clark: Escalation Will Empower Iran
In his Jan. 10 address to the nation, Bush cited Iran’s growing influence in Iraq as a key argument for escalating U.S. troop presence. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said.
Last night on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor, Gen. Wesley Clark said that using escalation to counter Iran is a “fundamentally flawed” strategy. “What is actually happening with the surge strategy is the Shiite militia have gone underground and the U.S. troops are going to concentrate against the Sunnis. The actual impact of the surge strategy is likely to be that we deliver total control of Baghdad to the Shiites sooner rather than later.” In other words, if anything, the escalation will end up empowering Iran. Watch it:
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Listen to Wes Clark
Gen. Wesley Clark: Escalation Will Empower Iran
In his Jan. 10 address to the nation, Bush cited Iran’s growing influence in Iraq as a key argument for escalating U.S. troop presence. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said.
Last night on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor, Gen. Wesley Clark said that using escalation to counter Iran is a “fundamentally flawed” strategy. “What is actually happening with the surge strategy is the Shiite militia have gone underground and the U.S. troops are going to concentrate against the Sunnis. The actual impact of the surge strategy is likely to be that we deliver total control of Baghdad to the Shiites sooner rather than later.” In other words, if anything, the escalation will end up empowering Iran. Watch it: (^)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
In his Jan. 10 address to the nation, Bush cited Iran’s growing influence in Iraq as a key argument for escalating U.S. troop presence. “Iran is providing material support for attacks on American troops. We will disrupt the attacks on our forces. We’ll interrupt the flow of support from Iran and Syria,” Bush said.
Last night on Fox News’s O’Reilly Factor, Gen. Wesley Clark said that using escalation to counter Iran is a “fundamentally flawed” strategy. “What is actually happening with the surge strategy is the Shiite militia have gone underground and the U.S. troops are going to concentrate against the Sunnis. The actual impact of the surge strategy is likely to be that we deliver total control of Baghdad to the Shiites sooner rather than later.” In other words, if anything, the escalation will end up empowering Iran. Watch it: (^)
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Make of it what you will......
February 27, 2007
Success, with a touch of doomed progress
For our surging, friendless crusaders in khaki, more lugubrious news from the Land of sectarian Ooze:
"Iraq's most powerful Shiite militant cleric publicly repudiated the new Baghdad security plan for the first time on Sunday, according to a statement distributed by his aides that said the push to quell violence was doomed to fail as long as it was directed by the American military."
That bit of bombshelling came from the menacing-looking Moktada al-Sadr, owner-operator of Iraq's largest and most lethal militia, the Mahdi Army. Frankly, if I were roaming the streets of Baghdad on unsolicited neighborhood patrols, just knowing of the man's presence would cause me to shake like a spooked Don Knotts.
But if I then heard him branding my mission as "doomed to fail," I'd faint dead away -- no actual resistance or proof of doom required.
The NYT's understated characterization of Mr. Sadr's drive-by eulogy then really kicked in: "Without his support for the stepped-up security effort, the prospects for continued sectarian violence and a direct conflict with American troops could increase."
Yes, they could. And the sun, reportedly, could come up tomorrow and George W. Bush could still be a dimwit. There are, you see, no absolutes in astrophysics or among the developmentally disabled.
"Mum" was Sadr's word on the escalation up till now, so the report was left to ponder that "It was unclear why he would turn against the joint American-Iraqi plan, but many of his followers have been losing patience with the failure of the security push to eliminate violence against Shiites."
What did I miss? Did not that sentence's second clause answer the first?
The original story was then edited and republished
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
The race for 2008 has just begun and already I am feeling giddy with hope. The majority of Americans recognize that the war was botched, and larger numbers than ever are questioning the morality of preemptive violence in general. Edwards sounds like he's sampling JFK in his twang about individual responsibility. Obama is sweet-talking a nation with his audacious authenticity. And Clinton -- mother, wife, and badass -- is a front-runner to become the first female president in the history of the United States. It is almost enough to restore my college-era idealism.
Yet one question keeps lurking menacingly beneath the surface of my excitement: am I obligated, as a young feminist, to support Hillary Clinton for president?
Exploring the answer gets me into a political twister game of identities. As an engaged citizen, I am obligated to comprehensively review and analyze the candidates' values and plans, their histories and qualities, and then choose the one I believe to be the most enlightened leader. Though I sometimes distrust the electoral machine, which makes it harder and harder to distinguish candidates' real ideas and passions from their fat-pocketed spin master's magic, I find my ways.
As my mother's daughter, I feel obligated to support and vote for Hillary Clinton. For the first time in history, a woman has a real chance at moving into the Oval Office.
According to one poll conducted by GfKRoper Public Affairs, Americans believe that a woman president would be as good as or better than a man at leading on the issues of foreign policy (78 percent), homeland security (77 percent) and the economy (88 percent). According to another -- the Times Union/Siena College First Woman President poll -- 66 percent of Americans think the U.S. is ready for a woman president and 81 percent would vote for one.
My mother, and the second-wave feminist movement she was a part of, fought long and hard for this kind of paradigm shift. I imagine myself the honored carrier of a feminist flag that has been flown from many a neglected pole, hoisted up by many a big-hearted (and often big-haired) feminist -- women like Victoria Woodhull (1872), Shirley Chisholm (1972), and Winona LaDuke (1996). I don't want them to think I have forgotten, that I take for granted, not only the right to vote, but the right to vote in a country whose culture has shifted so dramatically as to finally treat a female candidate as a serious contender.
And this is where the trouble starts.
The feminist movement coaxed the country into believing that a leader is not defined by gender. Period. And in some ways, the pressure to support Hillary Clinton -- by virtue of her being a female -- feels regressive. As a young, fed-up progressive, I want to vote for someone who seems real, who strikes me as outside of the old guard and its outrageously overblown campaign spending. I want to support a candidate who doesn't compromise on certain issues -- violence, the constitution -- and understands the wisdom of the "middle path" in others -- taxes, social security. This part of my identity, the hungry-to-be-surprised part, is looking for a leader who reminds me of nothing, who only conjures up a kinder, wiser future. That person is not looking much like former first lady, current Senator Clinton.
So where do my deepest loyalties lie? Do I prioritize my commitment to wholesale progress -- no gender qualifiers attached -- or do I focus on the importance of this historical moment for women?
The White House Project, a non-partisan nonprofit, makes a strong case for the latter, arguing that a critical mass of women in leadership positions -- no matter what their specific politics -- will make the world a better place; it is essentially a feminist "tipping point" ala Malcolm Gladwell. They help female candidates of all sorts of persuasions raise money, in addition to promoting girls' leadership and doing powerful media activism.
As much as I respect this organization -- and others, like Code Pink -- I believe that they danced dangerously on the line between advocacy and essentialism. The former is well-intentioned -- get women in office and they will tip the country toward more egalitarian, more peaceful policies. The latter is an inversion of the same old bullshit -- now it's not men who are more inherently fit to lead and save the world, but women.
Lisa Jervis, founder of Bitch Magazine, wrote a brilliant essay on what she calls "femmenism" -- "the mistaken belief ... that female leadership is inherently different from male; that having more women in positions of power, authority, or visibility will automatically lead to, or can be equated with, feminist social change; that women are uniquely equipped as a force for action on a given issue; and that isolating feminist work as solely pertaining to women is necessary or even useful."
She brings up examples that progressive feminists would prefer to forget -- Condi and the Abu Ghraib gals, Ann Coulter, etc. Has having female editors at the helm of mainstream women's magazines made them any less self-hating or focused on conspicuous consumption?
Further, part and parcel of contemporary feminist thought is the idea of "intersectionality" -- that race, class, gender, sexuality, religion, and disability cannot be analyzed as separate, autonomous strands when one looks at the tangled web of oppression. This theory suggests that being a good feminist might also mean supporting a minority candidate, or a candidate from a working class background, and not automatically favoring a woman for gender's sake. As someone from a white, middle-class upbringing, maybe my most pressing duty is to vote for someone as unlike me as possible, someone who didn't have the privileges of white skin or financial stability.
So here I am, twisted into a pretty wicked knot of loyalties, affiliations, and philosophies of social change. If I go with Hillary, I respect my legacy but neglect my fiercest politics. If I support someone other than Hillary, I may vote with a vision of the future, but lose the opportunity to participate in a critical moment in feminist history. Until election day comes, I'll keep watching and listening, trying to let myself feel the pull of my wisest self.
Tagged as: hillary clinton, election08, feminist
Courtney E. Martin is a writer, teacher and filmmaker living in Brooklyn. She is currently working on a book on her generation's obsession with food and fitness, Perfect Girls, Starving Daughters, which will be published by Free Press in spring of 2007. You can read more about her work at www.courtneyemartin.com.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Lighting Fires, all over the place
Antiwar Leader Tries To Light Fire Under Dems Over Iraq
By Greg Sargent bio
A leading figure of the antiwar movement is warning that Congressional Dems are at risk of badly botching the public relations battle over Iraq and is urging Congressional Dems to move more aggressively to confront the Republicans in the political showdown over ending the war.
