Holy Joe is at it again.
The Democrats have a senate majority in name only.
Lieberman Helps Collect Cash for Collins
Sen. Joe Lieberman (D-Conn.) is never going to win any popularity contests among his party's liberal base -- a fact he seems decidedly unconcerned about despite his 2006 Democratic primary loss to Ned Lamont.
Not only has Lieberman endorsed Sen. Susan Collins (R-Maine.) -- one of Democrats' biggest targets in the 2008 cycle -- but he's planning to co-host a fundraiser for her on June 21 in Washington, D.C.
The event, which will be held in a Capitol Hill location still to be determined, will feature Lieberman and Sen. Arlen Specter (R-Pa.) -- a very rare bipartisan fundraiser. Attendees are being asked to raise $3,000; $2,000 would come in the form of a political action committee donation while the other $1,000 would be a personal contribution, according to an electronic invite for the fundraiser obtained today by The Fix.
"Let's try to make this a bi-partisan tour de force," reads the invite.
"Senator Specter approached Senator Collins with the idea of doing a joint fundraising event with Senator Lieberman," said Collins spokeswoman Jen Burita. "Both senators are colleagues with whom she works well and good friends, so we thought it was a great idea."
Lieberman's willingness to work openly for Collins's reelection will surely not sit well with Democratic strategists who want Rep. Tom Allen (D) to oust the two-term incumbent. For Lieberman, his support of Collins is payback. She was one of a handful of senators who campaigned for him in the general election following his loss in the Democratic primary to Lamont. (He ran for and won reelection as an independent.) Lieberman and Collins also serve together as the chairman and ranking member, respectively, of the Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee in the Senate.
The Republican strategy in the race is clearly to kill Allen's candidacy in the crib. The National Republican Senatorial Committee is up with an Internet ad that dissects Allen's own Web announcement.
Despite the state's Democratic lean -- John Kerry won it by 9 points in 2004 -- Collins cruised to victory in 2002 over a candidate that Democrats were certain could beat her. Collins benefited from President Bush's overall popularity and the strength of the Republican brand at that time.
Over the past six years much has changed. Democrats will work to hang Bush and the war in Iraq around Collins's neck, but the junior Senator from Maine has shown a willingness to punch back when necessary.
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Tuesday, May 15, 2007
Wolfman Blames Everyone but Himself.....
In traditional Bushite fashion....
Bank Rebukes Wolfowitz On EthicsRules Were Broken, Committee Says
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; D01
A World Bank investigating committee sharply rebuked President Paul D. Wolfowitz, concluding that he broke ethics rules and undermined the integrity of the institution in engineering a hefty pay raise for his girlfriend.
"These actions manifest a lack of understanding for and a disregard for the institution as a public international organization," declared the committee's report, which was distributed to the bank's executive directors yesterday and released publicly last night. It calls on the executive board to assess "whether Mr. Wolfowitz will be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible."
In a written response, Wolfowitz maintained that he acted in good faith in seeking to resolve an obvious conflict of interest. He accused the bank's ethics committee of forcing him to oversee the raise for his longtime companion, Shaha Riza, as compensation for her transfer to a different job. The ethics panel was afraid to confront her, Wolfowitz said, because its members knew she was "extremely angry and upset."
The ethics committee told Wolfowitz he could not directly supervise Riza, who also worked at the bank, after he arrived in 2005. He said, however, that the panel declined to oversee her job transfer and compensation, instead ordering him to handle those tasks.
"Its members did not want to deal with a very angry Ms. Riza, whose career was being damaged as a result of their decision," Wolfowitz said in his response to the investigating committee's report. "It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her."
Wolfowitz added that the chairman of the ethics panel thought that "due to my personal relationship with Ms. Riza, I was in the best position to persuade her to take out-placement and thereby achieve the 'pragmatic solution' the committee desired."
Wolfowitz effectively blamed Riza for his predicament as well, saying that her "intractable position" in demanding a salary increase as compensation for her career disruption forced him to grant one to pre-empt a lawsuit. He is scheduled to appear before the board this afternoon. The board is expected to begin deliberating on how to respond as soon as tonight. Board members are inclined to issue a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in Wolfowitz's leadership, senior bank officials said.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said some board members hope a strong statement of dissatisfaction would persuade the Bush administration to withdraw support for Wolfowitz. But the White House views the stakes as larger than control of the World Bank, said a senior administration official, with U.S. resolve and power on the line -- in particular the longstanding right of the United States to name the head of the institution.
In an interview with Fox News, Vice President Cheney called Wolfowitz "a very good president of the World Bank," adding, "I hope he will be able to continue."
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. telephoned finance ministers overseas yesterday to urge them to conclude that the facts in the bank report do not warrant Wolfowitz's dismissal, said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the situation.
The Bush administration's representative at the bank, Eli Whitney Debevoise II, delayed circulation of the committee's report among board members yesterday, the White House said.
"We asked for a delay this morning to ensure that the report is fair and factual and to allow for a proper process for discussions," said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman.
Wolfowitz has acknowledged his direct role in the job transfer and pay raise for his longtime companion, who worked in the bank's Middle East department, to avoid supervising her. He has said that he did so only at the direction of the ethics committee.
In his 25-page written response to the committee's report, Wolfowitz portrayed the salary increase, a jump to more than $180,000 a year from about $130,000, as justified compensation. The investigating committee report said, however, that the raise was "in excess of the range" in bank rules.
In testimony to the committee, Ad Melkert, a former ethics committee chairman, and Roberto Danio, a former general counsel, said Wolfowitz kept them out of the loop on the salary increase.
Wolfowitz's response acknowledged that he "did take steps to ensure that the negotiations were confidential," but he says this was standard course for a personnel matter. He also acknowledged excluding the general counsel from the salary negotiations, asserting this was necessary because Dani?o's dual role as an adviser to him and to the ethics committee posed a conflict.
The committee report criticized that argument, saying that "Wolfowitz from the outset cast himself in opposition to the established rules of the institution."
Wolfowitz said it was not his intent to keep Riza's raise secret: He said he assumed the ethics committee and Dani?o would ultimately review it. He said he was told by Xavier Coll, the bank's vice president for human resources, who negotiated with Riza, that her final "compensation package would be entered into the bank's personnel system and many people inside the bank would have access."
Wolfowitz argued that bank officials effectively exploited the relationship that posed a conflict -- his ties with Riza -- to try to defuse a tense situation.
"Everyone acknowledges that Ms. Riza was extremely angry and upset about being required to take an external placement to resolve a problem that was not of her making," Wolfowitz wrote, portraying the raise as a "settlement of claims."
Bank officials bought into his approach, he said, citing a memo Coll wrote to himself on Aug. 22, 2005, in which he expressed concerns that "we were in a very difficult situation -- with no precedent at the bank -- and that it had enormous potential to damage the bank's reputation."
