Dick Cheney wasn't kidding when he said "full speed ahead," and he wasn't just talking about Iraq.
Feith-Based Intelligence (SUPER-SIZED)
by Devilstower
Fri Apr 27, 2007 at 09:49:15 AM PDT
Back in 2002, George W. Bush had a problem. He couldn't get the intelligence he wanted to justify going to war in Iraq. Oh, he could get lots of information, and some of it even suggested that Iraq was a danger. Only the information generated by intelligence agencies came with lots of caveats, possibilities, and alternatives. That wouldn't do.
Luckily, Cheney had the right man handy in Douglas Feith. Feith was the hardest of hardcore neocons, a protégé of Casper Weinberger who hated diplomacy, hated negotiation, hated every plan that didn't involve a series of loud explosions. Doug Feith was the one guy who could be counted on to never produce anything but black and white answers. In Feith's world, solutions were only generated in the crosshairs of a bomb sight. Negotiation and grey areas were for wimps.
So, the Office of Special Plans was whipped up in the Pentagon as an alternative branch of intelligence sure to generate the damn the facts, full speed ahead documents Bush and Cheney needed to get their war on. Feith, who had previously written an open letter to Bill Clinton calling for immediate war in Iraq, was only too happy to comply. He pulled out his editing pencil and struck down every point of evidence that contradicted the goal of going into Iraq.
Feith didn't expend all this ammo building up a case for taking out Saddam. He also directed his guns toward the CIA. When the CIA reported that the relationship between Iraq and al Qaeda was vague at best, Feith's office fired back their own report, making Osama and Saddam out to be bosom buddies. According to Feith "CIA's interpretation ought to be ignored."
It shouldn't be too surprising to find that Feith and his cohorts had critics among the intelligence community (including Larry Johnson). Critics who just happened to be right. When the Office of Special Projects was closed down in June, 2003, and Feith was sent to make mischief elsewhere, it might have seemed that the intelligence agencies had finally removed a thorn from their sides.
Only, that's not quite how it worked out.
Instead of intelligence ousting Feith's one-side distortions, exactly the opposite happened. Since 2003, there's been a distinct trend. One by one, the intelligence agencies of the United States have been handed over to former military officers, and only those officers who have been most supportive of the Bush approach.
The CIA is now under General Michael Hayden. Hayden led the CIA's development of a huge database of domestic phone calls, saying that he relied on "advice from the White House," that this was legal. Hayden is also the guy who argued that "probable cause" was not in the Constitution. His announced strategy for the CIA includes shifting intelligence gathering to private industry.
Lt. General Keith Alexander came in 2005 to head up huge and secretive National Security Agency. Once there, he took over a program called "Trailblazer," which is intended to make it much easier for NSA's 30,000 employees to monitor vast amounts of phone calls and email. Alexander defended handing over information on private citizens to John Bolton. "If anything," said Alexander, "the problem is we probably overprotect."
Vice Admiral Mike McConnell took on a new role as Director of National Intelligence. You might remember him from his arguments in favor of expanding the government's right to peek at email and listen in on telephone conversations sans warrant.
Vice admiral Scott Redd got the top spot at the National Counterterrorism Center, Lt. General Michael Maples came in as director of the Defense Intelligence Agency, and Lt. General Jim Clapper hopped into the Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence position. Next month, the Senate will consider Lt. General Dell Dailey to run the office of counterterrorism at the State Department.
See a trend? It's not that Feith was routed from the Pentagon. It's that a cadre of Feith clones have been placed in charge of all intelligence. Every intelligence agency is now part of the super-sized Office of Special Plans.
The advantages for the Bush team are numerous:
Politicization of the intelligence community.
Politicization of the military.
Elimination of diplomatic options
Military officers who don't demonstrate their loyalty are allowed to retire. Sure, they can snip from the sidelines, but that can be passed off as sour grapes (and besides, these guys make excellent scapegoats). Intelligence staff who don't agree with the new direction are passed over, given less attractive assignments, and gradually forced from office. Military officers who toe the neocon line are offered an opportunity to extend their careers into a new area, to reshape intelligence in their image, and to blow away the fuzzy-wuzzy barriers of diplomacy and legalities that had stifled them in the past. A spot high up in intelligence becomes the cherry on top of a military career -- a cherry reserved for those who have the right politics. The end result is an intelligence community composed only of men who know how to swing a hammer -- which makes every problem look very much like a nail.
In the build up for Iraq, there were few at the top of the intelligence chain willing to stand in defense of the truth (and no, warmed over memoirs delivered four years too late don't count). Next time around, Bush will be assured that all the intelligence he receives fits his preconceived world view. The Expanded Office of Special Plans will see to that.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. 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.
Saturday, April 28, 2007
WTF Does That Mean, Vladimir?
What exactly do you plan to do?
Nothing insane, I hope.
Some of us simply must keep our wits about us. Nukes are a hellish way to die, for many.and there are far too many kooks with nukes in the world, right now, if you get my drift.
Hope you aren't one of them.
Surely, you understand by now, that the totally-addicted capitalists simply must have some kind of war going on somewhere, or their portfolios will sag, like the rest of them.
Cold Wars, Hot Wars, who cares, just keep people scared enough to pay the protection money.
They all thought they were going broke when the Berlin wall came down. It scarred them, I am afarid. The have had some kind of massive breakdown or something.
Have you, Sir, found a way to get wealthy by planning and working toward the nightmarish deaths of millons?
I hope not, for your own soul's sake, Sir.
I don't blame you for not trusting Junior. I certainly don't. Most of the world's population doesn't.
All I am saying, is give us a chance.....
Give peace a chance.
Who cares about the elite and their damn portfolios of death and carnage? Let 'em sag.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW (Reuters) -
President Vladimir Putin on Friday renewed criticism of U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe, saying Russia would take "appropriate measures" to counter the system.
Putin told Czech President Vaclav Klaus at a Kremlin meeting that the proposed missile shield would be used to track Russian military activities.
"These systems will monitor Russian territory as far as the Ural mountains if we don't come out with a response," Putin told Klaus. "And we will indeed do this. Anyone would."
"We will not get hysterical about this. We will just take appropriate measures," he said, without elaborating.
Russia views the U.S. plan to base 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic from 2012 as a major threat to its national security.
Washington says the system is needed to defend Europe and U.S. forces there against what it calls "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. But top Russian politicians say the U.S. plan could disrupt European stability and fuel a new Cold War-style arms race.
Moscow's top brass say the missile shield does not pose any immediate military threat for Russia, but warn that Russia will have to develop new anti-missile technology to counter it. Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
(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.
Nothing insane, I hope.
Some of us simply must keep our wits about us. Nukes are a hellish way to die, for many.and there are far too many kooks with nukes in the world, right now, if you get my drift.
Hope you aren't one of them.
Surely, you understand by now, that the totally-addicted capitalists simply must have some kind of war going on somewhere, or their portfolios will sag, like the rest of them.
Cold Wars, Hot Wars, who cares, just keep people scared enough to pay the protection money.
They all thought they were going broke when the Berlin wall came down. It scarred them, I am afarid. The have had some kind of massive breakdown or something.
Have you, Sir, found a way to get wealthy by planning and working toward the nightmarish deaths of millons?
I hope not, for your own soul's sake, Sir.
I don't blame you for not trusting Junior. I certainly don't. Most of the world's population doesn't.
All I am saying, is give us a chance.....
Give peace a chance.
Who cares about the elite and their damn portfolios of death and carnage? Let 'em sag.
He who lives by the sword, dies by the sword.
By Oleg Shchedrov
MOSCOW (Reuters) -
President Vladimir Putin on Friday renewed criticism of U.S. plans to deploy a missile shield in Eastern Europe, saying Russia would take "appropriate measures" to counter the system.
Putin told Czech President Vaclav Klaus at a Kremlin meeting that the proposed missile shield would be used to track Russian military activities.
"These systems will monitor Russian territory as far as the Ural mountains if we don't come out with a response," Putin told Klaus. "And we will indeed do this. Anyone would."
"We will not get hysterical about this. We will just take appropriate measures," he said, without elaborating.
Russia views the U.S. plan to base 10 missile interceptors in Poland and radar in the Czech Republic from 2012 as a major threat to its national security.
Washington says the system is needed to defend Europe and U.S. forces there against what it calls "rogue states" such as Iran and North Korea. But top Russian politicians say the U.S. plan could disrupt European stability and fuel a new Cold War-style arms race.
Moscow's top brass say the missile shield does not pose any immediate military threat for Russia, but warn that Russia will have to develop new anti-missile technology to counter it. Continued...
© Reuters 2007. All Rights Reserved.
(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.
Thanks One Helluva Lot, Bucheney!
Terror attacks up 29%, report says
By Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.
The annual report's release comes amid a bitter feud between the White House and Congress over funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and a deadline favored by Democrats to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.
Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said.
"We're proceeding in normal fashion with the final review of this and expect it to be released early next week," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.
A half-dozen U.S. officials with knowledge of the report's contents or the debate surrounding it agreed to discuss those topics on the condition they not be identified because of the extreme political sensitivities surrounding the war and the report.
Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community's National Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005.
Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq.
Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in at least one fatality, also up from 2005.
The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don't include strikes against U.S. troops.
Even after this year's report was largely completed and approved, Rice and her aides this week called for a further round of review, in part to avoid repeating embarrassing missteps of recent years in the report's release, officials said. The review process is being led by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, formerly the nation's intelligence czar.
The U.S. intelligence community is said to be preparing a separate, classified report on terrorist "safe havens" worldwide, and officials have debated whether Iraq meets that definition.
The report can be expected to be used as ammunition for both sides in the domestic battle over the Iraq war.
President Bush and his aides routinely call Iraq the "central front" in Bush's war on terrorism and likely will say that the preponderance of attacks there and in Afghanistan prove their point.
But critics say the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have worsened the terrorist threat.
The contention by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that al-Qaida terrorists were in Iraq and allied with the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the invasion has been disproved on numerous fronts.
In September, a Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Saddam rejected pleas for assistance from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and tried to capture another terrorist whose presence in Iraq is often cited by Cheney, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the Senate report said.
Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who also worked in counterterrorism at the State Department, said that while the new report would show major increases in attacks last year in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could chart reductions in mass casualty attacks in the rest of the world.
"The good news is ... we're seeing verifiable and drastic reductions," he said.
Among the major strikes were bombings in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Dahab on April 24, which killed 23 people and injured more than 60, and aboard trains in Mumbai, India, that left more than 200 dead and in excess of 700 wounded on July 11.
In 2004, the State Department was forced to correct a first version of the report that the administration had used to tout progress in Bush's war on terror. The original version had undercounted the number of people killed in terrorist attacks in 2003, putting it at less than half of the actual number.
In 2005, the department was again accused of playing politics with the report when it decided not to publish the document after U.S. officials concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985.
The outcry forced Rice to drop that plan and publish the report.
(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 Warren P. Strobel and Jonathan S. Landay
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A State Department report on terrorism due out next week will show a nearly 30 percent increase in terrorist attacks worldwide in 2006 to more than 14,000, almost all of the boost due to growing violence in Iraq and Afghanistan, U.S. officials said Friday.
The annual report's release comes amid a bitter feud between the White House and Congress over funding for U.S. troops in Iraq and a deadline favored by Democrats to begin a U.S. troop withdrawal.
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and her top aides earlier this week had considered postponing or downplaying the release of this year's edition of the terrorism report, officials in several agencies and on Capitol Hill said.
Ultimately, they decided to issue the report on or near the congressionally mandated deadline of Monday, the officials said.
