Wednesday, April 07, 2004
La Times Columnist Reminds Us The History of Apologies
" … The troops, the air and navy did all their bravery and devotion to duty could do. If any blame or fault attaches to the attempt, it is mine alone."
-Dwight David Eisenhower
Patt Morrison
-Dwight David Eisenhower
Patt Morrison
The Nation Sticks It To Scalia
After weeks of critical editorials, embarrassing cartoons and late-night talk-show jokes, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia issued a twenty-one-page memorandum on March 18 to explain why his January duck-hunting trip with Vice President Cheney, and his free ride to Louisiana on Cheney's plane, do not disqualify him from hearing Cheney's appeal of a case that could affect the Vice President's political future. The harm from this unpersuasive conclusion extends beyond this one case. Scalia's opinion tells thousands of federal and state judges that it can be OK to vacation with friends who have cases before them and to accept the generosity of those friends while their cases are pending. Though nothing can now undo Scalia's decision to sit in Cheney's case, it is not too soon to adopt remedies that will restore confidence to the credibility of recusal rulings.
Scalia's Flawed Judgement
Scalia's Flawed Judgement
Texas Republican Congressman,Sam Walls, 64, Is A Cross Dresser
FORT WORTH, Texas (AP) - A candidate for the Texas House rejected calls to withdraw from the race after photos of him in women's clothing began circulating.
Sam Walls, 64, said he will not give in to ``blackmail'' from opponents who are trying to use ``very old, personal information'' to force him out of the race.
``Now my opponent is using the private information in an attempt to intimate that I am a homosexual, which I am not,'' Walls said in a statement.
Walls, a Republican, is competing in an April 13 primary runoff against real estate broker Rob Orr.
Orr political consultant Lee Woods denied involvement. He said Orr's campaign staff learned of the photos and alerted Republican leaders.
As a leading businessman and former party chairman, Walls once seemed the favorite to win. But GOP leaders urged him to withdraw when the pictures surfaced last week in two communities south of Fort Worth.
The photos were apparently obtained by a company that repossessed a mobile home registered to Wells, according to court records.
He said his family had ``dealt with'' the issue, and he apologized to supporters for any embarrassment caused by ``a small part of my personal past.''
Texas Republican Leader Sports A Casual Blouse With Lace and Frills
Steve Soto Thinks The Chaos Could be Deliberate
From Talk Left
Bush and his team of neocons have always been much more comfortable with chaotic change than most of the rest of us because they see chaotic change as a way to exploit chaos for their own ends. One of their basic tenets on how to lead is to find ways to exploit chaotic situations. Woodward's Bush at War talked about Bush's philosophy of leadership and what Bush said would make others follow him:
"But action, confident action, that will yield positive results provides a kind of slipstream into which reluctant nations and leaders can get behind and show themselves that there has been, you know, something positive has happened towards peace."
Bush's penchant for bold action and risky gambles is based on believing that bold, confident and shocking action will make others line up behind him. Bush and his puppeteers believe that acting like a bold, confident and hard-assed leader will make enough people believe he is a strong leader that they will be compelled to follow him through hell or high water. Unfortunately, today we see that large numbers of people credit Bush for his strong leadership, so this act does work.
Deliberate Chaos?
Bush and his team of neocons have always been much more comfortable with chaotic change than most of the rest of us because they see chaotic change as a way to exploit chaos for their own ends. One of their basic tenets on how to lead is to find ways to exploit chaotic situations. Woodward's Bush at War talked about Bush's philosophy of leadership and what Bush said would make others follow him:
"But action, confident action, that will yield positive results provides a kind of slipstream into which reluctant nations and leaders can get behind and show themselves that there has been, you know, something positive has happened towards peace."
Bush's penchant for bold action and risky gambles is based on believing that bold, confident and shocking action will make others line up behind him. Bush and his puppeteers believe that acting like a bold, confident and hard-assed leader will make enough people believe he is a strong leader that they will be compelled to follow him through hell or high water. Unfortunately, today we see that large numbers of people credit Bush for his strong leadership, so this act does work.
Deliberate Chaos?
Mortality Rate Increases
Will the 2004 Election Be Called Off? Why Three Out of Four Experts Predict a Terrorist Attack by November
From BuzzFlash
Heavily Excerpted
by Maureen Farrell
On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his standard New Year’s predictions. This time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S. liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]
While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store, when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further investigation.
In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]
Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004." [Washington Post]
Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these observations months before terrorists changed Spain’s political landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the Novemberelections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos." [USA Today]
The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the Times reported. [New York Times]
MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly, there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions." [CNN]
Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org] before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism efforts?)
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because it’s going to happen."
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever rule the Fatherland.
"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]
Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder: Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points, calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling them what to say. It’s interesting. All the talk radio people, the right wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing, exactly the same words."
Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."
Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen and John Stanton revealed that the government’s marketing preparations for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate information." [CounterPunch.org]
In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."
To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and deploy troops to America’s streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting America’s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for NORAD’s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained, "It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that goes with 'extraordinary operations’"? Nothing. He already has that authority. [Los Angeles Times]
Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?
Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as former first lady Barbara Bush’s press secretary) is slated to become chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]
Moreover, last year’s Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune] Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu]) was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare law. . . , " the Times reported.
Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once these rumors prove false.
And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of Stepford Citizens reveal that they’d rather hear lies. After Richard Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried for treason and others asking CBS, "Why can’t you be 'fair and balanced’ like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com])
The most bizarre example of the White House’s dysfunctional domination of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando. The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.
"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.
"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White House didn’t call CNN. That was the development the other day. So I’m upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something’s gone haywire. I see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them Watergate kind of deals. And so, I’m shooting my mouth off and right in the middle of the show, I’m handed a note that says 'No no no no, the White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.’ So now I feel like "Oh, I guess I’m gonna do heavy time.’
"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day I’m told, 'Oh, No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didn’t want to make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund raisers and you know, I’m going to disappear mysteriously. In about eight months, they’ll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.
"So now, we’re told, despite what everyone says. . . that this high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White House did call them."
Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was involved in this fiasco.
Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White House off the hook.
While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly be required to air only that which has been approved by government censors." (How will we know the difference?)
Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and it’s even more bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11, 2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why don’t we have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying, "'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes," [The Independent] it’s clear we’ve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations; before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush," he wrote.
Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would [terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods."
William Safire’s and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts' speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing God’s work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will make you free."
And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another, more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another terrorist attack in America in 2004.
Personally, I don’t give much credence to predictions, but when this many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for our presidential election, I take note -- especially given what’s transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note: "When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have received the message from our 'computer police' thatthis site is considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.
BACK TO TOP
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
Wouldn't Surprise Me
Heavily Excerpted
by Maureen Farrell
On Dec. 31, 2003, New York Times columnist and former Nixon speech writer William Safire offered his standard New Year’s predictions. This time, however, one item stood out. In addition to speculating on everything from which country would next "feel the force of U.S. liberation" to who would win the best picture Oscar, Safire predicted that "the 'October surprise' affecting the U.S. election" would be "a major terror attack in the United States." [Salt Lake Tribune]
While such speculation is hardly worth a trip to the duct tape store, when combined with repeated assaults to our democratic process and troublesome assertions from noteworthy sources, it warrants further investigation.