Wolfowitz contended that he and Coll both sought to compensate Riza with a lump-sum cash payment but that she insisted on "salary increases over time."
"Given her intractable position, unless Mr. Coll acceded to her on this point it would have been impossible to achieve the prompt resolution of this matter," Wolfowitz said. "The terms that were included to address her career interruption were the only practical, mutually acceptable solution."
But the investigating committee found that Riza had no legitimate grievance meriting a settlement. It flatly dismissed Wolfowitz's contention that the ethics committee forced him to supervise the details of her contract, saying that he could have delegated them to a vice president.
"Mr. Wolfowitz placed his own personal interests in opposition to the interests of the institution," the report found. "In so doing, he undermined the legal safeguards the institution had in place to protect itself from the harm it has unfortunately now come to experience."
The report reserved its sharpest judgment for the public struggle Wolfowitz has waged to save his job in recent weeks, criticizing the bank's probe in the press.
"It has turned an internal governance matter into an ugly public relations campaign," the report said, asserting that in unleashing "public attacks," Wolfowitz "denigrates the very institution he was selected to lead."
(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.
Bank Rebukes Wolfowitz On EthicsRules Were Broken, Committee Says
By Peter S. Goodman
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, May 15, 2007; D01
A World Bank investigating committee sharply rebuked President Paul D. Wolfowitz, concluding that he broke ethics rules and undermined the integrity of the institution in engineering a hefty pay raise for his girlfriend.
"These actions manifest a lack of understanding for and a disregard for the institution as a public international organization," declared the committee's report, which was distributed to the bank's executive directors yesterday and released publicly last night. It calls on the executive board to assess "whether Mr. Wolfowitz will be able to provide the leadership needed to ensure that the bank continues to operate to the fullest extent possible."
In a written response, Wolfowitz maintained that he acted in good faith in seeking to resolve an obvious conflict of interest. He accused the bank's ethics committee of forcing him to oversee the raise for his longtime companion, Shaha Riza, as compensation for her transfer to a different job. The ethics panel was afraid to confront her, Wolfowitz said, because its members knew she was "extremely angry and upset."
The ethics committee told Wolfowitz he could not directly supervise Riza, who also worked at the bank, after he arrived in 2005. He said, however, that the panel declined to oversee her job transfer and compensation, instead ordering him to handle those tasks.
"Its members did not want to deal with a very angry Ms. Riza, whose career was being damaged as a result of their decision," Wolfowitz said in his response to the investigating committee's report. "It would only be human nature for them to want to steer clear of her."
Wolfowitz added that the chairman of the ethics panel thought that "due to my personal relationship with Ms. Riza, I was in the best position to persuade her to take out-placement and thereby achieve the 'pragmatic solution' the committee desired."
Wolfowitz effectively blamed Riza for his predicament as well, saying that her "intractable position" in demanding a salary increase as compensation for her career disruption forced him to grant one to pre-empt a lawsuit. He is scheduled to appear before the board this afternoon. The board is expected to begin deliberating on how to respond as soon as tonight. Board members are inclined to issue a resolution expressing a lack of confidence in Wolfowitz's leadership, senior bank officials said.
The officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter, said some board members hope a strong statement of dissatisfaction would persuade the Bush administration to withdraw support for Wolfowitz. But the White House views the stakes as larger than control of the World Bank, said a senior administration official, with U.S. resolve and power on the line -- in particular the longstanding right of the United States to name the head of the institution.
In an interview with Fox News, Vice President Cheney called Wolfowitz "a very good president of the World Bank," adding, "I hope he will be able to continue."
Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. telephoned finance ministers overseas yesterday to urge them to conclude that the facts in the bank report do not warrant Wolfowitz's dismissal, said a senior administration official who was not authorized to speak publicly about the situation.
The Bush administration's representative at the bank, Eli Whitney Debevoise II, delayed circulation of the committee's report among board members yesterday, the White House said.
"We asked for a delay this morning to ensure that the report is fair and factual and to allow for a proper process for discussions," said Tony Fratto, a White House spokesman.
Wolfowitz has acknowledged his direct role in the job transfer and pay raise for his longtime companion, who worked in the bank's Middle East department, to avoid supervising her. He has said that he did so only at the direction of the ethics committee.
In his 25-page written response to the committee's report, Wolfowitz portrayed the salary increase, a jump to more than $180,000 a year from about $130,000, as justified compensation. The investigating committee report said, however, that the raise was "in excess of the range" in bank rules.
In testimony to the committee, Ad Melkert, a former ethics committee chairman, and Roberto Danio, a former general counsel, said Wolfowitz kept them out of the loop on the salary increase.
Wolfowitz's response acknowledged that he "did take steps to ensure that the negotiations were confidential," but he says this was standard course for a personnel matter. He also acknowledged excluding the general counsel from the salary negotiations, asserting this was necessary because Dani?o's dual role as an adviser to him and to the ethics committee posed a conflict.
The committee report criticized that argument, saying that "Wolfowitz from the outset cast himself in opposition to the established rules of the institution."
Wolfowitz said it was not his intent to keep Riza's raise secret: He said he assumed the ethics committee and Dani?o would ultimately review it. He said he was told by Xavier Coll, the bank's vice president for human resources, who negotiated with Riza, that her final "compensation package would be entered into the bank's personnel system and many people inside the bank would have access."
Wolfowitz argued that bank officials effectively exploited the relationship that posed a conflict -- his ties with Riza -- to try to defuse a tense situation.
"Everyone acknowledges that Ms. Riza was extremely angry and upset about being required to take an external placement to resolve a problem that was not of her making," Wolfowitz wrote, portraying the raise as a "settlement of claims."
Bank officials bought into his approach, he said, citing a memo Coll wrote to himself on Aug. 22, 2005, in which he expressed concerns that "we were in a very difficult situation -- with no precedent at the bank -- and that it had enormous potential to damage the bank's reputation."
Wolfowitz contended that he and Coll both sought to compensate Riza with a lump-sum cash payment but that she insisted on "salary increases over time."
"Given her intractable position, unless Mr. Coll acceded to her on this point it would have been impossible to achieve the prompt resolution of this matter," Wolfowitz said. "The terms that were included to address her career interruption were the only practical, mutually acceptable solution."
But the investigating committee found that Riza had no legitimate grievance meriting a settlement. It flatly dismissed Wolfowitz's contention that the ethics committee forced him to supervise the details of her contract, saying that he could have delegated them to a vice president.
"Mr. Wolfowitz placed his own personal interests in opposition to the interests of the institution," the report found. "In so doing, he undermined the legal safeguards the institution had in place to protect itself from the harm it has unfortunately now come to experience."
The report reserved its sharpest judgment for the public struggle Wolfowitz has waged to save his job in recent weeks, criticizing the bank's probe in the press.