"We're proceeding in normal fashion with the final review of this and expect it to be released early next week," State Department deputy spokesman Tom Casey said.
A half-dozen U.S. officials with knowledge of the report's contents or the debate surrounding it agreed to discuss those topics on the condition they not be identified because of the extreme political sensitivities surrounding the war and the report.
Based on data compiled by the U.S. intelligence community's National Counterterrorism Center, the report says there were 14,338 terrorist attacks last year, up 29 percent from 11,111 attacks in 2005.
Forty-five percent of the attacks were in Iraq.
Worldwide, there were about 5,800 terrorist attacks that resulted in at least one fatality, also up from 2005.
The figures for Iraq and elsewhere are limited to attacks on noncombatants and don't include strikes against U.S. troops.
Even after this year's report was largely completed and approved, Rice and her aides this week called for a further round of review, in part to avoid repeating embarrassing missteps of recent years in the report's release, officials said. The review process is being led by Deputy Secretary of State John Negroponte, formerly the nation's intelligence czar.
The U.S. intelligence community is said to be preparing a separate, classified report on terrorist "safe havens" worldwide, and officials have debated whether Iraq meets that definition.
The report can be expected to be used as ammunition for both sides in the domestic battle over the Iraq war.
President Bush and his aides routinely call Iraq the "central front" in Bush's war on terrorism and likely will say that the preponderance of attacks there and in Afghanistan prove their point.
But critics say the U.S. invasion and occupation of Iraq have worsened the terrorist threat.
The contention by Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney that al-Qaida terrorists were in Iraq and allied with the late Iraqi President Saddam Hussein before the invasion has been disproved on numerous fronts.
In September, a Senate Intelligence Committee report found that Saddam rejected pleas for assistance from al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden and tried to capture another terrorist whose presence in Iraq is often cited by Cheney, the late Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.
"Postwar findings indicate that Saddam Hussein was distrustful of al-Qaida and viewed Islamic extremists as a threat to his regime, refusing all requests from al-Qaida to provide material or operational support," the Senate report said.
Larry C. Johnson, a former CIA officer who also worked in counterterrorism at the State Department, said that while the new report would show major increases in attacks last year in Iraq and Afghanistan, it could chart reductions in mass casualty attacks in the rest of the world.
"The good news is ... we're seeing verifiable and drastic reductions," he said.
Among the major strikes were bombings in the Egyptian Red Sea resort of Dahab on April 24, which killed 23 people and injured more than 60, and aboard trains in Mumbai, India, that left more than 200 dead and in excess of 700 wounded on July 11.
In 2004, the State Department was forced to correct a first version of the report that the administration had used to tout progress in Bush's war on terror. The original version had undercounted the number of people killed in terrorist attacks in 2003, putting it at less than half of the actual number.
In 2005, the department was again accused of playing politics with the report when it decided not to publish the document after U.S. officials concluded that there were more terrorist attacks in 2004 than in any year since 1985.
The outcry forced Rice to drop that plan and publish the report.
(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.
CIA Warned W.H. Of Possible Bad Consequences Of Invasion of Iraq
Tenet's book lists failures in war run-up
By Scott LindlawAssociated Press
April 28, 2007
SAN FRANCISCO --
The CIA warned the Bush White House seven months before the 2003 Iraq invasion that the United States could face a thicket of bad consequences, starting with "anarchy and the territorial breakup" of the country, former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book.
Agency analysts wrote the warning at the start of August 2002 and inserted it into a briefing book distributed at an early September meeting of President Bush's national security team at Camp David, Tenet writes.
The CIA analysis painted what Tenet calls additional "worst-case" scenarios: "a surge of global terrorism against U.S. interests fueled by deepening Islamic antipathy toward the United States"; "regime-threatening instability in key Arab states"; and "major oil supply disruptions and severe strains in the Atlantic alliance."
While the CIA and other U.S. intelligence agencies have been widely criticized for being wrong about much of the prewar intelligence on Iraq, the analysis Tenet describes concerning postwar scenarios seems prescient.
But he cautions against concluding that the agency predicted many of the difficulties that followed. "Doing so would be disingenuous," because the agency saw them as possible scenarios, not certainties, he writes. "The truth is often more complex than convenient."
A copy of Tenet's book, "At the Center of the Storm," was purchased by a reporter Friday at a retail outlet, ahead of its scheduled Monday release. Tenet served as CIA chief from 1997 to 2004.
The book is highly critical of Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials, who Tenet argues rushed the U.S. into war in Iraq without serious debate -- a charge the White House rejected on Friday.Chastising Cheney, Tenet writes: "Policymakers have a right to their own opinions, but not their own set of facts."Tenet also contends the administration failed to adequately consider what would come in the war's aftermath.Senior White House counselor Dan Bartlett dismissed Tenet's portrait of an administration that rushed to war in Iraq without serious debate."The president did wrestle with those very serious questions," Bartlett said.
And while calling Tenet a "true patriot," Barlett said he might have been unaware of the breadth of the prewar debate that led Bush to dismiss other options, such as diplomatic means, for reining in then-Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein.
In the book, Tenet offers a litany of questions that went unasked:*"What impact would a large American occupying force have in an Arab country in the heart of the Middle East?"*"What kind of political strategy would be necessary to cause the Iraqi society to coalesce in a post-Saddam world and maximize the chances for our success?"*"How would the presence of hundreds of thousands of U.S. troops, and the possibility of a pro-West Iraqi government, be viewed in Iran?
Copyright © 2007, Chicago Tribune
(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.
CEOs In This Country Need To Be Taught A Lesson!
It may well take the people to teach them. They are not as invulnerable as they think they are!
Fat Cat CEOs Strike Back at Congress
By Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet
Posted on April 13, 2007,
Printed on April 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/50395/
Does CEO pay in the United States need anymore fixing?
The 160 corporate CEOs who make up the Business Roundtable -- the nation's single most influential business lobbying group -- don't appear to think so. The Business Roundtable is currently leading the corporate charge against congressional efforts to legislate new checks on executive compensation.
Executive pay reforms already in place, the group's president assured Congress last month, are more than adequately addressing the concerns Americans may have about corporate behavior.
"A wave of reforms over the past five years," the Business Roundtable's John Castellani testified, "has resulted in improved investor confidence in our corporations, growth in the stock market and continued shareholder returns."
CEOs in the Business Roundtable do have one more reason -- unmentioned in Castellani's testimony -- to feel comfortable with today's executive pay status quo. They're making out like bandits.
In 2006, Business Roundtable execs took home paychecks that added up to a $9.9 million median. The comparable take-home for major corporate CEOs overall, according to just-released Wall Street Journal data: only $6.5 million.
Business Roundtable chief executives are doing even better compared to average Americans. In 2006, the CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable saw their pay jump 10.6 percent, nearly three times more than the average wage increase of 3.7 percent that went to typical U.S. white-collar workers.
All these executive pay numbers actually understate the real pay gap in today's Corporate America. These totals, for instance, don't count the value of the towering stashes of deferred pay and pension dollars that await top execs on their retirement day.
At least 10 CEOs, researchers at the Corporate Library note, are now set to collect over $50 million in pension and deferred pay when they make their exit. AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre will walk off with $158.4 million, Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani another $124 million.
We know all this because last summer the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that regulates publicly traded companies, announced new regulations that require corporations to reveal more about what they pay their top executives.
The powerful Business Roundtable publicly supports this new SEC disclosure standard -- and regularly trots out this support to demonstrate its credentials as an enlightened and responsible voice in America's corporate community. But the Business Roundtable has steadfastly opposed any efforts at CEO pay reform that go beyond disclosure or any other reforms already in place.
Two such congressional efforts are now before lawmakers.
In the House, Rep. Barney Frank's Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act has already gained the approval of the Financial Services Committee. This legislation, if enacted, would give shareholders the right to take a "nonbinding" advisory vote on CEO pay plans.
In the Senate, lawmakers have passed -- as part of the minimum wage increase compromise package -- a tax code change that sets a $1 million cap on the amount of annual compensation corporate executives can have "deferred" and shielded from income tax.
Deferred pay arrangements recently helped Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli and Pfizer chief Henry McKinnell walk off with severance packages worth about $200 million each.
McKinnell chaired the Business Roundtable from November 2003 through July 2006. His executive pals at the Roundtable are now working to deep-six the Senate deferred pay cap. At last month's House hearing on executive pay, Business Roundtable president Castellani tagged the Senate deferred pay cap and the House shareholder vote proposal as equally objectionable.
Objections from the Business Roundtable carry considerable weight. The CEOs who constitute the Business Roundtable membership lead companies that employ over 10 million workers and account for "nearly a third of the total value" on U.S. stock markets.
This enormous Business Roundtable clout on Capitol Hill, if truly focused on ending the corporate pay abuses that have average Americans upset and alarmed, could make a real difference. That's a difference that CEOs in the Business Roundtable, so far at least, apparently don't feel they can "afford" to make.
Sarah Anderson, the director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Sam Pizzigati, the editor of the Too Much online weekly and an associate fellow at IPS, are among the co-authors of the new report "Selfish Interest: How Much Business Roundtable CEOs Stand to Lose From Real Reform of Runaway Executive Pay."
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50395/
(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.
Fat Cat CEOs Strike Back at Congress
By Sarah Anderson and Sam Pizzigati, AlterNet
Posted on April 13, 2007,
Printed on April 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/50395/
Does CEO pay in the United States need anymore fixing?
The 160 corporate CEOs who make up the Business Roundtable -- the nation's single most influential business lobbying group -- don't appear to think so. The Business Roundtable is currently leading the corporate charge against congressional efforts to legislate new checks on executive compensation.
Executive pay reforms already in place, the group's president assured Congress last month, are more than adequately addressing the concerns Americans may have about corporate behavior.
"A wave of reforms over the past five years," the Business Roundtable's John Castellani testified, "has resulted in improved investor confidence in our corporations, growth in the stock market and continued shareholder returns."
CEOs in the Business Roundtable do have one more reason -- unmentioned in Castellani's testimony -- to feel comfortable with today's executive pay status quo. They're making out like bandits.
In 2006, Business Roundtable execs took home paychecks that added up to a $9.9 million median. The comparable take-home for major corporate CEOs overall, according to just-released Wall Street Journal data: only $6.5 million.
Business Roundtable chief executives are doing even better compared to average Americans. In 2006, the CEOs who belong to the Business Roundtable saw their pay jump 10.6 percent, nearly three times more than the average wage increase of 3.7 percent that went to typical U.S. white-collar workers.
All these executive pay numbers actually understate the real pay gap in today's Corporate America. These totals, for instance, don't count the value of the towering stashes of deferred pay and pension dollars that await top execs on their retirement day.
At least 10 CEOs, researchers at the Corporate Library note, are now set to collect over $50 million in pension and deferred pay when they make their exit. AT&T CEO Ed Whitacre will walk off with $158.4 million, Occidental Petroleum CEO Ray Irani another $124 million.
We know all this because last summer the Securities and Exchange Commission, the federal agency that regulates publicly traded companies, announced new regulations that require corporations to reveal more about what they pay their top executives.
The powerful Business Roundtable publicly supports this new SEC disclosure standard -- and regularly trots out this support to demonstrate its credentials as an enlightened and responsible voice in America's corporate community. But the Business Roundtable has steadfastly opposed any efforts at CEO pay reform that go beyond disclosure or any other reforms already in place.
Two such congressional efforts are now before lawmakers.
In the House, Rep. Barney Frank's Shareholder Vote on Executive Compensation Act has already gained the approval of the Financial Services Committee. This legislation, if enacted, would give shareholders the right to take a "nonbinding" advisory vote on CEO pay plans.
