MR BUSH- WHY DID WE GO TO WAR WITH IRAQ?

Lost Trust:
Mr. Bush Has Lied So Many Times We Just Don't Know What to Believe Anymore

This is what Bush said that day on the aircraft carrier, bedecked in the flight suit:

"...... The battle of Iraq is one victory in a war on terror that began on September the 11, 2001 - and still goes on. That terrible morning, 19 evil men - the shock troops of a hateful ideology - gave America and the civilized world a glimpse of their ambitions. They imagined, in the words of one terrorist, that September the 11th would be the "beginning of the end of America." By seeking to turn our cities into killing fields, terrorists and their allies believed that they could destroy this nation's resolve, and force our retreat from the world. They have failed....

.....The liberation of Iraq is a crucial advance in the campaign against terror. We've removed an ally of al Qaeda, and cut off a source of terrorist funding. And this much is certain: No terrorist network will gain weapons of mass destruction from the Iraqi regime, because the regime is no more.

....In these 19 months that changed the world, our actions have been focused and deliberate and proportionate to the offense. We have not forgotten the victims of September the 11th - the last phone calls, the cold murder of children, the searches in the rubble. With those attacks, the terrorists and their supporters declared war on the United States. And war is what they got.


When truth takes flight, only an empty suit remains.



....Our war against terror is proceeding according to principles that I have made clear to all: Any person involved in committing or planning terrorist attacks against the American people becomes an enemy of this country, and a target of American justice.

Any person, organization, or government that supports, protects, or harbors terrorists is complicit in the murder of the innocent, and equally guilty of terrorist crimes.

...Any outlaw regime that has ties to terrorist groups and seeks or possesses weapons of mass destruction is a grave danger to the civilized world - and will be confronted......."

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

This is what he said two days ago after VP Dick Cheney once again misled the public on Meet The Press about the Saddam/9-11 connection:

Bush said there was no attempt by the administration to try to confuse people about any link between Saddam and Sept. 11.


“No, we’ve had no evidence that Saddam Hussein was involved with September the 11th....What the vice president said was is that he (Saddam) has been involved with al-Qaida....
And al-Zarqawi, al-Qaida operative, was in Baghdad. He’s the guy that ordered the killing of a U.S. diplomat. ... There’s no question that Saddam Hussein had al-Qaida ties.”


Note: Jordanian Abu Musab al-Zarqawi is a leader of an Islamic group in northern Iraq called Ansar al-Islam believed to have links to al-Qaeda. He ONCE received medical care in Baghdad. If this and the faulty legend of one of the suicide bombers meeting with Iraqi intelligence (never proven) is all they've got, it's flimsy at best.

In a Sept. 6 interview with The Washington Post, Paul Wolfowitz said hundreds of fighters from al-Qaeda and other groups were now in Iraq....after we took out the Hussein regime. You will note that Wolfowitz acts as if this was an unexpected consequence of taking Saddam out of the picture...but I beg to differ.

Wolfowitz has said: "There are some thousands of former Baathists and some hundreds of al-Qaeda and other foreign terrorists who are ... killing Americans and Iraqis and U.N. officials and moderate Shiite leaders in order to destabilize Iraq.''

It seems to me, after we look back at the failure to locate WMDs and the flimsy (highly changeable) reasons and false references to the Iraq/9-11 connection, that the Bush administration had their own reasons for attacking Iraq.
Amazingly, they never bother to share the real reason.

Bush said in his last speech to the nation:

"...Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."

This leads me to believe Bush intended for Iraq to become the "central front" for the war on terror. It seems we did not go as moral defenders of the people of Iraq...and we know now that Iraq did not pose a significant threat to us...(it's more dangerous for America today than it was before the war).

It seems we went into Iraq because we knew Saddam's regime was weak...and we bet that his people were weakened by years of sanctions. Previously contained, it would be an easy government to roll over.

What we seem to have gone into Iraq for was to PROVOKE terror.
We seem to have desired to make Iraq the central front for terror.

How moral is that?

How just is that for the people of Iraq?

Is this what Bush means by American justice?

Is it any wonder the Iraqis have a groundswell of resistance? (Or "terror", as the Bush administration prefers to call it, being allergic to the word "resistance").

WHY THE HELL DID WE REALLY GO TO WAR, MR. BUSH?
Have you defrauded America?

My darkest moments when considering Wesley Clark--
Serbia 1999
General Wesley's Got Some 'Splainin' to do

There are going to be a lot of hard questions coming from the right in the next few months about both the Waco David Koresh) incident and about NATO operations in Serbia, 1999.

They are questions that I admit are valid and need to be brought to light.



Waco should still bother more than just the ugly right-wingers and the "wacky militia types".

There's a lot of dust America likes to sweep under its carpet.

A genuine patriot cannot let untruths be swept under or go on existing as untruths.

I'll be listening closely to General Clark's replies to the hardest questions.


I dreamt last night that General Clark came to power in this nation and was revered as a hero and a savior of a land that had nearly died from division. In my dream, there was a nation of angry, divided souls without geographic dividing lines from which to create "sides". In the dream, I knew there would never be another conceivable civil war...only chaos and eventual apathy with a citizenry too tired and helpless to resist the money-machine dictatorship of those who disdain the democratic ideals of our forefathers. Our beloved nation, a wee shadow of its former self, was beaten down to
a neo-monarchy...not a lot dfferent from the tyranny from which we had triumphed long ago.

I awoke and wondered if enough people today consider this nation worth saving?
Most people you speak with could care less about what's happening with the powers-that-be in this country.
The ones who DO care are so deeply divided that I can see my dream coming true.
America will die soon..she's on a terminal course.



The only way General Clark can mend us, in my opinion, is to show us that war is an obsolete concept...and that world cohesion does not mean relinquishing your nation's best interests or unification.

We good people of this world all need one another, regardless of our borders.
We need a leader who has integrity and vision for a peaceful and cooperative world.
More than anything, the people of our nation (as well as the people in this world) need an American leader they can trust.

With the shady, lying Bush administration who obviously harbor contempt for the poor in their own country, we don't have leadership we can trust.

Could a man with a military background accomplish something like this?

Will he be able to explain his past without glossing over the hard facts? If he can't, he won't gain my complete trust.

Can he transform these corporations into businesses who will develop alternative energy technologies and 21st-century peace-keeping apparatus?

General Clark is an economist as well as a military man. His upcoming speech on the economy should be very interesting.

But he really has a lot of explaining to do about Waco and Serbia.

My ears are open. If he is right for this country, I want him to succeed.

Nuclear Disaster

Illogical Republicans Ensure Renewal of Arms Race
OR:
"What about Box-Cutters?"




"The idea of being able to use a redesigned nuclear weapon to keep a terrorist from hitting us with a nuclear weapon is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism''

Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



"The idea of being able to use a redesigned box-cutter to keep a terrorist from hijacking a plane with a box-cutter is something we've got to come to grips with because it's part of the war on terrorism."

Iddybud, Blogstress Extraordinaire.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"If smaller, more precise weapons could do the job, wouldn't people of goodwill want it?"

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz.

Cheney paid by Halliburton while VP

One of the more-blatant lies VP Dick Cheney told on Meet The Press Last Sunday:
He Says He Has Cut Financial Ties With Halliburton?
Uh....Sorry, Dick... Don't Think So.