In Nov. 2003, you might recall, Gen. Tommy Franks told Cigar Aficionado magazine that a major terrorist attack (even one that occurred elsewhere in the Western world), would likely result in a suspension of the U.S. Constitution and the installation of a military form of government. "[A] terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world -- it may be in the United States of America -- [would cause] our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event," he said. [NewsMax.com]
Right around the same time, former Clinton administration official David Rothkopf made similarly distressing observations. In a Washington Post op-ed entitled, "Terrorist Logic: Disrupt the 2004 Election," he described a meeting in which nearly 75 percent of the professional participants (characterized as "serious people, not prone to hysteria or panic") also foresaw another terrorist attack occurring on American soil before the next election. "Recently, I co-chaired a meeting hosted by CNBC of more than 200 senior business and government executives, many of whom are specialists in security and terrorism related issues," he wrote. "Almost three-quarters of them said it was likely the United States would see a major terrorist strike before the end of 2004." [Washington Post]
Saying that "history suggests that striking during major elections is an effective tool for terrorist groups," Rothkopf explained why terrorists will most likely target us soon. And though he and Safire made these observations months before terrorists changed Spain’s political landscape, they were not alone in thinking along such lines. "Even before the bombings in Madrid, White House officials were worrying that terrorists might strike the United States before the Novemberelections," USA Today reported, before commenting on how terrorists could "try the same tactics in the United States to create fear and chaos." [USA Today]
The New York Times also reported on the possibility that Al Qaeda would try to "influence the outcome of the election" by striking U.S. oil refineries. "The Federal Bureau of Investigation has warned the Texas oil industry of potential attacks by Al Qaeda on pipelines and refineries near the time of the November presidential election," the Times reported. [New York Times]
MSNBC, CNN and other news organizations also chimed in, raising concerns about this summer's political conventions. "In the wake of what happened in Madrid, we have to be concerned about the possibility of terrorists attempting to influence elections in the United States by committing a terrorist act," FBI Director Robert Mueller told CNN. "Quite clearly, there will be substantial preparations for each of the conventions." [CNN]
Right-wing columnists and pundits have since (surprise, surprise) tried to capitalize on such fears. "If a terrorist group attacked the U.S. three days before an election, does anyone doubt that the American electorate would rally behind the president or at least the most aggressively antiterror party?" David Brooks opined in the New York Times on March 16, [Libertypost.org] before Richard Clarke revealed that the Clinton administration was actually more "aggressively anti-terror" than the bumbling Bushes. (Could that be why the Bush administration refuses to turn over thousands of pages of the nearly 11,000 files on the Clinton administration’s antiterrorism efforts?)
Sean Hannity twisted things further. "If we are attacked before our election like Spain was, I am not so sure that we should go ahead with the election," he reportedly said. "We had better make plans now because it’s going to happen."
And, of course, what usurpation of democracy would be complete without Rush Limbaugh weighing in? "Do [the terrorists] bide their time and wait, or do they try to replicate their success in Spain here in America before our election?" Limbaugh asked, before revealing how "titans of industry," and "international business people (who do not outsource, by the way)" were "very, very, very concerned" that one true party forever rule the Fatherland.
"They all were seeking from me reassurance that the White House was safe this year, that John Kerry would not win," Limbaugh said. "Who do you think the terrorists would rather have in office in this country -- socialists like those in Spain as personified by John Kerry and his friends in the Democratic Party, or George W. Bush?"
Saying that a pre-election terrorist attack is not a question of "if" but "when," Limbaugh concluded that should anyone but Bush occupy the White House, the terrorists will have won. [RushLimbaugh.com]
Given the bizarre mind-melding between the government and media and the Soviet-style propagandizing that's been taking place, one has to wonder: Is there is any significance in the fact that Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and David Brooks are all beating the same tom-tom? As former White House insider Richard Clarke recently told Jon Stewart, "[There are] dozens of people, in the White House. . . writing talking points, calling up conservative columnists, calling up talk radio hosts, telling them what to say. It’s interesting. All the talk radio people, the right wing talk radio people across the country, saying the exact same thing, exactly the same words."
Stewart noted that a 24-hour news network was also making observations that were "remarkably similar to what the White House was saying."
Even though Andrew Card admitted that "from a marketing point of view, you don't introduce new products in August," in May, 2002, Wayne Madsen and John Stanton revealed that the government’s marketing preparations for the war were already underway, with U.S. Air Force scientists consulting with CNN "to figure out how to gather and disseminate information." [CounterPunch.org]
In an article entitled, "When the War Hits Home: U.S. Plans for Martial Law, Tele-Governance and the Suspension of Elections," Madsen and Stanton delved into the more frightening aspects of what might be in store. "One incident, one aircraft hijacked, a 'dirty nuke' set off in a small town, may well prompt the Bush regime, let's say during the election campaign of 2003-2004, to suspend national elections for a year while his government ensures stability," they wrote. "Many closed door meetings have been held on these subjects and the notices for these meetings have been closely monitored by the definitive www.cryptome.org."
To make matters worse, if martial law is imposed, Air Force General Ralph E. Eberhart will be able to blast through Posse Comitatus and deploy troops to America’s streets. Gen. Eberhart, you might recall, is the former Commander of NORAD, which was in charge of protecting America’s skies on Sept. 11. But instead of being scrutinized for NORAD’s massive failures, he was promoted and now heads the Pentagon's Northern Command. And, as military analyst William M. Arkin explained, "It is only in the case of 'extraordinary' domestic operations that would enable Gen. Eberhart to bring in "intelligence collectors, special operators and even full combat troops" to bear. What kind of situation would have to occur to grant Eberhart "the far-reaching authority that goes with 'extraordinary operations’"? Nothing. He already has that authority. [Los Angeles Times]
Which brings us to the inevitable (and most important) question. How primed is the American public to accept suspended elections, martial law, or whatever else the White House decides to "market"?
Consider, for a moment, what an invaluable propaganda conduit the media was during the lead up to war in Iraq -- and just how weird things have become since. Howard Stern insists he was targeted by Clear Channel and the FCC after speaking out against George Bush [BuzzFlash.com]; former White House Aide Anna Perez (who worked under Condoleezza Rice and served as former first lady Barbara Bush’s press secretary) is slated to become chief communications executive for NBC; and MSNBC featured a story entitled, "White House: Bush Misstated Report on Iraq" on its Web site only to have it disappear down the Memory Hole in the course of a few hours. [TheMemoryHole.org]
Moreover, last year’s Clear Channel sponsorship of pro-war/pro-Bush rallies was so Orwellian, that former Federal Communications Commissioner Glen Robinson remarked, "I can't say that this violates any of a broadcaster's obligations, but it sounds like borderline manufacturing of the news." [Chicago Tribune] Meanwhile, the mysterious Karen Ryan (of "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" fakery fame [Journalism.NYU.edu]) was featured in the New York Times. "Federal investigators are scrutinizing television segments in which the Bush administration paid people to pose as journalists, praising the benefits of the new Medicare law. . . , " the Times reported.
Need more proof that something is amiss? As of Feb. 5, 2004, CBS News was still reporting that one of the hijackers' passports was "found on the street minutes after the plane he was aboard crashed into the north tower of the World Trade Center," [CBS] and for far too long, pundits have taken to spreading White House rumors without checking facts --while denying any White House connection once these rumors prove false.
And most baffling of all, whenever anyone does tell the truth, a bevy of Stepford Citizens reveal that they’d rather hear lies. After Richard Clarke spilled the Bush beans on 60 Minutes, for example, the mail was overwhelmingly negative -- with some writing that Clarke should be tried for treason and others asking CBS, "Why can’t you be 'fair and balanced’ like FOX?" (Perhaps those viewers are denizens of the Free Republic Web site, where posters actually pondered the question: "Should the US have elections if attacked?" [FreeRepublic.com])
The most bizarre example of the White House’s dysfunctional domination of the media, however, occurred last week -- with the surreal controversy involving David Letterman and CNN. In case you missed it, on Monday, Letterman showed a video clip which featured a bored, fidgety kid standing behind George W. Bush, who was giving a speech in Orlando. The next day, CNN also ran that clip, but anchor Daryn Kagan returned from commercial break to inform viewers, "We're being told by the White House that the kid, as funny as he was, was edited into that video." Later, a second CNN anchor said that the boy was at the rally, but wasn't necessarily standing behind George W. Bush.
"That is an out and out 100 percent absolute lie. The kid absolutely was there, and he absolutely was doing everything we pictured via the videotape," Letterman said on Tuesday.
"Explanations continued through Wednesday and Thursday, with Letterman referring to "indisputable" and "very high-placed source" who told him that the White House had, in fact, called CNN. "This is where it gets a little hinky," Letterman said on Thursday, rehashing the back and forth nonsense that played like a bad SNL sketch. "We were told that the White House didn’t call CNN. That was the development the other day. So I’m upset because I smell a conspiracy. I think something’s gone haywire. I see this as the end of democracy as we know it; another one of them Watergate kind of deals. And so, I’m shooting my mouth off and right in the middle of the show, I’m handed a note that says 'No no no no, the White House did not contact CNN. The White House did NOT call CNN.’ So now I feel like "Oh, I guess I’m gonna do heavy time.’
"Ok, so now it gets a little confusing. So, the next day I’m told, 'Oh, No. The White House DID contact CNN. . . . They WERE contacted by the White House. They were trying to SHUT CNN up because they didn’t want to make these people look ridiculous because they were big Republican fund raisers and you know, I’m going to disappear mysteriously. In about eight months, they’ll find my body in the trunk of a rental car.
"So now, we’re told, despite what everyone says. . . that this high-ranking, high placed unidentified source says, "No No The White House did call them."