The antiwar leader, Tom Andrews, the head of Win Without War, made the comments in an interview with Election Central. His comments reflected what he said is a growing anxiety among antiwar leaders that Congressional Dems are so consumed with uniting their caucus that they're neglecting to articulate a forceful enough antiwar message and thus risk fumbling the current PR war.
"Democrats have to fight," Andrews tells us. "Where are the voices in Congress reflecting the majority view of the American people?"
Andrew says that Dems are being far too timid in the face of a fierce GOP propaganda assault that has for days targeted Jack Murtha in an effort to define his plan for attaching conditions to war funds as micromanaging the war and defunding the troops. Win Without War, like Move On and some other antiwar groups, are generally supportive of the approach that as yet has been outlined by Murtha and other Congressional leaders.
Right now Dem leaders in the House and Senate are trying to gague sentiment in their respective houses of Congress and debating internally the specifics of how to confront the White House on the war. But Andrews says that such debate, while necessary, shouldn't prevent Dems from simultaneously mounting a tough PR counter-offensive -- something Andrews says Dems are failing to do.
"The Republicans should be on their heels," Andrews says. "They have put the troops in these conditions -- and they're the ones on the offensive!"
"There should be a relentless attack" from Dems, Andrews continues. "Dems in Congress should be talking relentlessly about the lack of equipment, the lack of training, the multiple deployments, every day. There should be a relentless demand for accountability."
"Even if you don't have a specific plan yet, you can at least stand up and counterattack against this Republican assault. That hasn't happened," Andrews concludes. "Every day there's not a relentless counterpunch is a missed opportunity. I think a lot more can be done and a lot more should be done."
Tough words for Congressional Dems from a top antiwar leader. Thoughts?
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
By Greg Sargent bio
A leading figure of the antiwar movement is warning that Congressional Dems are at risk of badly botching the public relations battle over Iraq and is urging Congressional Dems to move more aggressively to confront the Republicans in the political showdown over ending the war.
The antiwar leader, Tom Andrews, the head of Win Without War, made the comments in an interview with Election Central. His comments reflected what he said is a growing anxiety among antiwar leaders that Congressional Dems are so consumed with uniting their caucus that they're neglecting to articulate a forceful enough antiwar message and thus risk fumbling the current PR war.
"Democrats have to fight," Andrews tells us. "Where are the voices in Congress reflecting the majority view of the American people?"
Andrew says that Dems are being far too timid in the face of a fierce GOP propaganda assault that has for days targeted Jack Murtha in an effort to define his plan for attaching conditions to war funds as micromanaging the war and defunding the troops. Win Without War, like Move On and some other antiwar groups, are generally supportive of the approach that as yet has been outlined by Murtha and other Congressional leaders.
Right now Dem leaders in the House and Senate are trying to gague sentiment in their respective houses of Congress and debating internally the specifics of how to confront the White House on the war. But Andrews says that such debate, while necessary, shouldn't prevent Dems from simultaneously mounting a tough PR counter-offensive -- something Andrews says Dems are failing to do.
"The Republicans should be on their heels," Andrews says. "They have put the troops in these conditions -- and they're the ones on the offensive!"
"There should be a relentless attack" from Dems, Andrews continues. "Dems in Congress should be talking relentlessly about the lack of equipment, the lack of training, the multiple deployments, every day. There should be a relentless demand for accountability."
"Even if you don't have a specific plan yet, you can at least stand up and counterattack against this Republican assault. That hasn't happened," Andrews concludes. "Every day there's not a relentless counterpunch is a missed opportunity. I think a lot more can be done and a lot more should be done."
Tough words for Congressional Dems from a top antiwar leader. Thoughts?
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Oh, fer Chissake! What is it going to take?
Feb 27, 8:15 PM EST
Labor language threatens antiterror bill
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
AP Photo/CHARLES DHARAPAK
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and his Senate allies will kill a Sept. 11 antiterror bill if Congress sends it to the White House with a provision to let airport screeners unionize, the White House and 36 Republicans said Tuesday.
"As the legislation currently stands, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.
Senate Republicans swiftly backed up the threat with a pledge by more than enough senators to block any veto override attempt.
"If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto," they wrote to the president. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., planned to offer an amendment to strip the provision from the bill.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that allowing screeners to unionize would impede the department's quick response to possible threats. Fast redeployment of screeners, such as in response to Hurricane Rita and the failed London plot to blow up airliners, cannot wait for negotiations, he said.
Chertoff said screeners are as much on the front lines in the war against terror as military troops.
"Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up, you know, being deployed in Anbar province or in Baghdad," Chertoff told reporters after a briefing with senators. "We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that goes to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging."
Other federal employees have collective bargaining and whistle-blower protection rights.
Chertoff's reasoning, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, is "an insult to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated public safety officers with collective bargaining rights - from border patrol agents to firefighters to the Capitol Hill police," said John Gage, president of the federation.
The White House made its displeasure with the union provision clear before the House passed it as part of its Homeland Security bill. Sen. Susan Collins said Chertoff told her that a statement Thursday would include an explicit veto threat.
Casting the provision as a deal-killer would flex Bush's political muscle with the new, Democratic-led Congress on the old battleground of labor rights. It also could throw an obstacle into talks over how to debate and pass the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.
For now, senators are eager to follow the House and pass a bill enacting the commission's recommendations to tighten the nation's security. The House bill also includes a provision that would let TSA screeners bargain collectively.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had reached a tentative agreement Tuesday to conduct the debate over the next 10 days without the distraction of Iraq.
The sense of urgency on the 9/11 recommendations was conveyed to both leaders in a letter Tuesday from families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on that day in 2001.
"This legislation is far too important to be politicized by ... controversial amendments and debate, particularly those relating to Iraq," wrote Carol Ashley and Mary Fetchet of the Voices of September 11th.
Reid and McConnell said the Iraq debate would wait for next month, after passage of the 9/11 bill. The arrangement would allow the Senate to debate legislation bolstering anti-terrorism security measures on railroads and airlines without being distracted by the furor over President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq.
"We have got to finish this bill," Reid, D-Nev., said as he opened the Senate session. He read parts of a letter from relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks asking the Senate to consider the legislation "without complications regarding Iraq."
Even minus an Iraq debate, provisions in the anti-terrorism bill or planned amendments make the legislation contentious.
In addition to its opposition to the TSA provision, the White House also opposes an amendment that would let states delay adopting standardized drivers' licenses.
Collins said Chertoff delivered a staunch defense of the administration's position during the GOP caucus' weekly policy lunch Tuesday. She said she nonetheless plans to try to attach an amendment that would delay requirements for states to adopt national drivers license standards.
Many states have complained about the cost of the program, and civil libertarians are concerned about privacy issues.
Other measures in the bill would improve rail and aviation security, provide funds for state and local emergency communications systems, improve intelligence sharing between federal, state and local officials, and expand a visa waiver benefit for favored countries.
---
The bill is S.4
On the Net:
Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov/
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Labor language threatens antiterror bill
By LAURIE KELLMAN Associated Press Writer
AP Photo/CHARLES DHARAPAK
WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush and his Senate allies will kill a Sept. 11 antiterror bill if Congress sends it to the White House with a provision to let airport screeners unionize, the White House and 36 Republicans said Tuesday.
"As the legislation currently stands, the president's senior advisers would recommend that he veto the bill," said White House spokesman Scott Stanzel.
Senate Republicans swiftly backed up the threat with a pledge by more than enough senators to block any veto override attempt.
"If the final bill contains such a provision, forcing you to veto it, we pledge to sustain your veto," they wrote to the president. Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S.C., planned to offer an amendment to strip the provision from the bill.
Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said that allowing screeners to unionize would impede the department's quick response to possible threats. Fast redeployment of screeners, such as in response to Hurricane Rita and the failed London plot to blow up airliners, cannot wait for negotiations, he said.
Chertoff said screeners are as much on the front lines in the war against terror as military troops.
"Marines don't collectively bargain over whether they're going to wind up, you know, being deployed in Anbar province or in Baghdad," Chertoff told reporters after a briefing with senators. "We can't negotiate over terms and conditions of work that goes to the heart of our ability to move rapidly in order to deal with the threats that are emerging."
Other federal employees have collective bargaining and whistle-blower protection rights.
Chertoff's reasoning, according to the American Federation of Government Employees, is "an insult to the hundreds of thousands of dedicated public safety officers with collective bargaining rights - from border patrol agents to firefighters to the Capitol Hill police," said John Gage, president of the federation.
The White House made its displeasure with the union provision clear before the House passed it as part of its Homeland Security bill. Sen. Susan Collins said Chertoff told her that a statement Thursday would include an explicit veto threat.
Casting the provision as a deal-killer would flex Bush's political muscle with the new, Democratic-led Congress on the old battleground of labor rights. It also could throw an obstacle into talks over how to debate and pass the recommendations of the Sept. 11 Commission.