"It has turned an internal governance matter into an ugly public relations campaign," the report said, asserting that in unleashing "public attacks," Wolfowitz "denigrates the very institution he was selected to lead."
(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.
Brit Judge Steps In It.
Apparently our cousins across the pond and Bush's partners in crime, in the British government, know less about freedom of speech than we do.
Send the damned memo to us, we'll publish it!
Gagging Order as Two Are Jailed for Leaking Blair-Bush Memo
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK
Friday 11 May 2007
Judge bans disclosure of defendant's comment.• Whitehall man handed "deterrent" sentence.
An Old Bailey judge yesterday imposed gagging orders on the media after jailing a civil servant and a Labour MP's researcher for disclosing the minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush about Iraq.
Mr Justice Aikens prevented journalists from publishing a comment by David Keogh, a Whitehall communications officer, on what the minutes revealed, even though it was said in open court. He also said that allegations already in the public domain could not be repeated if there was any suggestion they related to the contents of the document.
The Guardian and other media organisations immediately said they intended to appeal against the orders. The judge suggested that the allegations could be "recycled," but only if they were published on a separate page of a newspaper from that containing references to the trial. Foreign newspapers, including those in the US, are not bound by the contempt orders.
At one point in argument in court, Anthony Hudson, counsel for the Guardian, Times and BBC, said the media would be in a "ridiculous" situation. He said the judge was making a "serious intrusion" into the media's rights of freedom of expression.
The restrictions were imposed after the judge jailed Keogh, 50, for six months in what he called a "deterrent sentence". On Wednesday, an Old Bailey jury by majority verdict convicted him of breaching the Official Secrets Act. The judge said the document about the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush in the White House in April 2004 which the civil servant had disclosed was "highly sensitive" and contained information passed from the US to Britain.
In evidence at the trial, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's top foreign policy adviser, said private talks between world leaders must remain confidential however illegal or morally abhorrent aspects of their discussions might be.
The judge said yesterday that Keogh had decided to disclose the document to Leo O'Connor, researcher to the then anti-war Labour MP for Northampton South, Anthony Clarke. The idea was that its contents would be raised in the Commons and also passed to John Kerry, the then Democratic presidential candidate in the US. Keogh believed the document exposed Mr Bush as a "madman," the court heard.
O'Connor, 44, was jailed for three months for passing the document to Mr Clarke. The judge said that while it was accepted that the disclosure of the document caused "no actual damage", it posed a significant risk to British interests abroad. Journalists and the public were barred from the court when evidence about the contents of the four-page document was heard during the three-week trial.
The judge also ordered Keogh to pay £5,000 of the £35,000 prosecution costs. He told him: "You decided that you did not like what you saw. Without consulting anyone, you decided on your own that it was in the best interest of the UK that this letter should be disclosed. Your reckless and irresponsible action in disclosing this letter when you had no right to could have cost the lives of British citizens. This disclosure was a gross breach of trust of your position as a crown servant."
After the sentencing, Keogh's solicitor, Stuart Jeffery, said: "He took a moral stance on something that he found shocking and has to accept the decision of the court as far as his guilt is concerned. It was never his intention to put lives at risk. He would state rather that it was his intention to save innocent lives." Mr Jeffery said he would be looking at avenues of appeal.
A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition condemned the prison sentences, adding: "While not a single government minister has been held to account for the disastrous policy of war in Iraq, two men are imprisoned for trying simply trying to shed some light on Tony Blair's relationship with George Bush."
He added: "The prison sentences are another sign of the double standards perpetrated in relation to the war."
(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.
Send the damned memo to us, we'll publish it!
Gagging Order as Two Are Jailed for Leaking Blair-Bush Memo
By Richard Norton-Taylor
The Guardian UK
Friday 11 May 2007
Judge bans disclosure of defendant's comment.• Whitehall man handed "deterrent" sentence.
An Old Bailey judge yesterday imposed gagging orders on the media after jailing a civil servant and a Labour MP's researcher for disclosing the minutes of a meeting between Tony Blair and George Bush about Iraq.
Mr Justice Aikens prevented journalists from publishing a comment by David Keogh, a Whitehall communications officer, on what the minutes revealed, even though it was said in open court. He also said that allegations already in the public domain could not be repeated if there was any suggestion they related to the contents of the document.
The Guardian and other media organisations immediately said they intended to appeal against the orders. The judge suggested that the allegations could be "recycled," but only if they were published on a separate page of a newspaper from that containing references to the trial. Foreign newspapers, including those in the US, are not bound by the contempt orders.
At one point in argument in court, Anthony Hudson, counsel for the Guardian, Times and BBC, said the media would be in a "ridiculous" situation. He said the judge was making a "serious intrusion" into the media's rights of freedom of expression.
The restrictions were imposed after the judge jailed Keogh, 50, for six months in what he called a "deterrent sentence". On Wednesday, an Old Bailey jury by majority verdict convicted him of breaching the Official Secrets Act. The judge said the document about the meeting between Mr Blair and Mr Bush in the White House in April 2004 which the civil servant had disclosed was "highly sensitive" and contained information passed from the US to Britain.
In evidence at the trial, Sir Nigel Sheinwald, the prime minister's top foreign policy adviser, said private talks between world leaders must remain confidential however illegal or morally abhorrent aspects of their discussions might be.
The judge said yesterday that Keogh had decided to disclose the document to Leo O'Connor, researcher to the then anti-war Labour MP for Northampton South, Anthony Clarke. The idea was that its contents would be raised in the Commons and also passed to John Kerry, the then Democratic presidential candidate in the US. Keogh believed the document exposed Mr Bush as a "madman," the court heard.
O'Connor, 44, was jailed for three months for passing the document to Mr Clarke. The judge said that while it was accepted that the disclosure of the document caused "no actual damage", it posed a significant risk to British interests abroad. Journalists and the public were barred from the court when evidence about the contents of the four-page document was heard during the three-week trial.
The judge also ordered Keogh to pay £5,000 of the £35,000 prosecution costs. He told him: "You decided that you did not like what you saw. Without consulting anyone, you decided on your own that it was in the best interest of the UK that this letter should be disclosed. Your reckless and irresponsible action in disclosing this letter when you had no right to could have cost the lives of British citizens. This disclosure was a gross breach of trust of your position as a crown servant."
After the sentencing, Keogh's solicitor, Stuart Jeffery, said: "He took a moral stance on something that he found shocking and has to accept the decision of the court as far as his guilt is concerned. It was never his intention to put lives at risk. He would state rather that it was his intention to save innocent lives." Mr Jeffery said he would be looking at avenues of appeal.
A spokesman for the Stop the War Coalition condemned the prison sentences, adding: "While not a single government minister has been held to account for the disastrous policy of war in Iraq, two men are imprisoned for trying simply trying to shed some light on Tony Blair's relationship with George Bush."
He added: "The prison sentences are another sign of the double standards perpetrated in relation to the war."