Oil services firm paid Cheney as VP


No Halliburton ties? -- Is he telling lies?

~~~~~~~~~~~



The VP must think we're retarded out here to assume we'd swallow these stories about his distance from and lack of vested interest in Halliburton's fiscal health. He's made far more dough from Halliburton than he's made during his time as VP, regardless of WHY he's raking in the dough.

You can call his statements "word-parsing"...or maybe "misleading"...where I come from, we call them lies.

Prettied-up lies.

When Dick opens that envelope and out pops a fat check from Halliburton and he takes it to the bank....well, is that 'getting paid' or is that 'cutting financial ties'?
You decide!

In truth, Vice President Dick Cheney, a former CEO of Halliburton Co., has received hundreds of thousands of dollars from the company since taking office while asserting again and again...most recently to Tim Russert...that he has no financial interest in the company.

ZZZZZZAP!
Caught you lying, VP Dick Cheney!


"The vice president needs to explain how he reconciles the claim that he has 'no financial interest in Halliburton of any kind' with the hundreds of thousands of dollars in deferred salary payments he receives from Halliburton."
Senator Tom Daschle

U.S. Senate defies Bush, votes to undo FCC media-ownership liberalization-
Senate votes 55-40 to undo changes to Federal Communications Commission regulations

Of course, Mr. Bush is threatening to veto any legislation of this nature...and why wouldn't he?
Think of the Clear Channel pro-war rallies that might be negatively affected by this!
Think of the potential loss of propaganda!
Think of the continuation of those desperate haters out there writing anti-American sentiments in liberal newsrags
like that Madison Capital Times!



"We have to ensure that the marketplace of ideas is not dominated by a few conglomerates at the expense of our citizens and our democracy."

Senator Patty Murray (D-Wash.)

The Baghdad Blog

Click HERE to see a cool promo for Salam Pax's new book: "The Baghdad Blog"

"SALAM PAX WAS THE ANNE FRANK OF THE WAR... AND ITS ELVIS"
Peter Maass, Slate

Here comes the General!




From:Veep Moves

"...the possibility of a Dean/Clark ticket will set off other possibilities before the January 27 New Hampshire primary: ..."

CNN's Top War Correspondent Christiane Amanpour Slams Iraq War Coverage
Tuesday 16th September, 2003
USA Today

CNN has no comment on this:

"....."I think the press was muzzled, and I think the press self-muzzled. I'm sorry to say, but certainly television and, perhaps, to a certain extent, my station was intimidated by the administration and its foot soldiers at Fox News. And it did, in fact, put a climate of fear and self-censorship, in my view, in terms of the kind of broadcast work we did.".."
Christiane Amanpour

FOX News proves they prefer censorship and propaganda. FOX News also proves they prefer filtering the truth- -endeavoring to hide some of the facts from the American public:

"....Fox News spokeswoman Irena Briganti said of Amanpour's comments: "Given the choice, it's better to be viewed as a foot soldier for Bush than a spokeswoman for al-Qaeda."

William Rivers Pitt:
NEW YORK, You've Been Used.

Excerpt:

".... If we are to win this War on Terror, this new Cold War, we will not do so by bombing decrepit countries and slaughtering Muslim civilians. We will not do so by swaggering across the planet and slapping the international community across the face. In this struggle, I look to one of my favorite Red Sox fans, President John F. Kennedy. Kennedy was by no means a foreign policy prince; he pulled crap that would make Richard Perle blush. Yet Kennedy understood something fundamental about the Cold War struggle, from back when that struggle was as hot and dangerous as it ever got, that resonates in roaring truth today. Kennedy understood that to win the Cold War, America did not simply have to defeat the Soviet Union by force of arms, or threaten to be able to do so. America had to give the rest of the world, especially those regions where communism stood a good chance of taking hold, the belief and understanding that we had a better way. We had to convince the world that were right, and righteous, and though we were not perfect by any means, the hope and goodness of what we represented had to be carried to the corners of the world with something besides a bayonet and a bomb. Hatred of America does not take root when America shows its best face. The bastion of immigration that is New York City proves this beyond doubt. We are not perfect, but we can be very good, and bringing this simple truth to the world will defang these thugs, period.

That is the final failure of this administration, and of these boys from the Project for a New American Century. They believe we can defeat terrorism by kicking ass and taking names, by being violent and unilateral, by basically shoving the worst aspects of our country and our system into the international community’s face and demanding, at gunpoint, that they be with us or against us. Machiavelli said, long ago, that given such a choice, the attacked would always choose to be against. Kicking ass in Iraq, while being exposed as liars and bullies, has proven to be the greatest recruiting poster al Qaeda could have ever asked for. We can defeat these thugs if we go after them properly. We can cut off their funds and their ability to bring in people who will die for the privilege of watching you die. But when we do what we have been doing, when we follow the PNAC plan, we create an unending tide of furious humanity that will, in the end, bury us.

You’ve been used, New York. Your pain and woe has been used to justify a course of action formulated years before those Towers fell. The fear caused by those falling Towers has been used against you, on purpose, to drag us all along on a suicide ride that fulfills the extremist dreams of a tiny minority while filling the coffers of defense and petroleum companies that do not, and will never, have your best interests in mind. Those companies exist to serve themselves, and with the rise of PNAC, they have found their champions. At your expense. "

Reservists say they remain in Iraq with no mission

Reservists say they remain in Iraq with no mission
By Bill Burke, The Virginian-Pilot
September 14, 2003

Dick Cheney denies Joe Wilson Three Times

Dick Cheney Denies Joe Wilson Three Times
How very strange:
VP Dick Cheney denies knowing former ambassador to Africa Joseph Wilson

According to The New York Times of May 6, 2003, "more than a year ago the vice president's office asked for an investigation of the uranium deal, so a former U.S. Ambassador to Africa was dispatched to Niger."
The ambassador "reported to the CIA and State Department that the information was unequivocally wrong and that the documents had been forged," according to the Times. Indeed, that former U.S. Ambassador, Joseph Wilson, wrote in The New York Times, July 6, 2003, "The vice president's office asked a serious question. We were asked to help formulate the answer. We did so, and we have every confidence that the answer we provided was circulated to the appropriate officials within our government."

Today on 'Meet The Press':
Vice President Cheney, when asked by Tim Russert what he knew about Joseph Wilson's findings, replied simply that he did not know Joseph Wilson and he did not know who hired Joseph Wilson.

CHENEY'S WORDS: "No. I don't know Joe Wilson. I've never met Joe Wilson. A question had arisen. I'd heard a report that the Iraqis had been trying to acquire uranium in Africa, Niger in particular. I get a daily brief on my own each day before I meet with the president to go through the intel. And I ask lots of question. One of the questions I asked at that particular time about this, I said, "What do we know about this?" They take the question. He came back within a day or two and said, "This is all we know. There's a lot we don't know," end of statement. And Joe Wilson--I don't who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back........I don't know what the truth is on the ground with respect to that, but I guess--like I say, I don't know Mr. Wilson... I probably shouldn't judge him... I have no idea who hired him and it never came... .."

Tim Russert: "The CIA did."

Cheney: "Who in the CIA, I don't know."





Later in the same 'Meet the Press' interview, Cheney prided himself on asking a "hell of a lot of questions" when it came to U.S. intelligence.
After all, he said, "that's what he's paid for".

Cheney has avoided the questions as to who in the office of Vice President was informed of the contents of Ambassador Wilson's report....(conveniently saying he doesn't know Wilson--he must think we're total idiots out here...)

Cheney has avoided the question as to what efforts were made by his office to disseminate the findings of Ambassador Wilson's investigation to the President, National Security Adviser, and Secretary of Defense.....

..and whether or not his office regarded Ambassador Wilson's conclusions as accurate or inaccurate...


Let's face it, his reticence and usual cloak of secrecy and avoidance serve to make him appear to be hiding something from us. If it looks like a duck...walks like a duck...

We should remember to vote like ducks in November 2004.

Another comment: Buzzflash

My Message to Other Howard Dean Suppporters

My Message to Other Howard Dean Suppporters:

These are just some thoughts from a post I recently wrote about conversations I'd read on my local Howard Dean Yahoo forum:

"...In a most practical sense, we need to back a candidate who has a damn good shot at actually beating George Bush in the next election...by a wide margin so there can be no doubt (no risk of cheating the American people out of another election)... even if it risks exclusion of some intellectual or idealistic aims.

I think we should be realistic for the health of our democracy.
A second Bush term may well decay democracy to a point of no return.
This may well be the most important American election in history.
We really do need to find a way to unite as Democrats, Greens, Progessives, Independents...the strength of the party of Karl Rove is unifying the base.

This next election will be war...let's be prepared for battle.

The American dream of our forefathers will never continue until we awaken from our current nightmare.

I deeply admire and appreciate candidate Kucinich's ideals. The hope for and the goal of progressive idealism will not ever be reached in this nation, however, by promoting a candidate who is not pragmatically electable in 2004.

I happen to think Dennis Kucinich is one of the most truly decent souls in the entire field of democratic candidates.
I have the utmost respect for his ideas.

But I'll tell you this..and I believe it's true.
Americans will not elect Dennis Kucinich.
I do not consider myself to be a shallow person, and some of you won't like what I'm going to say here.
But I must say it.
American voters tend to be very shallow. In all brutal honesty, America is not ready for a candidate with an elfin appearance who takes the far left pulpit.
I know America too, too well.
How I wish it could be different.

I saw what happened in the last election...I felt that Ralph Nader had fantastic ideas. So did many others.

Unfortunately, we saw what happened in Florida..which may well have been avoided had some of our idealistic voters chosen to consider the sheer pragmatism of the situation and the danger of the fast-encroaching radical right-wing...and voted for Gore rather than Nader.