For now, senators are eager to follow the House and pass a bill enacting the commission's recommendations to tighten the nation's security. The House bill also includes a provision that would let TSA screeners bargain collectively.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada and Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky had reached a tentative agreement Tuesday to conduct the debate over the next 10 days without the distraction of Iraq.
The sense of urgency on the 9/11 recommendations was conveyed to both leaders in a letter Tuesday from families of those killed in the terrorist attacks on that day in 2001.
"This legislation is far too important to be politicized by ... controversial amendments and debate, particularly those relating to Iraq," wrote Carol Ashley and Mary Fetchet of the Voices of September 11th.
Reid and McConnell said the Iraq debate would wait for next month, after passage of the 9/11 bill. The arrangement would allow the Senate to debate legislation bolstering anti-terrorism security measures on railroads and airlines without being distracted by the furor over President Bush's buildup of troops in Iraq.
"We have got to finish this bill," Reid, D-Nev., said as he opened the Senate session. He read parts of a letter from relatives of people killed in the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks asking the Senate to consider the legislation "without complications regarding Iraq."
Even minus an Iraq debate, provisions in the anti-terrorism bill or planned amendments make the legislation contentious.
In addition to its opposition to the TSA provision, the White House also opposes an amendment that would let states delay adopting standardized drivers' licenses.
Collins said Chertoff delivered a staunch defense of the administration's position during the GOP caucus' weekly policy lunch Tuesday. She said she nonetheless plans to try to attach an amendment that would delay requirements for states to adopt national drivers license standards.
Many states have complained about the cost of the program, and civil libertarians are concerned about privacy issues.
Other measures in the bill would improve rail and aviation security, provide funds for state and local emergency communications systems, improve intelligence sharing between federal, state and local officials, and expand a visa waiver benefit for favored countries.
---
The bill is S.4
On the Net:
Transportation Security Administration: http://www.tsa.gov/
© 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
Learn more about our Privacy Policy.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Cluster Munitions Shoud Be Out-lawed, Period!
Published on Tuesday, February 27, 2007 by The Hill (Washington, DC)
Senators Eye Curbs on Cluster Bombs, Widening Matter beyond Israel’s Use
by Elana Schor
Several Senate Democrats are renewing their push to curb the U.S. military’s use of weaponry responsible for civilian casualties in conflicts around the world — notably during the summer war between Israel and Lebanon — a proposal that has split the party’s presidential frontrunners.
98% OF CASUALTIES FROM CLUSTER BOMBS ARE NON-COMBATANTS
File picture shows an unexploded cluster bomblet. Forty-six countries - but not the US - pledged on Friday to aim for an international ban next year on cluster bombs, blamed for thousands of civilian casualties around the world.
REUTERS/Ruben SprichHuman rights groups long have lobbied to curtail the use of cluster bombs, which disperse “bomblets” over wide areas that can cause civilian deaths years after they are dropped. Democratic lawmakers joined the cause last fall amid growing controversy over Israel’s firing of older U.S.-supplied cluster bombs into Lebanon.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered a bill earlier this month that allows U.S. sales and transfers only of newer bombs with low error rates, expanding on a cluster-curbing amendment they offered last year.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), opposed it – a vote that looms as potential attack ad fodder in a 2008 campaign that is kicking off and going negative especially early.
“Perhaps unfortunately, the issue of cluster munitions came about so prominently by Israel’s use or misuse of cluster munitions in its conflict with Hezbollah,” Colby Goodman, a program manager at Amnesty International, said. “It was seen by some as a focus on criticizing Israel, but that wasn’t the intent.”
Bomblets have killed thousands of civilians in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Vietnam and during the current Iraq war. Yet international criticism of the estimated 100,000 Israeli bombs that failed to detonate in Lebanon have led many to associate Washington’s No. 1 ally in the Middle East with the weapons, complicating the task for Democrats who support Feinstein-Leahy while cozying up to Jewish-American voters.
“For Jewish-American activists who are active because of their concerns about Israel, they are, generally speaking, not going to want to see additional restrictions placed on Israel’s use of U.S. weaponry,” a source close to the Obama camp said.
Yet, the source noted, cluster munitions are “not by any means the highest-profile issue the community is concerned about,” pointing to Obama’s strong support for pressuring Iran on its nuclear program and placing conditions on aid to the new Palestinian government.
Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) have courted the Jewish community in recent years, but Obama hardly is ceding ground to his primary rivals. The Illinoisan’s campaign recently signed a formal adviser on Jewish-American policy, and Obama will appear Friday at a Chicago policy forum of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the capital’s most influential pro-Israel group.
The conservative buffeting Obama recently endured over his childhood in majority-Muslim Indonesia has helped perpetuate the perception that Obama has a tougher row to hoe with Jewish voters. A survey last week by the Jerusalem newspaper Ha’aretz ranked him 17th out of 17 presidential candidates on a scale of friendliness to Israel.
The Washington director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Hadar Susskind, observed that Jewish-American groups have a heightened awareness of cluster weapons limits after human-rights groups called on Israel to cease deploying the bombs without mentioning other countries that use them.
“They are sensitive to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports that, for better or for worse, are often seen as one-sided or skewed by folks within the Jewish community,” Susskind said.
This weekend brought a leap forward on cluster-bomb curbs, as 46 countries at an international conference in Norway set a 2008 deadline for a pact ending use of the weapons.
The treaty gives a crucial boost to the Feinstein-Leahy bill. Both senators have criticized U.S. transfers of older, error-prone cluster bombs since before the Israel-Lebanon war, and began their legislative effort with their amendment to last year’s defense appropriations bill, which aimed to block the Pentagon from approving cluster bomb detonation in civilian or refugee areas. Feinstein said this month that Israel’s misuse of the weapons partly inspired the bill.
Facing stiff opposition from the Bush administration, the amendment failed on the floor, with every Republican and 15 Democrats voting no, including Clinton, Biden and Dodd. Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), now majority leader and majority whip, joined Obama in backing the proposal.
The director of Human Rights Watch’s arms division, Steve Goose, said the first Feinstein-Leahy push failed “primarily because it was depicted as an anti-Israel amendment.” Advocates of the new bill have begun outreach to Jewish-American groups to tamp down any misperceptions that the measure targets Israel, he added.
“This bill is aimed at U.S. policy, to make sure the U.S. takes a humanitarian stand when it comes to cluster munitions,” Goose, who attended the Norwegian conference, said.
Feinstein hailed that anti-clusters summit with a statement urging the Pentagon “to join in this effort and protect civilians from this lethal relics of war,” expressing disappointment that the U.S. joined Israel, Russia and China in boycotting the conference.
AIPAC is not taking a position on the cluster-bomb curbs this year, according to a spokesman for the group. Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein offered conditional approval of the Feinstein-Leahy bill: “I have no problem ensuring that our allies receive more effective and efficient cluster bombs … unless it would impact on our allies receiving cluster bombs they need at critical times.”
The cluster-weapons bill expands on last year’s language with a national security waiver that the president may invoke when bomb sales are deemed integral to the defense capability of U.S. allies. Bill supporters believe the waiver could win over 2008 hopefuls concerned about being portrayed as weak on national security for backing the ban.
For Leahy, who is also the Senate’s top foreign-operations appropriator, the crusade against clusters is a natural sequel to his longtime campaign to ban landmines. The Judiciary Committee chairman wrote the first anti-landmine legislation in 1992 and created the Leahy War Victims
Fund to help civilians disabled by mines.
For Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel to which the bill was referred, having jurisdiction over cluster bomb curbs may complicate the issue. He voiced support for the principles of the amendment last fall but called for an Armed Services Committee hearing on its effects on the military.
A Biden spokeswoman said the lawmaker will review the bill thoroughly before deciding how to approach it. Other sponsors of the cluster-weapons limits include Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Senators Eye Curbs on Cluster Bombs, Widening Matter beyond Israel’s Use
by Elana Schor
Several Senate Democrats are renewing their push to curb the U.S. military’s use of weaponry responsible for civilian casualties in conflicts around the world — notably during the summer war between Israel and Lebanon — a proposal that has split the party’s presidential frontrunners.
98% OF CASUALTIES FROM CLUSTER BOMBS ARE NON-COMBATANTS
File picture shows an unexploded cluster bomblet. Forty-six countries - but not the US - pledged on Friday to aim for an international ban next year on cluster bombs, blamed for thousands of civilian casualties around the world.
REUTERS/Ruben SprichHuman rights groups long have lobbied to curtail the use of cluster bombs, which disperse “bomblets” over wide areas that can cause civilian deaths years after they are dropped. Democratic lawmakers joined the cause last fall amid growing controversy over Israel’s firing of older U.S.-supplied cluster bombs into Lebanon.
Sens. Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif.) and Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) offered a bill earlier this month that allows U.S. sales and transfers only of newer bombs with low error rates, expanding on a cluster-curbing amendment they offered last year.
Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) backed that plan while his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sens. Hillary Clinton (N.Y.), Joseph Biden (Del.) and Chris Dodd (Conn.), opposed it – a vote that looms as potential attack ad fodder in a 2008 campaign that is kicking off and going negative especially early.