In the Senate, lawmakers have passed -- as part of the minimum wage increase compromise package -- a tax code change that sets a $1 million cap on the amount of annual compensation corporate executives can have "deferred" and shielded from income tax.
Deferred pay arrangements recently helped Home Depot CEO Robert Nardelli and Pfizer chief Henry McKinnell walk off with severance packages worth about $200 million each.
McKinnell chaired the Business Roundtable from November 2003 through July 2006. His executive pals at the Roundtable are now working to deep-six the Senate deferred pay cap. At last month's House hearing on executive pay, Business Roundtable president Castellani tagged the Senate deferred pay cap and the House shareholder vote proposal as equally objectionable.
Objections from the Business Roundtable carry considerable weight. The CEOs who constitute the Business Roundtable membership lead companies that employ over 10 million workers and account for "nearly a third of the total value" on U.S. stock markets.
This enormous Business Roundtable clout on Capitol Hill, if truly focused on ending the corporate pay abuses that have average Americans upset and alarmed, could make a real difference. That's a difference that CEOs in the Business Roundtable, so far at least, apparently don't feel they can "afford" to make.
Sarah Anderson, the director of the Global Economy Project at the Institute for Policy Studies, and Sam Pizzigati, the editor of the Too Much online weekly and an associate fellow at IPS, are among the co-authors of the new report "Selfish Interest: How Much Business Roundtable CEOs Stand to Lose From Real Reform of Runaway Executive Pay."
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/50395/
(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 Do We Elect People To Govern, Who Hate Government?
America Since 1980: A Right Turn Leading to a Dead End
By Dean Baker, AlterNetPosted on April 27, 2007, Printed on April 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51086/
Editor's note: this is adapted from Dean Baker's new book, The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980).
U.S. politics took a sharp turn to the right in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Domestically, Reagan touted an agenda that would lead to a sharp upward redistribution of income. Internationally, Reagan explicitly rejected the "détente" framework for engaging the Soviet Union that had been accepted by the leadership of both major parties since the beginning of the Cold War. In its place, Reagan put forward a doctrine of U.S. unilateralism in which the United States basically claimed the right to do whatever it wanted, unconstrained by allies or international institutions.
The welfare state in the United States was always weaker than in West Europe, but in 1980 it was reasonable to believe that West Europe presented a model that the United States would follow. Medicare and Medicaid were still relatively new programs, having been established just 14 years earlier. Having recently seen a massive expansion of publicly provided healthcare coverage, many people believed that it would not be long before healthcare coverage was extended to the entire population. Other features of European welfare states, such as long vacations, short work weeks, and paid parental leave (generally maternity leave at the time), also seemed feasible political goals.
Reagan's election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program's funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government -- law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families.
The Reagan administration also made weakening the power of unions a top priority. The people he appointed to the National Labor Relations Board were qualitatively more pro-management than appointees by prior Democratic or Republican presidents. This allowed companies to ignore workers' rights with impunity. Reagan also made the firing of strikers an acceptable business practice when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Many large corporations quickly embraced the practice. Also, his high dollar policy in the mid-'80s was a severe blow to manufacturing unions, who suddenly had to compete against low-cost imports that were essentially subsidized by an overvalued dollar.
The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. Inequality soared, as the vast majority of the gains from economic growth over the next quarter century went to high-end wage earners (e.g., doctors, lawyers, CEOs) and profits. The wages of typical workers increased little from 1980 to 2006.
On the international side, Reagan followed through on his campaign promise to reject the arms control agreements that previous administrations had negotiated with the Soviets. He insisted on going back to the drawing board and negotiating proposals for arms reduction, not just freezes. While Reagan eventually found a more accommodating enemy than he had anticipated when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, his belligerence towards the Soviet
Union was a deliberate break with prior administrations.
Reagan was also willing to act aggressively, and often alone, in other foreign policy matters. For example, throughout his presidency he sustained a guerilla war against the democratically elected government in Nicaragua. This war often put the United States at odds with its allies in West Europe. When Reagan invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada in 1983 (population @100,000), he couldn't even enlist the support of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, his conservative political soul mate.
The United States has largely continued Reagan's policy of unilateralism through subsequent administrations. It has consistently refused to be bound by important international agreements regarding issues such as human rights, war crimes, and greenhouse gas emissions. And of course, the fact that United Nations would not support an invasion of Iraq did not deter the Bush administration or even prompt the Democratic leadership in Congress to oppose the invasion.
But, the right-turn path may be reaching a dead end. In terms of the economy, we have had a quarter century of top heavy growth in which the vast majority of economic gains have gone to the richest 10 percent of the population. While the economy has generally been boosted by a virtuous cycle in which productivity growth lead to wage growth, which in turn lead to consumption growth and then further productivity and wage growth, the key stimulus for growth in the last decade has been financial bubbles, first in the stock market and more recently in the housing market. With the latter bubble beginning to unwind, the economy's prospects do not look bright.
Internationally, the days when the United States was the biggest boy on the block are rapidly coming to an end. The United States is still the world's largest economy, but China's economy is almost 80 percent of its size and growing very rapidly. It will not be long before China's economy is larger than our economy. As its economy begins to surpass the size of the U.S. economy, its military strength will likely soon exceed that of the United States as well.
Even barring any military conflict with China, which is highly unlikely, the ability of the United States to impose its will on China is very limited at this point, as it has very few cards to play. In fact, the ability of the United States to impose its will on much of the world has been sharply constrained by the fact that it is now a huge debtor nation that is borrowing $800 billion a year and that it has most of its military bogged down in the Iraq War.
This is a bad situation for a bully to be in. After a quarter century of not caring about the concerns of other countries, the United States is facing a situation where other countries may not care much about our plight. We may soon wish that we had spent more effort building up meaningful international institutions when we had the opportunity.
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51086/
(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 Dean Baker, AlterNetPosted on April 27, 2007, Printed on April 28, 2007
http://www.alternet.org/story/51086/
Editor's note: this is adapted from Dean Baker's new book, The United States since 1980 (The World Since 1980).
U.S. politics took a sharp turn to the right in 1980 with the election of Ronald Reagan as president. Domestically, Reagan touted an agenda that would lead to a sharp upward redistribution of income. Internationally, Reagan explicitly rejected the "détente" framework for engaging the Soviet Union that had been accepted by the leadership of both major parties since the beginning of the Cold War. In its place, Reagan put forward a doctrine of U.S. unilateralism in which the United States basically claimed the right to do whatever it wanted, unconstrained by allies or international institutions.
The welfare state in the United States was always weaker than in West Europe, but in 1980 it was reasonable to believe that West Europe presented a model that the United States would follow. Medicare and Medicaid were still relatively new programs, having been established just 14 years earlier. Having recently seen a massive expansion of publicly provided healthcare coverage, many people believed that it would not be long before healthcare coverage was extended to the entire population. Other features of European welfare states, such as long vacations, short work weeks, and paid parental leave (generally maternity leave at the time), also seemed feasible political goals.
Reagan's election changed the political reality. His agenda was rolling back the welfare state, and his budgets included a wide range of cuts for social programs. He was also very strategic about the process. One of his first targets was Legal Aid. This program, which provides legal services for low-income people, was staffed largely by progressive lawyers, many of whom used it as a base to win precedent-setting legal disputes against the government. Reagan drastically cut back the program's funding. He also explicitly prohibited the agency from taking on class-action suits against the government -- law suits that had been used with considerable success to expand the rights of low- and moderate-income families.
The Reagan administration also made weakening the power of unions a top priority. The people he appointed to the National Labor Relations Board were qualitatively more pro-management than appointees by prior Democratic or Republican presidents. This allowed companies to ignore workers' rights with impunity. Reagan also made the firing of strikers an acceptable business practice when he fired striking air traffic controllers in 1981. Many large corporations quickly embraced the practice. Also, his high dollar policy in the mid-'80s was a severe blow to manufacturing unions, who suddenly had to compete against low-cost imports that were essentially subsidized by an overvalued dollar.
The net effect of these policies was that union membership plummeted, going from nearly 20 percent of the private sector workforce in 1980 to just over 7 percent in 2006. Inequality soared, as the vast majority of the gains from economic growth over the next quarter century went to high-end wage earners (e.g., doctors, lawyers, CEOs) and profits. The wages of typical workers increased little from 1980 to 2006.
On the international side, Reagan followed through on his campaign promise to reject the arms control agreements that previous administrations had negotiated with the Soviets. He insisted on going back to the drawing board and negotiating proposals for arms reduction, not just freezes. While Reagan eventually found a more accommodating enemy than he had anticipated when Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in the Soviet Union, his belligerence towards the Soviet
Union was a deliberate break with prior administrations.
Reagan was also willing to act aggressively, and often alone, in other foreign policy matters. For example, throughout his presidency he sustained a guerilla war against the democratically elected government in Nicaragua. This war often put the United States at odds with its allies in West Europe. When Reagan invaded the tiny island nation of Grenada in 1983 (population @100,000), he couldn't even enlist the support of British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, his conservative political soul mate.
The United States has largely continued Reagan's policy of unilateralism through subsequent administrations. It has consistently refused to be bound by important international agreements regarding issues such as human rights, war crimes, and greenhouse gas emissions. And of course, the fact that United Nations would not support an invasion of Iraq did not deter the Bush administration or even prompt the Democratic leadership in Congress to oppose the invasion.
But, the right-turn path may be reaching a dead end. In terms of the economy, we have had a quarter century of top heavy growth in which the vast majority of economic gains have gone to the richest 10 percent of the population. While the economy has generally been boosted by a virtuous cycle in which productivity growth lead to wage growth, which in turn lead to consumption growth and then further productivity and wage growth, the key stimulus for growth in the last decade has been financial bubbles, first in the stock market and more recently in the housing market. With the latter bubble beginning to unwind, the economy's prospects do not look bright.
Internationally, the days when the United States was the biggest boy on the block are rapidly coming to an end. The United States is still the world's largest economy, but China's economy is almost 80 percent of its size and growing very rapidly. It will not be long before China's economy is larger than our economy. As its economy begins to surpass the size of the U.S. economy, its military strength will likely soon exceed that of the United States as well.
Even barring any military conflict with China, which is highly unlikely, the ability of the United States to impose its will on China is very limited at this point, as it has very few cards to play. In fact, the ability of the United States to impose its will on much of the world has been sharply constrained by the fact that it is now a huge debtor nation that is borrowing $800 billion a year and that it has most of its military bogged down in the Iraq War.
This is a bad situation for a bully to be in. After a quarter century of not caring about the concerns of other countries, the United States is facing a situation where other countries may not care much about our plight. We may soon wish that we had spent more effort building up meaningful international institutions when we had the opportunity.
Dean Baker is co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research.
© 2007 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/51086/
(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.
Conservatism and Failed Government
Trickle Down Conservatism Infects America
Rick Perlstein
April 27, 2007
Rick Perlstein is a blogger for the Campaign for America's Future.
When your job is documenting how conservatism has failed America, the newspaper looks different. Take Wednesday's USA Today —specifically, that silly page no one reads with a tiny news item from every state. Fifty dots, ones never intended to be connected into a common tale, except the one entitled, "Here's Some Stuff that Happened on April 25, 2007."
Connect them, however, as data points in the consequences of the national experiment of giving conservatives the keys to all three branches to our government, and something more coherent emerges.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia - State lawmakers have started debating two spending plans that could shave pennies off grocery bills or trim income taxes for wealthier residents. The grocery tax cut would save shoppers $1 for each $100 spent and eliminate the tax in the future. Gov. Sanford contends that reducing the state's income tax for top earners would spur the economy.