I wonder, knowing what they know now, if many of the Nader voters would have changed their vote.

Idealism, Kate Harris, and five crooks on the US Supreme Court got us one "George W Bush" in 2000.

What a prize.

It's time for Americans to elect a new President.

I'm with Howard Dean all the way.
I believe in him.
I may not agree with him on every single issue, but he is the candidate I most closely match up with on the most important issues.. and also a candidate for whom I carry the belief in standing a decent chance against the Republican machinery.

I firmly believe he is electable.
I see that many, many other Americans are leaning the same way.
I think we should do all we can to promote it rather than fight one another on single issues.


If collective truth emerges as a practical consequence of belief, then Howard Dean will be our next President...because looking at current developments in the Dean campaign, I haven't seen this much belief in and hope for a candidate in a long time.

As for General Wesley Clark, I believe the fact that he came from a Military background will hurt his chances to be a front-runner, but I believe that most Americans will view him as a fitting running mate for Howard Dean. (since our mainstream journalists are beating the drums about Deans foreign policy inexperience)..."

Michael Kinsley column: An Apology Would Help

I found this to be a well-written column. I can't help but to agree with Mr. Kinsley.
Kinsley points out the fact that Mr. Bush--lacking honesty, grace, and high-mindedness--appears to prefer falsehood and pride over regret or truth.

".....What's going on here is something like lying-by-reflex. If the opposition accuses you of saying the world is round, you lunge for the microphone to declare your passionate belief that it is flat. Or maybe it has something to do with the bureaucracies that political campaigns have become. The truth, whatever its advantages, is messy and out of control. A lie can be designed by committee, vetted by consultants, tested with some focus groups, shaped to perfection. Anyone can tell the truth. Crafting a good lie is a job for professionals....."

".....This $87 billion request is a minefield of embarrassments, through which a simple "We got it wrong" would have been the safest route. After all, Bush either knew we'd be spending this kind of money for two or more years after declaring victory and didn't tell us -- or he didn't realize it himself. Those are the only two options. He deceived us or he wasn't clairvoyant in the fog of war. Apparently Bush would rather be thought omniscient than honest, which is a pity, since appearing honest is a more realistic ambition. Especially for him....."

David Kay

Kay scheduled to feed America more bullshit

In my opinion, David Kay is not to be trusted--he has positioned himself as the definitive 'anti-Scott Ritter'--
and to be honest, when the smoke clears, I simply believe Scott Ritter is the honest one of the two.
Kay is a symbol of gullibiity, innuendo, deception, and mistrust.
It hurts to know that he stands to make money off his new deceptive report.
If you consider this "new report" closely, all he is saying is that he and the Bush administration
were nothing more than gullible saps for believing those who informed them about pre-war Iraq.
Boy, oh boy, do I ever feel more confident in our American leadership NOW!


".....officials are beginning to spread the word that Kay's team is prepared to claim that the Hussein regime purposefully "spread nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons plans and parts throughout the country to deceive the United Nations." Citing senior Bush administration and intelligence officials, the Globe reports that Kay will argue that after hoodwinking the UN inspectors, Hussein would quickly reassemble all the information and materials and "manufacture substantial quantities of deadly gases and germs."

The loyal David Kay appears poised to hand in a report marked by speculation, innuendo and circumstantial evidence. Kay's September surprise: He morphs into a weapon of mass deception..."

Read more about Kay:

Did David Kay Engineer WMD Evidence for Bush I - and Now Bush 2?

A Weapons Cache We'll Never See

Do we recall how Kay was fired from his UN/IAEA job because of his connections with the U.S. intelligence community?
Think of how BAD that intelligence has turned out to be, to boot. And we trust Kay now? -- WHY?!


BE SURE TO SEE "THE KAY REPORT COMEDOWN"--The Carnegie Analysis

You bet

France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq

France and Germany seek full UN control over Iraq

From The Guardian
Sept 10 2003

"....France and Germany will back the new UN resolution on Iraq sought by President George Bush only if the proposal gives the UN full political rule over the country..."

"...French sources insist they will approach the talks constructively, and not attempt to humiliate the US over its inability to restore order after the invasion..."

Latest From AP: Colin Powell says the United Nations "isn't ready to handle'' assuming all authority.
France is the most outspoken critic of the American plan, and wants a greater United Nations role and a faster timetable than the U.S. draft resolution proposes. Germany backs France's view.
Russia also wants the draft resolution to outline a specific timeframe for the arrival of international peacekeepers and restoring sovereignty

Bush Resignation Hailed by World Leaders
by Greg Palast

"[Washington] The surprise resignation of the forty-third President of the United States, George W. Bush, on the second anniversary of the terrorist attack on America, was hailed by chiefs of state throughout the world. Mr. Bush announced that after, "two years of bloodshed, economic devastation, and spreading fear in America and abroad," he saw no choice but to accept that, "I have held a title which I did not win, and for which I have proven unqualified."

The text of the former President's September 11 address to the nation follows:.........."

David Hackworth-Deja Vu

1965 Again?

Col. David Hackworth says that Bush's assertion that our battered, overstretched combat troops in Iraq would "never retreat" was a major deja vu moment. He cites mistakes of our American past when President Lyndon B. Johnson listened to an arrogant defense secretary and an all-knowing coterie of civilian and uniformed go-along types running the Pentagon's Joint Chiefs of Staff rather than some smart, straight-shooting field generals.
He says it looks like Bush is going down the same path.
He names names....saying America is in big trouble in Iraq and that "heads should roll – and the necks of Cheney, Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Myers and Pace should be first on the chopping block."

You can read it here.

Bush snubbed NYC on 9-11 anniversary

Shamefully Pathetic--Bush Snubbed NYC on 9-11 Anniversary

For all the political mileage he sucks out of 9-11 on the perennial campaign trail day in/day out, Mr. Bush went nowhere near Manhattan yesterday on the second anniversary of the most dreadful attack on U.S. soil in history.
Now, you can say the President's a busy guy.
I'm sorry---too busy to drop in on the city that suffered most on that awful day?

VP Cheney came in like a ghost to a Riverside church memorial service and never said a whispery word!
Not a one. (While a few members of Riverside Church's global justice and peace ministry, who stood across the street from the church, held signs opposing the war in Iraq and reading "no blood for oil.")

You can say that the President and Vice President didn't want to cause a security problem for the families of the dead, and to that I say MALARKEY! Those two show up anywhere and everywhere and mouth off about 9-11 anytime that suits their political fancies.

They didn't show because it was not a good political move.

To me, this is the truest indicator of a miserably failed presidency.
The recent revelation about the Bush administration's involvement in deceit.. the lower Manhattan/EPA air quality incident...is only one of the many bitter pills New Yorkers have had to swallow.
Many families of the World Trade Center are angry with Mr. Bush by making war on Iraq in the names of their loved ones. New York City suffers economically as a result of the Bush flop-economy.

Mahattan was the weather vane on this sad anniversay.

All "politically-safe" indicators pointed Bush to any other place except NYC.

He stayed away..steered clear.

No bullhorns this year.

No one there at the World Trade Center missed him yesterday, either, I'd wager.

They were there to mourn their own...not to hear a bunch of political rhetoric, expolitation, lies, and exaggerations...they can hear Bush do that nealy every other day of the year.

No fear--he'll be back for the Republican National Convention to exploit 9-11 for every penny and parcel of publicity it's worth.

The little yellow-bellied coward couldn't face his stiffest critics.

See Paul Krugman's column today---Exploiting the Atrocity

The world-at-large expressed limited sympathy for the U.S. yesterday. You see, they have a NEW nation for which to feel sorry...
IRAQ.

On the Middle East:
We Need Wise Leadership-Not Demagoguery

Thomas Paine is quoted as saying: “The world is my country, all mankind are my brethren, and to do good is my religion.”

As Americans, we do not need further division in these difficult and often-frightening times.

Watching the televised Democrats' debate this week, I was disheartened to see Senator Joseph Lieberman's attempt to create division within the party where there is none. His attack upon the views of Howard Dean was unfair, at best. Democrats need to be united in their focus on the failures of the Bush administration in foreign affairs--especially the Middle East.

The current 'road map to peace' has not convinced the rest of the world that we are putting forth enough sincere effort or focus to help secure human liberty for all people. Every time a journalist classifies a suicide bombing as part of the “cycle-of-violence”, it sterilizes the horror that people are actually living out in that part of the world. The Middle east was virtually ignored for the first 18 months of President Bush's term. Lip service just hasn't been enough to inspire or persuade these troubled leaders.

We don't need to slip into demagogy or more inane rhetoric on this issue. We need a leader to roll up his/her sleeves and get personally involved to build and act for a meaningful peace settlement between Israel and Palestine. I can't think of a foreign policy issue more deserving of an American President's personal attention and devotion. After 9-11, we can see that our own American liberty and security depends upon it.

My American heart tells me that Howard Dean will be the man who will roll up his sleeves and begin this work, winning other hearts and minds as he rolls along.

Regardless of who wins the presidential nomination, I hope to see a more honest Democratic debate. Franklin D. Roosevelt said that "repetition does not transform a lie into a truth." If candidates are going to challenge one another, they should do so truthfully. There is no dignity in demagoguery when it comes to the Middle East. Give us a leader who will show the world that America has genuine caring toward her brethren, regardless of race or religion. If America can once again prove its religion is “to do good”, mankind will surely listen.