“Perhaps unfortunately, the issue of cluster munitions came about so prominently by Israel’s use or misuse of cluster munitions in its conflict with Hezbollah,” Colby Goodman, a program manager at Amnesty International, said. “It was seen by some as a focus on criticizing Israel, but that wasn’t the intent.”
Bomblets have killed thousands of civilians in the Balkans, Afghanistan, Vietnam and during the current Iraq war. Yet international criticism of the estimated 100,000 Israeli bombs that failed to detonate in Lebanon have led many to associate Washington’s No. 1 ally in the Middle East with the weapons, complicating the task for Democrats who support Feinstein-Leahy while cozying up to Jewish-American voters.
“For Jewish-American activists who are active because of their concerns about Israel, they are, generally speaking, not going to want to see additional restrictions placed on Israel’s use of U.S. weaponry,” a source close to the Obama camp said.
Yet, the source noted, cluster munitions are “not by any means the highest-profile issue the community is concerned about,” pointing to Obama’s strong support for pressuring Iran on its nuclear program and placing conditions on aid to the new Palestinian government.
Clinton and former Sen. John Edwards (D-N.C.) have courted the Jewish community in recent years, but Obama hardly is ceding ground to his primary rivals. The Illinoisan’s campaign recently signed a formal adviser on Jewish-American policy, and Obama will appear Friday at a Chicago policy forum of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC), the capital’s most influential pro-Israel group.
The conservative buffeting Obama recently endured over his childhood in majority-Muslim Indonesia has helped perpetuate the perception that Obama has a tougher row to hoe with Jewish voters. A survey last week by the Jerusalem newspaper Ha’aretz ranked him 17th out of 17 presidential candidates on a scale of friendliness to Israel.
The Washington director of the Jewish Council for Public Affairs, Hadar Susskind, observed that Jewish-American groups have a heightened awareness of cluster weapons limits after human-rights groups called on Israel to cease deploying the bombs without mentioning other countries that use them.
“They are sensitive to Human Rights Watch and Amnesty reports that, for better or for worse, are often seen as one-sided or skewed by folks within the Jewish community,” Susskind said.
This weekend brought a leap forward on cluster-bomb curbs, as 46 countries at an international conference in Norway set a 2008 deadline for a pact ending use of the weapons.
The treaty gives a crucial boost to the Feinstein-Leahy bill. Both senators have criticized U.S. transfers of older, error-prone cluster bombs since before the Israel-Lebanon war, and began their legislative effort with their amendment to last year’s defense appropriations bill, which aimed to block the Pentagon from approving cluster bomb detonation in civilian or refugee areas. Feinstein said this month that Israel’s misuse of the weapons partly inspired the bill.
Facing stiff opposition from the Bush administration, the amendment failed on the floor, with every Republican and 15 Democrats voting no, including Clinton, Biden and Dodd. Sens. Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), now majority leader and majority whip, joined Obama in backing the proposal.
The director of Human Rights Watch’s arms division, Steve Goose, said the first Feinstein-Leahy push failed “primarily because it was depicted as an anti-Israel amendment.” Advocates of the new bill have begun outreach to Jewish-American groups to tamp down any misperceptions that the measure targets Israel, he added.
“This bill is aimed at U.S. policy, to make sure the U.S. takes a humanitarian stand when it comes to cluster munitions,” Goose, who attended the Norwegian conference, said.
Feinstein hailed that anti-clusters summit with a statement urging the Pentagon “to join in this effort and protect civilians from this lethal relics of war,” expressing disappointment that the U.S. joined Israel, Russia and China in boycotting the conference.
AIPAC is not taking a position on the cluster-bomb curbs this year, according to a spokesman for the group. Zionist Organization of America President Morton Klein offered conditional approval of the Feinstein-Leahy bill: “I have no problem ensuring that our allies receive more effective and efficient cluster bombs … unless it would impact on our allies receiving cluster bombs they need at critical times.”
The cluster-weapons bill expands on last year’s language with a national security waiver that the president may invoke when bomb sales are deemed integral to the defense capability of U.S. allies. Bill supporters believe the waiver could win over 2008 hopefuls concerned about being portrayed as weak on national security for backing the ban.
For Leahy, who is also the Senate’s top foreign-operations appropriator, the crusade against clusters is a natural sequel to his longtime campaign to ban landmines. The Judiciary Committee chairman wrote the first anti-landmine legislation in 1992 and created the Leahy War Victims
Fund to help civilians disabled by mines.
For Biden, who chairs the Foreign Relations panel to which the bill was referred, having jurisdiction over cluster bomb curbs may complicate the issue. He voiced support for the principles of the amendment last fall but called for an Armed Services Committee hearing on its effects on the military.
A Biden spokeswoman said the lawmaker will review the bill thoroughly before deciding how to approach it. Other sponsors of the cluster-weapons limits include Sens. Barbara Mikulski (D-Md.) and Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.).
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
U.S. Using Terrorism? Nothing New Here...
Only 16 new copies of this out of print hardcover editon available at a special BuzzFlash value price.
Why is it important to remember the U.S. involvement in the overthrow of Allende and the placement of a torturer, Pinochet, in power in Chile?
For one thing, the key architect of using terror to dislodge democratically elected regimes, notably Chile, is Henry Kissinger. He is still, according to news reports, a key advisor to George W. Bush and Cheney.
Central to Kissinger's Machiavellian assertion of U.S. power for the sake of dominance alone is the use of terror. Yes, that is not some sort of radical, far left assertion. It is fact.
Take this excerpt from a cable during the Kissinger orchestration of the overthrow (and "suiciding") of Allende, as included in a New Yorker review of this book written a few years back: "For Chileans, September 11th marks a different tragedy -- the anniversary of the 1973 coup that overthrew the democratically elected government of Salvador Allende.
This timely book weaves together thirty years of declassified documents with a gripping narrative of America's involvement in the affair. At a National Security Council meeting in 1970, Secretary of Defense Melvin Laird said of Allende, "We want to do everything we can to hurt him and bring him down," and a C.I.A. memo from the same year describes efforts of a key ally "to increase the level of terrorism in Santiago."
This terrorism included the assassination of René Schneider, the constitutionalist commander-in-chief of Chile's armed forces, which was carried out with C.I.A.-provided funds and submachine guns. The evidence that Kornbluh has gathered is overwhelming."
In short, the use of terrorism to overthrow a Democratically-elected regime in Chile was unofficial U.S. policy. And once Pinochet was installed, with Kissinger's blessing, a reign of terror was visited upon the people of Chile.
This is the reality: the U.S. replaced a Democratically-elected government with military terrorists.That, again, is just the fact, not some wild theorizing.
READ THE COMPLETE REVIEW >>>
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Madam Speaker is the Queen of Understatements.
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Tuesday that she believes President Bush's judgment on the Iraq war "is a little impaired."
She also said his approach to Iraq is based on personal conviction, rather than political judgment.
"What I don't think is that it is a political decision on the part of the president. This is what he firmly believes," Pelosi said in an interview with CNN's "Larry King Live."
"I just would hope that whatever he thinks about the war that he would also value the fact that the American people have lost confidence in him." (Watch how the Iraq war has changed public perception of Bush )
"I think his judgment is a little impaired on this war, with all due respect to the president and his good intentions," she told King.
Pelosi also blasted a comment made last week by Vice President Dick Cheney that legislative moves by Pelosi and other House Democrats to oppose Bush's war policy would "validate" al Qaeda's strategy.
"What the vice president said is beneath the dignity of his office and beneath the dignity of the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform," Pelosi said.
"The vice president is in a place that is out of touch with the American people, out of touch with what so many generals are saying and out of touch with even a bipartisan majority in the Congress."
The speaker confirmed she called Bush to complain about Cheney's comments.
"The president had said to me ... that he would not tolerate any undermining of anybody's patriotism or our intention to protect the national security," she said.
"He said, 'Could you let me know if this happens?' So I wanted to let him know that it happened."
Pelosi, a California Democrat, became the first female speaker in American history in January.
Asked by King what about the job has most surprised her, she replied "the overwhelming show of enthusiasm across the country from women of all ages -- young girls to women my age -- who say they never thought that they'd see the day."
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Tuesday, February 27, 2007
What I would give to know..... HTT'S
Do any of dare to hope ?
By By Eric Hundman
02/26/07 "Wired" -- - -02/23/07 --
Yesterday, the International Atomic Energy Association released its latest report on Iran’s nuclear activities, and the news was not good. Basically, it said Iran has continued its uranium enrichment program in defiance of a U.N. Security Council resolution.
But amid all the gloom, there were a few encouraging facts buried in the IAEA report. I don’t intend to discount the severity of the Iranian situation or how difficult it will be to stop Iran’s nuclear program – rather, I’d like to provide some context for the debate on how to proceed.
First, Iran has only enriched uranium up to 4.2% U-235, just about the level required to fuel a proliferation-resistant light-water reactor. This is still far below the threshold required to make nuclear weapons (20% U-235 is the minimum required to make a weapon, but most use about 90%). Unfortunately, just because Iran hasn’t enriched further doesn’t mean they can’t; the report says nothing about possible technical problems.