Although he displayed his customary wit and joked throughout his explanation, unless Letterman's acting skills extend far beyond those displayed in Cabin Boy, there's no doubt that Letterman was serious when he asserted that "despite what everyone says" the White House was involved in this fiasco.
Meanwhile, CNN apologized and accepted the blame, letting the White House off the hook.
While the Letterman episode is a lesson in abject absurdity, nearly two years ago, Madsen and Stanton warned that following a major terrorist attack, seditious web sites would be blocked (something that is already happening to howardstern.com) and "the broadcast media would similarly be required to air only that which has been approved by government censors." (How will we know the difference?)
Though it seems surreal that people are actually wagering that another terrorist attack will occur on our soil by November (and it’s even more bizarre that on-air personalities are calling for the suspension of elections), the fact that this un-elected gang who barreled into power and forever changed the course of a nation, is so completely untrustworthy makes the situation even more disturbing. On Sept 11, 2003, William Bunch of the Philadelphia Daily News asked, "Why don’t we have the answers to these 9/11 questions?" [The Philadelphia Daily News] before addressing a variety of concerns, which, thanks to the 9/11 commission, are finally making their way into our national consciousness. And now that another whistle blower, FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, has come forward, saying, "'I saw papers that show US knew al-Qaeda would attack cities with airplanes," [The Independent] it’s clear we’ve been under attack for quite some time. [BuzzFlash.com]
But before the Madrid bombings; before Richard Clarke’s revelations; before more whistleblowers peeked out from under the muck, David Rothkopf made everything oh-so-clear. Writing about the "military officers, policymakers, scientists, researchers and others who have studied [terrorism] for a long time," he explained how the majority of experts he spoke to not only predicted that the pre-election assaults would "be greater than those of 9/11," but that any act of terrorism would work in the President's favor. "It was the sense of the group that such an attack was likely to generate additional support for President Bush," he wrote.
Citing how "assaults before major votes have [traditionally] benefited candidates who were seen as tougher on terrorists," Rothkopf catalogued events in Israel, Russia, Turkey and Sri Lanka before explaining the symbiotic relationship between terrorists and hardliners. "So why would [terrorists] want to help [hardliners] win?" he asked. "Perhaps because terrorists see the attacks as a win-win. They can lash out against their perceived enemies and empower the hard-liners, who in turn empower them as terrorists. How? Hard-liners strike back more broadly, making it easier for terrorists as they attempt to justify their causes and their methods."
William Safire’s and David Rothkopf's and three out of four experts' speculations aside, there are those who believe that the Bible predicts the ultimate battle between good and evil and that George Bush is doing God’s work. But then again, the Bible also says that "the truth will make you free."
And according to Bible Code author Michael Drosnin, there is another, more mystical way to look at Biblical text, and he contends that the Bible also predicts, you guessed it, that there will be another terrorist attack in America in 2004.
Personally, I don’t give much credence to predictions, but when this many people peer into the crystal ball and see Al Qaeda gearing up for our presidential election, I take note -- especially given what’s transpired since the last stolen election. [EricBlumrich.com]
So, what the heck. If others can do it, I can, too. So I’ll go out on a limb a make a prediction of my own: If the truth continues to seep out about the way the Bush administration has failed us, suspending the election may be the only way Bush can win.
My darkest fear is that G.W.'s handlers believe this, too.
* * *
BuzzFlash Note: We're not sure what to make of this, but a BuzzFlash Reader who works for the U.S. Government recently sent us this note: "When I attempted to purchase a [BuzzFlash] premium on-line, I have received the message from our 'computer police' thatthis site is considered a HATE site and I am not allowed to purchase this material online using government computers." Go figure. If anyone can verify this information, we'd be exceptionally grateful.
BACK TO TOP
Maureen Farrell is a writer and media consultant who specializes in helping other writers get television and radio exposure.
© Copyright 2003, Maureen Farrell
Wouldn't Surprise Me
Bush Ad Makers Must Think No One Else Actually Checks Facts
From Kevin Drum
CLINTON ON TERRORISM....Via James Joyner, I see that the Washington Times has a story today trumpeting the news that Bill Clinton's final policy paper on national security "makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times." James says this belies "Richard Clarke’s argument that it was somehow THE focus of Clinton foreign policy."
A couple of comments:
•
The full report is here. If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.
• On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."
• It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":
We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.
• As far as I know, Clarke never suggested that counterterrorism was the Clinton administration's highest priority, merely one of several high priorities. His complaint isn't that Bush didn't make it Job 1, but that he didn't give it even as much attention as Clinton did.
I sorta doubt it was worth my time to go through all this, but there you have it.
CLINTON ON TERRORISM....Via James Joyner, I see that the Washington Times has a story today trumpeting the news that Bill Clinton's final policy paper on national security "makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times." James says this belies "Richard Clarke’s argument that it was somehow THE focus of Clinton foreign policy."
A couple of comments:
•
The full report is here. If you're looking for the four references, note that OBL's name is spelled "Usama bin Ladin." Sure enough, he's mentioned four times.
• On the other hand, "terrorism" is mentioned seven times in the introduction alone and 58 times in the main section on "Implementing the Strategy." What's more, in the major section titled "Protecting the Homeland" there are seven primary issues discussed. Two of them are "Combating Terrorism" and "Domestic Preparedness Against Weapons of Mass Destruction."
• It's also worth noting that far from considering terrorism a mere law enforcement activity, terrorism gets an entire paragraph in the section titled "Military Activities":
We must continue to improve our program to combat terrorism in the areas of antiterrorism, counterterrorism, consequence management, and intelligence support to deter terrorism. We will deter terrorism through the increased antiterrorism readiness of our installations and forward forces, enhanced training and awareness of military personnel, and the development of comprehensive theater engagement plans. In counterterrorism, because terrorist organizations may not be deterred by traditional means, we must ensure a robust capability to accurately attribute the source of attacks against the United States or its citizens, and to respond effectively and decisively to protect our national interests. U.S. armed forces possess a tailored range of options to respond to terrorism directed at U.S. citizens, interests, and property. In the event of a terrorist incident, our consequence management ability to significantly mitigate injury and damage may likely deter future attacks. Finally, we will continue to improve the timeliness and accuracy of intelligence support to commanders, which will also enhance our ability to deter terrorism.
• As far as I know, Clarke never suggested that counterterrorism was the Clinton administration's highest priority, merely one of several high priorities. His complaint isn't that Bush didn't make it Job 1, but that he didn't give it even as much attention as Clinton did.
I sorta doubt it was worth my time to go through all this, but there you have it.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
One Day In Iraq
First from Faux News
Fred B.: "In a day or so al-Sadr will have no militia. They'll all be gone."
Mort K.: "This is no reason to panic. The whole country's not in an uprising."
04/06/04 AP: Bomb Kills 3 Security Officers In Samarra
A bomb killed three security officers and wounded another at a checkpoint in Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, that was manned by Iraqi Civil Defense personnel, workers at Samarra General Hospital said.
04/06/04 IrelandOnline: Rocket attack kills 26 in Iraq
Sixteen Iraqis died in battles with US Marines in Fallujah, and at least 26 more – many of them women and children – were killed in a late-night rocket strike by the US military, hospital officials said.
04/06/04 AP: Up to 12 Marines Killed in Attack in Iraq
the city of Ramadi, near Fallujah... "A significant number" of Marines were killed, and initial reports indicate it may be up to a dozen, said the official
04/06/04 CNN: Coalition battling al-Sadr supporters in Najaf
U.S. and coalition troops are battling supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for a third day Tuesday, with clashes reported in Baghdad and at least four cities in the country's south.
04/06/04 AP: Police Chief, three others dead in Iraq attacks
Two attacks on Iraqi police south of Baghdad killed four people yesterday, the latest violence directed at local authorities linked to the American-led occupation.
04/06/04 AFP: Iraq crackdown leaves 100 dead
MORE than 100 Iraqis have been killed and hundreds wounded in the past two days as coalition troops crack down on Shi'ite rebels of firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, hospital and military sources said today.
04/06/04 AP: 2 Poles and 3 Bulgarians Wounded
Gunmen firing automatic weapons and grenades ambushed a joint Polish-Bulgarian-U.S. patrol Tuesday afternoon near the Shiite holy city of Karbala. Two Poles and three Bulgarians were wounded
04/06/04 Novinite: Bulgarian Driver Shot Dead in Iraq
The truck driven by Mario Manchev, from the Bulgarian haulier company SOMAT, and several other vehicles were attacked by unknown assailants
04/06/04 CNN: Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf
Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
04/06/04 Novinite: 3 Bulgarian Soldiers Wounded in Iraq
Three Bulgarian soldiers were lightly wounded in an ambush in the Iraqi town of Karbala.