(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.
Monday, May 14, 2007
Condi bin Lyin Strikes Again!
The New Cold War is plan B.
Everyone keeps asking about plan B.
Well, this is it.
Just in case some Democrats, a few Republicans and a lot of independents (sane Americans) win out, and the Neoconservative vision goes down the toilet, right behind the federal treasury and U.S, integrity, there is always a new cold war to feed the beast. (Mlitary-industrial-security complex).
"Damn that Gipper! That old kook wouldn't know a real investor's portfolio if it hit him in the face!"
Ah, how the Bushites and the NeoCons have lost sleep, since the fall of the Berlin Wall.
Until Saddam was tricked into making a very foolish mistake, in the early 90s.......
Rice: No ‘new Cold War’ between U.S., Russia
Secretary of state concedes it is ‘not an easy time’ for countries
MOSCOW - Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said Monday that it is “not any easy” time in Russia-U.S. relations, but that the tensions do not amount to a new Cold War.
“I don’t throw around terms like ‘new Cold War,”’ Rice said on her way to Moscow for a visit amid growing tensions underlined by President Vladimir Putin’s increasing criticism of the United States. “It is a big, complicated relationship, but it is not one that is anything like the implacable hostility” that clouded ties between the United States and the Soviet Union.
“It is not an easy time in the relationship, but it is also not, I think, a time in which cataclysmic things are affecting the relationship or catastrophic things are happening in the relationship,”
Rice told reporters aboard her plane. “But it is critically important to use this time to enhance those things that are going well and to work on those things that are not going well.”
Washington’s relations with Moscow are troubled by sharp disagreements on specific issues — in particular the U.S. proposal to place elements of a missile defense system in former Soviet satellite countries — and by a clear rise in the Kremlin’s suspicion of American intentions worldwide.
Kremlin angerRussian officials bristle at U.S. criticism of a perceived Kremlin rollback of democracy and complain that Washington is interfering in the country’s internal affairs by funding pro-democracy groups. Russia also accuses the U.S. of trying to dominate international affairs.
In an address on the anniversary of the defeat of Nazi Germany, Putin last week denounced “disrespect for human life, claims to global exclusiveness and dictate, just as it was in the time of the Third Reich.”
Rice suggested Russian officials’ sometimes emotionally charged wording of their complaints is not constructive, saying she has urged her counterparts to avoid “rhetoric that suggests the relationship is one of hostility.”
She couched criticism of Russia’s democratic progress under Putin with a caveat alluding to the country’s troubled history.
“This is a big and complex place that is going through a major historic transformation ... things are not going to change overnight, but frankly we would like to see them change faster than they are changing, and for the better,” Rice said.
© 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.
Nations of The World! Gather Up Your Neocons, Throw Them On The Fire!
This will require of, Americans. an honest search of their own pet political parties.
Anyone who believes that the Neoconservative agenda exists only in America and only in the Republican party is a damn fool.
Americans are sick of the unrepentant arrogance of this elite.
But the realisation has come at a very heavy cost
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Friday May 11, 2007
The Guardian
Now and again people have found themselves in places where the course of history was dramatically changed: Paris in 1789, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in 1989. Sometimes the feeling of momentous change is illusory. When Tony Blair won his first election 10 years ago, perfectly sane people proclaimed that "these are revolutionary times". As most of us realised long before his ignominious departure, that was just what they weren't.
And yet to visit the US at present, as I have done, is to experience an overwhelming sensation of drastic impending change. It's not merely that President Bush, to whom Blair so disastrously tethered himself, is "in office but not in power". Most Americans can't wait for him to go, Congress is beyond his control, and the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, has told him that the war in Iraq is lost - for which statement of the obvious Reid was accused of "defeatism" by the vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Besides that the portents range from Paul Wolfowitz's travails at the World Bank to the Senate interrogation of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, and the trial of Conrad Black. This might sound like the "succession of small disasters, oh trifling in themselves", in Alan Bennett's Forty Years On ("a Foreign Secretary's sudden attack of dysentery at the funeral of George V, an American ambassador found strangled in his own gym-slip...") And yet there really is an observable pattern.
Along with the collapse of Bush's authority, all these episodes are connected to the great disaster in Iraq. And all illustrate the hubristic, impenitent arrogance of the people who have been guiding America's destiny - as well as ours, alas - for the past six years. What one senses so acutely are the conditions building for a political perfect storm, which will engulf and destroy the whole neoconservative project.
In Washington I took part in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, my old sparring partner and drinking companion (mots justes, all of them), who supports Bush with a defiance worthy of a better cause. He surpassed himself by insisting that his friend Wolfowitz is a wronged man. A World Bank committee reportedly disagrees, and has found that Wolfowitz did violate the bank's rules in the matter of his lady friend's salary.
But in any case everyone else in Washington says the same thing: Wolfowitz cannot survive. His appointment was widely resented in the first place - the German, French, Dutch and Scandinavian governments have warned that they might withhold funds if he stays in office; and severe damage is being done to the organisation he claims to have at heart by his refusal to accept reality.
Then again, detachment from reality is perhaps to be expected from one of the architects of the war, a man who thought that the Iraqis would rise up to greet the American army as liberators. As the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, Wolfowitz and his cabal "do not seem to understand that being president of the World Bank is a privilege, not an entitlement".
Gonzales was just a Texan hack lawyer who acted as Bush's consigliere, but he made his contribution to the great enterprise when he ruled that torture could be justified in the "war on terror". His Senate hearing provided a little comic relief, what with his acute amnesia followed by the deathless admission that "I now understand there was a conversation with myself and the president". One day Blair may understand that there was a conversation between himself and the president about the invasion of Iraq, and that his commitment to the war took place much earlier than he has ever admitted.
While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion. What has struck me about Black's trial was that we were hearing another version of the arrogance and denial we have heard from Wolfowitz and many others. It will give me no particular pleasure if my former employer is banged up, but his downfall is another grave blow for the neocons.
All of which has vital implications for British politics. Nicolas Sarkozy has been called "an American neoconservative with a French passport", which he is not. But Blair really is an American neoconservative with a British passport. He revealingly and accurately said that "there isn't a world of difference" between himself and the neocons politically, and his party must now, as it shakes off the burden of these past years, ask itself what, in that case, he was doing as Labour leader.
The Tories have questions of their own. Even the stupidest have grasped that the war and the American alliance are unpopular with the electorate, but they should now ask if sceptical, pragmatic Conservatism ever had anything in common with neoconservatism and its vast revolutionary scheme. One who did understand is Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP. Before the 2004 presidential election he said he wanted Bush re-elected: his presidency was halfway through an "experiment whose importance is almost literally earth-shattering" and should be played out to its inevitable failure.
But that failure must be demonstrated beyond contradiction. "The theory that liberal values and a capitalist system can be spread across the world by force of arms... should be tested to destruction ... The president and his neoconservative court should be offered all the rope they need to hang themselves."