Second, the IAEA’s inventory of nuclear material at the Natanz pilot plant is “consistent with” the inventory supplied by the Iranians themselves. This gives some assurance that nuclear material is not being diverted to secret facilities. However, the main (underground) enrichment facility is not mentioned.
Third, while Iran has “declined to agree at this stage” to the use of remote monitoring, in the interim it has allowed “frequent inspector access” to the main underground enrichment plant at Natanz – the IAEA has eyes there, occasionally at least. This agreement will satisfy the IAEA only until the number of centrifuges reaches 500.
Fourth, there seem to be only about 500 fully installed centrifuges at Natanz – if all of them were running at full speed it would take about six years to produce enough highly enriched uranium for a bomb. However, Iran claims it has roughly 350 more “in final stages of installation;” this seems to be happening sooner than many experts expected.
Fifth, the IAEA has found no indications that spent fuel is being reprocessed for plutonium, at any of Iran’s declared nuclear facilities. However, construction continues at Iran’s planned heavy-water reactor, which could produce fuel for nuclear weapons. These are some pretty dim glimmers of hope, but they do indicate that some time remains before Iran will even have enough material to build a nuclear weapon. Given some hints that sanctions and financial pressure might be starting to work, who knows -- there might even be enough time to reach some sort of agreement.
Eric Hundman is a science fellow at the Center for Defense Information, focusing on emerging technology, terrorism and nuclear policy. He also gives good blog.
Click here to comment on this and other articles
In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. Information Clearing House has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is Information ClearingHouse endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Romans are experiencing a rash of cranial explosions tonight.
God-damned irresponsible scientists and bluggers, of course.!
Jesus Family Tomb Believed Found
New scientific evidence, including DNA analysis conducted at one of the world's foremost molecular genetics laboratories, as well as studies by leading scholars, suggests a 2,000-year-old Jerusalem tomb could have once held the remains of Jesus of Nazareth and his family.The findings also suggest that Jesus and Mary Magdalene might have produced a son named Judah.The DNA findings, alongside statistical conclusions made about the artifacts — originally excavated in 1980 — open a potentially significant chapter in Biblical archaeological history. (Discovery Channel plug for its new documentary from James Cameron)
Read More...
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Congressional Auditor Says Dept Burden is Spiraling Out-of-Control
Michael Roston
Published: Monday February 26, 2007
Congress's auditor warned in a monthly update released last Friday that the latest data on America's fiscal outlook shows "a federal debt burden that ultimately spirals out of control."
The January update was based on new data supplied to the Government Accountability Office by the Congressional Budget Office, and identified spiraling national health care costs as the main culprit for the country's budgetary woes. The report also challenged a key assumption about the nation's fiscal future made by President George W. Bush in his release of the 2008 budget.
Using a pair of different simulations of government outlays, the GAO bluntly states that "the Nation's long-term fiscal future is 'at risk.'" It considers different futures in which discretionary spending grows more quickly or slowly, and in which tax cuts are renewed or allowed to expire.
The "bleak" outlook seen by the government's chief auditor results from "primarily spending on the large federal entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)." Growing expenditures on health care are expected to account for the largest share of deficit-raising spending that will present a challenge "not just to the federal budget but to American business and our society as a whole."
While there are other discretionary expenditures, like those on national defense and homeland security, GAO warns that "the growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on debt held by the public dwarfs the growth in all other types of spending."
But the congressional agency does not see the path forward as hopeless. Noting instead that things that are unsustainable "will not be sustained," it offers up the possibility that "the sooner appropriate actions are taken, the sooner the miracle of compounding will begin to work for the federal budget rather than against it." Waiting, however, to take serious action to repair the budgetary balance could have results that are "disruptive and destabilizing."
Still, the GAO makes the challenge sound daunting. It explains that, "closing the fiscal gap would require spending cuts or tax increases equal to 3.6 percent of the entire economy each year over the next 75 years, or a total of $26 trillion in present value terms."
Alternatively, they explain that "if we were to invest enough today to pay off these amounts over the next 75 years, the sums needed would amount to about $87,000 to $182,000 per person, or about $208,000 to $435,000 for each full-time worker."
The GAO also challenged a key message offered by the president when he rolled out his Fiscal Year 2008 budget earlier in the year.
"The projected fiscal gap is so great that it is unrealistic to expect we will grow our way out of the problem," the GAO wrote.
President Bush had said in a Feb. 6 address that "low taxes means economic vitality, which means more tax revenues. And so the fundamental question is, what do you need to do to keep the economy growing, in order to make sure the tax revenues keep coming in to the Treasury?"
He answered his own question, remarking that "step one to balancing the budget is to keep taxes low. As a matter of fact, not only do I think we ought not to raise them, I think we ought to make every tax cut we passed permanent."
The GAO's full update on the fiscal outlook can be accessed at its website.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Published: Monday February 26, 2007
Congress's auditor warned in a monthly update released last Friday that the latest data on America's fiscal outlook shows "a federal debt burden that ultimately spirals out of control."
The January update was based on new data supplied to the Government Accountability Office by the Congressional Budget Office, and identified spiraling national health care costs as the main culprit for the country's budgetary woes. The report also challenged a key assumption about the nation's fiscal future made by President George W. Bush in his release of the 2008 budget.
Using a pair of different simulations of government outlays, the GAO bluntly states that "the Nation's long-term fiscal future is 'at risk.'" It considers different futures in which discretionary spending grows more quickly or slowly, and in which tax cuts are renewed or allowed to expire.
The "bleak" outlook seen by the government's chief auditor results from "primarily spending on the large federal entitlement programs (i.e., Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)." Growing expenditures on health care are expected to account for the largest share of deficit-raising spending that will present a challenge "not just to the federal budget but to American business and our society as a whole."
While there are other discretionary expenditures, like those on national defense and homeland security, GAO warns that "the growth in Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and interest on debt held by the public dwarfs the growth in all other types of spending."
But the congressional agency does not see the path forward as hopeless. Noting instead that things that are unsustainable "will not be sustained," it offers up the possibility that "the sooner appropriate actions are taken, the sooner the miracle of compounding will begin to work for the federal budget rather than against it." Waiting, however, to take serious action to repair the budgetary balance could have results that are "disruptive and destabilizing."
Still, the GAO makes the challenge sound daunting. It explains that, "closing the fiscal gap would require spending cuts or tax increases equal to 3.6 percent of the entire economy each year over the next 75 years, or a total of $26 trillion in present value terms."
Alternatively, they explain that "if we were to invest enough today to pay off these amounts over the next 75 years, the sums needed would amount to about $87,000 to $182,000 per person, or about $208,000 to $435,000 for each full-time worker."
The GAO also challenged a key message offered by the president when he rolled out his Fiscal Year 2008 budget earlier in the year.
"The projected fiscal gap is so great that it is unrealistic to expect we will grow our way out of the problem," the GAO wrote.
President Bush had said in a Feb. 6 address that "low taxes means economic vitality, which means more tax revenues. And so the fundamental question is, what do you need to do to keep the economy growing, in order to make sure the tax revenues keep coming in to the Treasury?"
He answered his own question, remarking that "step one to balancing the budget is to keep taxes low. As a matter of fact, not only do I think we ought not to raise them, I think we ought to make every tax cut we passed permanent."
The GAO's full update on the fiscal outlook can be accessed at its website.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Ostroy is Convinced That Gore Is Going To Run
As I've been saying for over two years now, Al Gore will run for president in 2008. And also as I've been saying for some time, he's waiting patiently on the sidelines for the two front-runners--Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama--to slug it out. When it gets ugly enough, he'll leap over the carnage to the front of the line. And make no mistake: these two opportunists are getting as ugly on each other as white on rice.
For Clinton and Obama, the stakes are tremendous. One wants to be the nation's first black president, the other its first female. Hillary comes from the Clinton school of highly aggressive, highly calculating, political mastery. Obama's the smooth "stay-above-the-fray" guy who's already shown that he can fray it with the best of 'em. And Gore's the guy who's kickin' back and waiting for the girl and boy-wonder to deflate each other's heretofore colossal hype.
Last week David Geffen got the flying fur off to an early start when he made sweet L.A. music with Obama, helping the junior Senator and presidential hopeful rake in a cool $1.3-Beverly Hills million from his rich and powerful friends on the Left Coast.
This is the same Geffen whose nose used to be so far up Bill Clinton's butt that he could see Hope, AR. Adding insult to injury, the music mogul told NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd that Hillary was unelectable and questioned both Clintons' ethics and trustworthiness: "Everyone in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."
Enter The War Room. Clinton's chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, aggressively responded by demanding that Obama disavow attacks from Geffen and return his money if Obama is "indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics." This brought a terse, sarcastic reply from Obama's chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs: "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.
"Meow! And it's only February '07, for Pete's Sake.
By Summer, Gore will likely be stepping over the bodies to claim his rightful frontrunner status. And what's that you say...you need even another reason it's clear Gore will be tossing his hat into this three-ring circus? Check out the new and improved slimmer Goracle at Sunday's Oscars. Now if that isn't proof he's running.....