Jude
9-11-2003

High Holiday Prayers

Have we taught the terrorists that blowing up civilians is a legitimate way to achieve political goals?



From Jewish World Review:
9-11-03


High Holiday Prayers — for my enemies
By Jeff Dunetz

‘Getting even’ with the evil ones the Jewish way

I sometimes see an old Yiddish curse on Jewish joke websites. It is loosely translated as "May you lose all the teeth in your mount except one, and may you get a toothache in that one tooth" It always makes me smile to read it, even thought I know it really goes against Jewish teaching. You see, the Rabbis teach us that we do not curse bad people, we are supposed to pray that they see the error of their ways and do "teshuvah" which means to apologize and change the way they lead their lives.

With Rosh Hashanah just around the corner, there is no better time to pray to G-d for the people who are responsible for so much bloodshed in recent history. We should be asking G-d to soften the hearts of the people whose hands are stained with the blood of the Twin Tower victims, the groups behind the dead children on the streets of Jerusalem, who are to blame for horrible acts of terror in Russia and Iraq.

Of course I am talking about organizations such as the UN and the EU, groups such as the NY Times and the BBC, countries such as France, the United States and Great Britain. These groups did not set the bombs or fly the airplanes, but they are just as culpable, because they, among others, have taught the terrorists that blowing up civilians is a legitimate way to achieve political goals.

Over the last 20 years Yassir Arafat has slowly edged himself into the legitimate world community. Each time that he was allowed to inch closer to political recognition without giving up his terrorist ways the message the world community was sending to the PLO was clear, terrorism is a legitimate means of political expression. It's like raising children, when you reward bad behavior, you get more bad behavior. Other terrorists, seeing the gains Arafat has made through terrorism, have learned and followed suit.

The United Nations might not have realized it at the time, but when they first invited the Terrorist PLO Chairman to speak before the General Assembly, they were signing a death warrant for over a hundred UN workers in Iraq years later.

Sure it was Al Qaeda operatives who flew the planes into the World Trade Center, but I will be praying for the people who taught them that terrorism was OK, people such as the first president Bush and President Clinton. Some of the blood spilled on that horrible day is on their hands. This holiday season I pray that they will finally understand that every time that there was contact with the Palestinian Authority under Arafat, every time the pressured Israel to negotiate with terrorists, they were moving those planes closer to the Twin Towers.

I also pray for companies such as Viacom, which owns Nickelodeon, and Disney. These companies do so much good work, trying to make children happy. It is such a shame that those companies also own networks that have been responsible for the deaths of so many kids. Networks such as Viacom's CBS or Disney's ABC. Every time one of these networks calls a terrorist a militant, every time they draw a moral equivalence between a homicide bomber targeting children and an assassination of a senior member of Hamas they are legitimizing terror and causing the deaths of more children in the holy land, Palestinian and Israeli.

I have a special prayer in my heart for France once a world leader, a country that taught much of Europe about democracy. Now it is a country that exports a cynical support of terror and anti-Semitism. There is so much blood on their hands. The French government does not even try to differentiate between good and bad terrorism, they don't recognize that terrorism exists at all.

They have taught the terrorist very well. President Jacques Chirac's diplomatic adviser, Maurice Gourdault-Montagne, even went so far as making this astonishing statement to the Israeli ambassador to France: "If we find that Hamas and Islamic Jihad are indeed terror groups opposed to peace, we may have to change the EU's stand. This is remarkable, not only for its assumption that France control's the EU's position, but also its disgusting cynicism. Indeed, France knows that Hamas and Islamic Jihad have claimed responsibility for one civilian-murdering bombing after another. ." (NY Post 9/5/03).

This week Hamas sent two young Palestinians into Israel to kill themselves and as many young Jews that they could. At this writing 14 young people have been killed, countless others injured. The orders came from Hamas but the learning came from others.

With the High Holiday's so close, there is a lot for which to pray.... I pray that G-d will draw me closer to Torah, so that I can be a better person. I also pray that the people who have caused so much pain, finally recognize that they must stop teaching that terrorism is acceptable. Only then can we begin to realize the prayer that is said repeatedly during each service:

Oseh Shalom bimromav hu ya-aseh shalom alenu v'al Kol Yisrael, v'imru amen"

May the One who brings peace to the universe bring peace to us and to all Israel, and let us say: Amen.


Jeff Dunetz is a 20-year marketing veteran, and a freelance writer. To comment on this article, please click here.
You can see other articles by Jeff Dunetz HERE.

Will it be Dean and Clark in 2004?

REUTERS Breaking News Report: Dean Asks Wesley Clark to Join Campaign

9-11-2003

On 9-11-
My prayers go out to all who lost loved ones two years ago today.
In their memory, I reprint the 2002 Congressional testimony of Kristen Breitweiser, who lost her beloved husband Ronald on that dreadful day.
Listen to Kristen's voice.


Credit: www.angelfire.com

"The mortal citizens of a planet are praying right now that we will bear in mind, better than ever before, that no kind of bomb ever built will extinguish hatred..." Barbara Kingsolver / 9-23-01


Statement of Kristen Breitweiser, Co-Chairperson September 11 Advocates, Concerning the Joint 9/11 Inquiry
Senate Select Committee on Intelligence
Reprinted from September 18, 2002


I would like to thank the families of the 3000 victims for allowing me to represent them, here today, before the Joint Intelligence Committee. It is a tremendous honor. Testifying before this committee is a privilege and an enormous responsibility that I do not take lightly. I will do my best not to disappoint the families or the memories of their loved ones.

Toward that end, I ask the members present here today to find in my voice the voices of all’ of the family members of the 3000 victims of September 11th. I would also ask for you to see in my eyes, the eyes of the more than 10,000 children who are now forced to grow up without the love, affection, and guidance of a mother or a father who was tragically killed on September 11.

I would now like to thank the members of the Joint Intelligence Committee, Eleanor Hill, and her staff for giving the families this opportunity to be heard. It has been an excruciating and overwhelming 12 months, and it is now time for our words and our concerns to be heard by you.

My three-year old daughter’s most enduring memory of her father will be placing flowers on his empty grave. My most enduring memory of my husband, Ronald Breitweiser, will be his final words to me, “Sweets, I’m fine, I don’t want you to worry, I love you.” Ron uttered those words while he was watching men and women jump to their deaths from the top of Tower One. Four minutes later, his Tower was hit by United Flight 175. I never spoke to my. husband, Ron, again.

I don’t really know what happened to him. I don’t know whether he jumped or he choked to death on smoke. I don’t know whether he sat curled up in a corner watching the carpet melt in front of him, knowing that his own death was soon to come or if he was alive long enough to be crushed by the buildings when they collapsed. These are the images that haunt me at night when I put my head to rest on his pillow.

I do know that the dream I had envisioned, that I so desperately needed to believe—that he was immediately turned to ash and floated up to the heavens, was simply not his fate. I know this because his wedding band was recovered from ground zero with a part of his left arm. The wedding band is charred and scratched, but still perfectly round and fully intact. I wear it on my right hand, and it will remain there until the day I die.

September 11th was the devastating result of a catalogue of failures on behalf of our government and its agencies. My husband and the approximately 3000 others like him went to work and never came home. But, were any of our governmental agencies doing their job on that fateful morning? Perhaps, the carnage and devastation of September 11th speaks for itself in answering this question.

Our intelligence agencies suffered an utter collapse in their duties and responsibilities leading up to and on September 11th. But, their negligence does not stand alone. Agencies like the Port Authority, the City of NY, the FAA, the INS, the Secret Service, NORAD, the Air Force, and the airlines also failed our nation that morning. Perhaps, said more cogently, one singular agency’s failures do not eclipse another’s. And it goes without saying that the examination of the intelligence agencies by this Committee does not detract, discount or dismantle the need for a more thorough examination of all of these other culpable parties.

An independent blue-ribbon panel would be the most appropriate means to achieve such a thorough and expansive examination, in large part, because it would not be limited in scope or hindered by time limits. An independent blue-ribbon panel would provide a comprehensive, unbiased and definitive report that the devastation of September 11th demands.

Soon after the attacks, President Bush stated that there would come a time to look back and examine our nation’s failures, but that such an undertaking was inappropriate while the nation was still in shock. I would respectfully suggest to President Bush and to our Congress that now, a full year later, it is time to look back and investigate our failures as a nation. A hallmark of democratic government is a willingness to admit to, analyze and learn from mistakes. And, it is now time for our nation to triumph as the great democracy that it is.

The families of the victims of September 11th have waited long enough. We need to have answers. We need to have accountability. We need to feel safe living and working in this great nation.

Specific Threats as to Using Planes as Weapons

On May 17th 2002, National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice stated emphatically, “I don’t think anybody could have predicted that these people would take an airplane and slam it into The World Trade Center... that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane as a missile.”

The historical facts illustrate differently:

* In 1993, a $150,000 study was commissioned by the Pentagon to investigate the possibility of an airplane being used to bomb national landmarks. A draft document of this was circulated throughout the Pentagon, the Justice Department and to FEMA.

* In 1994 a disgruntled FEDEX employee invaded the cockpit of a DC- 10 with plans to crash it into a company building in Memphis.

* In 1994, a lone pilot crashed a small plane into a tree on the White House grounds.