His wish has come true; neocons are dangling all around us. In a flicker of self-knowledge, Wolfowitz told a recent World Bank meeting: "I understand that I've lost a lot of trust, and I want to build that trust back up." But it's too late, for him and all the other courtiers. They never really enjoyed the trust of most Europeans, let alone Africans and Asians, and they have now lost the trust of the American people.
All the readings on the barometer and the wind gauge say the same thing. The perfect storm is gathering. Unfortunately the collapse of the neocon project comes at a very heavy cost, not only to the people of Iraq but to all of us.
· Geoffrey Wheatcroft is the author of Yo, Blair! wheaty@compuserve.com
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Anyone who believes that the Neoconservative agenda exists only in America and only in the Republican party is a damn fool.
Americans are sick of the unrepentant arrogance of this elite.
But the realisation has come at a very heavy cost
Geoffrey Wheatcroft
Friday May 11, 2007
The Guardian
Now and again people have found themselves in places where the course of history was dramatically changed: Paris in 1789, Petrograd in 1917, Berlin in 1989. Sometimes the feeling of momentous change is illusory. When Tony Blair won his first election 10 years ago, perfectly sane people proclaimed that "these are revolutionary times". As most of us realised long before his ignominious departure, that was just what they weren't.
And yet to visit the US at present, as I have done, is to experience an overwhelming sensation of drastic impending change. It's not merely that President Bush, to whom Blair so disastrously tethered himself, is "in office but not in power". Most Americans can't wait for him to go, Congress is beyond his control, and the Senate majority leader, Senator Harry Reid, has told him that the war in Iraq is lost - for which statement of the obvious Reid was accused of "defeatism" by the vice-president, Dick Cheney.
Besides that the portents range from Paul Wolfowitz's travails at the World Bank to the Senate interrogation of Alberto Gonzales, the attorney general, and the trial of Conrad Black. This might sound like the "succession of small disasters, oh trifling in themselves", in Alan Bennett's Forty Years On ("a Foreign Secretary's sudden attack of dysentery at the funeral of George V, an American ambassador found strangled in his own gym-slip...") And yet there really is an observable pattern.
Along with the collapse of Bush's authority, all these episodes are connected to the great disaster in Iraq. And all illustrate the hubristic, impenitent arrogance of the people who have been guiding America's destiny - as well as ours, alas - for the past six years. What one senses so acutely are the conditions building for a political perfect storm, which will engulf and destroy the whole neoconservative project.
In Washington I took part in a debate with Christopher Hitchens, my old sparring partner and drinking companion (mots justes, all of them), who supports Bush with a defiance worthy of a better cause. He surpassed himself by insisting that his friend Wolfowitz is a wronged man. A World Bank committee reportedly disagrees, and has found that Wolfowitz did violate the bank's rules in the matter of his lady friend's salary.
But in any case everyone else in Washington says the same thing: Wolfowitz cannot survive. His appointment was widely resented in the first place - the German, French, Dutch and Scandinavian governments have warned that they might withhold funds if he stays in office; and severe damage is being done to the organisation he claims to have at heart by his refusal to accept reality.
Then again, detachment from reality is perhaps to be expected from one of the architects of the war, a man who thought that the Iraqis would rise up to greet the American army as liberators. As the Nobel-winning economist Joseph Stiglitz said, Wolfowitz and his cabal "do not seem to understand that being president of the World Bank is a privilege, not an entitlement".
Gonzales was just a Texan hack lawyer who acted as Bush's consigliere, but he made his contribution to the great enterprise when he ruled that torture could be justified in the "war on terror". His Senate hearing provided a little comic relief, what with his acute amnesia followed by the deathless admission that "I now understand there was a conversation with myself and the president". One day Blair may understand that there was a conversation between himself and the president about the invasion of Iraq, and that his commitment to the war took place much earlier than he has ever admitted.
While Lord Black has never worked for the Bush administration, he was aligned with the neocon elite through the National Interest, the journal he used to publish, and he brought some of its members, such as Richard Perle, on to the board of his companies. Perle seems to have taken his fiduciary duties as lightly as he and his colleagues took the problems that would arise in Iraq as a result of the invasion. What has struck me about Black's trial was that we were hearing another version of the arrogance and denial we have heard from Wolfowitz and many others. It will give me no particular pleasure if my former employer is banged up, but his downfall is another grave blow for the neocons.
All of which has vital implications for British politics. Nicolas Sarkozy has been called "an American neoconservative with a French passport", which he is not. But Blair really is an American neoconservative with a British passport. He revealingly and accurately said that "there isn't a world of difference" between himself and the neocons politically, and his party must now, as it shakes off the burden of these past years, ask itself what, in that case, he was doing as Labour leader.
The Tories have questions of their own. Even the stupidest have grasped that the war and the American alliance are unpopular with the electorate, but they should now ask if sceptical, pragmatic Conservatism ever had anything in common with neoconservatism and its vast revolutionary scheme. One who did understand is Matthew Parris, the former Tory MP. Before the 2004 presidential election he said he wanted Bush re-elected: his presidency was halfway through an "experiment whose importance is almost literally earth-shattering" and should be played out to its inevitable failure.
But that failure must be demonstrated beyond contradiction. "The theory that liberal values and a capitalist system can be spread across the world by force of arms... should be tested to destruction ... The president and his neoconservative court should be offered all the rope they need to hang themselves."
His wish has come true; neocons are dangling all around us. In a flicker of self-knowledge, Wolfowitz told a recent World Bank meeting: "I understand that I've lost a lot of trust, and I want to build that trust back up." But it's too late, for him and all the other courtiers. They never really enjoyed the trust of most Europeans, let alone Africans and Asians, and they have now lost the trust of the American people.
All the readings on the barometer and the wind gauge say the same thing. The perfect storm is gathering. Unfortunately the collapse of the neocon project comes at a very heavy cost, not only to the people of Iraq but to all of us.
· Geoffrey Wheatcroft is the author of Yo, Blair! wheaty@compuserve.com
(In accordance with Title 17 U.S.C. Section 107, this material is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. I.U. has no affiliation whatsoever with the originator of this article nor is I.U endorsed or sponsored by the originator.)
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Goopers Begin Eating Each Other.....
Let the feeding frenzy begin!
The Raw Story Bill Kristol: 'Stupid, dishonorable' Republicans wavering on Iraq:
Conservative pundit Bill Kristol on Fox News Sunday this morning criticized the wavering on support for the Iraq war by some Republicans as 'extremely stupid.'
'The idea that they will get credit for deserting the war at this point, they voted for the war, they voted to fund the war, now they're going to what? Vote for withdrawal, for surrender,' he mocked. 'Then they're going to go to voters, Republican congressmen, in 2008 and say, 'Hey, re-elect us!''