On another subject......we could use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of providing scholarships and grants to women filmmakers. And we're already underway: We've just made plans with NYU's Tisch School of the Arts to provide an annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation Scholarship; and at Columbia University's graduate school an Adrienne Shelly Foundation Grant to an end-of-year student film competition finalist. Other initiatives will soon be finalized as well. As many of you know, Adrienne was brutally killed here in NYC on November 1st. Please visit our website to learn more about our mission and to make a donation. Every little contribution helps preserve Adrienne's legacy, and to help create something positive out of this horrible tragedy. Thank you.
posted by The Ostroy Report @ 5:23 PM
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
For Clinton and Obama, the stakes are tremendous. One wants to be the nation's first black president, the other its first female. Hillary comes from the Clinton school of highly aggressive, highly calculating, political mastery. Obama's the smooth "stay-above-the-fray" guy who's already shown that he can fray it with the best of 'em. And Gore's the guy who's kickin' back and waiting for the girl and boy-wonder to deflate each other's heretofore colossal hype.
Last week David Geffen got the flying fur off to an early start when he made sweet L.A. music with Obama, helping the junior Senator and presidential hopeful rake in a cool $1.3-Beverly Hills million from his rich and powerful friends on the Left Coast.
This is the same Geffen whose nose used to be so far up Bill Clinton's butt that he could see Hope, AR. Adding insult to injury, the music mogul told NY Times columnist Maureen Dowd that Hillary was unelectable and questioned both Clintons' ethics and trustworthiness: "Everyone in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it's troubling."
Enter The War Room. Clinton's chief spokesman, Howard Wolfson, aggressively responded by demanding that Obama disavow attacks from Geffen and return his money if Obama is "indeed sincere about his repeated claims to change the tone of our politics." This brought a terse, sarcastic reply from Obama's chief spokesman, Robert Gibbs: "We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when he was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom.
"Meow! And it's only February '07, for Pete's Sake.
By Summer, Gore will likely be stepping over the bodies to claim his rightful frontrunner status. And what's that you say...you need even another reason it's clear Gore will be tossing his hat into this three-ring circus? Check out the new and improved slimmer Goracle at Sunday's Oscars. Now if that isn't proof he's running.....
On another subject......we could use your help at The Adrienne Shelly Foundation, a non-profit organization dedicated in my wife's honor to help carry out her spirit and passion, with the goal of providing scholarships and grants to women filmmakers. And we're already underway: We've just made plans with NYU's Tisch School of the Arts to provide an annual Adrienne Shelly Foundation Scholarship; and at Columbia University's graduate school an Adrienne Shelly Foundation Grant to an end-of-year student film competition finalist. Other initiatives will soon be finalized as well. As many of you know, Adrienne was brutally killed here in NYC on November 1st. Please visit our website to learn more about our mission and to make a donation. Every little contribution helps preserve Adrienne's legacy, and to help create something positive out of this horrible tragedy. Thank you.
posted by The Ostroy Report @ 5:23 PM
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Why I decided not to blog for Edwards
I have to say that I agree with this blogger.
I knew that if I was blogging for Edwards, anything I said on Majikthise would be a potential liability for the candidate, even if I wasn't talking about politics.
And aside from the risks to the campaign, I wasn't sure this arrangement would be healthy for my blog. With this responsibility weighing on my mind, how could I continue to deliver the independent perspective that my readers value? If I were suddenly on a candidate's payroll, yet still posting my own "independent" thoughts on Majikthise, what would my longtime readers think? Would they still trust me? Should they? Full disclosure wasn't going to solve the problem of divided loyalties.
Bob and I sat for a long time, nibbling baklava and talking strategy. He asked me if I knew of any other feminist bloggers who might be interested in the job.
I don't remember who brought up Amanda Marcotte's name first. I said Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best.
Bob is a regular reader of Amanda's blog, Pandagon. We reminisced for a while about some classic brawls and blowups that had erupted at Pandagon.
"The thing you have to realize about Amanda is that she's got real enemies," I said. "We've all got trolls, but Amanda gets a whole different level of abuse."
I told Bob this story to give him some idea of the kind of seething hatred the campaign might have to deal with: The first time I heard Amanda on the radio, an angry caller phoned up to say, "You're Amanda Marcotte, and you're a clerical worker at the University of Texas at Austin." He had his facts wrong, but his message was clear. He was trying to get Amanda fired while leaving some darker threat hanging in the air. The host had to cut him off. Since that incident, at least one of Amanda's trolls had called her then-employer and tried unsuccessfully to get her fired.
I tried to suggest that the campaign might not want high-profile bloggers. I thought it might be better off hiring a well-connected political operative with good connections in the blogosphere.
Bob listened attentively, scribbling copious notes. I didn't feel I was making much headway. The Edwards team was obviously looking for the blogospheric equivalent of star power, but they weren't looking for another high-powered blogger/political consultant like Tim Tagaris or Matt Stoller. They wanted a charismatic audience-builder who could connect with readers who weren't political junkies.
I tried to explain this as delicately and clearly as I could: A-list polemicists are popular because they say things you don't hear on television. The blogosphere isn't just "The Situation Room" with swear words, it's a space for writers to explore ideas that are outside the bounds of mainstream discourse.
If you hire these larger-than-life personalities to blog for John Edwards, they'll have to stop espousing many of the radical policy positions and unconventional values that made them popular in the first place.
Fans will also know when a John Edwards message conflicts with the bloggers' own record on an issue. Big-name bloggers hired by campaigns will be accused of "selling out" and open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy from both sides.
What Bob didn't seem to realize is that the right-wing blogosphere was going to try to get Edwards' bloggers fired no matter what. Unlike the liberal netroots, the right-wing blogosphere is capable of exactly one kind of collective political action. They call it "scalping" -- they pick a target and harass that person and his or her employer until the person either jumps or is pushed out of the public eye. Whoever blogged for Edwards was signing up for a lot of bad hair days, and it wasn't going to be me.
I left the meeting feeling optimistic but uneasy. I later applied for a job as a campaign photographer. Taking pictures meant I could work for the candidate without having to type up and post endorsements of political positions I might not agree with. I felt that the Edwards campaign was going to make history one way or another. I would even have put the blog on hiatus for a front-row seat.
When the campaign announced that it had hired Amanda as blogger, I was overjoyed -- but very surprised. It's one thing to have a relatively junior staffer say your blog archives don't matter; it's quite another to see that assessment reflected in a hiring decision.
It was certainly a gutsy move, and I knew Amanda could do a great job. If anyone was inured to right-wing intimidation, it was Amanda. She's been fighting the wingnuts tooth-and-nail for years and she's already shrugged off every epithet in the book.
Upon reading the announcement, my partner Darcy said, "I hope the Edwards campaign knows what it's in for."
"I'm sure they do," I said.
Next page: Campaigns "work" bloggers more or less the same way they work the mainstream press
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
I knew that if I was blogging for Edwards, anything I said on Majikthise would be a potential liability for the candidate, even if I wasn't talking about politics.
And aside from the risks to the campaign, I wasn't sure this arrangement would be healthy for my blog. With this responsibility weighing on my mind, how could I continue to deliver the independent perspective that my readers value? If I were suddenly on a candidate's payroll, yet still posting my own "independent" thoughts on Majikthise, what would my longtime readers think? Would they still trust me? Should they? Full disclosure wasn't going to solve the problem of divided loyalties.
Bob and I sat for a long time, nibbling baklava and talking strategy. He asked me if I knew of any other feminist bloggers who might be interested in the job.
I don't remember who brought up Amanda Marcotte's name first. I said Marcotte was the best writer in the feminist blogosphere. If they wanted a high-profile feminist blogger, Amanda was the best.
Bob is a regular reader of Amanda's blog, Pandagon. We reminisced for a while about some classic brawls and blowups that had erupted at Pandagon.
"The thing you have to realize about Amanda is that she's got real enemies," I said. "We've all got trolls, but Amanda gets a whole different level of abuse."
I told Bob this story to give him some idea of the kind of seething hatred the campaign might have to deal with: The first time I heard Amanda on the radio, an angry caller phoned up to say, "You're Amanda Marcotte, and you're a clerical worker at the University of Texas at Austin." He had his facts wrong, but his message was clear. He was trying to get Amanda fired while leaving some darker threat hanging in the air. The host had to cut him off. Since that incident, at least one of Amanda's trolls had called her then-employer and tried unsuccessfully to get her fired.
I tried to suggest that the campaign might not want high-profile bloggers. I thought it might be better off hiring a well-connected political operative with good connections in the blogosphere.
Bob listened attentively, scribbling copious notes. I didn't feel I was making much headway. The Edwards team was obviously looking for the blogospheric equivalent of star power, but they weren't looking for another high-powered blogger/political consultant like Tim Tagaris or Matt Stoller. They wanted a charismatic audience-builder who could connect with readers who weren't political junkies.