04/06/04 BBC: One Ukrainian soldier was killed
Meanwhile in Kut, south of Baghdad, one Ukrainian soldier was killed and five wounded in clashes with militants, the Ukrainian defence ministry said.
04/06/04 AP: Six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday
The military reported six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday, saying all were guerrillas, though residents said five of them were killed when helicopters hit a residential area
04/06/04 Novinite: Bulgarian Karbala Base Under Fire
The Bulgarian Kilo base in Karbala went under fire at about 01:40 a.m. local time, but no soldiers were wounded in the attack.
04/06/04 Centcom: 3 Task Force 1AD Soldiers Killed -Confirmed
Three Task Force 1st Armored Division soldiers were killed during separate attacks April 5-6 in the Kadhimyah district here.
04/06/04 Centcom: 4 Marines Killed Confirmed
Four Marines serving with the I Marine Expeditionary Force were killed as a result of enemy action in the Al Anbar province April 5 while conducting security and stabilization operations.
04/06/04 AFX: Thirty-nine Iraqis killed in clashes with US forces
At least 39 Iraqis were killed and 126 others wounded in clashes between Shiite militiamen and US soldiers over the past 48 hours, the head of Ath-Thawra hospital in Sadr City suburb said.
04/06/04 AP: Three U.S. Troops Killed in Attacks in Baghdad
Three U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks in a Shi'ite area of Baghdad on Monday and Tuesday, the U.S. army said.
04/06/04 AFP: US army interpreter killed north of Baghdad: Police
An Iraqi interpreter working for the US army was shot dead early on Tuesday in central Baquba, north of Baghdad, police Lieutenant Ahmed Alisaid.
04/06/04 Xinhuanet: 11 Italian soldiers wounded in clashes with Iraqi Shiite militia
Eleven Italian soldiers were slightly wounded on Tuesday in clashes with supporters of Shi'ite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr in the southern Iraqi
04/06/04 Reuters: Four U.S. Marines Killed West of Baghdad
Guerrillas killed four U.S. Marines in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad on Monday, the U.S. military said in a statement on Tuesday
Fred B.: "In a day or so al-Sadr will have no militia. They'll all be gone."
Mort K.: "This is no reason to panic. The whole country's not in an uprising."
04/06/04 AP: Bomb Kills 3 Security Officers In Samarra
A bomb killed three security officers and wounded another at a checkpoint in Samarra, about 60 miles north of Baghdad, that was manned by Iraqi Civil Defense personnel, workers at Samarra General Hospital said.
04/06/04 IrelandOnline: Rocket attack kills 26 in Iraq
Sixteen Iraqis died in battles with US Marines in Fallujah, and at least 26 more – many of them women and children – were killed in a late-night rocket strike by the US military, hospital officials said.
04/06/04 AP: Up to 12 Marines Killed in Attack in Iraq
the city of Ramadi, near Fallujah... "A significant number" of Marines were killed, and initial reports indicate it may be up to a dozen, said the official
04/06/04 CNN: Coalition battling al-Sadr supporters in Najaf
U.S. and coalition troops are battling supporters of Shiite Muslim cleric Muqtada al-Sadr for a third day Tuesday, with clashes reported in Baghdad and at least four cities in the country's south.
04/06/04 AP: Police Chief, three others dead in Iraq attacks
Two attacks on Iraqi police south of Baghdad killed four people yesterday, the latest violence directed at local authorities linked to the American-led occupation.
04/06/04 AFP: Iraq crackdown leaves 100 dead
MORE than 100 Iraqis have been killed and hundreds wounded in the past two days as coalition troops crack down on Shi'ite rebels of firebrand cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, hospital and military sources said today.
04/06/04 AP: 2 Poles and 3 Bulgarians Wounded
Gunmen firing automatic weapons and grenades ambushed a joint Polish-Bulgarian-U.S. patrol Tuesday afternoon near the Shiite holy city of Karbala. Two Poles and three Bulgarians were wounded
04/06/04 Novinite: Bulgarian Driver Shot Dead in Iraq
The truck driven by Mario Manchev, from the Bulgarian haulier company SOMAT, and several other vehicles were attacked by unknown assailants
04/06/04 CNN: Al-Sadr supporters take over Najaf
Supporters of maverick Muslim cleric Moqtada al-Sadr controlled government, religious and security buildings in the holy city of Najaf early Tuesday evening, according to a coalition source in southern Iraq.
04/06/04 Novinite: 3 Bulgarian Soldiers Wounded in Iraq
Three Bulgarian soldiers were lightly wounded in an ambush in the Iraqi town of Karbala.
04/06/04 BBC: One Ukrainian soldier was killed
Meanwhile in Kut, south of Baghdad, one Ukrainian soldier was killed and five wounded in clashes with militants, the Ukrainian defence ministry said.
04/06/04 AP: Six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday
The military reported six Iraqis killed in fighting Monday, saying all were guerrillas, though residents said five of them were killed when helicopters hit a residential area
04/06/04 Novinite: Bulgarian Karbala Base Under Fire
The Bulgarian Kilo base in Karbala went under fire at about 01:40 a.m. local time, but no soldiers were wounded in the attack.
04/06/04 Centcom: 3 Task Force 1AD Soldiers Killed -Confirmed
Three Task Force 1st Armored Division soldiers were killed during separate attacks April 5-6 in the Kadhimyah district here.
04/06/04 Centcom: 4 Marines Killed Confirmed
Four Marines serving with the I Marine Expeditionary Force were killed as a result of enemy action in the Al Anbar province April 5 while conducting security and stabilization operations.
04/06/04 AFX: Thirty-nine Iraqis killed in clashes with US forces
At least 39 Iraqis were killed and 126 others wounded in clashes between Shiite militiamen and US soldiers over the past 48 hours, the head of Ath-Thawra hospital in Sadr City suburb said.
04/06/04 AP: Three U.S. Troops Killed in Attacks in Baghdad
Three U.S. soldiers were killed in separate attacks in a Shi'ite area of Baghdad on Monday and Tuesday, the U.S. army said.
04/06/04 AFP: US army interpreter killed north of Baghdad: Police
An Iraqi interpreter working for the US army was shot dead early on Tuesday in central Baquba, north of Baghdad, police Lieutenant Ahmed Alisaid.
04/06/04 Xinhuanet: 11 Italian soldiers wounded in clashes with Iraqi Shiite militia
Eleven Italian soldiers were slightly wounded on Tuesday in clashes with supporters of Shi'ite Muslim leader Moqtada Sadr in the southern Iraqi
04/06/04 Reuters: Four U.S. Marines Killed West of Baghdad
Guerrillas killed four U.S. Marines in the volatile al-Anbar province west of Baghdad on Monday, the U.S. military said in a statement on Tuesday
St Louis Crowd Boos Bush...But That's Not The Worst
From St. Louis Today.
A somewhat hostile crowd complained mightily about the problems the presidential motorcade caused with regular fans trying to get into the park. A Cards employee tipped moi that the team was so concerned about Bush being booed that they piped in fake applause when he strode out to the mound.
A somewhat hostile crowd complained mightily about the problems the presidential motorcade caused with regular fans trying to get into the park. A Cards employee tipped moi that the team was so concerned about Bush being booed that they piped in fake applause when he strode out to the mound.
Hi, I'm Bill O'Reilly. Thanks for watching us tonight.
Well whadya know. Bill and I agree on something
Continuing Chaos in Iraq
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly
Continuing chaos in Iraq, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." U.S. Marines are taking care of business in Fallujah (search). -- That Iraqi town allowed atrocities against Americans, as you know. And an arrest warrant has been issued for the Shi'ite cleric whose followers killed eight Americans over the weekend.
But all the bad news out of Iraq is beginning to threaten President Bush's re-election. And that is the page one story.
Right now, the USA is fighting a defensive action inside Iraq and that cannot continue. Donald Rumsfeld (search) and his team at Defense must realize that the Iraqi people are not helping out as Rumsfeld envisioned.