The bottom line, in other words: Save a couple of bucks a week on groceries if you're an ordinary Joe or Jane. Save tens of thousands a year on income taxes if you're a "top earner."
Madness. But entirely consistent with conservative "philosophy," which claims that helping ordinary people might make them lazy and indolent, but that "reducing the top marginal rate," something that effects only rich people, makes the world a better place—the "trickle down" theory that one of its very architects, Reagan budget director David Stockman, admitted actually created "fiscal catastrophe."
Did someone say fiscal catastrophe? Travel with us to neighboring Tennessee:
TENNESSEE: Chattanooga - The rising cost of oil and the strong demand for concrete have slowed some state highway projects. Costs have climbed 24% from 2004, officials said. To combat the problem, officials are using a thinner application of asphalt in some projects. A dozen road construction projects have been delayed, but none were canceled, according to state Department of Transportation.
Commodity prices sometimes increase sharply and without warning; that's a fact of life. But before conservatives got hold of them, governments practiced a radical notion: socking away spare money for just such unexpected emergies in "rainy day" funds. When politicians started claiming the most noble thing they could do was cut—or never, ever raise—taxes, this is the natural result: thinner applications of asphalt, even as streets around the nation have started opening up and swallowing cars because the pipes underneath them are rotten.
The federal government used to help much more. Now, thanks to federal tax cuts, they can't.
And as I pointed out before, Bush tax cuts lead inevitably to tax hikes in municipalities. Travel with me to lovely Fresno County, California:
CALIFORNIA: Los Osnos - A water rate increase for some 8,000 customers of the city's Community Services District means that they'll be paying 20% more for water starting May 19. The district board said the increase is needed to keep water flowing. The district filed for federal bankruptcy protection last year to deal with nearly $40 million in debt.
Meanwhile, here's what won't be showing in the Show-Me State:
MISSOURI: St. Louis - The Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park will not be open this summer because of damage from the Taum Sauk Reservoir collapse. The move could hurt a region economically dependent on tourists. Johnson's Shut-Ins was devastated in December 2005 when the reservoir failed and sent water rushing through the area. The park, partially opened last year, must shut down entirely this season so repair work can begin, said state Department of Natural Resources Deputy Director Kurt Schaefer.
OK. So we know what consevative government has destroyed—a nation in which we can count on our reservoirs holding and our streets not swallowing up our cars, one where budgeting is based on something other than fantasies about the magic of tax cuts for the rich. But what has it built?
Come with me, dear reader, to Vermont, where USA Today's "Across the USA" page for April 25 takes us to the state's flagship college campus:
VERMONT: Burlington - A dozen University of Vermont students are staging a hunger strike to seek higher wages for the university's lowest paid employees. Based on year-old figures, 256 UVM employees were paid less than $12.28 an hour, the amount considered a livable wage in Burlington. The students, who began the hunger strike Monday, are promising to consume only water and fruit juices. UVM President Dan Fogel says the school offers some of the best wages and benefits in Vermont.
Don't you just love the flacking? Some people at the university get good wages, so that negates the fact that others receive so little they can't survive. It's hard to write about how badly conservative governance has degraded us as a nation because, well, it has so degraded us as a nation: They have managed to make us forget once-sturdy pillars of our national morality. University presidents used to be high-minded civic leaders. Now they've become flacks like everyone else, all in service to a fatter bottom line.
Well, at least conservatives have restored the honor afforded to our brave officers of the law, who work so hard to keep us safe. Conservatives love police, right? Even the strictest libertarian agrees enforcing laws is the bedrock function of government.
Last stop, the Pennsylvania statehouse, and the ascendence of the anti-law enforcement right:
PENNSYLVANIA: Harrisburg - Hundreds of gun-rights advocates packed the state capitol Rotunda as some lawmakers, most of them Republicans, pushed for proposals aimed at expanding those rights. Several participants mentioned their particular opposition to a bill to require annual registration of most guns and a $10 annual fee on firearms. GOP Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants to eliminate a gun-sales database maintained by the state police.
In just one day, six dots to connect across the country about a great nation laid low by the conservatives we mistakenly let govern us, even though they abhor government.
(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 riginator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Rick Perlstein
April 27, 2007
Rick Perlstein is a blogger for the Campaign for America's Future.
When your job is documenting how conservatism has failed America, the newspaper looks different. Take Wednesday's USA Today —specifically, that silly page no one reads with a tiny news item from every state. Fifty dots, ones never intended to be connected into a common tale, except the one entitled, "Here's Some Stuff that Happened on April 25, 2007."
Connect them, however, as data points in the consequences of the national experiment of giving conservatives the keys to all three branches to our government, and something more coherent emerges.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia - State lawmakers have started debating two spending plans that could shave pennies off grocery bills or trim income taxes for wealthier residents. The grocery tax cut would save shoppers $1 for each $100 spent and eliminate the tax in the future. Gov. Sanford contends that reducing the state's income tax for top earners would spur the economy.
The bottom line, in other words: Save a couple of bucks a week on groceries if you're an ordinary Joe or Jane. Save tens of thousands a year on income taxes if you're a "top earner."
Madness. But entirely consistent with conservative "philosophy," which claims that helping ordinary people might make them lazy and indolent, but that "reducing the top marginal rate," something that effects only rich people, makes the world a better place—the "trickle down" theory that one of its very architects, Reagan budget director David Stockman, admitted actually created "fiscal catastrophe."
Did someone say fiscal catastrophe? Travel with us to neighboring Tennessee:
TENNESSEE: Chattanooga - The rising cost of oil and the strong demand for concrete have slowed some state highway projects. Costs have climbed 24% from 2004, officials said. To combat the problem, officials are using a thinner application of asphalt in some projects. A dozen road construction projects have been delayed, but none were canceled, according to state Department of Transportation.
Commodity prices sometimes increase sharply and without warning; that's a fact of life. But before conservatives got hold of them, governments practiced a radical notion: socking away spare money for just such unexpected emergies in "rainy day" funds. When politicians started claiming the most noble thing they could do was cut—or never, ever raise—taxes, this is the natural result: thinner applications of asphalt, even as streets around the nation have started opening up and swallowing cars because the pipes underneath them are rotten.
The federal government used to help much more. Now, thanks to federal tax cuts, they can't.
And as I pointed out before, Bush tax cuts lead inevitably to tax hikes in municipalities. Travel with me to lovely Fresno County, California:
CALIFORNIA: Los Osnos - A water rate increase for some 8,000 customers of the city's Community Services District means that they'll be paying 20% more for water starting May 19. The district board said the increase is needed to keep water flowing. The district filed for federal bankruptcy protection last year to deal with nearly $40 million in debt.
Meanwhile, here's what won't be showing in the Show-Me State:
MISSOURI: St. Louis - The Johnson's Shut-Ins State Park will not be open this summer because of damage from the Taum Sauk Reservoir collapse. The move could hurt a region economically dependent on tourists. Johnson's Shut-Ins was devastated in December 2005 when the reservoir failed and sent water rushing through the area. The park, partially opened last year, must shut down entirely this season so repair work can begin, said state Department of Natural Resources Deputy Director Kurt Schaefer.
OK. So we know what consevative government has destroyed—a nation in which we can count on our reservoirs holding and our streets not swallowing up our cars, one where budgeting is based on something other than fantasies about the magic of tax cuts for the rich. But what has it built?
Come with me, dear reader, to Vermont, where USA Today's "Across the USA" page for April 25 takes us to the state's flagship college campus:
VERMONT: Burlington - A dozen University of Vermont students are staging a hunger strike to seek higher wages for the university's lowest paid employees. Based on year-old figures, 256 UVM employees were paid less than $12.28 an hour, the amount considered a livable wage in Burlington. The students, who began the hunger strike Monday, are promising to consume only water and fruit juices. UVM President Dan Fogel says the school offers some of the best wages and benefits in Vermont.
Don't you just love the flacking? Some people at the university get good wages, so that negates the fact that others receive so little they can't survive. It's hard to write about how badly conservative governance has degraded us as a nation because, well, it has so degraded us as a nation: They have managed to make us forget once-sturdy pillars of our national morality. University presidents used to be high-minded civic leaders. Now they've become flacks like everyone else, all in service to a fatter bottom line.
Well, at least conservatives have restored the honor afforded to our brave officers of the law, who work so hard to keep us safe. Conservatives love police, right? Even the strictest libertarian agrees enforcing laws is the bedrock function of government.
Last stop, the Pennsylvania statehouse, and the ascendence of the anti-law enforcement right:
PENNSYLVANIA: Harrisburg - Hundreds of gun-rights advocates packed the state capitol Rotunda as some lawmakers, most of them Republicans, pushed for proposals aimed at expanding those rights. Several participants mentioned their particular opposition to a bill to require annual registration of most guns and a $10 annual fee on firearms. GOP Rep. Daryl Metcalfe wants to eliminate a gun-sales database maintained by the state police.
In just one day, six dots to connect across the country about a great nation laid low by the conservatives we mistakenly let govern us, even though they abhor government.
(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 riginator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
First Army Officer, Still Serving, Blasts Military Leadership
US officer condemns Iraq strategy
A senior serving US army officer has launched a scathing attack on the US military leadership in Iraq.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling said US generals had failed to prepare their troops properly and had misled Congress about the resources needed for the war.
Writing in the Armed Forces Journal, he said the US had repeated the mistakes of Vietnam and so faced defeat in Iraq.
Such criticism from a serving officer is rare, analysts say, although several retired generals have spoken out.
Lt Col Yingling's remarks come a day after the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, described the situation in Iraq as "exceedingly complex and very tough".
Acknowledging that the US effort "clearly is going to require an enormous commitment over time", he asked Congress to give the new "surge" strategy, of pouring more troops into Baghdad, time to take effect.
Congress, meanwhile, passed a war funding bill setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, despite the threat of a veto by President George W Bush.
'Diminishing hope'
Lt Col Yingling, who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment and has served two tours in Iraq, said the military leadership had entirely failed to grasp what would be needed for success in Iraq.
The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship
Lt Col Paul Yingling
"For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of the security conditions in Iraq," he wrote.
The generals had gone into Iraq in 2003 with too few soldiers and no coherent plan for post-war stabilisation, having spent a decade "preparing to fight the wrong war", he said.
"The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship."
Lt Col Yingling has not singled out any individual for criticism but has urged Congress to take a greater role in monitoring officers' performance and holding them accountable.
He said the US military had done too little to prepare for the kind of intense insurgencies they had encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had then tackled them in the wrong way.
"Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilise post-Saddam Iraq," he wrote.
"In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war."
US military spokesman Lt Col Christopher Garver in Iraq told the Associated Press news agency that Lt Col Yingling had written expressing "his personal opinions".
"We of Multinational Force Iraq are focused on executing the mission at hand," he said.
(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.
A senior serving US army officer has launched a scathing attack on the US military leadership in Iraq.
Lieutenant Colonel Paul Yingling said US generals had failed to prepare their troops properly and had misled Congress about the resources needed for the war.
Writing in the Armed Forces Journal, he said the US had repeated the mistakes of Vietnam and so faced defeat in Iraq.
Such criticism from a serving officer is rare, analysts say, although several retired generals have spoken out.
Lt Col Yingling's remarks come a day after the top US commander in Iraq, General David Petraeus, described the situation in Iraq as "exceedingly complex and very tough".
Acknowledging that the US effort "clearly is going to require an enormous commitment over time", he asked Congress to give the new "surge" strategy, of pouring more troops into Baghdad, time to take effect.