I tried to explain this as delicately and clearly as I could: A-list polemicists are popular because they say things you don't hear on television. The blogosphere isn't just "The Situation Room" with swear words, it's a space for writers to explore ideas that are outside the bounds of mainstream discourse.
If you hire these larger-than-life personalities to blog for John Edwards, they'll have to stop espousing many of the radical policy positions and unconventional values that made them popular in the first place.
Fans will also know when a John Edwards message conflicts with the bloggers' own record on an issue. Big-name bloggers hired by campaigns will be accused of "selling out" and open themselves up to accusations of hypocrisy from both sides.
What Bob didn't seem to realize is that the right-wing blogosphere was going to try to get Edwards' bloggers fired no matter what. Unlike the liberal netroots, the right-wing blogosphere is capable of exactly one kind of collective political action. They call it "scalping" -- they pick a target and harass that person and his or her employer until the person either jumps or is pushed out of the public eye. Whoever blogged for Edwards was signing up for a lot of bad hair days, and it wasn't going to be me.
I left the meeting feeling optimistic but uneasy. I later applied for a job as a campaign photographer. Taking pictures meant I could work for the candidate without having to type up and post endorsements of political positions I might not agree with. I felt that the Edwards campaign was going to make history one way or another. I would even have put the blog on hiatus for a front-row seat.
When the campaign announced that it had hired Amanda as blogger, I was overjoyed -- but very surprised. It's one thing to have a relatively junior staffer say your blog archives don't matter; it's quite another to see that assessment reflected in a hiring decision.
It was certainly a gutsy move, and I knew Amanda could do a great job. If anyone was inured to right-wing intimidation, it was Amanda. She's been fighting the wingnuts tooth-and-nail for years and she's already shrugged off every epithet in the book.
Upon reading the announcement, my partner Darcy said, "I hope the Edwards campaign knows what it's in for."
"I'm sure they do," I said.
Next page: Campaigns "work" bloggers more or less the same way they work the mainstream press
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Junior Doesn't Give A Damn, My Dears
WASHINGTON: Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice urged the Democratic-controlled U.S. Congress not to interfere in the conduct of the Iraq war and suggested President George W. Bush would defy troop withdrawal legislation.
But Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin.
Rice said Sunday that proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to "the worst of micromanagement of military affairs." She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe Bush's plan to send more troops is necessary.
"I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress," Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
"The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she said.
The Senate Democrats' legislation would try to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq by revoking Congress' 2002 vote authorizing Bush's use of force against Saddam Hussein.
One draft version supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also a Democrat, would pull out combat forces by March of next year and restrict U.S. troops to fighting al-Qaida terrorists, training the Iraqi security forces and maintaining Iraq's borders.
Democrats have acknowledged that the proposal does not yet have enough votes to overcome Republican procedural obstacles and a veto by Bush. But they are hoping the latest effort will draw enough Republican support to embarrass the president and keep the pressure on.
Levin said it was appropriate for lawmakers to limit the broad wording of the 2002 war resolution given how the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.
"This is not a surge so much as it is a plunge into Baghdad and into the middle of a civil war," he said. "We're trying to change the policy, and if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah the president needs a check and a balance."
Sensitive to wavering Republicans, Rice made clear that Bush had no intention of backing away from plans to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. While the U.S. role has changed since its overthrow of Saddam, the United States is obligated to see the mission through by working to build a stable and democratic Iraq, she said.
Rice said it is impossible to distinguish what is going on in Iraq from the larger fight against al-Qaida.
"Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organization like al-Qaida," she said of the violence that continues to rock Baghdad.
"I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role," Rice said. "But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field."
Senate Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding resolution critical of Bush's troop plan.
In the House, a nonbinding anti-war measure was approved this month. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, has said she expects the next challenge might be to impose money restrictions and a requirement that the Pentagon adhere to strict readiness standards for troops heading to the war zone.
But that plan has drawn only lukewarm support from Democrats in the Senate and some in the House, who believe it is a politically risky strategy that could be seen as an unconstitutional micromanaging of a president's power to wage war.
"We're going to fund the troops as long as they're there," Levin said.
Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and "This Week" on ABC. Levin was on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
But Sen. Carl Levin, Democratic chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, said lawmakers would step up efforts to force Bush to change course. "The president needs a check and a balance," said Levin.
Rice said Sunday that proposals being drafted by Senate Democrats to limit the war amounted to "the worst of micromanagement of military affairs." She said military leaders such as Gen. David Petraeus, the new U.S. commander in Iraq, believe Bush's plan to send more troops is necessary.
"I can't imagine a circumstance in which it's a good thing that their flexibility is constrained by people sitting here in Washington, sitting in the Congress," Rice said. She was asked in a broadcast interview whether Bush would feel bound by legislation seeking to withdraw combat troops within 120 days.
"The president is going to, as commander in chief, need to do what the country needs done," she said.
The Senate Democrats' legislation would try to limit the mission of U.S. troops in Iraq by revoking Congress' 2002 vote authorizing Bush's use of force against Saddam Hussein.
One draft version supported by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, also a Democrat, would pull out combat forces by March of next year and restrict U.S. troops to fighting al-Qaida terrorists, training the Iraqi security forces and maintaining Iraq's borders.
Democrats have acknowledged that the proposal does not yet have enough votes to overcome Republican procedural obstacles and a veto by Bush. But they are hoping the latest effort will draw enough Republican support to embarrass the president and keep the pressure on.
Levin said it was appropriate for lawmakers to limit the broad wording of the 2002 war resolution given how the situation in Iraq has deteriorated.
"This is not a surge so much as it is a plunge into Baghdad and into the middle of a civil war," he said. "We're trying to change the policy, and if someone wants to call that tying the hands instead of changing the policy, yeah the president needs a check and a balance."
Sensitive to wavering Republicans, Rice made clear that Bush had no intention of backing away from plans to send 21,500 more combat troops to Iraq. While the U.S. role has changed since its overthrow of Saddam, the United States is obligated to see the mission through by working to build a stable and democratic Iraq, she said.
Rice said it is impossible to distinguish what is going on in Iraq from the larger fight against al-Qaida.
"Some of these car bombs may indeed be the work of an organization like al-Qaida," she said of the violence that continues to rock Baghdad.
"I would hope that Congress would recognize that it's very important for them to have the oversight role," Rice said. "But when it comes to the execution of policy in the field, there has to be a clear relationship between the commander in chief and the commanders in the field."
Senate Republicans recently thwarted two Democratic attempts to pass a nonbinding resolution critical of Bush's troop plan.
In the House, a nonbinding anti-war measure was approved this month. Speaker Nancy Pelosi, a Democrat, has said she expects the next challenge might be to impose money restrictions and a requirement that the Pentagon adhere to strict readiness standards for troops heading to the war zone.
But that plan has drawn only lukewarm support from Democrats in the Senate and some in the House, who believe it is a politically risky strategy that could be seen as an unconstitutional micromanaging of a president's power to wage war.
"We're going to fund the troops as long as they're there," Levin said.
Rice appeared on "Fox News Sunday" and "This Week" on ABC. Levin was on "Meet the Press" on NBC.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Junior is Already Making The Case, In Speech After Speech
Are they actually dragging 4 year old speeches and giving them a slighly new do?
Am I having a flashback?
Who put the DMT in my coffee?
What year is this? What decade is it?
Tomgram: Michael Klare, Talking Points for the Next War
At 10:16 PM on March 19, 2003, after copious military preparations in the Persian Gulf region and beyond, after months of diplomatic maneuvers at the United Nations, after a drumbeat of leaked intelligence warnings and hair-raising statements by top U.S. officials and the President about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction and how close Saddam Hussein might be to developing a nuclear weapon, after declaring Saddam's regime a major threat to Americans, after countless insinuations that it was somehow connected to the 9/11 attacks on our country, after endless denials that war with Iraq was necessarily on the administration's agenda, President George W. Bush addressed the nation from the Oval Office. "My fellow citizens," he began, "at this hour, American and coalition forces are in the early stages of military operations to disarm Iraq, to free its people and to defend the world from grave danger…"
Almost four years later, all the above elements are again in place, this time in relation to Iran -- with Iranian responsibility for the deaths of Americans in Iraq replacing Iraqi responsibility for the deaths of Americans in New York and Washington. On a careful reading of our President's latest speeches and statements, Michael Klare has noted that an actual list of charges against Iran, a case for war, has already essentially been drawn up, making it easy enough to imagine that at 10:16 PM on some night not so very distant from this one, from that same desk in the Oval Office, the President of the United States might again begin, "My fellow citizens, at this hour…" But read on for yourself. Tom
Bush's Future Iran War Speech: Three Charges in the Case for War
By Michael T. Klare
Sometime this spring or summer, barring an unexpected turnaround by Tehran, President Bush is likely to go on national television and announce that he has ordered American ships and aircraft to strike at military targets inside Iran. We must still sit through several months of soap opera at the United Nations in New York and assorted foreign capitals before this comes to pass, and it is always possible that a diplomatic breakthrough will occur -- let it be so! -- but I am convinced that Bush has already decided an attack is his only option and the rest is a charade he must go through to satisfy his European allies. The proof of this, I believe, lies half-hidden in recent public statements of his, which, if pieced together, provide a casus belli, or formal list of justifications, for going to war.