*In 1994, an Air France flight was hijacked by members of the Armed Islamic Group with the intent to crash the plane into the Eiffel Tower.

* In January 1995, Philippine authorities investigating Abdul Murad, an Islamic terrorist, unearthed “Project Bojinka.” Project Bojinka’s primary objective was to blow up 11 airliners over the Pacific, and in the alternative, several planes were to be hijacked and flown into civilian targets in the US. Among the targets mentioned were CIA headquarters, The World Trade Center, the Sears Tower, and the White House. Murad told US intelligence officials that he would board any American commercial aircraft pretending to be an ordinary passenger. And he would then hijack the aircraft, control its cockpit and dive it at the CIA. headquarters.

* In 1997, this plot re-surfaced during the trial of Ramsi Yousef—the mastermind behind the 1993 bombings of The World Trade Center. During the trial, FBI agents testified that “the plan targeted not only the CIA but other US government buildings in Washington, including the Pentagon.”

* In September 1999, a report, The Sociology and Psychology of Terrorism, was prepared for U.S. intelligence by the Federal Research Division, an arm of the Library of Congress. It stated, “Suicide bombers belonging to Al Qaeda’s Martyrdom Battalion could crash-land an aircraft packed with high explosives(c-4 and semtex) into the Pentagon, the headquarters of the CIA, or the White House.”

This laundry list of historical indicators—in no way exhaustive?illustrates that long before September 11th the American intelligence community had a significant amount of information about specific terrorist threats to commercial airline travel in America, including the possibility that a plane would be used as a weapon.

Failure to Make Warnings Public

On March 11th 2002, Director of the CIA, George Tenet stated, “in broad terms last summer that terrorists might be planning major operations in the United States. But, we never had the texture—meaning enough information—to stop what happened.”

On May 8th 2002, Director of the FBI, Robert Mueller stated, “there was nothing the agency could have done to anticipate and prevent the attacks.”

Once again, the historical facts indicate differently:

* Throughout the spring and early summer of 2001, intelligence agencies flooded the government with warnings of possible terrorist attacks against American targets, including commercial aircraft, by Al Qaeda and other groups. The warnings were vague but sufficiently alarming to prompt the FAA to issue four information circulars, or IC’s, to the commercial airline industry between June 22nd and July 3lst, warning of possible terrorism.

* On June 22, the military’s Central and European Commands imposed “Force Protection Condition Delta,” the highest anti-terrorist alert.

* On June 28th, National security advisor Condoleeza Rice said: “It is highly likely that a significant Al Qaeda attack is in the near future, within several weeks.”

* As of July 3lst, the FAA urged U.S. airlines to maintain a “high degree of alertness”.

* One FAA circular from late July, noted according to Condoleeza Rice that there was “no specific target, no credible info of attack to US civil-aviation interests, but terror groups are known to be planning and training for hijackings and we ask you therefore to use caution.”

* Two counter-terrorism officials described the alerts of the early and mid-summer 2001 as “the most urgent in decades.”

One thing remains clear from this history. Our intelligence agencies were acutely aware of an impending domestic risk posed by Al Qaeda. A question that remains unclear is how many lives could have been saved had this information been made more public.

Airport security officials could have gone over all the basics, again, of the steps needed to prevent hijackings. The policy of allowing passengers to carry razors and knives with blades of up to four inches in length certainly could have come under scrutiny. Indeed, officials could have issued an emergency directive prohibiting such potential weapons in carry-on bags. Finally, all selectees under the Computer Assisted Passenger Pre-Screening System (CAPPS), and their carry-on luggage and checked bags, could have been subjected to additional screening. Apparently, none were on September 11th, although internal FAA documents indicate that CAPPS selected some of the hijackers.

And how many victims may have thought twice before boarding an aircraft? How many victims would have chosen to fly on private planes? How many victims may have taken notice of these Middle-Eastern men while they were boarding their plane? Could these men have been stopped? Going further, how many vigilant employees would have chosen to immediately flee Tower 2 after they witnessed the blazing inferno in Tower 1, if only they had known that an Al Qaeda terrorist attack was imminent?

Could the devastation of September 11 been diminished in any degree had the government’s information been made public in the summer of 2001?

Failure to Investigate and Share Information

On July 5th, the government’s top counter-terrorism official, Richard Clarke stated to a group gathered at the White House, “Something really spectacular is going to happen here, and it’s going to happen soon.”

The group included the FAA, the Coast Guard, the FBI, the Secret Service, and the INS. Clarke directed every counter-terrorist office to cancel vacations, defer non-vital travel, put off scheduled exercises and place domestic rapid response teams on much shorter alert.

For six weeks last summer at home and abroad, the U.S. government was at its highest possible state of readiness and anxiety against imminent terrorist attack.

A senior FBI official attending the White House meeting on July 5th committed the bureau to redouble contacts with its foreign counterparts and to speed up transcription and analysis of wiretaps obtained under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), among other steps.

But when the field agent in Phoenix, Arizona, reported the suspicions of a hijacking plot just five days later, the FBI did not share the report with any other agency. One must ask, why?

That report written by Agent Kenneth Williams, now well known as the “Phoenix Memo,” recommended that the FBI investigate whether Al Qaeda operatives were training at U.S. flight schools. Williams posited that Osama Bin Laden’s followers might be trying to infiltrate the civil aviation system as pilots, security guards or other personnel, and he recommended a national program to track suspicious flight school students. Agent Williams was dead-on point.

But, in the summer of 2001, while our nation was at its highest state of alert, his memo was flatly ignored. And, what result if it hadn’t been ignored? What if his memo was promptly placed on INTELINK, SIPRNET, or NIPRNET? What if other agents had the same suspicions in Florida, California, Georgia, Ohio, and Nevada? Could the terrorists have been stopped?

On August 15,2001, an alert civilian instructor at a Minnesota flight school called the FBI and said, “Do you realize that a 747 loaded with fuel can be a bomb?” The next day, Zacarias Moussaoui was arrested. After investigating Zacarias Moussaoui’s past, the FBI (with the help of French Intelligence) learned that he had Islamic extremist connections. They also knew that he was interested in flight patterns around New York City, and that he had a strong desire to fly big jets, even though at the time he didn’t have so much as a license to fly a Cessna.

And then, what happened?

The FBI office in Minnesota attempted to get a FISA warrant, but they were rebuffed. A crucial mistake, because Zacarias Moussaoui’s possessions contained evidence that would have exposed key elements of the September 11th plot.

But, why was this request denied? Again, the historical facts must be analyzed.

In March 2001, an internal debate ignited at the Justice Department and the FBI over wiretap surveillance of certain terrorist groups. Prompted by questions raised by Royce C. Lamberth, the Chief Judge of the FISA Court, the Justice Department opened an inquiry into Michael Resnick an FBI official who coordinated the Act’s applications. Attorney General John Ashcroft and Robert Mueller (then deputy Attorney General), ordered a full review of all foreign surveillance authorizations.

Justice Department and FBI officials have since acknowledged the existence of this internal investigation, and said that the inquiry forced officials to examine their monitoring of several suspected terrorist groups, including Al Qaeda. And while senior FBI and Justice Department officials contend that the internal investigation did not affect their ability to monitor Al Qaeda, other officials have acknowledged that the inquiry might have hampered electronic surveillance of terror groups. The matter remains highly classified.

What is not classified is that in early September a Minnesota FBI agent wrote an analytic memo on Zacarias Moussaoui’s case, theorizing that the suspect could fly a plane into The World Trade Center. And, tragically, this, too, was ignored.

Also ignored by U.S. intelligence agencies was the enormous amount of trading activity on the Chicago Exchange Board and in overseas markets. Our intelligence agencies readily use Promis software to analyze these kinds of market indicators that presented themselves in the weeks prior to September 11th. Why were these aberrational trades and market swings ignored? We were at the highest state of alert. An attack by Al Qaeda was expected to occur at any given moment. And yet, massive amounts of trades occurred on American Airlines, United Airlines, Re-insurance companies, and leaseholders in The World Trade Center and none of our watchdogs noticed?

Perhaps even more disturbing is the information regarding Khalid al-Midhar and Nawaf Alhazmi, two of the hijackers. in late August, the CIA asked the INS to put these two men on a watchlist because of their ties to the bombing of the U.S.S. Cole. On August 23, 2001, the INS informed the CIA that both men had already slipped into the country. Immediately thereafter, the CIA asked the FBI to find al-Midhar and Alhazmi. Not a seemingly hard task in light of the fact that one of them was listed in the San Diego phone book, the other took out a bank account in his own name, and finally, an FBI informant happened to be their roommate.

But, again, our intelligence agencies failed.

Were the Terrorists Already Under Surveillance?

It was only after the devastation of September 11th that our intelligence agencies seemed to get back on track.

On September 12, 2001, The New York Times reported, “On Tuesday a few hours (emphasis added) after the attacks, FBI agents descended on flight schools, neighborhoods, and restaurants in pursuit of leads. The FBI arrived at Huffman Aviation at about 2:30 a.m., Wednesday morning. They walked out with all the school’s records, including photocopies of the men’s passports.”

The New York Times also reported that students at Embry Riddle Aeronautical University said that within hours (emphasis added) of the attacks FBI investigators were seen at their school.

How did the FBI know exactly where to go only a “few hours” after the attacks? How did they know which neighborhoods, which flight schools, and which restaurants to investigate so soon into the case?