Congress, meanwhile, passed a war funding bill setting a timetable for the withdrawal of US combat troops from Iraq, despite the threat of a veto by President George W Bush.
'Diminishing hope'
Lt Col Yingling, who is deputy commander of the 3rd Armoured Cavalry Regiment and has served two tours in Iraq, said the military leadership had entirely failed to grasp what would be needed for success in Iraq.
The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship
Lt Col Paul Yingling
"For reasons that are not yet clear, America's general officer corps underestimated the strength of the enemy, overestimated the capabilities of Iraq's government and security forces, and failed to provide Congress with an accurate assessment of the security conditions in Iraq," he wrote.
The generals had gone into Iraq in 2003 with too few soldiers and no coherent plan for post-war stabilisation, having spent a decade "preparing to fight the wrong war", he said.
"The intellectual and moral failures common to America's general officer corps in Vietnam and Iraq constitute a crisis in American generalship."
Lt Col Yingling has not singled out any individual for criticism but has urged Congress to take a greater role in monitoring officers' performance and holding them accountable.
He said the US military had done too little to prepare for the kind of intense insurgencies they had encountered in Iraq and Afghanistan, and had then tackled them in the wrong way.
"Given the lack of troop strength, not even the most brilliant general could have devised the ways necessary to stabilise post-Saddam Iraq," he wrote.
"In 2007, Iraq's grave and deteriorating condition offers diminishing hope for an American victory and portends risk of an even wider and more destructive regional war."
US military spokesman Lt Col Christopher Garver in Iraq told the Associated Press news agency that Lt Col Yingling had written expressing "his personal opinions".
"We of Multinational Force Iraq are focused on executing the mission at hand," he said.
(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.
We Need To Leave Iraq, Yesterday
No Pressure, Mr Prime Minister...we are leaving.
How's that for no pressure?
Do what you want and Good Luck, to you, Sir.
Maliki warns US senators Iraq will not accept foreign pressure
Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a delegation of visiting US lawmakers on Saturday that foreign powers should not try to influence the Iraqi political process.
He also resisted calls for his Shiite-led government to rehabilitate former members of ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.
Maliki met a group of US congressmen shortly after their chamber voted for a law calling for a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"During his meeting with members of the US Congress headed by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), Maliki said allowing influence over our affairs to this state or that is a red line that we will not cross," his office announced.
Thursday, the US Senate passed a law that would tie 124 billion dollars in war funds to a commitment to begin withdrawing American forces by October and completing the pull-out on March 31, 2008.
Many US lawmakers have criticised Maliki's government for failing to make progress towards a number of so-called benchmarks -- political reforms which they feel will help to hasten the end of Iraq's sectarian conflict.
But President George W. Bush has vowed to veto any bill which ties the hands of military commanders, while Iraq's Shiite premier insists that Iraq's problems are caused by hardline factions within his Sunni foes.
"Maliki said there are two dangers threatening Iraq, namely Al-Qaeda and the Saddamists, whom he said are leading the arbitrary killings aganist all Iraqis with their differing sects and affiliations," the statement said.
Maliki's statement appeared to warn against calls from US policy-makers for a review of the policy of de-Baathification, under which former members of Saddam's ruling party are barred from public life.
"He said allowing these people access to authority threatens national unity rather than calming the situation as some believe," it said, adding that such a move would hurt Iraqis who "did not resort to crimes and violence."
According to the website of Senator Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, he was in Iraq with Senator Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama and two members of the House of Representatives, Lee Terry (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Devin Nunes (news, bio, voting record) of California.
(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.
How's that for no pressure?
Do what you want and Good Luck, to you, Sir.
Maliki warns US senators Iraq will not accept foreign pressure
Iraq's Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki told a delegation of visiting US lawmakers on Saturday that foreign powers should not try to influence the Iraqi political process.
He also resisted calls for his Shiite-led government to rehabilitate former members of ousted Sunni dictator Saddam Hussein's regime.
Maliki met a group of US congressmen shortly after their chamber voted for a law calling for a timetable for American troop withdrawal from Iraq.
"During his meeting with members of the US Congress headed by Democratic Senator Ben Nelson (news, bio, voting record), Maliki said allowing influence over our affairs to this state or that is a red line that we will not cross," his office announced.
Thursday, the US Senate passed a law that would tie 124 billion dollars in war funds to a commitment to begin withdrawing American forces by October and completing the pull-out on March 31, 2008.
Many US lawmakers have criticised Maliki's government for failing to make progress towards a number of so-called benchmarks -- political reforms which they feel will help to hasten the end of Iraq's sectarian conflict.
But President George W. Bush has vowed to veto any bill which ties the hands of military commanders, while Iraq's Shiite premier insists that Iraq's problems are caused by hardline factions within his Sunni foes.
"Maliki said there are two dangers threatening Iraq, namely Al-Qaeda and the Saddamists, whom he said are leading the arbitrary killings aganist all Iraqis with their differing sects and affiliations," the statement said.
Maliki's statement appeared to warn against calls from US policy-makers for a review of the policy of de-Baathification, under which former members of Saddam's ruling party are barred from public life.
"He said allowing these people access to authority threatens national unity rather than calming the situation as some believe," it said, adding that such a move would hurt Iraqis who "did not resort to crimes and violence."
According to the website of Senator Nelson, a Nebraska Democrat, he was in Iraq with Senator Jeff Sessions (news, bio, voting record) of Alabama and two members of the House of Representatives, Lee Terry (news, bio, voting record) of Nebraska and Devin Nunes (news, bio, voting record) of California.
(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.
Gen. Odom Advises Bush to Sign Iraq Bill
Don't hold your breath, General. They are still making billions off this boondoggle and Junior doesn't want to admit that the war is lost.
This way, he can blame the loss of the war on the Democrats.
It's all politics all the time, with the Bushies
Retired Gen.: Bush should sign Iraq bill
By KASIE HUNT, Associated Press Writer
President Bush should sign legislation starting the withdrawal of U.S. troops from Iraq on Oct. 1, retired Army Lt. Gen. William Odom said Saturday.
"I hope the president seizes this moment for a basic change in course and signs the bill Congress has sent him," Odom said, delivering the Democrats' weekly radio address.
Odom, an outspoken critic of the war who served as the Army's top intelligence officer and headed the National Security Agency during the Reagan administration, delivered the address at the request of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (news, bio, voting record), D-Calif. He said he has never been a Democrat or a Republican.
The general accused Bush of squandering U.S. lives and helping Iran and al-Qaida when he invaded Iraq.
"The challenge we face today is not how to win in Iraq; it is how to recover from a strategic mistake: invading Iraq in the first place," he said. "The president has let (the Iraq war) proceed on automatic pilot, making no corrections in the face of accumulating evidence that his strategy is failing and cannot be rescued. He lets the United States fly further and further into trouble, squandering its influence, money and blood, facilitating the gains of our enemies."
Odom said he doesn't favor congressional involvement in the execution of foreign and military policy, but argued that Bush had been derelict in his responsibilities. This week Congress passed an Iraq war spending bill that would require Bush to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq on Oct. 1.
(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.
It Just Never Stops With These People; Now It's Escort Services
Hey, Junior, thanks for all the morality you brought to D.C. so you could resotre honor to the White House.
Now, would you please take it back to Texas!
Bush official resigns over escort links
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic WriterSat Apr 28, 8:10 AM ET
Randall Tobias, head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure.
It was Tobias' own decision to resign, according to one of the people, who said the issue came up only in the past day or so. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way.
Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.
ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed that he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages.
More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.
Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.
U.S. officials would not confirm the information. A message left on Tobias' voice mail seeking comment was not returned.
Friday evening, the State Department put out a statement announcing Tobias' resignation, saying he "informed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today that he must step down as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator effective immediately."
"He is returning to private life for personal reasons," the statement said.
Tobias held two titles: director of U.S. foreign assistance and administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. His rank was equivalent to deputy secretary of state.
Rice named Tobias to head the two programs in January 2006, and on Wednesday was at the White House, where President Bush praised his efforts coordinating global AIDS relief. Tobias had been the White House's coordinator for global AIDS relief before taking the USAID post.
On Wednesday, Tobias attended a luncheon at the State Department with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes and actress Angelina Jolie, who was in Washington pushing for more U.S. education aid for developing countries.
Before joining the administration, Tobias was a director and chairman of Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company.
"The lives saved and made better around the globe by Randy's work at the State Department constitute a rich legacy on which he can look back with justifiable pride," department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.
Tobias was the second public figure identified as a customer of Palfrey's service. Palfrey recently made good on her threat to identify high-profile clients, listing in court documents a military strategist known for his "shock and awe" combat theories.
Palfrey, 50, was indicted in March by a federal grand jury on charges of running the alleged call-girl ring from her home in Vallejo, Calif. She has denied the escort service engaged in prostitution.
Palfrey claimed she has 46 pounds of phone records involving clients. Efforts to reach her late Friday were unsuccessful. Montgomery Blair Sibley, an attorney who represents Palfrey in non-criminal cases, declined to comment.
In court records, prosecutors estimate that her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, generated more than $2 million in revenue over 13 years, with more than 130 women employed at various times to serve thousands of clients at $200 to $300 a session.
Palfrey had threatened to sell phone records that would identify 10,000 clients to pay for her criminal defense, but a federal judge ordered her not to release them. Palfrey, however, gave them to ABC News before the order took effect.
Prosecutors have accused Palfrey of trying to intimidate potential witnesses by exposing them publicly.
(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.
Now, would you please take it back to Texas!
Bush official resigns over escort links
By ANNE GEARAN, AP Diplomatic WriterSat Apr 28, 8:10 AM ET
Randall Tobias, head of the Bush administration's foreign aid programs, abruptly resigned Friday after his name surfaced in an investigation into a high-priced call-girl ring, said two people in a position to know the circumstances of his departure.
It was Tobias' own decision to resign, according to one of the people, who said the issue came up only in the past day or so. The people spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity because the investigation is still under way.
Tobias submitted his resignation a day after he was interviewed by ABC News for an upcoming program about an alleged prostitution service run by the so-called D.C. Madam.
ABC reported on its Web site late Friday that Tobias confirmed that he had called the Pamela Martin and Associates escort service to have women come to his condo and give him massages.
More recently, Tobias told the network, he has been using a service with Central American women.
Tobias, 65, who is married, told ABC News there had been "no sex" during the women's visits to his condo. His name was on a list of clients given to ABC by Deborah Jeane Palfrey, who owns the escort service and has been charged with running a prostitution ring in the nation's capital.
U.S. officials would not confirm the information. A message left on Tobias' voice mail seeking comment was not returned.
Friday evening, the State Department put out a statement announcing Tobias' resignation, saying he "informed Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice today that he must step down as Director of U.S. Foreign Assistance and U.S. Agency for International Development Administrator effective immediately."
"He is returning to private life for personal reasons," the statement said.
Tobias held two titles: director of U.S. foreign assistance and administrator for the U.S. Agency for International Development. His rank was equivalent to deputy secretary of state.
Rice named Tobias to head the two programs in January 2006, and on Wednesday was at the White House, where President Bush praised his efforts coordinating global AIDS relief. Tobias had been the White House's coordinator for global AIDS relief before taking the USAID post.
On Wednesday, Tobias attended a luncheon at the State Department with Undersecretary of State Karen Hughes and actress Angelina Jolie, who was in Washington pushing for more U.S. education aid for developing countries.
Before joining the administration, Tobias was a director and chairman of Eli Lilly and Co., the Indianapolis-based pharmaceutical company.
"The lives saved and made better around the globe by Randy's work at the State Department constitute a rich legacy on which he can look back with justifiable pride," department spokesman Sean McCormack said Friday.