'It's a ridiculous political calculation, as well as dishonorable one,' he continued. 'The Democrats are behaving terribly, but the Republicans are behaving foolishly.'
Waiting In The Wings: Fred Thompson
Hey, Fred! Stay there, will ya?
The last thing we need in this country is another actor in the White House.
Somehow the thought of that just does not inspire any confidence, in this American, that he won't be reading from another Rovian/NeoCon script, which has little to do with reality or the well-being of this country.
Forget it!
Give me authenticity or give me a stun-gun to use on the next SOB that lies to me from a g--damned podium.!
Waiting In The Wings: Fred Thompson, The "Law And Order" Star And Ex-Senator Could Give GOP Presidential Hopefuls A Tough Fight - CBS News:
That gritty, growly voice as the district attorney in 'Law and Order' and his 6-foot-6-inch presence in movies like 'The Hunt For Red October' have made Fred Thompson an A-list celebrity in Hollywood.
He even snagged the role of commander-in-chief in 'Last Best Chance,' a TV movie about terrorists acquiring nuclear weapons.
Now some are hoping he'll take on that job — for real.
CBS Evening News Saturday anchor Thalia Assuras reports.
Hagel-Bloomberg In '08?
Run, Chuck, Run!
Hagel-Bloomberg In '08? You Never Know, Senator Says Today's GOP Is Not The Party He Joined; Considers An Independent Ticket In '08 - CBS News:
The Republican Party has been 'hijacked' and led away from its core values, Chuck Hagel, the Republican Senator from Nebraska, said Sunday on Face The Nation.
Hagel, who is still considering his options for the 2008 race, left open the possibility of becoming an independent and sharing a ticket with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg.
'I am not happy with the Republican Party today,' Hagel said. 'It's been hijacked by a group of single-minded almost isolationists, insulationists, power-projectors.'
Sunday, May 13, 2007
A Living Nightmare of Corruption, War Profiteering and Deception
Two Hearings, One Reality
By William Rivers Pitt
t r u t h o u t Columnist
Friday 11 May 2007
The fur was most definitely flying in Washington, DC yesterday. Newspaper reports revealed a White House meeting between several GOP House members and Mr. Bush. Those congressmen, according to the stories, read the riot act to Bush regarding the situation in Iraq, and further warned him that the Republican support he has enjoyed to date will fall to dust if progress isn't made soon. Several reporters and pundits were reminded, by this, of that "Long Walk" to the Nixon White House taken by GOP senators seeking his resignation.
The main event on Thursday, however, was a House Judiciary oversight hearing chaired by Representative John Conyers (D-Michigan) and starring Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The hearing was a reprise of the Senate Judiciary grilling Gonzales endured back in April, during which he deployed dozens of "I don't recall" replies to his questioners and essentially debased the entire concept of public testimony itself.
Thursday's hearing wasn't much different. Despite the best efforts of Conyers and his fellow committee members, the hearing became, for the most part, another empty exercise. House member after House member attempted to pin Gonzales down on some basic details surrounding the firing of several US attorneys, but had little success in the endeavor. "You can answer these questions in three sentences," Chairman Conyers noted at one point, but to no avail. The "I don't recall" answers from Gonzales were so thickly applied once again that, by mid-afternoon, most of the committee members began to preface their questions with, "You may not be able to answer this, but...." More often than not, they were correct in that assumption.
Another hearing took place on Capitol Hill yesterday that was truly chilling to observe. Representative John Murtha's (D-Pennsylvania) Subcommittee on Appropriations heard testimony from two investigators whose work has been focused on the phenomenon of private military contractors in Iraq. The first to give testimony was Jeremy Scahill, author of "Blackwater: Rise of the World's Most Powerful Mercenary Army." The second witness was Robert Greenwald, a documentary filmmaker who recently released a new film titled "Iraq for Sale: The War Profiteers."
Both men painted a stark picture of reality in Iraq. According to Scahill, there are tens of thousands of private military contractors - a kind euphemism for mercenaries - operating today in Iraq. They are paid with American tax revenues to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, while operating with virtually no oversight and free from the strictures of the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Dozens of acts of brutality and murder reportedly committed by these contractors have been alleged, but almost no contractor has been punished, sanctioned or even investigated for these acts. Because the Iraqi population does not make the distinction between American soldiers and these private contractors, the questionable activities of these contractors are blamed on US troops, further fanning the flames of outrage and vengeance.
Even more disturbing was the testimony offered by Greenwald. Some excerpts:
I remember clearly my interview with Stewart Scott, a former Halliburton employee. With pain and rage in his voice, he asked how dare Halliburton put its people up at five-star hotels while the soldiers, who he was there to help, were sleeping on the ground. I did not believe him at first, but then he began naming the hotels and the locations. It was all true.
I also spoke with Shane Ratliff, a truck driver from Ruby, South Carolina. He saw Halliburton advertising a job for truck drivers in Iraq and he signed up. When Shane started telling me that empty trucks were being driven across dangerous stretches of desert, I assumed he was mistaken. Why would they do that? Then he explained that Halliburton got paid for the number of trips they took, regardless of whether they were carrying anything. These unnecessary trips where putting the lives of truckers at risk, exposing drivers and co-workers to attack. This was the result of cost-plus, no-bid contracts.
Another young Halliburton worker named James Logsdon told me about the burn pits. Burn pits are large dumps near military stations where they would burn equipment, trucks, trash, etc. If they ordered the wrong item, they'd throw it in the burn pit. If a tire blew on a piece of equipment, they'd throw the whole thing into the burn pit. The burn pits had so much equipment they even gave them a nickname: "Home Depot."
The trucker said he would get us some photos. And I naively asked, how big are they, the size of a backyard swimming pool? He laughed and referred to one that he had seen that was 15 football fields large and burned around the clock! It infuriated him to have to burn stuff rather then give it to the Iraqis or to the military. Yet Halliburton was being rewarded each time they billed the government for a new truck or new piece of equipment. With a cost-plus contract, the contractors receive a percentage of the money they spend. As Shane told me, "It's a legal way of stealing from the government or the taxpayers' money." These costs eat up the money that could be used for other supplies.
Cost-plus, no-bid contracts are hopelessly undermining our efforts and costing the taxpayers billions. They do not operate within a free-market system and have no competition, but instead create a Stalinist system of rewarding cronies. In a letter from Sgt. Jon Lacore talking about the enormous amount of waste, he said, "I just can't believe that no one at all is going to jail for this or even being fired or forced to resign."
The information put forth in this second hearing is placed in better context when held up to the debate over the supplemental Iraq war funding bill recently vetoed by Mr. Bush, who, along with his allies, have accused the Democrats of abandoning the troops during war by playing politics with the funding for their operations. One is forced to wonder, however, how much of the funding already allocated was frivolously wasted by profiteering military contractors who burn perfectly serviceable vehicles and make fake supply runs, all to cash in on the endless river of money flowing into the Iraqi sand.