The New York Times went on to report that “federal agents questioned employees at a store in Bangor, Maine, where five Arab men believed to be the hijackers tried to rent cell phones late last week. Store employees at first refused to sell the phones because the men lacked proper identification, but they gave in after the five offered $3000 cash, store employees and an airport official said.”

The article goes on to state, “the men then phoned Bangor airport trying to get a flight to Boston but were told there was no flight that matched their desired departure time, the authorities said. The men then phoned Portland International JetPort, where two of them apparently made reservations for a flight to Boston on Tuesday morning.”

How would this information be gleaned so quickly? How would the FBI know to visit a store in Bangor, Maine only hours after the attacks? Moreover, how would they know the details of a phone conversation that occurred a week prior to the attacks? Were any of the hijackers already under surveillance? It has been widely reported that the hijackers ran practice runs on the airline routes that were chosen on September 11th. Did our intelligence agents ever shadow these men on any of their prior practice runs?

Furthermore, on September 12th, The New York Times reported that, “authorities said they had also identified accomplices in several cities who had helped plan and execute Tuesday’s attacks. Officials said they knew who these people were and important biographical details about many of them. They prepared biographies of each identified member of the hijack teams and began tracing the recent movements of the men.”

How were complete biographies of the terrorists and their accomplices created in such short time? Did our intelligence. agencies already have open files on these men? Were they already investigating them? Could the attacks of September 11th been prevented?

The speed by which the FBI was able to locate, assimilate, and analyze a small amount of information so soon after the attacks—barely one day later, perhaps answers this question for itself? But, if the terrorists were under investigation, then why were they ever permitted to board those planes? Perhaps, even more potently, why if such an investigation was already underway, why was our nation so late in responding to the emergency that quickly unfolded that day?

Too Many Questions Remain

Too many questions remain. Topping the list of unanswered questions are those that involve our nation’s coordination, communication, and response to the attacks that morning. The 24 hours that presented themselves on September 11th beg to be examined. Questions like:

Why did the NY/NJ Port Authority not evacuate The World Trade Center when they had an open phone line with Newark Traffic Control Center and were told that the second plane was bearing down on the South Tower? NY/NJ Port Authority had at least eleven minutes of notice to begin evacuations of the South Tower. An express elevator in The World Trade Center was able to travel from top to bottom in one minute’s time. How many lives may have been saved, had the Port Authority acted more decisively or, rather, acted at all.

Were F-l6’s and Stealth bombers seen and tracked on radar screens at approximately 8:05am the morning of September 11th the vicinity of the New York metropolitan area?

Washington Air Traffic Control Center knew about the first plane before it hit the World Trade Center. Yet, the third plane was able to fly “loop de loops” over Washington D.C. one hour and 45 minutes after Washington Center first knew about the hijackings. After circling in this restricted airspace—controlled and protected by the Secret Service who had an open phone line to the FAA, how is it possible that the plane was then able to crash into the Pentagon? Why was the Pentagon not evacuated?

Why was our Air Force so late in its response?

What, if anything, did our nation do, in a defensive military posture that morning?

3000 innocent Americans were killed on September 11th, leaving behind families and loved ones like myself and my daughter. There are too many heartbreaking stories to recount. There are too many lost opportunities and futures to be told.

But what can be said to you today is that the families continue to suffer each and every day. All we have are tears and a resolve to find the answers because we continue to look into the eyes of our young children who ask us why? We have an obligation as parents and as a nation to provide these innocent children with answers as to why their mother or father never returned home from work that day.

We need people to be held accountable for their failures. We need leaders with the courage to take responsibility for what went wrong. Mistakes were made and too many lives were lost. We must investigate these errors so that they will never happen again. It is our responsibility as a nation to turn the dark events of September 11th into something from which we can all learn and grow, so that we, as a nation, can look forward to a safe future.

In closing, I would like to add one thought. Undoubtedly, each of you here today, because you live and work in Washington D.C. must have felt that you were in the bull’s-eye on September 11th. For most of you, there was a relief at the end of that day; a relief that you and your loved ones were in safe hands. You were the lucky ones. In your continuing investigation, please, do not forget those of us who did not share in your good fate.

Poor Kerry

What about Me???

Unless we start thinking a bit more like Dennis Kucinich and a lot less like Joe Lieberman, the draft will be back soon.

Don't look at Dennis Kucinich like he's crazy. We should concentrate our efforts to get our troops back home where they are needed.
The compliance of our Congress to give these billions so easily to Bush gives me icy chills. They are paving the way, felllow citizens of America, to an endless war and a draft that will take your boys...and mine.

Beware.








Sept. 5- A federal court in Massachusetts has dismissed a lawsuit seeking to make women eligible for a possible future military draft.


What happens when the "poverty draft" dries up? "In the Vietnam war, when the US military was still conscripting soldiers for compulsory service, the de facto characteristic of the men who did the fighting and dying was class. Poor people - whether black, white or Mexican - were much more likely to be drafted, and more likely to find themselves in the front line
Now the military operates what Mr Jahnkow calls a "poverty draft" - selling itself as an attractive career option or stepping stone to further education in communities that have few other options..."

"The American middle and upper classes haven't suffered much nor given up much in support of the war on terrorism. Enlistment offices weren't bursting at the seams on 9/12/2001. How likely is it that increasing recruitment goals for an all-volunteer military to restore the services to the Korean War or Vietnam War strength levels would succeed?"


"As the second anniversary of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks approaches and the U.S. military remains embroiled in conflict overseas, the role of national service in a democracy is as relevant as ever. In a new book, United We Serve: National Service and the Future of Citizenship, academics, lawmakers and former government officials engage in a vigorous debate about compulsory service for citizens, the reinstatement of the military draft and how the government can harness the patriotism that swept through the American public after the attacks.
“Why shouldn’t citizens be required to give something to their country in exchange for the full range of rights to which citizenship entitles them?” asks Robert Litan, vice president and director of economic studies at the Brookings Institution, in an essay supporting the idea of mandatory service..."

Sept 9- U.S. may not be able to sustain Iraq troop levels
Rotation schedules and a limited number of soldiers mean a change is inevitable, experts say.
By Jonathan S. Landay
Inquirer Washington Bureau

$87 Billion For Catastrophe

Article & Essay: $87 Billion For Catastrophe
-A Decent Debunking of Bush's Speech to the Nation Last Sunday-

"......despite all these lies, all this deceit, all this perfidy, despite an economy in shambles, George Bush enjoys an approval rating of 54 percent by the American people, according to the most recent polls. Are we as a nation so blinded by jingoism and hubris that we cannot see the havoc this man and his regime have wrought upon this country? Did 9/11 so blind us to reality?

How many body bags will it take? When George Bush declared an end to major combat operations in Iraq on May 1, 137 Americans had died in combat; another 150 have been killed since then. Just yesterday, (Tuesday, September 9), one soldier died and seven were wounded in combat.

How many more soldiers will lose their lives or their limbs?

How many more Americans will lose their jobs?

How many more Americans will be thrown into poverty?

Just how many will it take?...."

This Says It All.
Today's N.Y.Times Editorial: Presidential Character


"George Bush's long-term plans for 2003 probably did not call for his August vacation to be followed by a national television address trying to justify a floundering policy in Iraq. Just about nothing, in fact, looks like what he must have hoped for in the run-up to an election. To many Americans, the economic recovery is anything but — 2.7 million private-sector jobs have been lost in the last three years. The number of people living below the poverty line is rising, the trade imbalance has reached unnerving proportions, and the federal budget deficits have grown so huge that even the International Monetary Fund has begun expressing concern. Most of the Bush domestic agenda is a sad deflated version of its earlier incarnation.

It is useful at times like this to look back on the road that brought a president into trouble and try to divide bad luck from bad guesses, and both from the wrong turns that stem from the innate nature of the presidency itself. In the case of Iraq, there is a little of each. Early in his term, Mr. Bush was stuck with trouble that was not of his making, including both the terrorist attack and the sinking economy. His judgment about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq appears to have been wrong — and, worse, hyped. But over all, it was a bad guess that was shared by intelligence experts from the Clinton administration and many allies.

Other wrong turns, however, were chosen because of a fundamental flaw in the character of this White House. Despite his tough talk, Mr. Bush seems incapable of choosing a genuinely tough path, of risking his political popularity with the same aggression that he risks the country's economic stability and international credibility. For all the trauma the United States has gone through during his administration, Mr. Bush has never asked the American people to respond to new challenges by making genuine sacrifices.

He committed the military to war, but he told civilians they deserved big tax cuts. He seems determined to remake the Middle East without doing anything serious about reducing our dependence on Middle East oil. His energy policy is a grab bag of giveaways to domestic oil and gas lobbyists. He refuses to ask for even the smallest compromise when it comes to fuel-efficient cars.