It is the American military versus the terrorists with little civilian support. Puts a very different face on this conflict. Like South Vietnam, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many, perhaps most of the Iraqi people are not going to fight for their freedom. In Fallujah, citizens seem to be aiding the terrorists. In parts of Baghdad, Shi'ite militia are well armed and killing U.S. troops. In both cases, the Iraqi police do nothing to intervene.
So what we have here is a population that doesn't seem to value democracy. America did all it could, including 55,000 dead to give the South Vietnamese a chance to be free, but the South Vietnamese would not fight. So for the past 30 years, they have lived with the boots of the Communists on their necks. Believe me, I've been there. There's nothing free about Vietnam.
Some people simply will not embrace freedom. We have millions of Americans in this country who are being abused one way or another and refuse to do anything about it. Freedom is never free. Freedom is hard.
The Bush administration must come to grips with the true character of Iraq and begin to change strategy. The safety of the American military must become the top priority. The interest of the Iraqis themselves second. Unlike Afghanistan (search), where the majority of people seem to be cooperating with America, the Iraqis lay back, perhaps traumatized by decades of Saddam's oppression.
Understandable, but not acceptable. If these people won't help us, we need to get out in an orderly manner. If, come next October, Iraq continues to be a big mess, President Bush might very well lose the election. Mr. Bush and his advisers must know that. And that's why there's still a chance that the Iraqi radicals will be beaten. But time is running out, both for Iraq and for the Bush administration.
And that's "The Memo."
Continuing Chaos in Iraq
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
By Bill O'Reilly
Continuing chaos in Iraq, that is the subject of this evening's "Talking Points Memo." U.S. Marines are taking care of business in Fallujah (search). -- That Iraqi town allowed atrocities against Americans, as you know. And an arrest warrant has been issued for the Shi'ite cleric whose followers killed eight Americans over the weekend.
But all the bad news out of Iraq is beginning to threaten President Bush's re-election. And that is the page one story.
Right now, the USA is fighting a defensive action inside Iraq and that cannot continue. Donald Rumsfeld (search) and his team at Defense must realize that the Iraqi people are not helping out as Rumsfeld envisioned.
It is the American military versus the terrorists with little civilian support. Puts a very different face on this conflict. Like South Vietnam, it is becoming increasingly obvious that many, perhaps most of the Iraqi people are not going to fight for their freedom. In Fallujah, citizens seem to be aiding the terrorists. In parts of Baghdad, Shi'ite militia are well armed and killing U.S. troops. In both cases, the Iraqi police do nothing to intervene.
So what we have here is a population that doesn't seem to value democracy. America did all it could, including 55,000 dead to give the South Vietnamese a chance to be free, but the South Vietnamese would not fight. So for the past 30 years, they have lived with the boots of the Communists on their necks. Believe me, I've been there. There's nothing free about Vietnam.
Some people simply will not embrace freedom. We have millions of Americans in this country who are being abused one way or another and refuse to do anything about it. Freedom is never free. Freedom is hard.
The Bush administration must come to grips with the true character of Iraq and begin to change strategy. The safety of the American military must become the top priority. The interest of the Iraqis themselves second. Unlike Afghanistan (search), where the majority of people seem to be cooperating with America, the Iraqis lay back, perhaps traumatized by decades of Saddam's oppression.
Understandable, but not acceptable. If these people won't help us, we need to get out in an orderly manner. If, come next October, Iraq continues to be a big mess, President Bush might very well lose the election. Mr. Bush and his advisers must know that. And that's why there's still a chance that the Iraqi radicals will be beaten. But time is running out, both for Iraq and for the Bush administration.
And that's "The Memo."
What???!!!!
130 SOLDIERS KILLED IN IRAQ - REPORTS
A Pentagon source has said up to 130 US troops have been killed in fierce fighting in Iraq.
The large scale battle, described as "intense", has taken place in the town of Ar Ramadi, 20 miles west of Fallujah.
Sky News' David Chater said: "None of this is official yet - none of it is confirmed."
But he added: "It sounds very much like this is being carried out by men who are militarily trained."
Chater described the attack as "highly sophisticated"
Don’t Know If This Is True
A Pentagon source has said up to 130 US troops have been killed in fierce fighting in Iraq.
The large scale battle, described as "intense", has taken place in the town of Ar Ramadi, 20 miles west of Fallujah.
Sky News' David Chater said: "None of this is official yet - none of it is confirmed."
But he added: "It sounds very much like this is being carried out by men who are militarily trained."
Chater described the attack as "highly sophisticated"
Don’t Know If This Is True
He's Right, You Know
I have no love for John Kerry. He's a typical career politician who waffles with the polls, but his statements today about the June 30th handover in Iraq are right on target.
"I have always said consistently that it is a mistake to set an arbitrary date and I hope that the date has nothing to do with the election here in the United States."
"I think they wanted to get the troops out and get the transfer out of the way as fast as possible without regard to the stability of Iraq," Kerry said. "The test ought to be the stability of Iraq and not an arbitrary date .. it should not be related to the election."
I've argued all along that a proper rebuilding of Iraq would take time. Years. Decades, even. Ever since before this war began I've had my doubts if America had the necessary resolve. I still do. We are an instant gratification society. Buckling down for a long, hard haul is not our way any longer.
When Bush called for the June 30th handover, he crumpled. What ever happened to "as long as it takes"? Obviously it, too, met the bulldozer of reelection politics.
My opinion on all of this? It's time this country had a political do-over. We need new blood, we need public servants who actually SERVE the public good, rather than either a) profit from it or b) pander to those who kick and scream the loudest.
And we should NEVER have set a date for handover so arbitrarily. Now, if and when we move the date (and we will), it will either look like we are backing down, or we are going back on our word and revealing ourselves as the imperialists the Arab press makes us out to be. Either way, we're screwed.
"I have always said consistently that it is a mistake to set an arbitrary date and I hope that the date has nothing to do with the election here in the United States."
"I think they wanted to get the troops out and get the transfer out of the way as fast as possible without regard to the stability of Iraq," Kerry said. "The test ought to be the stability of Iraq and not an arbitrary date .. it should not be related to the election."
I've argued all along that a proper rebuilding of Iraq would take time. Years. Decades, even. Ever since before this war began I've had my doubts if America had the necessary resolve. I still do. We are an instant gratification society. Buckling down for a long, hard haul is not our way any longer.
When Bush called for the June 30th handover, he crumpled. What ever happened to "as long as it takes"? Obviously it, too, met the bulldozer of reelection politics.
My opinion on all of this? It's time this country had a political do-over. We need new blood, we need public servants who actually SERVE the public good, rather than either a) profit from it or b) pander to those who kick and scream the loudest.
And we should NEVER have set a date for handover so arbitrarily. Now, if and when we move the date (and we will), it will either look like we are backing down, or we are going back on our word and revealing ourselves as the imperialists the Arab press makes us out to be. Either way, we're screwed.
Comments from Kos Comment Section-
War Profiteering Used to be a Crime (4.00 / 6)
You haven't thought about this issue very deeply. I would urge you to.
1. There is no legitimate role these organizations and "contractors" are performing that couldn't be done by the U.S. military. Bodyguarding? Transport security? We already have soldiers trained to do this. Indeed, we already trained these mercs to do this which is why they are valuable.
2. A company like Blackwater is paid 3000-4000 by the USA for a merc. They pay the mercs 1000-2000 a week. That is a profit of 1000-2000 profit for a middleman that would not be paid if those same soldiers had re-enlisted. This adds up to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for an unnecessary middleman. That markup is war profiteering, a treasonous act.
3. It is legal (though not moral) because the WH and congress have decreed it so. Why?
__1. It creates from the public trough a wealthy, beholden group of political donors. It is safe to assume that the owners and employees of Blackwater et al make significant donations to the politicians that created their unnecessary jobs. That quid pro quo is legal corruption.
__2. It makes a private army available to the WH and others to carry out missions that they want to distance themselves from. Black Ops. Iran/Contra. Dirty wars. Coups. That is a subversion of democracy and accountability.
__3. When mercs are killed, their deaths are not counted among the dead or usually reported in the media. Thus the American public has no idea how many people are actually being killed in country. That is a method of lying and hiding the truth from the American public which corrodes our democracy.
__4. Their actions are not coordinated nor approved by the legitimate military authority. Yet who is asked to cover their ass when mistakes are made? The legitimate military resents mercs--why do you think that is? Think about it.
__5. One of the duties of our soldiers in Iraq is to "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis." It is a part of their mission and they risk being disciplined if they violate that imperative. Is this part of a merc's mission? No, they have a client and a paycheck inflated by politics. Many of them may have a "good heart" and patriotic sentiments for what it's worth. But who will discipline them and maintain loyalty on pain of punishment to the overarching military objectives? An "employer"? Bullshit.