Dina Rasor, author of the recently released book "Betraying Our Troops: The Destructive Results of Privatizing War," offered further insight into the private contractor phenomenon in a Huffington Post story on Wednesday. "There is also evidence that these contractor billings are sucking up the supplemental money and making other logistical areas suffer," wrote Rasor. "The supplemental money is flexible so that the Army can use it where they need it, but there is evidence that the contractor over-billings are taking away much needed money for replacing basic fighting equipment such as night vision goggles, workable radios and armored vehicles.
The most common email that I get from Iraq makes the point that while troops can get luxury items at the large bases, such as soft-serve ice cream and plasma televisions, they can't get enough equipment needed to save their lives when they leave the cushy bases and go out into hostile areas. There is real resentment among the troops that KBR makes life very nice for the military brass and others at the base, but will not go out of the gate, as required, to make sure that they have the basics that they need."
Beyond this is one central point hammered home by Scahill and Greenwald: How can we justify the usage of private armies that profit from this war, and thus have a financial interest in continuing and expanding this war? Is this not a recipe for endless conflict and bottomless profiteering?
Two hearings took place on Thursday, both of which served to reveal one absolute and unavoidable reality: Oversight of and investigations into the activities of the Bush administration, especially regarding Iraq, could not have come soon enough. It was a day of many questions, a few answers, and plenty of truth for all to see.
(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.
Bad Week For Bush
From Ed HenryCNN White House correspondent
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Despite a week when he was clearly playing defense on his Iraq war policy, President Bush nevertheless rallied the party faithful Thursday night with a mantra he has uttered many times before -- failure is not an option in Iraq.
"If I didn't think it was worthy, if I didn't think it was necessary, if I didn't realize and believe that it's important to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, I wouldn't have sent our young men and women there in the first place," Bush said.
"I don't want it to be said 50 years from now, 'What happened to America in 2007? How come they forgot the lessons of September 11? How come they couldn't see the impending dangers?' "
And yet, Bush's message came near the end of a week in which his staunchest ally on Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, announced he was leaving the political stage, and a group of anxious House Republicans came to the White House for what was described as a "frank" exchange about the looming political dangers of the war.
'The president is in a bubble'
The week's developments prompted one of Bush's leading critics on Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to charge Friday that "the president is in a bubble."
"He is isolated. Every day the ranks of dissatisfied Republicans grow," Reid, D-Nevada, said. (Watch how Bush's own party is pressuring him )
Presidential scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said Bush "has fewer friends, and I think he is beginning to realize even a determined, principled president, who is bent upon doing what he views is the right thing, runs out of room if he loses support within his own political party."
The White House sought to downplay any ominous portent to the meeting with the Republican delegation, noting that the president frequently meets with lawmakers and is used to hearing criticism. House Minority Leader John Boehner, who was part of the legislative group that went to the White House, said, "There are no fissures in our conference."
But one of the participants in the meeting, Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, said he thought the president was "maybe sobered" by what members of his own party had to say.
"The fact is that I don't know if he's gotten that kind of opinion before in such a frank and no-holds-barred way," LaHood said.
British support may depart with Blair
Blair, who has seen his popularity plunge because of his steadfast support for the U.S.-led Iraq war, announced Thursday that he will resign June 27, ending 10 years as prime minister. Bush had an upbeat reaction to the news, saying he thinks Blair's expected successor, Gordon Brown, is "an open and engaging person" who "understands the consequences of failure" in Iraq.
However, Friday, in announcing his bid to lead Britain's ruling Labour Party, Brown seemed to put some distance between himself and Blair, saying that while "our obligations to the Iraqi people" will be met, "I do think that over the next few months the emphasis will shift."
(Watch what Brown brings to the table )
Brown cited the importance of political reconciliation, economic development and helping Iraqis "feel they've got a stake" in the country's future.
In a nod to antiwar Labour members, Brown also said, "I accept that mistakes have been made."
Bush bends a little
Amid this week's mounting pressure, though, there were signs of flexibility coming from the White House.
While Bush threatened to veto a new war funding bill approved by the House, which would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only through July, he also signaled he is willing to work with Congress on language setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.
(Watch how war funding could play out )
"I will continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans to come up with a way to get this money to our troops as quickly as possible," Bush told Republicans at Thursday night's fund-raiser. "We don't want to put the men and women who wear our uniform in the midst of a Washington, D.C., debate."
The president also agreed Thursday to go along with demands from Democrats to add labor and environmental standards to proposed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
"It's the first sign that the president is willing to make significant concessions to the new political reality on Capitol Hill and adjust his positions on some critical issues," Mann said. "I think he will confront this choice again and again if he wants to salvage anything from his second term." (Watch why Bush is showing willingness to compromise )
However, the president still faces an uphill battle securing victories on domestic priorities such as immigration reform, which splits his party, and renewal of one of the major achievements of his first term, the No Child Left Behind education reform plan, which is now drawing conservative opposition.
Ironically, on both immigration and education, the president may get more help from Democrats than Republicans.
(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 (CNN) -- Despite a week when he was clearly playing defense on his Iraq war policy, President Bush nevertheless rallied the party faithful Thursday night with a mantra he has uttered many times before -- failure is not an option in Iraq.
"If I didn't think it was worthy, if I didn't think it was necessary, if I didn't realize and believe that it's important to defeat al Qaeda in Iraq, I wouldn't have sent our young men and women there in the first place," Bush said.
"I don't want it to be said 50 years from now, 'What happened to America in 2007? How come they forgot the lessons of September 11? How come they couldn't see the impending dangers?' "
And yet, Bush's message came near the end of a week in which his staunchest ally on Iraq, British Prime Minister Tony Blair, announced he was leaving the political stage, and a group of anxious House Republicans came to the White House for what was described as a "frank" exchange about the looming political dangers of the war.
'The president is in a bubble'
The week's developments prompted one of Bush's leading critics on Iraq, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, to charge Friday that "the president is in a bubble."
"He is isolated. Every day the ranks of dissatisfied Republicans grow," Reid, D-Nevada, said. (Watch how Bush's own party is pressuring him )
Presidential scholar Thomas Mann of the Brookings Institution said Bush "has fewer friends, and I think he is beginning to realize even a determined, principled president, who is bent upon doing what he views is the right thing, runs out of room if he loses support within his own political party."
The White House sought to downplay any ominous portent to the meeting with the Republican delegation, noting that the president frequently meets with lawmakers and is used to hearing criticism. House Minority Leader John Boehner, who was part of the legislative group that went to the White House, said, "There are no fissures in our conference."
But one of the participants in the meeting, Rep. Ray LaHood of Illinois, said he thought the president was "maybe sobered" by what members of his own party had to say.
"The fact is that I don't know if he's gotten that kind of opinion before in such a frank and no-holds-barred way," LaHood said.