Tobias was the second public figure identified as a customer of Palfrey's service. Palfrey recently made good on her threat to identify high-profile clients, listing in court documents a military strategist known for his "shock and awe" combat theories.
Palfrey, 50, was indicted in March by a federal grand jury on charges of running the alleged call-girl ring from her home in Vallejo, Calif. She has denied the escort service engaged in prostitution.
Palfrey claimed she has 46 pounds of phone records involving clients. Efforts to reach her late Friday were unsuccessful. Montgomery Blair Sibley, an attorney who represents Palfrey in non-criminal cases, declined to comment.
In court records, prosecutors estimate that her business, Pamela Martin and Associates, generated more than $2 million in revenue over 13 years, with more than 130 women employed at various times to serve thousands of clients at $200 to $300 a session.
Palfrey had threatened to sell phone records that would identify 10,000 clients to pay for her criminal defense, but a federal judge ordered her not to release them. Palfrey, however, gave them to ABC News before the order took effect.
Prosecutors have accused Palfrey of trying to intimidate potential witnesses by exposing them publicly.
(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 Abramoff Mess Has Reached Into The Justice Department
Or so it seems.........
Justice Dept official resigns over investigation connected with Abramoff
by Marisa Taylor and David Whitney
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.
Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.
He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.
When contacted at his home in Washington, Coughlin said he resigned voluntarily because he was relocating to Texas. “I was not asked to resign,” he said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “It’s important to me that it's made clear that I left voluntarily.”
He said he couldn’t comment on the Abramoff investigation, nor on whether he has a job lined up in Texas. He referred all other questions to friend Michael Horowitz.
Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney and former Justice Department official and public corruption prosecutor, did not respond to questions, including about whether he is representing Coughlin. Coughlin also would not say whether he had hired a lawyer.
McClatchy’s source at the Justice Department asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the case.
Coughlin appears to be the first Justice Department official to come under scrutiny in the wide-ranging probe that has implicated a veteran congressman, a deputy Cabinet secretary, a White House aide and eight others. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to three counts in the corruption probe and could face up to 11 years in prison.
It was unclear whether Coughlin is a target in the investigation, which would mean he is under intense scrutiny, or whether he is a subject in the investigation, which would mean investigators have not yet determined whether he committed any wrongdoing.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to respond to any questions about the Abramoff investigation because it is still ongoing. Spokesman Bryan Sierra, however, confirmed Coughlin had resigned. He also said Coughlin had recused himself from the Abramoff investigation.
The disclosure, nevertheless, was another blow to a Justice Department already struggling to recover from the controversy over the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. Democrats and a number of Republicans have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his handling of the ousters, which critics charge were politically motivated.
(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.
Justice Dept official resigns over investigation connected with Abramoff
by Marisa Taylor and David Whitney
McClatchy Newspapers
WASHINGTON - A senior Justice Department official has resigned after coming under scrutiny in the Department’s expanding investigation of convicted super-lobbyist Jack Abramoff, according to a Justice Department official with knowledge of the case.
Making the situation more awkward for the embattled Department, the official, Robert E. Coughlin II, was deputy chief of staff for the criminal division, which is overseeing the Department’s probe of Abramoff.
He stepped down effective April 6 as investigators in Coughlin’s own division ratcheted up their investigation of lobbyist Kevin Ring, Coughlin’s long-time friend and a key associate of Abramoff.
When contacted at his home in Washington, Coughlin said he resigned voluntarily because he was relocating to Texas. “I was not asked to resign,” he said in an interview with McClatchy Newspapers. “It’s important to me that it's made clear that I left voluntarily.”
He said he couldn’t comment on the Abramoff investigation, nor on whether he has a job lined up in Texas. He referred all other questions to friend Michael Horowitz.
Horowitz, a criminal defense attorney and former Justice Department official and public corruption prosecutor, did not respond to questions, including about whether he is representing Coughlin. Coughlin also would not say whether he had hired a lawyer.
McClatchy’s source at the Justice Department asked not to be identified because of the sensitivity of the case.
Coughlin appears to be the first Justice Department official to come under scrutiny in the wide-ranging probe that has implicated a veteran congressman, a deputy Cabinet secretary, a White House aide and eight others. Abramoff has pleaded guilty to three counts in the corruption probe and could face up to 11 years in prison.
It was unclear whether Coughlin is a target in the investigation, which would mean he is under intense scrutiny, or whether he is a subject in the investigation, which would mean investigators have not yet determined whether he committed any wrongdoing.
A Justice Department spokesman declined to respond to any questions about the Abramoff investigation because it is still ongoing. Spokesman Bryan Sierra, however, confirmed Coughlin had resigned. He also said Coughlin had recused himself from the Abramoff investigation.
The disclosure, nevertheless, was another blow to a Justice Department already struggling to recover from the controversy over the firing of 8 U.S. Attorneys. Democrats and a number of Republicans have criticized Attorney General Alberto Gonzales for his handling of the ousters, which critics charge were politically motivated.
(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.
Friday, April 27, 2007
An Assessment of the Democratic Debate
Gotta Say, I agree.
Can't speak for all of my co-I.U.s, but I think this is pretty right-on.
I do hope that the author will drop the "whoever voted for the war, automatic F thingy,." as time moves on.
Biden should have known better. The guy has been on Capitol Hill since Moses was a Pup, and he should have known better than to give these idiots a blank check to literally do any damn thing they wanted to in Iraq.
Madam Clinton...I just don't know for sure, but my hunch is that Hillary probably knows more about how the D.C. game is played than anyone on the panel, having seen it in action from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.
I think that Hillary is a tough lady. In many ways, I feel that is exactly what we need, "going forwrd." (I really do hate that phrase," going forwrd.")
I just wish I could trust her! For some reason, I don't. I think she would make a fine Majority Leader in the Senate, but I don't know about president, not until I really believe I can trust her. I want someone to get up before a microphone and say, "to hell with politics. We can't afford to go on with business as usual.
So we are not going forward. We can't until we deal with the past, what has been done in our name and with our blood and treasure and what has been done under the radar, especially if it affects us.
I thought both Kunnich and Gravel were right-on, and Gravel was a true hoot. He dosn't really have a damn thing to lose, so he can really talk about the truth of the situaltion, while those the media have already crowned the heirs apparent are ducking and weaving.
Barack Obama? I'm not sure about him either. There is somting that makes me shy of him. I have to see what this is all about. Do I have a bit of racism, still in these southern veins. Maybe? I believe we must always check our motives when it comes to any minority or oppressed people.
There are other positive things about him. When he speaks, I do listen, with rapt attention to his every word.
I will not vote for him, simple because he is black. He needs to be black, while having brains and right-motives.
I like John Edwards, but I don't think that these mass, entertainment debates are the best venue for Edwards. He is a reall thinkig=g=ng man. He sees problems and goes about solving them, as a citizen and as a candidate for the presidency. He leads by example. He listens to those who seek to inform him; the people who are being terrible affected by the Bush policies.
Dodd, well he really under-impresses me for president. I think he makes a fine senator.
Richardson, I like him as a person. but don't know about the presidency. I will need to know more.
Right now, Edwards is my man. But if Gore comes in, I will have to vote for the man who should have been president in 2000.
There is a part of me that says, get rid of the Clintons and the Bushies! It is time for a new start. We can't have that with a Bush or a Clinton. It is time for new blood.
Hey, why bother at all? The political elite, including the media, have already ecided who we will et to vote for; it is usually the lesser of two evils, as the old saying goes.
I always try to look for who is really looking at this time as a time to seek balance, and I do not believe that one must sell-out to do that.
Bobby Kennedy said:
Many people see things as they are and ask, "why"
I see things as they could be and ask "why not?"
I don't want an idealist or a ideolog for my president.
I want someone who can see things for what they are and still see them as they could be, and ask why not. I believe John Edwards is that man.
I an perfect world:
John Edwards would be president. Wesley Clark would be his Vice-president
Al Gore would be special advisor to the president; possibly a cabinet position.
Hillary Clinton would be the New Majority Leader in the Senate.
Patrick Fitzerald would be the next Attorney General.
Colin Powell would be given the post of Secretary of State (see if he can redeem himself)
Barack Obam as the special envoy to the middle east.
I would have said John McCain as Sec-Def., but no more, the man is batty.)
Maybe someone like Sheshki.
AG: Roobert F Kennedy, Jr. Let him go after the destroyers of the environment like his Dad went after the Mob..
Ambasodor to the U.N.: Caroline Kennedy., if she would be willing to ake the job. She is a Kennedy trying to provide a normal life for her children.
Hey Caroline, we need you.!!!!!!
April 26, 2007
Tonight's report cards
I refuse to label MSNBC's Democratic-candidate gathering tonight a "debate," but whatever it was, here's my assessment in panel order from left to right. Feel free to grade the candidates yourself in the comments section below.
Bill Richardson: C- (referred to notes on his own healthcare plan)
Chris Dodd: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
John Edwards: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Joe Biden: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Barack Obama: C- (had him at a B+, just missing an A for failing to break out of the pack, then toward the end some opportunistic bellicosity creeped in)
Hillary Clinton: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Dennis Kucinich: A+ (for being so consistently honorable in his thinking)
Mike Gravel: A+ (for sheer balls)
**in abstentia, Al Gore: automatic A+ (for being himself again; now ... please run)
(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.
Can't speak for all of my co-I.U.s, but I think this is pretty right-on.
I do hope that the author will drop the "whoever voted for the war, automatic F thingy,." as time moves on.
Biden should have known better. The guy has been on Capitol Hill since Moses was a Pup, and he should have known better than to give these idiots a blank check to literally do any damn thing they wanted to in Iraq.
Madam Clinton...I just don't know for sure, but my hunch is that Hillary probably knows more about how the D.C. game is played than anyone on the panel, having seen it in action from both ends of Pennsylvania Ave.
I think that Hillary is a tough lady. In many ways, I feel that is exactly what we need, "going forwrd." (I really do hate that phrase," going forwrd.")
I just wish I could trust her! For some reason, I don't. I think she would make a fine Majority Leader in the Senate, but I don't know about president, not until I really believe I can trust her. I want someone to get up before a microphone and say, "to hell with politics. We can't afford to go on with business as usual.
So we are not going forward. We can't until we deal with the past, what has been done in our name and with our blood and treasure and what has been done under the radar, especially if it affects us.
I thought both Kunnich and Gravel were right-on, and Gravel was a true hoot. He dosn't really have a damn thing to lose, so he can really talk about the truth of the situaltion, while those the media have already crowned the heirs apparent are ducking and weaving.
Barack Obama? I'm not sure about him either. There is somting that makes me shy of him. I have to see what this is all about. Do I have a bit of racism, still in these southern veins. Maybe? I believe we must always check our motives when it comes to any minority or oppressed people.
There are other positive things about him. When he speaks, I do listen, with rapt attention to his every word.
I will not vote for him, simple because he is black. He needs to be black, while having brains and right-motives.
I like John Edwards, but I don't think that these mass, entertainment debates are the best venue for Edwards. He is a reall thinkig=g=ng man. He sees problems and goes about solving them, as a citizen and as a candidate for the presidency. He leads by example. He listens to those who seek to inform him; the people who are being terrible affected by the Bush policies.
Dodd, well he really under-impresses me for president. I think he makes a fine senator.
Richardson, I like him as a person. but don't know about the presidency. I will need to know more.
Right now, Edwards is my man. But if Gore comes in, I will have to vote for the man who should have been president in 2000.
There is a part of me that says, get rid of the Clintons and the Bushies! It is time for a new start. We can't have that with a Bush or a Clinton. It is time for new blood.