At best, we are paying too much for services that are less reliable and honorable than our own military can and should provide. However patriotic these guys may or may not be, that's a raw deal for the mission and the taxpayer.
At worst, we are overpaying soldiers of fortune who will do illegal shit, are loose canons in a war zone, operate in secret without legal oversight, and are proxies used to mislead the American people about the true scale of casualties in a war.
You pointing out that mercs arn't slaves doesn't say much. You need to think about the big picture here some more and then answer the question: Why are mercs a good thing? The answer is they are not.
by Tropicana on Tue Apr 6th, 2004 at 02:31:15 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do we have mercs doing soldiers' jobs?
Are they accountable to the UCMJ and their chain of command?
Can we rely on them to be there in a crisis (they showed this time, but what if things get REALLY hairy)?
If they commit war crimes, who is responsible - Blackwater or the United States?
Oregon guy
You haven't thought about this issue very deeply. I would urge you to.
1. There is no legitimate role these organizations and "contractors" are performing that couldn't be done by the U.S. military. Bodyguarding? Transport security? We already have soldiers trained to do this. Indeed, we already trained these mercs to do this which is why they are valuable.
2. A company like Blackwater is paid 3000-4000 by the USA for a merc. They pay the mercs 1000-2000 a week. That is a profit of 1000-2000 profit for a middleman that would not be paid if those same soldiers had re-enlisted. This adds up to tens if not hundreds of millions of dollars for an unnecessary middleman. That markup is war profiteering, a treasonous act.
3. It is legal (though not moral) because the WH and congress have decreed it so. Why?
__1. It creates from the public trough a wealthy, beholden group of political donors. It is safe to assume that the owners and employees of Blackwater et al make significant donations to the politicians that created their unnecessary jobs. That quid pro quo is legal corruption.
__2. It makes a private army available to the WH and others to carry out missions that they want to distance themselves from. Black Ops. Iran/Contra. Dirty wars. Coups. That is a subversion of democracy and accountability.
__3. When mercs are killed, their deaths are not counted among the dead or usually reported in the media. Thus the American public has no idea how many people are actually being killed in country. That is a method of lying and hiding the truth from the American public which corrodes our democracy.
__4. Their actions are not coordinated nor approved by the legitimate military authority. Yet who is asked to cover their ass when mistakes are made? The legitimate military resents mercs--why do you think that is? Think about it.
__5. One of the duties of our soldiers in Iraq is to "win the hearts and minds of the Iraqis." It is a part of their mission and they risk being disciplined if they violate that imperative. Is this part of a merc's mission? No, they have a client and a paycheck inflated by politics. Many of them may have a "good heart" and patriotic sentiments for what it's worth. But who will discipline them and maintain loyalty on pain of punishment to the overarching military objectives? An "employer"? Bullshit.
At best, we are paying too much for services that are less reliable and honorable than our own military can and should provide. However patriotic these guys may or may not be, that's a raw deal for the mission and the taxpayer.
At worst, we are overpaying soldiers of fortune who will do illegal shit, are loose canons in a war zone, operate in secret without legal oversight, and are proxies used to mislead the American people about the true scale of casualties in a war.
You pointing out that mercs arn't slaves doesn't say much. You need to think about the big picture here some more and then answer the question: Why are mercs a good thing? The answer is they are not.
by Tropicana on Tue Apr 6th, 2004 at 02:31:15 EDT
------------------------------------------------------------------
So why do we have mercs doing soldiers' jobs?
Are they accountable to the UCMJ and their chain of command?
Can we rely on them to be there in a crisis (they showed this time, but what if things get REALLY hairy)?
If they commit war crimes, who is responsible - Blackwater or the United States?
Oregon guy
Defending Kos
I first thought I shouldn’t wade into this one, but what’s the point of blogging if not discourse of some kind? As everyone knows by now, people are trying to crucify Kos for a comment. When referring to the Paid Security Forces from a North Carolina firm, Blackwater, who were killed by Iraqi insurgents in Fallujah last week, Kos said something that ended in “screw them”. Here it is.
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
So those attacking him have come from the right mostly and they cobble together an argument that goes something like this: The private security workers were first and foremost Americans. Secondly, they are over there ostensibly moving forward the President’s War On Terrorism. Lastly, they are people. Fathers and sons and brothers and uncles to someone. So to say “screw them” seems rather un-American on the surface, and more importantly, it seems bloody. As if it were OK for Americans to suffer. I mean, afterall, we are in a fight and when members of your team get hurt, at the very least, you pull together...right?
I see their point. But there are a couple others I feel thy fail to see.
I began by wondering why, if you’re going to “pull together” against enemies, does it not bother the right wing when a CIA operative was exposed for political revenge.
There are really two issues at play here that go beyond patriotism and team playing and supporting America. The rightwing thinks this debate simply should stay where it is.
The first issue is the rightwing smear machine. They are spending millions of calories attacking Kos. But their outrage seems disingenuous at best. The rightwing said nothing when two days ago, Kathleen Parker suggested that we nuke Fallujah. The rightwing said nothing when smearmeisters accused Clinton of having Vince Foster murdered. The rightwing said nothing Ann Coulter calls Liberals treasonous, even those who have served the country in uniform. The rightwing said nothing when Senator Frist accused Richard Clarke of Perjury. The rightwing said nothing when pretty much the entire cassus belli of the 2002 State of the Union Address was disproved. The rightwing said nothing when Bill O’Reilly, before addressing a Black audience suggested that some of them might be outside taking their hubcaps. The rightwing said nothing when it came to light that Rush Limbaugh was buying drugs in a parking lot and making his maid do the dirty work. The rightwing said nothing when it came to light that William Bennett, the master of mastering ravenous sinful appetites gambled $8 million away in Vegas. Speaking of his appetites…has he ever looked in a mirror? I mean even the Bible mentions gluttony. The right wing said nothing when it was discovered that the White House had faked letters from soldiers and sent them to editors around the country from young men and women saying it was going great over there. The right wing said nothing when it came to light that the White KNEW the cost of this Medicare bill would exceed the advertised cost by a $100 billion. This blog would have to migrate to a bigger server just to mention the deceit and lies that daily come from the White House.
Why attack Kos for one comment and refuse to comment on anything other transgression when it comes from Bush or Rush?
My conclusion is that the attacks on Kos are mostly political and have little to do with people who genuinely want the best for America.
The next issue is why so many of our self defense forces private companies? I mean who do they answer to? The Uniform Code o Military Justice? Or Blackwater. Why are my $418 billion tax dollars that pay a the poor shmuck infantry soldier who enlists at the recruitment center and takes an oath and fights UNDER THE FLAG not enough?
Keep in mind the shitty veretans benefits this administration gives, the shitty medical care our soldiers get and I think, hell yes, I would most certainly go private if it was my ass. I just don’t like professional soldiers making $200,000 a year, unaccountable to me or anyone fighting alongside young men and women who enlisted.
So, my conclusion about this second issue is that most Americans probably see that the kid who took an oath is doing this for his country and the kid who took a job at Blackwater is doing this for money.
"You've got a whole host of fly-by-night and disreputable companies," said Mr. Custer. "They're terrible. They get people killed." With that in mind, industry professionals said that the most important factor in the risk-management trade was choosing and training the right people. All candidates are subjected to a rigorous vetting in order to weed out people with a history of everything from domestic violence and drug use to committing a felony. And yearly salaries - which insiders say can range anywhere from $70,000 to $250,000 - are set high enough to compensate the best in the business. Hotheads and swashbucklers need not apply.
Soldiers For Hire
Kos is an extraordinary journalist and American
"Let the people see what war is like. This isn't an Xbox game. There are real repercussions to Bush's folly.
That said, I feel nothing over the death of merceneries. They aren't in Iraq because of orders, or because they are there trying to help the people make Iraq a better place. They are there to wage war for profit. Screw them."
So those attacking him have come from the right mostly and they cobble together an argument that goes something like this: The private security workers were first and foremost Americans. Secondly, they are over there ostensibly moving forward the President’s War On Terrorism. Lastly, they are people. Fathers and sons and brothers and uncles to someone. So to say “screw them” seems rather un-American on the surface, and more importantly, it seems bloody. As if it were OK for Americans to suffer. I mean, afterall, we are in a fight and when members of your team get hurt, at the very least, you pull together...right?