British support may depart with Blair
Blair, who has seen his popularity plunge because of his steadfast support for the U.S.-led Iraq war, announced Thursday that he will resign June 27, ending 10 years as prime minister. Bush had an upbeat reaction to the news, saying he thinks Blair's expected successor, Gordon Brown, is "an open and engaging person" who "understands the consequences of failure" in Iraq.
However, Friday, in announcing his bid to lead Britain's ruling Labour Party, Brown seemed to put some distance between himself and Blair, saying that while "our obligations to the Iraqi people" will be met, "I do think that over the next few months the emphasis will shift."
(Watch what Brown brings to the table )
Brown cited the importance of political reconciliation, economic development and helping Iraqis "feel they've got a stake" in the country's future.
In a nod to antiwar Labour members, Brown also said, "I accept that mistakes have been made."
Bush bends a little
Amid this week's mounting pressure, though, there were signs of flexibility coming from the White House.
While Bush threatened to veto a new war funding bill approved by the House, which would fund the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan only through July, he also signaled he is willing to work with Congress on language setting benchmarks for the Iraqi government to meet.
(Watch how war funding could play out )
"I will continue to reach out to Democrats and Republicans to come up with a way to get this money to our troops as quickly as possible," Bush told Republicans at Thursday night's fund-raiser. "We don't want to put the men and women who wear our uniform in the midst of a Washington, D.C., debate."
The president also agreed Thursday to go along with demands from Democrats to add labor and environmental standards to proposed free trade agreements with Peru, Colombia, Panama and South Korea.
"It's the first sign that the president is willing to make significant concessions to the new political reality on Capitol Hill and adjust his positions on some critical issues," Mann said. "I think he will confront this choice again and again if he wants to salvage anything from his second term." (Watch why Bush is showing willingness to compromise )
However, the president still faces an uphill battle securing victories on domestic priorities such as immigration reform, which splits his party, and renewal of one of the major achievements of his first term, the No Child Left Behind education reform plan, which is now drawing conservative opposition.
Ironically, on both immigration and education, the president may get more help from Democrats than Republicans.
(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, May 12, 2007
The Stars Aligned Against GOP In 2008
Bob Novak on being ‘The Prince of Darkness’
“All the stars are aligned against the Republicans in 2008,” Bob Novak told the assembled masses at the Americans for Tax Reform’s Wednesday meeting, causing a subtle gasp to leak out of the conservative faithful.
“You’re breaking our rule on being cheerful, Bob,” ATR’s Grover Norquist responded.
“Well, I am the Prince of Darkness,” Novak said, jokingly.
And Novak is embracing his nickname: His latest book, due out in July, is titled, “The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years of Reporting in Washington.”
Novak also weighed in on several potential ’08 candidates:
Al Gore: “He likes being rich ... he likes being an Oscar-winner and I think he likes being fat, too.”
John McCain, at the recent GOP debate in California: “He didn’t look like a winner.”
Mitt Romney: In response to Romney’s performance at the recent GOP debate, Novak said some people told him that Romney “almost looked too perfect.”
Fred Thompson: Novak said that, apparently, people believe that Thompson “did such a good job as the district attorney of New York City that he deserves a chance to be president.”
(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.
“All the stars are aligned against the Republicans in 2008,” Bob Novak told the assembled masses at the Americans for Tax Reform’s Wednesday meeting, causing a subtle gasp to leak out of the conservative faithful.
“You’re breaking our rule on being cheerful, Bob,” ATR’s Grover Norquist responded.
“Well, I am the Prince of Darkness,” Novak said, jokingly.
And Novak is embracing his nickname: His latest book, due out in July, is titled, “The Prince of Darkness: 50 Years of Reporting in Washington.”
Novak also weighed in on several potential ’08 candidates:
Al Gore: “He likes being rich ... he likes being an Oscar-winner and I think he likes being fat, too.”
John McCain, at the recent GOP debate in California: “He didn’t look like a winner.”
Mitt Romney: In response to Romney’s performance at the recent GOP debate, Novak said some people told him that Romney “almost looked too perfect.”
Fred Thompson: Novak said that, apparently, people believe that Thompson “did such a good job as the district attorney of New York City that he deserves a chance to be president.”
(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 Bushite B.S.: When Will It Stop?
When we stop it!
Yesterday, we learned that the 11 House Republicans met with the president and his senior aides at the White House this week for an “unvarnished” conversation about the administration’s war policy in Iraq.
Various media accounts of the 90-minute meeting suggested that the GOP lawmakers are nervous about what the war is going to do to the party’s future.
This certainly wasn’t good news for the White House, but an adept political operation could spin the meeting fairly easily. Indeed, Dana Perino was on CNN last night articulating a positive message: “They expressed frustration, because of a lack of progress. The president understands that. He’s right there with them on that. And I think that, if you look at our party, we are ones that like frank exchange of views. We have a big tent. And discussions like this are OK. They’re good to have. And that’s why the president was very happy to have them at the White House.”
See? The meeting was a good thing after all! Or at least it was, right up until the White House started stepping on its own spin.
Top Bush administration officials lashed out at a pair of House Republicans at the White House yesterday after details about a contentious meeting between President Bush and GOP legislators were leaked to the media earlier this week.
The confrontations are the latest indications of an intensifying rift between Bush and congressional Republicans.
Reps. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) attracted the ire of White House officials for allegedly speaking to reporters about a Tuesday meeting between Bush and centrist Republicans on the Iraq war.
Oops.
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Yesterday, we learned that the 11 House Republicans met with the president and his senior aides at the White House this week for an “unvarnished” conversation about the administration’s war policy in Iraq.
Various media accounts of the 90-minute meeting suggested that the GOP lawmakers are nervous about what the war is going to do to the party’s future.
This certainly wasn’t good news for the White House, but an adept political operation could spin the meeting fairly easily. Indeed, Dana Perino was on CNN last night articulating a positive message: “They expressed frustration, because of a lack of progress. The president understands that. He’s right there with them on that. And I think that, if you look at our party, we are ones that like frank exchange of views. We have a big tent. And discussions like this are OK. They’re good to have. And that’s why the president was very happy to have them at the White House.”
See? The meeting was a good thing after all! Or at least it was, right up until the White House started stepping on its own spin.
Top Bush administration officials lashed out at a pair of House Republicans at the White House yesterday after details about a contentious meeting between President Bush and GOP legislators were leaked to the media earlier this week.
The confrontations are the latest indications of an intensifying rift between Bush and congressional Republicans.
Reps. Ray LaHood (R-Ill.) and Mark Kirk (R-Ill.) attracted the ire of White House officials for allegedly speaking to reporters about a Tuesday meeting between Bush and centrist Republicans on the Iraq war.
Oops.
The Nazis, Fascists and Communists were political parties before they became enemies of liberty and mass murderers.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