Hey, why bother at all? The political elite, including the media, have already ecided who we will et to vote for; it is usually the lesser of two evils, as the old saying goes.
I always try to look for who is really looking at this time as a time to seek balance, and I do not believe that one must sell-out to do that.
Bobby Kennedy said:
Many people see things as they are and ask, "why"
I see things as they could be and ask "why not?"
I don't want an idealist or a ideolog for my president.
I want someone who can see things for what they are and still see them as they could be, and ask why not. I believe John Edwards is that man.
I an perfect world:
John Edwards would be president. Wesley Clark would be his Vice-president
Al Gore would be special advisor to the president; possibly a cabinet position.
Hillary Clinton would be the New Majority Leader in the Senate.
Patrick Fitzerald would be the next Attorney General.
Colin Powell would be given the post of Secretary of State (see if he can redeem himself)
Barack Obam as the special envoy to the middle east.
I would have said John McCain as Sec-Def., but no more, the man is batty.)
Maybe someone like Sheshki.
AG: Roobert F Kennedy, Jr. Let him go after the destroyers of the environment like his Dad went after the Mob..
Ambasodor to the U.N.: Caroline Kennedy., if she would be willing to ake the job. She is a Kennedy trying to provide a normal life for her children.
Hey Caroline, we need you.!!!!!!
April 26, 2007
Tonight's report cards
I refuse to label MSNBC's Democratic-candidate gathering tonight a "debate," but whatever it was, here's my assessment in panel order from left to right. Feel free to grade the candidates yourself in the comments section below.
Bill Richardson: C- (referred to notes on his own healthcare plan)
Chris Dodd: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
John Edwards: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Joe Biden: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Barack Obama: C- (had him at a B+, just missing an A for failing to break out of the pack, then toward the end some opportunistic bellicosity creeped in)
Hillary Clinton: automatic F (voted for Bush's war)
Dennis Kucinich: A+ (for being so consistently honorable in his thinking)
Mike Gravel: A+ (for sheer balls)
**in abstentia, Al Gore: automatic A+ (for being himself again; now ... please run)
(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.
Olbermann Destroys Giuliani
This is hot stuff. One can practically see the smoke coming out of Keith's ears.
Not only is he laying Rudy out in Lavander, he is calling down the wrath of the body politic on his ass.
I'm gonna go out on a limb here and predict that by the time the real election year rolls around, not only are we all going to be sick and tired of every candidate, from both parties, but 9/11 will not be the ace in the hole that it once was for the Republicans. As a matter of fact, they will all be trying to run from it.
The truth about 9/11 is slowly but surely arising in the consciousness of more and more Americans.
If the whole truth ever comes out, there will be no Republican Party left
This is not the mere politicizing of Iraq, nor the vague mumbled epithets about Democratic “softness” from a delusional vice president.
This is casualties on a partisan basis — of the naked assertion that Mr. Giuliani’s party knows all and will save those who have voted for it — and to hell with everybody else.
And that he, with no foreign policy experience whatsoever, is somehow the messiah-of-the-moment.
Even to grant that that formula — whether posed by Republican or Democrat — is somehow not the most base, the most indefensible, the most un-American electioneering in our history — even if it is somehow acceptable to assign “casualties” to one party and “safety” to the other — even if we have become so profane in our thinking that it is part of our political vocabulary to view counter-terror as one party’s property and the other’s liability ... on what imaginary track record does Mr. Giuliani base his boast?
Which party held the presidency on Sept. 11, 2001, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party held the mayoralty of New York on that date, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party assured New Yorkers that the air was safe and the remains of the dead recovered and not being used to fill potholes, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party wanted what the terrorists wanted — the postponement of elections — and to whose personal advantage would that have redounded, Mr. Giuliani?
Which mayor of New York was elected eight months after the first attack on the World Trade Center, yet did not emphasize counter-terror in the same city for the next eight years, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party had proposed to turn over the Department of Homeland Security to Bernard Kerik, Mr. Giuliani?
Who wanted to ignore and hide Kerik’s organized crime allegations, Mr. Giuliani?
Who personally argued to the White House that Kerik need not be vetted, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party rode roughshod over Americans’ rights while braying that it was actually protecting them, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party took this country into the most utterly backwards, utterly counterproductive, utterly ruinous war in our history, Mr. Giuliani?
Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?
Drop this argument, sir.
You will lose 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.
Tenet Is Mad As Hell And He's Not Gonna Take It Anmore
Vice has, once again, gone too far.
WASHINGTON - Former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book that Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials pushed the country to invade Iraq without a "serious debate" about whether Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
In his book, "At the Center of the Storm," Tenet is largely positive about President Bush but lashes out at the vice president and others, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its Monday release and described its contents in a story posted online Thursday night.
"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," Tenet writes, adding that there was never "a significant discussion" about containing Iraq without an invasion.
'Surge' too late
Tenet also writes that he is not certain the increase in troops in Iraq will succeed, according to the Times. "It may have worked more than three years ago," he writes. "My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence."
Click for related content
Tenet resigns as CIA director
Tenet defends intelligence gathering
Intel: What the Brits said
As part of a media tour to promote the book, Tenet has been interviewed by the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes," which on Thursday released excerpts of a broadcast scheduled for
Sunday in which he contends that his now-infamous phrase "slam dunk" was taken out of context.
Slam dunk misrepresented
Uttered during a 2002 White House meeting, "slam dunk" was referring broadly to the case that could be made against Saddam Hussein, according to Tenet, not the dictator's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
"We can put a better case together for a public case. That's what I meant," Tenet said, explaining his remark for the first time in the CBS interview.
The phrase "slam dunk" was associated with Tenet after it was leaked by a senior administration official to author and journalist Bob Woodward. According to Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," Bush turned to Tenet during the meeting and asked if the information he had just presented on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was the best Tenet had.
"It's a slam dunk case," Tenet replied, according to Woodward.
Cheney repeatedly used Tenet's "slam dunk" line to show that U.S. spy agencies had intelligence to support the main facet of the administration's argument for invading - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Tenet said the administration misrepresented his comment and used it to shift blame as the debate heated up about the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion. Tenet, who served as CIA chief from 1997 to 2004, called the leak to Woodward "the most despicable thing that ever happened" to him.
A war decision on one remarkA former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the release of Tenet's memoir next week, said everyone at the White House meeting - and many allies around the world - already believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The meeting was about what intelligence could be used publicly - an early effort to prepare the material that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell would present to the United Nations.
Breaking almost three years of silence, Tenet said it's unbelievable that the president would base his decision to go to war on his one remark.
"So a whole decision to go to war, when all of these other things have happened in the run-up to war? You make mobilization decisions, you've looked at war plans," Tenet said. "I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of this war. Never!"
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said the president decided to remove the Iraqi leader for a number of reasons - "mainly the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Saddam's own actions." U.S. spy agencies quickly compiled the high-level estimate on Iraq in 2002, which included false allegations about the regime's efforts to pursue chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Johndroe declined to comment further because administration officials have not read Tenet's book or the interview's transcript.
Tenet said the hardest part has been listening to Cheney and others repeat the phrase. "I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. 'Look at the idiot (who) told us and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous," he said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
(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.
WASHINGTON - Former CIA Director George Tenet writes in a new book that Vice President Dick Cheney and other administration officials pushed the country to invade Iraq without a "serious debate" about whether Saddam Hussein was an imminent threat.
In his book, "At the Center of the Storm," Tenet is largely positive about President Bush but lashes out at the vice president and others, according to The New York Times, which obtained a copy of the book ahead of its Monday release and described its contents in a story posted online Thursday night.
"There was never a serious debate that I know of within the administration about the imminence of the Iraqi threat," Tenet writes, adding that there was never "a significant discussion" about containing Iraq without an invasion.
'Surge' too late
Tenet also writes that he is not certain the increase in troops in Iraq will succeed, according to the Times. "It may have worked more than three years ago," he writes. "My fear is that sectarian violence in Iraq has taken on a life of its own and that U.S. forces are becoming more and more irrelevant to the management of that violence."
Click for related content
Tenet resigns as CIA director
Tenet defends intelligence gathering
Intel: What the Brits said
As part of a media tour to promote the book, Tenet has been interviewed by the CBS news magazine "60 Minutes," which on Thursday released excerpts of a broadcast scheduled for
Sunday in which he contends that his now-infamous phrase "slam dunk" was taken out of context.
Slam dunk misrepresented
Uttered during a 2002 White House meeting, "slam dunk" was referring broadly to the case that could be made against Saddam Hussein, according to Tenet, not the dictator's alleged weapons of mass destruction.
"We can put a better case together for a public case. That's what I meant," Tenet said, explaining his remark for the first time in the CBS interview.
The phrase "slam dunk" was associated with Tenet after it was leaked by a senior administration official to author and journalist Bob Woodward. According to Woodward's book "Plan of Attack," Bush turned to Tenet during the meeting and asked if the information he had just presented on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction was the best Tenet had.
"It's a slam dunk case," Tenet replied, according to Woodward.
Cheney repeatedly used Tenet's "slam dunk" line to show that U.S. spy agencies had intelligence to support the main facet of the administration's argument for invading - that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
In the "60 Minutes" interview, Tenet said the administration misrepresented his comment and used it to shift blame as the debate heated up about the legitimacy of the Iraq invasion. Tenet, who served as CIA chief from 1997 to 2004, called the leak to Woodward "the most despicable thing that ever happened" to him.
A war decision on one remarkA former intelligence official, who spoke on condition of anonymity in advance of the release of Tenet's memoir next week, said everyone at the White House meeting - and many allies around the world - already believed Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
The meeting was about what intelligence could be used publicly - an early effort to prepare the material that then-Secretary of State Colin Powell would present to the United Nations.
Breaking almost three years of silence, Tenet said it's unbelievable that the president would base his decision to go to war on his one remark.
"So a whole decision to go to war, when all of these other things have happened in the run-up to war? You make mobilization decisions, you've looked at war plans," Tenet said. "I'll never believe that what happened that day informed the president's view or belief of the legitimacy or the timing of this war. Never!"
Gordon Johndroe, spokesman for the White House's National Security Council, said the president decided to remove the Iraqi leader for a number of reasons - "mainly the National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq and Saddam's own actions." U.S. spy agencies quickly compiled the high-level estimate on Iraq in 2002, which included false allegations about the regime's efforts to pursue chemical, biological and nuclear weapons.
Johndroe declined to comment further because administration officials have not read Tenet's book or the interview's transcript.
Tenet said the hardest part has been listening to Cheney and others repeat the phrase. "I became campaign talk. I was a talking point. 'Look at the idiot (who) told us and we decided to go to war.' Well, let's not be so disingenuous," he said.
Copyright 2007 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.
(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.
More Gore Noises!! Hoorah.....
We can only hope!
Until then, my heart belongs to Edwards.
Washington diary: Al Gore running
By Matt Frei BBC News, Washington
So is Al Gore running?
The answer was not just a resounding yes. It was delivered breathlessly, impatiently, punctuated by huffs and puffs. There were neatly formed beads of sweat running down his cheeks.
Al Gore has become a principal spokesman on global warming
Al was definitely running. No doubt about it! Proof positive. He was running on the running machine at a hotel in Los Angeles where I also happened to be staying.
While I was ploughing gently and unambitiously through the waters of the nearby pool I spotted him in the gym. He was reading the local paper while working the Stairmaster/running machine for at least an hour. I could practically see the pounds flying off him.
The punditocracy has already decreed that one sure sign of Al Gore entering the 2008 presidential race is any evidence that he's serious about shedding post-Florida recount pounds.