I see their point. But there are a couple others I feel thy fail to see.
I began by wondering why, if you’re going to “pull together” against enemies, does it not bother the right wing when a CIA operative was exposed for political revenge.
There are really two issues at play here that go beyond patriotism and team playing and supporting America. The rightwing thinks this debate simply should stay where it is.
The first issue is the rightwing smear machine. They are spending millions of calories attacking Kos. But their outrage seems disingenuous at best. The rightwing said nothing when two days ago, Kathleen Parker suggested that we nuke Fallujah. The rightwing said nothing when smearmeisters accused Clinton of having Vince Foster murdered. The rightwing said nothing Ann Coulter calls Liberals treasonous, even those who have served the country in uniform. The rightwing said nothing when Senator Frist accused Richard Clarke of Perjury. The rightwing said nothing when pretty much the entire cassus belli of the 2002 State of the Union Address was disproved. The rightwing said nothing when Bill O’Reilly, before addressing a Black audience suggested that some of them might be outside taking their hubcaps. The rightwing said nothing when it came to light that Rush Limbaugh was buying drugs in a parking lot and making his maid do the dirty work. The rightwing said nothing when it came to light that William Bennett, the master of mastering ravenous sinful appetites gambled $8 million away in Vegas. Speaking of his appetites…has he ever looked in a mirror? I mean even the Bible mentions gluttony. The right wing said nothing when it was discovered that the White House had faked letters from soldiers and sent them to editors around the country from young men and women saying it was going great over there. The right wing said nothing when it came to light that the White KNEW the cost of this Medicare bill would exceed the advertised cost by a $100 billion. This blog would have to migrate to a bigger server just to mention the deceit and lies that daily come from the White House.
Why attack Kos for one comment and refuse to comment on anything other transgression when it comes from Bush or Rush?
My conclusion is that the attacks on Kos are mostly political and have little to do with people who genuinely want the best for America.
The next issue is why so many of our self defense forces private companies? I mean who do they answer to? The Uniform Code o Military Justice? Or Blackwater. Why are my $418 billion tax dollars that pay a the poor shmuck infantry soldier who enlists at the recruitment center and takes an oath and fights UNDER THE FLAG not enough?
Keep in mind the shitty veretans benefits this administration gives, the shitty medical care our soldiers get and I think, hell yes, I would most certainly go private if it was my ass. I just don’t like professional soldiers making $200,000 a year, unaccountable to me or anyone fighting alongside young men and women who enlisted.
So, my conclusion about this second issue is that most Americans probably see that the kid who took an oath is doing this for his country and the kid who took a job at Blackwater is doing this for money.
"You've got a whole host of fly-by-night and disreputable companies," said Mr. Custer. "They're terrible. They get people killed." With that in mind, industry professionals said that the most important factor in the risk-management trade was choosing and training the right people. All candidates are subjected to a rigorous vetting in order to weed out people with a history of everything from domestic violence and drug use to committing a felony. And yearly salaries - which insiders say can range anywhere from $70,000 to $250,000 - are set high enough to compensate the best in the business. Hotheads and swashbucklers need not apply.
Soldiers For Hire
Kos is an extraordinary journalist and American
Monday, April 05, 2004
One Day In Iraq
04/05/04 DOD: U.S. Department of the Army Civilian Died on April 3rd
Emad Mikha, 44, of Sterling Heights, Mich., died April 3, in Muqdadiyah, Iraq. At this time, the cause of his death is unknown.
04/05/04 DOD: Marine Casualties Identified
Lance Cpl. Aric J. Barr, 22, of Allegheny, Pa and Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris, 19, of Gurnee, Ill
04/05/04 Reuters: Seven wounded in Iraq suicide blast
A suicide bomber has blown up his vehicle beside US soldiers keeping order at a mass protest in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
04/05/04 WaPo: U.S. Forces Block Access to Fallujah
U.S. forces sealed off the Iraqi city of Fallujah Monday in advance of what a spokesman called an "extended operation" aimed at insurgents who killed and mutilated four U.S. contractors last week.
04/05/04 ceskenoviny: Czech petrochemical specialist killed in Iraq accident
A Czech petrochemical expert was killed and two others severely burned during a gas explosion in one of the three oil refineries in southern Iraq, Dana Pavlouskova from the Foreign Ministry said
04/05/04 Reuters: Spanish troops come under mortar fire in Iraq
Spanish troops in Iraq came under mortar fire on Monday, one day after deadly clashes with protesters in and near the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, Spain's Defence Ministry said.
04/05/04 Reuters: Four more US troops killed in Iraq attacks
Four US troops were killed in the past 24 hours in combat in Iraq, including one Marine and a soldier who died Monday in separate attacks, raising to 11 the number killed since Sunday, the US military said.
04/05/04 Reuters: U.S. helicopters strike Shi'ite area in Baghdad
U.S. helicopters have fired on targets in a mainly Shi'ite Baghdad district amid fresh fighting with radical Shi'ite militiamen.
04/05/04 Reuters: US Soldier Killed in Blast in Northern Iraq-US Army
A roadside bomb attack on a U.S. convoy in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul Sunday killed one American soldier and wounded another, a U.S. military spokesman said Monday.[/div]
Emad Mikha, 44, of Sterling Heights, Mich., died April 3, in Muqdadiyah, Iraq. At this time, the cause of his death is unknown.
04/05/04 DOD: Marine Casualties Identified
Lance Cpl. Aric J. Barr, 22, of Allegheny, Pa and Pfc. Geoffery S. Morris, 19, of Gurnee, Ill
04/05/04 Reuters: Seven wounded in Iraq suicide blast
A suicide bomber has blown up his vehicle beside US soldiers keeping order at a mass protest in the Iraqi city of Kirkuk.
04/05/04 WaPo: U.S. Forces Block Access to Fallujah
U.S. forces sealed off the Iraqi city of Fallujah Monday in advance of what a spokesman called an "extended operation" aimed at insurgents who killed and mutilated four U.S. contractors last week.
04/05/04 ceskenoviny: Czech petrochemical specialist killed in Iraq accident
A Czech petrochemical expert was killed and two others severely burned during a gas explosion in one of the three oil refineries in southern Iraq, Dana Pavlouskova from the Foreign Ministry said
04/05/04 Reuters: Spanish troops come under mortar fire in Iraq
Spanish troops in Iraq came under mortar fire on Monday, one day after deadly clashes with protesters in and near the holy Shi'ite city of Najaf, Spain's Defence Ministry said.
04/05/04 Reuters: Four more US troops killed in Iraq attacks
Four US troops were killed in the past 24 hours in combat in Iraq, including one Marine and a soldier who died Monday in separate attacks, raising to 11 the number killed since Sunday, the US military said.
04/05/04 Reuters: U.S. helicopters strike Shi'ite area in Baghdad
U.S. helicopters have fired on targets in a mainly Shi'ite Baghdad district amid fresh fighting with radical Shi'ite militiamen.
04/05/04 Reuters: US Soldier Killed in Blast in Northern Iraq-US Army
A roadside bomb attack on a U.S. convoy in the northern Iraqi city of Mosul Sunday killed one American soldier and wounded another, a U.S. military spokesman said Monday.[/div]
Not All Bad News
As I sat in a Baghdad Internet cafe watching Iraqi teenagers and middle-aged business people check e-mail or research new products, it was clear that Iraqis would like to profit from globalization as much as the wealthy Mecca Mall patrons. As bombs and gunfire echoed blocks away, this dream of a truly human globalization seemed both possible and singularly urgent.
Article By Mark LeVine
Article By Mark LeVine
Kerry/McCain?
Kevin Drum talks about it
Go to the comment section, most lefties think it's unassailable and most righties are pretty scared that it could work. If I were John Kerry, I would be secretly meeting with McCain and pounding out a bi partisan goverment. Something people would welcome.
Go to the comment section, most lefties think it's unassailable and most righties are pretty scared that it could work. If I were John Kerry, I would be secretly meeting with McCain and pounding out a bi partisan goverment. Something people would welcome.
Is This The New Tet Offensive?
This is really getting worrisome. This could be a full scale uprising. Already this morning 5 GIs dead. Here are reports just from Saturday and Sunday.
From Lunaville
04/04/04 Centcom: Seven U.S. Soldiers Confirmed Killed
illegal militia engaged coalition forces and ISF with small arms fire and RPGs...Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed and more than two dozen wounded in the fighting.