The pattern goes further. Mr. Bush rolled out a domestic agenda that included some ambitious programs aimed at lifting up America's least fortunate, particularly his No Child Left Behind education package. But in this — as in the African AIDS initiative and even his controversial faith-based initiative for social services — Mr. Bush has been content to take the credit for proposing, without paying the political dues necessary to get things done. Certainly most American parents, whose public schools are racked by state and local budget crises, are not feeling that their children are enjoying better educational opportunity. The AIDS program that got such a positive response when the president unveiled it has been underfinanced by Congress, with the White House's encouragement.

Even the administration's foreign policy reflects its tendency to go for quick gratification without much thought of the gritty long haul. The invasion of Iraq appears to have been planned by people who assumed that after a swift military assault, Saddam Hussein would be gone and Iraq would quickly snap into a prosperous, semidemocratic state that would be a model for the rest of the Middle East.

When it turned out that things were far more complicated, the president hedged on the price tag — apparently out of fear that if Congress knew how high the bill was going to be, there would not be enough votes for another round of tax cuts. Congress, however, was happy enough to be deluded until it was too late. Now we know the cost is going to be massive, with much of the tab to be paid by the future generations who will be saddled with the Bush debt.

The United States has no clear exit strategy from Iraq or immediate hope of a turnaround in a violent, complicated and expensive commitment. The hard realities of postwar Iraq have convinced Mr. Bush that he needs the United Nations support he snubbed before the invasion. But even there he is avoiding the hard choice of acknowledging his error and ceding real authority to other nations. Diplomats are wondering, with good reason, whether Mr. Bush is embarking on a new era of international cooperation or simply giving them permission to clean up his mess.

Mr. Bush is a man who was reared in privilege, who succeeded in both business and politics because of his family connections. The question during the presidential campaign was whether he was anything more than just a very lucky guy. There were times in the past three years when he has been much more than that, and he may no longer be a man who expects to find an easy way out of difficulties. But now, at the moment when we need strong leadership most, he is still a politician who is incapable of asking the people to make hard choices. And we are paying the price."

Salam Pax

A U.S. Soldier Converses With Salam Pax

Thanks to bloggers like Salam Pax, we see that, if handled correctly, this situation In Iraq could be turned around.
We will need wise American leadership and a demonstrable change in the tone of that leadership in order to restore international trust and secure international cooperation.
Political power should be shared internationally...all pride and greed cast aside.
I firmly believe nothing good will come of any of this until that happens....no matter how much money we throw at the problem.
Hope will grow and trust will take root once America mends its fences with the UN.
The Iraqi people deserve a better chance for hope and our troops deserve a chance to expect they will survive any particular Baghdad day.

The conversation below offers a glimmer of that hope....and a glimpse into some of the problems.

Thanks, Salam.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
From 'Where is Raed' blog:

“I know what we have done is right and we had to do it but there must have been a better way to do it.”

When a soldier starts his conversation like this you can’t help but really really like him. He was standing in the heat, yesterday it was about 52C, guarding the entrance to building where our “governing council” meets. And he was on a roll, the next victims of his attack were the members of the governing council themselves.
“these guys, they work only four days and take the rest of the week off, they should be working 16 hour days to get their constitution going”. Give the man a cigar.
“they have huge lunches, throw tons of food out and they drive stolen cars”, by now we were laughing so loud in the car people were looking at us like we were crazy. He said that if his name is ever mentioned he will be in trouble and mentioned something about an “article 15”. We had 20 minutes with him while we were being OK-ed for meeting a Council member, he was so cool I wish the Americans didn’t freak out every time an Iraqi walks towards them I wanted to shake his hands and say thank you. He made sure I got my pieces of paper back and let us in. But he left us with one more pearl of wisdom:

“They tell you it’s the Oil but I know it is not the Oil, I just can’t figure out what the hell it is we are here for.”

He should be on TV.


Also: A recent Guardian article about Salam's blog

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~



Another voice from Baghdad: Baghdad Burning Blog

Excerpt from Post entitled "CHAOS":

Friday, August 29, 2003
Chaos

“[Iraq] is not a country in chaos and Baghdad is not a city in chaos.” – Paul Bremer


Where is this guy living? Is he even in the same time zone??? I’m incredulous… maybe he's from some alternate universe where shooting, looting, tanks, rape, abductions, and assassinations aren’t considered chaos, but it’s chaos in *my* world.

Ever since the occupation there have been 400 females abducted in Baghdad alone and that is only the number of recorded abductions. Most families don’t go to the Americans to tell about an abduction because they know it’s useless. The male members of the family take it upon themselves to search for the abducted female and get revenge if they find the abductors. What else is there to do?"

I'm Sorry, Senator Kerry, I'm Just Not Convinced.

In an interview today, John Kerry is quoted by the AP as saying that he would want to be able to tell families of dead soldiers that he did everything possible to avoid war and that U.S. interests required bloodshed. "I don't think the president passed that test,'' he said.

Now, I believe John Kerry is a brilliant man, but I have to be honest here.

Because I believe in his brilliance, I have to say he is being intellectually dishonest here.

John Kerry did not pass the test in October, 2002 when he voted "yes" to give this President he now so heavily criticizes free reign to send our troops to war on the wings of a dreadful lie.

This past June, he claimed to have been "deceived" by Mr. Bush's pre-war claims which have turned out to be lies.

If John Kerry had been interested in the truth, why did he refuse to meet with his Western Mass constituents before voting for the war resolution? Why did he close his Springfield office on October 11, 2002 - shutting out his constituents - in the aftermath of his vote in favor of war?

In October, 2002, 23 of his fellow Senators and 133 Representatives voted against the Bush Administration's war resolution.
John Kerry voted for it.
What did 156 Members of Congress know that Kerry did not know?
Hundreds, perhaps thousands, of his constituents had called him, urging him to vote against war.

Sorry, Senator Kerry.
You should have known far better.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

In contrast, look at what was written about Howard Dean's prewar views:

From the American Reporter, March 2003:

On Native Ground
A DUTY TO SPEAK UP
by Randolph T. Holhut
American Reporter Correspondent
Dummerston, Vt.

DUMMERSTON, Vt. -- Senate Minority Leader Tom Daschle expressed the views of many in America when he said: "I am saddened that this President failed so miserably
at diplomacy that we're now forced to war. Saddened that we have to give up one life, because this President couldn't create the kind of diplomatic effort that was so critical for our country."
Predictably, the Republicans went berserk over this mild criticism of the failure of the Bush administration to avoid war.
"Is Tom Daschle the official Democrat hatchet-man or just a taxpayer-funded pundit?" House Majority Leader Tom DeLay asked. "Fermez la bouche, Monsieur Daschle."
House Speaker Dennis Hastert said he that he "was disappointed to see his comments. Those comments may not undermine the President as he leads us into war, and they may not give comfort to our adversaries, but they come mighty close."
We'll hear lots more comments like that in the coming days. We're all supposed to shut up and support this war.

My response to this kind of thinking is simple.

I will not keep quiet as I watch the land that I love turn into a rogue nation.

I will not keep quiet as I watch scheming men profit economically and politically from blood shed by others.

I will not keep quiet as I watch as nearly six decades of international law and institutions are crushed in an effort to bring a Pax Americana to the world.

I will not keep quiet as I watch my government manipulate the fears of the citizenry to grab more power for itself.

I will not keep quiet as we wage a war that is - by any objective standard - unjust, immoral, illegal and just plain stupid.

And I will not allow anyone to attempt to silence me, for I and others who are opposed to this unjust, immoral, illegal and stupid war still have the right to dissent and the obligation to speak up when our nation is doing something that is terribly, terribly wrong.

Dissent is the essence of democracy. The suppression of dissent is the essence of tyranny. Those who wish to shut up those who oppose this war do democracy a disservice.

This is a frightening time. Dissent is rarely appreciated in times of peace, but it is equated with treason in a time of war. We are but one terror attack away from martial law and a suspension of the Constitutional guarantees that have been in place for more than two centuries. And that attack became more likely to happen the moment the bombs and cruise missiles started falling on Baghdad.
Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia told The Associated Press on Tuesday that the federal government has room to scale back individual rights during wartime without violating the Constitution.

"The Constitution just sets minimums," Scalia said after a speech at John Carroll University in suburban Cleveland. "Most of the rights that you enjoy go way beyond what the Constitution requires."
Scalia didn't say what rights he believed are constitutionally protected, but said that in wartime, "the protections will be ratcheted right down to the constitutional minimum."

Given the record of Scalia and his conservative allies on the Supreme Court, I would say that the Bush administration has a blank check to do whatever it wishes to our civil liberties in the name of national security.

But we don't have to see this happen. It's not over yet.
The former governor of my adopted state of Vermont, Howard Dean, made these remarks after Bush's Mar. 17 speech that started the final countdown to Gulf War II. Dean is one of the few Democrats running for president that has the guts to challenge the Bush administration on this stupid war. Dean's remarks are words all of us should remember in the coming weeks.
"Those Americans who opposed our going to war with Iraq, who wanted the United Nations to remove those weapons without war, need not apologize for giving voice to their conscience, last year, this year or next year. In a country devoted to the freedom of debate and dissent, it is every citizen's patriotic duty to speak out, even as we wish our troops well and pray for their safe return. Congressman Abraham Lincoln did this in criticizing the Mexican War of 1846, as did Senator Robert F. Kennedy in calling the war in Vietnam 'unsuitable, immoral and intolerable.'