There you have it. A scoop!
Who knows what's really going through his mind?
But I have no doubt that if he did decide to enter in October this year he would have no shortage of funds, would need less cash than his opponents because of his name recognition and would hugely benefit from the signature issue of global warming for which he has become America's principal spokesman.
Grumpy old man?
Someone who is undoubtedly running for the White House announced his candidacy yesterday. John McCain finally made official what he had already been pursuing relentlessly for months.
Yet his stance on the Iraq war, which has caused him so much grief, is utterly principled
The Straight Talk Express, his campaign bus, limped into Portsmouth, New Hampshire. But it offered less straight talk and looked a lot less like an express than it did seven years ago, when
McCain gave George W Bush a run for his money.
Perhaps it is the extra seven years, perhaps the agonies of justifying the Iraq war, but the senator from Arizona looks more and more like a grumpy old man.
He is two years older than Ronald Reagan was at this stage of the campaign but appears far more aged. His voice sounds tired and croaky.
And yet his stance on the Iraq war, which has caused him so much grief, is utterly principled.
John McCain believes that the Iraq War can still be won
McCain genuinely believes that the war can still be won, that drawing down would be disastrous and that the de facto civil war will spill over into the region with horrendous consequences.
He believes this with the grim determination of a lonely soldier standing in the muddy trench of his conviction. And if the man could deal with five years in solitary confinement in Vietnam's Hanoi Hilton prison camp, he can certainly hold out against the slings and arrows of outrageous pollsters.
But the campaign trail has its own form of torture and, despite his undoubted wisdom and experience, the senator is dwarfed by the younger, more vibrant candidates, capturing the imagination of a nation yearning, as ever, for something new.
I asked McCain the other day whether he would be twice defeated by Bush, once in 2000 when he opposed him on the campaign trail and once in 2008 when he'll be punished for supporting his surge in Iraq. McCain laughed and said, once again, he would rather lose a campaign than lose a war.
Defending America
I have been invited by the debating society of my old university, the Oxford Union, to speak on the following motion: "This House regrets the founding of the United States!"
When I first read the motion on my Blackberry, being short-sighted, I thought it was a joke and then a misprint. Then I read with relief that I had been invited to speak against the motion and defend the existence of the country I currently call home.
In recent weeks I have put the motion to various friends and acquaintances in America. The reaction has been mixed.
The ageing hippie in Utah grinned, looked heavenward and said: "Finally someone has seen the light!" The student from Montana blushed and almost cried.
Sandy Berger, Bill Clinton's former national security adviser, went ashen-faced, shook his head and said: "If it hadn't been for us there would BE no modern Europe and your debate would probably be conducted in German!" Touche.
(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.
Hey Rudy? What the Hell Have You Been Smoking?
How can we possibly forgetthat when the 9/11 attacks occured, we had a Repulican president and NYC had a Republlican mayor and N.Y. State had a Republican governor.
Message to Rudy Giuliani: Are you certifiably insane?
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007
I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.
If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.
Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.
Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.
Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.
In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.
In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.
I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.
I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.
We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.
Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.
It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.
Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.
Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.
On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.
I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?
Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.
You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.
Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”
I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?
I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.
While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.
Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net Print Article
-->
(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.
How in the world can you say that Republicans are better on terrorism?
Jeebus, just how stupid do you think we are?
Message to Rudy Giuliani: Are you certifiably insane?
By Mary MacElveen
April 26, 2007
I could not believe the lunacy coming from Rudy Giuliani’s when he said, "But the question is how long will it take and how many casualties will we have. If we are on defense, we will have more losses and it will go on longer." He said that to place fear in all of us if a Democrat is elected president in 2008. Hey, Mr. Giuliani, I for one am tired of the fear-mongering. Like most Americans and the polls show it, we want to live free, breathe free and have hope restored to all of us. We are tired of the bondage of fear, Mr. Giuliani.
If one looks back President Bush’s speech on the U.S.S. Lincoln in which the sign “Mission Accomplished” hung in the back ground, his only accomplished mission was to place fear in the citizenry. He has turned America into a country that no longer represents the model long ago promised all of us by our founding fathers.
Thanks to his Patriot Acts and Military Commissions Act, he stripped our sacred document known as the United States Constitution. With his signing into law both Patriot Acts and the latter Military Commissions Act, he turned a free country into a state that models one being led by a dictator. After all, we know he often refers to himself as “the decider” In essence what he showed in signing those acts into law, is that Osama bin Laden and the terrorists that attacked us indeed won.
Speaking of bin Laden, Keith Olbermann compared that statement made by Giuliani to any number of fearful messages coming from bin Laden. I do not want a president that resembles a terrorist.
Speaking of casualties being felt by our men and women in the armed services in which nine died this past weekend due to a suicide car-bomb, I for one am tired of America’s blood and treasure being sacrificed for this present Republican administration. In my last piece in which I spoke of their deaths, I cited how President Bush attended the Virginia Tech convocation, but never attended one single military funeral.
In my email box this morning a striking email was sent to me by a soldier that has served in Iraq in which he said to me, “The war has been going on for so long that it is no longer fore front news, it's horrible to think that people would get sick of see what our boys are doing, but they do.” He also said that he would not want the president or the media to show up at his funeral because it is a time to mourn those lost by family and friends and without the interruption of his presence at it. I can respect that.
In promulgating this war and with the help of the media in past years and even in the present they do not deserve to attend any funeral of a soldier whose life has been cut short.
I think that America is thirsting for a new leadership to stave off these casualties, but not do so in a defensive way as Giuliani alluded to. It is through the act of diplomacy. Diplomacy has not been present within this Republican administration, only the use of force. I have often said any dummy can drop a bomb. Senator John F. Kerry stated in speech when he said he would not be running in 2008, we have to get back to the “heavy diplomatic lifting” as he targeted the Bush administration concerning Iran.
I think in order to stave off further loss of life our soldiers, we need an administration that says to its diplomats, you will not come home until we have brokered a deal for a long and lasting peace.
We cannot remain addicted to war-mongering if we are to survive as a human race and we must end this addiction to it. Those that do support it are in need of some serious rehab.
Should we stay the course through another Republican administration in which anyone of these Republican candidates will continue this war in Iraq; the casualty rate will continue to rise as each day passes. I say that of the Republican candidates because I do not hear any message coming from them that they will take this country in a new direction and divorce themselves from Bush’s brand of fear and war-mongering.
It has been reported by The Lancet that over 600,000 innocent Iraqis have died who did nothing to us to deserve this and we have displaced millions of Iraqis. Guess where the new wave of those that may wish to do us harm will come from? I have often spoken of the blow-back effect and should we keep on this present course, I believe a ticking time-bomb has been set and just awaits the American people.
Keith Olbermann in his on-air commentary said, “Which party has been in office as more Americans were killed in the pointless fields of Iraq, than were killed in the consuming nightmare of 9/11, Mr. Giuliani?” add to that the number of Iraqis killed as mentioned above. I have often said that the Iraqi people have suffered a 9/11 event from the inception of this illegal war on a daily basis for over four years now. It is time for new leadership in Washington D.C. to stop this slaughter of these innocent people.
Giuliani has stated that by electing a Democrat, it will take us back to a pre-9/11 way of thinking. If anything, I want to go back to a pre-December 12th, 2000 way of thinking. That is the day that the Supreme Court handed down the Bush V. Gore decision that handed this presidency over to Bush. I want the right to have every vote counted. Our democracy and the furtherance of it demand it. Our soldiers protect that freedom and for anyone to usurp the will of the people diminishes our soldiers in the eyes of the American people.
On September 11th, 2001, this is what America’s mayor Giuliani had to say "I turned to Bernie, and I said, Thank God George Bush is our President” Note to Giuliani, God had nothing to do with him being our president, five of the nine black-robed injustices did.
I would give anything to go back in time in which the Supreme Court stayed out of this case in which one of the terms used in handing down that decision was the “irreparable harm to George W. Bush” When I heard that phrase and knowing what has transpired since, I have often asked; well what about the rest of us?
Perhaps with a President Gore in power he could have implemented many of the findings in the commission he chaired on Aviation Safety and Security. In that commission report, please take note of this passage, “Although the threat of terrorism is increasing, the danger of an individual becoming a victim of a terrorist attack -- let alone an aircraft bombing -- will doubtless remain very small. But terrorism isn't merely a matter of statistics. We fear a plane crash far more than we fear something like a car accident. One might survive a car accident, but there's no chance in a plane at 30,000 feet. This fear is one of the reasons that terrorists see airplanes as attractive targets. And, they know that airlines are often seen as national symbols.” While addressing this fear and easing the minds of the American people, he did foresee within this one report that planes would be seen as attractive targets.
You will be amazed as you read this Hardball transcript where it states, “Condoleezza Rice today said that she’d never been briefed on planes being used as missiles. She reiterated that today, even though we know that Richard Clarke – and this has been uncontested – had prepared as far back as 1996 for planes being used as missiles at the Atlanta Olympics.” There is that familiar name, meaning, Richard Clarke who tried to warn President Bush of impending threats coming from al Qaeda. Maybe if Rice had read the complete commission report chaired by Al Gore, she would have been brought up to speed.
Much was lost to all Americans when within that commission report chaired by former Vice President Gore, when it stated, “When terrorists attack an American airliner, they are attacking the United States. They have so little respect for our values -- so little regard for human life or the principles of justice that are the foundation of American society -- that they would destroy innocent children and devoted mothers and fathers completely at random. This cannot be tolerated, or allowed to intimidate free societies. There must be a concerted national will to fight terrorism. There must be a willingness to apply sustained economic, political and commercial pressure on countries sponsoring terrorists. There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice. There must be the resolve to punish those who would violate sanctions imposed against terrorist states.”
I have heard from people throughout these past six going on seven years that Al Gore if he were allowed to go on and become our president would have been soft on terrorism. Oh please look again at what he said in this commission report. He had the forethought and knowledge that this could be done by terrorists. By the way, this report came out on February 12th, 1997. This report could have been used to help stop the attacks we all felt on September 11th, 2001. This report could have been used to save both American and Iraqi lives. It could have been used to save the lives of our soldiers which now total over 3,300 who have lost their lives in Iraq.
When Gore mentioned, “There must be an unwavering commitment to pursuing terrorists and bringing them to justice” through those commission findings, in juxtaposition we have this statement coming from President Bush when he shouted out through that bullhorn at Ground Zero, "I can hear you. The rest of the world hears you. And the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us soon." One must ask; well have they heard us? No, because this president targeted the wrong people. He has failed at capturing Osama bin Laden. To show the stupidity of this present Republican administration, Bush promised to capture Osama bin Laden “dead or alive” which turned into, “I do not know where he is, he is not important and is not our priority” Yet, Giuliani wants this brand of leadership to continue? What are you certifiably insane, Rudy?
I do believe if Al Gore went onto become our president, he would have paid attention to the Hart/Rudman report on terrorism. He would have paid attention to a counter-terrorism expert in Richard Clarke who warned President Bush of the impending threat of al Qaeda. You would not have seen a President Gore fix the intelligence to meet any plans on attacking Iraq. You would not have seen a CIA agent in Valerie Plame being outed in a Gore administration.
While I have not stated which candidate I would back for the 2008 Democratic nomination, if Al Gore were to say at some point, “I am willing to fight for you; are you with me?” as he stated at the 2000 Democratic National Convention that would seal the deal for me. I once said of Al Gore, “I thirst to drink from the cup of intelligence” that is because we have seen anything but during this present Republican administration.
Author's note: To contact me, my address is, xmjmac@optonline.net Print Article
-->
(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)