Three of his statements, in particular, contained the essence of this justification: his January 10 televised speech on his plan for a troop "surge" in Iraq, his State of the Union Address of January 23, and his first televised press conference of the year on February 14. None of these was primarily focused on Iran, but the President used each of them to warn of the extraordinary dangers that country poses to the United States and to hint at severe U.S. reprisals if the Iranians did not desist from "harming U.S. troops." In each, moreover, he laid out various parts of the overall argument he will certainly use to justify an attack on Iran. String these together in one place and you can almost anticipate what Bush's speechwriters will concoct before he addresses the American people from the Oval Office sometime later this year. Think of them as talking points for the next war.
The first of these revealing statements was Bush's January 10th televised address on Iraq. This speech was supposedly intended to rally public and Congressional support behind his plan to send 21,500 additional U.S. troops into the Iraqi capital and al-Anbar Province, the heartland of the Sunni insurgency. But his presentation that night was so uninspired, so lacking in conviction, that -- according to media commentary and polling data -- few, if any, Americans were persuaded by his arguments. Only once that evening did Bush visibly come alive: When he spoke about the threat to Iraq supposedly posed by Iran.
"Succeeding in Iraq also requires defending its territorial integrity and stabilizing the region in the face of extremist challenges," he declared, which meant, he assured his audience, addressing the problem of Iran. That country, he asserted, "is providing material support for attacks on American troops." (This support was later identified as advanced improvised explosive devices -- IEDs or roadside bombs -- given to anti-American Shiite militias.) Then followed an unambiguous warning: "We will disrupt the attacks on our forces... And we will seek out and destroy the networks providing advanced weaponry and training to our enemies in Iraq."
Consider this item one in his casus belli: Because Iran is aiding and abetting our enemies in Iraq, we are justified in attacking Iran as a matter of self-defense.
Bush put it this way in an interview with Juan Williams of National Public Radio on January 29:
"If Iran escalates its military action in Iraq to the detriment of our troops and/or innocent Iraqi people, we will respond firmly… It makes common sense for the commander-in-chief to say to our troops and the Iraqi people -- and the Iraqi government -- that we will help you defend yourself from people that want to sow discord and harm."
In his January 10 address, the President went on to fill in a second item in any future casus belli:
Iran is seeking nuclear weapons in order to dominate the Middle East to the detriment of our friends in the region -- a goal that it simply cannot be allowed to achieve.
In response to such a possibility, the President declared, "We're also taking other steps to bolster the security of Iraq and protect American interests in the Middle East." These included deploying a second U.S. aircraft carrier battle group to the Gulf region, consisting of the USS John C. Stennis and a flotilla of cruisers, destroyers, and submarines (presumably to provide additional air and missile assets for strikes on Iran), along with additional Patriot anti-missile batteries (presumably to shoot down any Iranian missiles that might be fired in retaliation for an air attack on the country and its nuclear facilities). "And," Bush added, "we will work with others to prevent Iran from gaining nuclear weapons and dominating the region."
Bush added a third item to the casus belli in his State of the Union Address on January 23.
After years of describing Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda as the greatest threats to U.S. interests in the Middle East, he now introduced a new menace: the resurgent Shia branch of Islam led by Iran.
Aside from al-Qaeda and other Sunni extremists, he explained, "it has also become clear that we face an escalating danger from Shia extremists who are just as hostile to America, and are also determined to dominate the Middle East."
Many of these extremists, he noted, "are known to take direction from the regime in Iran," including the Hezbollah movement in Lebanon.
As if to nail down this point, he offered some hair-raising imagery right out of the Left Behind bestselling book series so beloved of Christian evangelicals and their neoconservative allies:
"If American forces step back [from Iraq] before Baghdad is secure, the Iraqi government would be overrun by extremists on all sides. We could expect an epic battle between Shia extremists backed by Iran, and Sunni extremists backed by Al Qaeda and supporters of the old regime. A contagion of violence could spill across the country, and in time the entire region could be drawn into the conflict. For America, this is a nightmare scenario. For the enemy, this is the objective."
As refined by Bush speechwriters, this, then, is the third item in his casus belli for attacking Iran: to prevent a "nightmare scenario" in which the Shia leaders of Iran might emerge as the grandmasters of regional instability, using proxies like Hezbollah to imperil Israel and pro-American regimes in Jordan, Bahrain, and Saudi Arabia -- with potentially catastrophic consequences for the safety of Middle Eastern oil supplies. You can be sure of what Bush will say to this in his future address: No American president would ever allow such a scenario to come to pass.
Many of these themes were reiterated in the president's White House Valentine's Day press conference. Once again, Iraq was meant to be the main story, but Iran captured all the headlines.
Bush's most widely cited comments on Iran focused on claims of Iranian involvement in the delivery of sophisticated versions of the roadside IEDs that have been responsible for many of the U.S. casualties in recent months. Just a few days earlier, unidentified American military officials in Baghdad had declared that elements of the Iranian military -- specifically, the Quds Force of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards -- were supplying the deadly devices to Shiite militias in Iraq, and that high-ranking Iranian government officials were aware of the deliveries.
These claims were contested by other U.S. officials and members of Congress who expressed doubt about the reliability of the evidence and the intelligence work behind it, but Bush evinced no such uncertainty:
"What we do know is that the Quds force was instrumental in providing these deadly IEDs to networks inside of Iraq. We know that. And we also know that the Quds force is a part of the Iranian government. That's a known."
What is not known, he continued, is just how high up in the Iranian government went the decision-making that led such IEDs to be delivered to the Shia militias in Iraq. But that doesn't matter, he explained. "What matters is, is that they're there... [W]e know they're there, and we're going to protect our troops." As Commander-in-Chief, he insisted, he would "do what is necessary to protect our soldiers in harm's way."
He then went on to indicate that "the biggest problem I see is the Iranians' desire to have a nuclear weapon." He expressed his wish that this problem can be "dealt with" in a peaceful way -- by the Iranians voluntarily agreeing to cease their program to enrich uranium to weapons-grade levels. But he also made it clear that the onus was purely on Tehran to take the necessary action to avoid unspecified harm: "I would like to be at the -- have been given a chance for us to explain that we have no desire to harm the Iranian people."
No reporters at the press conference asked him to explain this odd twist of phrase, delivered in the past tense, about his regret that he was unable to explain to the Iranian people why he had meant them no harm -- presumably after the fact.
However, if you view this as the Bush version of a Freudian slip, one obvious conclusion can be drawn: that the President has already made the decision to begin the countdown for an attack on Iran, and only total capitulation by the Iranians could possibly bring the process to a halt.
Further evidence for this conclusion is provided by Bush's repeated reference to Chapter 7 of the UN Charter. On three separate occasions during the press conference he praised Russia, China, and the "EU3" -- Britain, France, and Germany -- for framing the December 23 Security Council resolution condemning Iran's nuclear activities and imposing economic sanctions on Iran in the context of Chapter 7 -- that is, of "Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression."
This sets the stage for the international community, under UN leadership, to take such steps as may be deemed necessary "to maintain or restore international peace and stability," ranging from mild economic sanctions to full-scale war (steps that are described in Articles 39 to 51). But the December 23 resolution was specifically framed under Article 41, which entails "measures not involving the use of armed force," a stipulation demanded by China and Russia, which have categorically ruled out the use of military force to resolve the nuclear dispute with Iran.
One suspects that President Bush has Chapter 7 on the brain because he now intends to ask for a new resolution under Article 42, which allows the use of military force to restore international peace and stability. But it is nearly inconceivable that Russia and China would approve such a resolution. Such approval would also be tantamount to acknowledging American hegemony worldwide, and this is something they are simply unwilling to do.
So we can expect several months of fruitless diplomacy at the United Nations in which the United States may achieve slightly more severe economic sanctions under Chapter 41 but not approval for military action under Chapter 42. Bush knows that this is the inevitable outcome, and so I am convinced that, in his various speeches and meetings with reporters, he is already preparing the way for a future address to the nation.
In it, he will speak somberly of a tireless American effort to secure a meaningful resolution from the United Nations on Iran with real teeth in it and his deep disappointment that no such resolution has been not forthcoming. He will also point out that, despite the heroic efforts of American diplomats as well as military commanders in Iraq, Iran continues to pose a vital and unchecked threat to American security in Iraq, in the region, and even -- via its nuclear program -- in the wider world.
Further diplomacy, he will insist, appears futile and yet Iran must be stopped. Hence, he will say, "I have made the unavoidable decision to eliminate this vital threat through direct military action," and will announce -- in language eerily reminiscent of his address to the nation on March 19, 2003 -- that a massive air offensive against Iran has already been underway for several hours.
Michael T. Klare is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the defense correspondent of the Nation magazine. He is the author, most recently, of Blood and Oil: The Dangers and Consequences of America's Growing Dependence on Imported Petroleum (Owl Books).
Copyright 2007 Michael T. Klare
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