"This is not Iraq, where doubters and dissenters are punished or silenced - this is the United States of America. We need to support our young people as they are sent to war by the President, and I have no doubt that American military power will prevail. But to ensure that our post-war policies are constructive and humane, based on enduring principles of peace and justice, concerned Americans should continue to speak out; and I intend to do so."
As will I. And, I hope, as will every other American who right now is grieving for the death of the principles that once guided this once-great nation.

Randolph T. Holhut has been a journalist in New England for more than 20 years. He edited "The George Seldes Reader" (Barricade Books).
Copyright 2003 Joe Shea The American Reporter. All Rights Reserved.

al-Qaeda terrorist network is stronger than before the Sept. 11 attacks

The al-Qaeda terrorist network is stronger than before the Sept. 11 attacks-
U.S.-led war on terror has so far been a failure

From the AP: Academic: al - Qaida Stronger Than Pre - 9 / 11

"..Paul Rogers, a professor of peace studies at the University of Bradford in England, has said the U.S.-led coalition's military successes in Afghanistan and Iraq have failed to crush al-Qaida's structure or stem its recruitment.

Rogers' report was compiled for the Oxford Research Group, a think-tank specializing in arms control and nonproliferation issues.

In his report, Rogers said that while U.S.-led anti-terrorism efforts had succeeded in preventing some terrorist plots, al-Qaida linked attacks have killed more than 350 people and injured almost 1,000 in the two years since Sept. 11...."

The President's Speech

The Bush Speech-September 7, 2003
My questions and comments to Mr. Bush
Part I

1. "Nearly two years ago, following deadly attacks on our country, we began a systematic campaign against terrorism. These months have been a time of new responsibilities, and sacrifice, and national resolve and great progress. "

Iraq and its Saddam Hussein Regime never attacked us before your infamous pre-emptive strike, Mr. Bush.

Not two years ago. Not ever.


2. ".. we acted in Iraq, where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction, and for 12 years defied the clear demands of the United Nations Security Council. Our coalition enforced these international demands in one of the swiftest and most humane military campaigns in history."


Not the 9-11 brand of terror, Mr. Bush. Not in the case of Iraq. There was no Al Qaeda connection.

The UN was proceeding with the renewed search for WMDs and/or evidence of existing programs for WMDs.

Iraq was cooperating...allowing them in.

You were childishly impatient, Mr. Bush.

You haven't found WMDs yourself, Mr. Bush.



You call your campaign "humane"? Do you realize at least 7,836 Iraqi citizens and soldiers are dead?

Have you seen the photos of what you have wrought, Mr. Bush?

Allow me to provide a few:




Credit: RobertFisk.com

Credit: latimes.com


credit:regulareveryday people.com



How do you feel now that you've burned so many international bridges with your ugly pride and hubris, Mr. Bush?



3. "For a generation leading up to September the 11th, 2001, terrorists and their radical allies attacked innocent people in the Middle East and beyond, without facing a sustained and serious response. The terrorists became convinced that free nations were decadent and weak."


We suspect, Mr. Bush, that you are gearing up for the September 11th anniversary. Milking the most sorowful day in American history and weaseling your way into blaming Bill Clinton for leading a decadent society. I implore you to "think Reagan" if you want to remember true decadence. You were hoping beyond hope to BE the new Reagan and to preside over a booming America. *I meant a booming economy, not the booming we experienced under your watch, Mr. Bush.

Speaking of the "2001 Bush boom", you are also weaseling your way into blaming Hussein's Iraq Regime for 9-11. Mr. Bush, you must take us for complete and utter fools.



4. A. "We have carried the fight to the enemy. We are rolling back the terrorist threat to civilization, not on the fringes of its influence, but at the heart of its power."

B. (appeared later in speech) "Two years ago, I told the Congress and the country that the war on terror would be a lengthy war, a different kind of war, fought on many fronts in many places. Iraq is now the central front. Enemies of freedom are making a desperate stand there -- and there they must be defeated."


The central front of a war on terror? Do you mean Pakistan? Saudi Arabia--where most of the 9-11 hijackers came from? Are you speaking of the Phillipines? Indonesia? Iran? Georgia? Azerbijan?

Are you saying the heart of terror was or is in Iraq?

Or are you saying you carefully CHOSE Iraq because she was the weakest nation, knowing you would "bring on" the terrorists from all these other regions once the pre-emptive attack began?

If that is the case, and it appears it IS the case from all you have said, then you were immoral and the cause of the Iraq war was unjust.

You told us, Mr. Bush, that Iraq's regime posed an "imminent threat". That is what you said.

You lied.



5.This work continues. In Iraq, we are helping the long suffering people of that country to build a decent and democratic society at the center of the Middle East. Together we are transforming a place of torture chambers and mass graves into a nation of laws and free institutions. This undertaking is difficult and costly -- yet worthy of our country, and critical to our security.


Worthy of us? It would be far more worthy of us to take care of the dangers and the basic needs we face right here at home, Mr. Bush. Our all-too-compliant Congress should tell you to eat your request for $87 billion...and go begging to the UN for it instead. Take your battle for desperately-needed cash to the central front--the heart of the world's hope...the UN.


6. Our enemies understand this. They know that a free Iraq will be free of them -- free of assassins, and torturers, and secret police. They know that as democracy rises in Iraq, all of their hateful ambitions will fall like the statues of the former dictator. And that is why, five months after we liberated Iraq, a collection of killers is desperately trying to undermine Iraq's progress and throw the country into chaos.


In the view of the Iraqi resistance, I would beg to differ. They do NOT seem to understand this as you say they do.To them, you are no more than an occupier, Mr. Bush. We realize that you wish the ideals of these real people were as easy to take down as the statue of Saddam Hussein. They do not see themselves as a collection of killers, but as a collection of patriots trying to undermine your occupation of them.


7. "Some of the attackers are members of the old Saddam regime, who fled the battlefield and now fight in the shadows. Some of the attackers are foreign terrorists, who have come to Iraq to pursue their war on America and other free nations. We cannot be certain to what extent these groups work together. We do know they have a common goal -- reclaiming Iraq for tyranny."



You represent tyranny to them, Mr. Bush. You have gone about this in a dangerous and entirely wrong way.


8. "Most, but not all, of these killers operate in one area of the country. The attacks you have heard and read about in the last few weeks have occurred predominantly in the central region of Iraq, between Baghdad and Tikrit -- Saddam Hussein's former stronghold. The north of Iraq is generally stable and is moving forward with reconstruction and self-government. The same trends are evident in the south, despite recent attacks by terrorist groups."



Sure, Mr. Bush...sure.

New explosion hits pipeline in northern Iraq


Ethnic Tensions Flare in Northern Iraq; at least 15 killed

US troops raid homes in Iraq's 'Sunni triangle'
27 August 2003
BAGHDAD: US troops hunting guerrillas and criminals raided homes overnight in Iraq's restive "Sunni triangle", the army said yesterday, as tension simmered among ethnic groups in the north and Shi'ite factions in the south.


10. " America has done this kind of work before. Following World War II, we lifted up the defeated nations of Japan and Germany, and stood with them as they built representative governments. We committed years and resources to this cause. And that effort has been repaid many times over in three generations of friendship and peace. America today accepts the challenge of helping Iraq in the same spirit -- for their sake, and our own."


Yes, we did this work before..in Europe. Unlike Iraq, 1940s Europe had been a place in which most basic structures (especially government-related) existed BEFORE the war.

A U.S. role in rebuilding Iraq should not exclude the assistance of and power-sharing with multilateral institutions. If you look at the period after World War II, we (the US) were the only nation that was able to rebuild Europe, so depleted of resources were the other countries that could possibly have helped at the time. If you look at history, however, the U.S. did the work in a rather new multilateral environment that included the UN, NATO, and what was once the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade. In the case of Iraq, other nations and institutions are available to help. And they'd be ready if they believed our leader sincerely wished for an international cooperation based upon respect. The U.S. needs UN and international cooperation to lighten the overwhelming economic and military burdens.

Mr Bush, you also need desperately to counter these perceptions of U.S. unilateralism. Swallow this dangerous pride, Mr. Bush.
It's getting late.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

WMD- New Explanations

HOW MANY "NEW EXPLANATIONS" WILL THERE BE FOR MAKING WAR UPON IRAQ?

From the Independent UK: Britain and US will back down over WMDs

"....Britain and the US have combined to come up with entirely new explanations of why they went to war in Iraq as inspectors on the ground prepare to report that there are no weapons of mass destruction there..."


Excuse me?
Would you mind repeating that?


Did you say come up with entirely new explanations......
do I have that right?

Nearly 300 American troops have died.

Many more have been severely wounded.

All will carry psychological wounds from which they may never recover.

Uncounted Iraqi citizens have died and are dying.

The country of Iraq lies in shambles.

Secularists there are coalescing with Fundamentalists to drive us out of their WMD-free land.

In the world, U.S. credibility and good faith have nearly been destroyed.

While we come up with new explanations.

Damn them and their new explanations!

First explanation...an imminent threat existed. Talk of "nucular" weapons that could strike within 45 minutes.
Great fear.

Next explanation....there were rusted parts under some guy's rose bush. So they HAD a weapons program.

Next explanation....they never actually had the weapons.

BUT THEY WANTED TO HAVE THEM!

Is anyone besides me deathly sick of the lies?

The Bush Administration is corrupt and has led the Blair government to slither down the credibility drain alongside them.