04/04/04 TheAdvertiser: 22 dead, 210 hurt in Iraq street protest
Near the holy city of Najaf on Sunday ...at least 20 Iraqis died, and about 210 people were wounded.
04/04/04 AP: 7 U.S. Troops Killed in Baghdad Fighting
Seven U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday in fighting with Shiite militiamen in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, the U.S. military said
04/04/04 AFP: Four die in clash with British
Four people were killed and eight others wounded in clashes between British forces and militiamen of radical Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr in the southeastern Iraqi city of Amara, hospital sources said today
04/04/04 CORRECTION: Two soldiers — a Salvadoran and an American — died
Two soldiers — a Salvadoran and an American — died and nine were injured Sunday in clashes with protesters at the Spanish garrison near the holy city of Najaf, the Spanish Defense Ministry said.
04/04/04 AFP: Ten wounded in US, Sadr clashes
Ten people were wounded Sunday in clashes between US forces and the militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr which seized three police stations in the Sadr City suburb of the Iraqi capital, correspondents on the scene said.
04/04/04 AP: Waterbury Soldier Injured In Iraq
Connecticut Army National Guard officials said Spc. Robert Zenhye Jr. was in stable condition on Sunday morning.
04/04/04 PA: British Troops Clash with Iraqi Demonstrators
British troops today clashed with demonstrators in the Iraqi town of al-Amara, the Ministry of Defence said.
04/04/04 Reuters: At Least 24 Killed in Clashes in Iraqi City Najaf
20 Iraqis were killed and at least 200 wounded in the firefight. He said he believed at least two Iraqi police were among the dead.
04/04/04 AP: Bomb Kills 3 Members of Iraqi Security Force
North of the capital, a bomb killed three members of the Iraqi security forces. And in Kirkuk, also in the north, a car bomb exploded, killing three civilians and wounding two others, police said.
04/04/04 BBC: Four Soldiers from El Salvador Reported Killed
Four soldiers from El Salvador and two from Iraq were reportedly killed in the firefight, which broke out when Iraqi protesters marched on their base
04/04/04 Heraldsun: Iraq's main oil centre car bombed
A CAR bomb exploded in the heart of Iraq's northern oil centre of Kirkuk Sunday afternoon, as US troops were combing the area searching for a suspect vehicle, police said.
04/04/04 AP: Car Bomb in Kirkuk Kills Three Civilians
A car bomb exploded in Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk on Sunday, killing three civilians and wounding two others, police said
04/04/04 AP: Rebels attack oil pipeline in southern Iraq
Rebels attacked an oil pipeline in southern Iraq, rupturing it and setting the oil on fire Sunday, officials said.
04/04/04 Reuters: At Least 8 Dead in Clashes in Iraqi City of Najaf
At least eight people were killed and 35 injured after Spanish-led coalition troops and Iraqi police fired on protesters and clashed with militiamen near the city of Najaf, hospital officials said Sunday.
04/04/04 Reuters: Two U.S. Marines Killed in Iraq Attacks
Two U.S. Marines were killed in separate insurgent attacks west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said in a statement on Sunday.
04/03/04 IribNews: Rocket fired at police hq in Baghdad
Two Iraq police were injured and a police car was destroyed in a rocket attack in Hayel Am district in southeast Baghdad Sunday morning, IRIB reported from Baghdad
04/03/04 Reuters: Bomb destroys Shia mosque in Baquba
A bomb exploded outside a small Shia mosque in the town of Baquba, north of Baghdad, early on Sunday, destroying most of the building and wounding one person, witnesses said.
04/03/04 AP: Gunmen kill 4 Iraqi police officers
Two attacks on Iraqi police south of Baghdad today left four people dead
04/03/04 AP: Salvadoran soldiers attacked in Najaf
A convoy of Salvadoran soldiers was attacked in the southern city of Najaf on Friday, wounding three troops. About 380 troops from El Salvador are in Iraq as part of the Spanish-led Plus Ultra brigade.
04/03/04 StarBulleten: Another Schofield soldier is wounded
Another Schofield Barracks soldier was wounded last night in Iraq when his unit responded to small arms fire and an explosion near the town of Huwija.
04/03/04 AP: 2 Bombs Found In School In Ramadi
a bomb was discovered Saturday in a school in the western city of Ramadi, police said. The building was evacuated and U.S. and Iraqi security forces detonated the explosive device, shattering windows.
04/03/04 Saba: Car bomb explodes near US convoy north of Baghdad
A car bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol north of Baghdad on Saturday, wounding several people, official sources reported.
04/03/04 Reuters: Gunmen kill senior police officer in Baghdad
Gunmen have killed a senior police officer in the Iraqi capital, riddling his car with bullets as he left home for work, police said.
From Lunaville
04/04/04 Centcom: Seven U.S. Soldiers Confirmed Killed
illegal militia engaged coalition forces and ISF with small arms fire and RPGs...Seven U.S. Soldiers were killed and more than two dozen wounded in the fighting.
04/04/04 TheAdvertiser: 22 dead, 210 hurt in Iraq street protest
Near the holy city of Najaf on Sunday ...at least 20 Iraqis died, and about 210 people were wounded.
04/04/04 AP: 7 U.S. Troops Killed in Baghdad Fighting
Seven U.S. soldiers were killed Sunday in fighting with Shiite militiamen in the Baghdad neighborhood of Sadr City, the U.S. military said
04/04/04 AFP: Four die in clash with British
Four people were killed and eight others wounded in clashes between British forces and militiamen of radical Shiite leader Moqtada Sadr in the southeastern Iraqi city of Amara, hospital sources said today
04/04/04 CORRECTION: Two soldiers — a Salvadoran and an American — died
Two soldiers — a Salvadoran and an American — died and nine were injured Sunday in clashes with protesters at the Spanish garrison near the holy city of Najaf, the Spanish Defense Ministry said.
04/04/04 AFP: Ten wounded in US, Sadr clashes
Ten people were wounded Sunday in clashes between US forces and the militia of radical Shiite cleric Moqtada Sadr which seized three police stations in the Sadr City suburb of the Iraqi capital, correspondents on the scene said.
04/04/04 AP: Waterbury Soldier Injured In Iraq
Connecticut Army National Guard officials said Spc. Robert Zenhye Jr. was in stable condition on Sunday morning.
04/04/04 PA: British Troops Clash with Iraqi Demonstrators
British troops today clashed with demonstrators in the Iraqi town of al-Amara, the Ministry of Defence said.
04/04/04 Reuters: At Least 24 Killed in Clashes in Iraqi City Najaf
20 Iraqis were killed and at least 200 wounded in the firefight. He said he believed at least two Iraqi police were among the dead.
04/04/04 AP: Bomb Kills 3 Members of Iraqi Security Force
North of the capital, a bomb killed three members of the Iraqi security forces. And in Kirkuk, also in the north, a car bomb exploded, killing three civilians and wounding two others, police said.
04/04/04 BBC: Four Soldiers from El Salvador Reported Killed
Four soldiers from El Salvador and two from Iraq were reportedly killed in the firefight, which broke out when Iraqi protesters marched on their base
04/04/04 Heraldsun: Iraq's main oil centre car bombed
A CAR bomb exploded in the heart of Iraq's northern oil centre of Kirkuk Sunday afternoon, as US troops were combing the area searching for a suspect vehicle, police said.
04/04/04 AP: Car Bomb in Kirkuk Kills Three Civilians
A car bomb exploded in Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk on Sunday, killing three civilians and wounding two others, police said
04/04/04 AP: Rebels attack oil pipeline in southern Iraq
Rebels attacked an oil pipeline in southern Iraq, rupturing it and setting the oil on fire Sunday, officials said.
04/04/04 Reuters: At Least 8 Dead in Clashes in Iraqi City of Najaf
At least eight people were killed and 35 injured after Spanish-led coalition troops and Iraqi police fired on protesters and clashed with militiamen near the city of Najaf, hospital officials said Sunday.
04/04/04 Reuters: Two U.S. Marines Killed in Iraq Attacks
Two U.S. Marines were killed in separate insurgent attacks west of Baghdad, the U.S. military said in a statement on Sunday.
04/03/04 IribNews: Rocket fired at police hq in Baghdad
Two Iraq police were injured and a police car was destroyed in a rocket attack in Hayel Am district in southeast Baghdad Sunday morning, IRIB reported from Baghdad
04/03/04 Reuters: Bomb destroys Shia mosque in Baquba
A bomb exploded outside a small Shia mosque in the town of Baquba, north of Baghdad, early on Sunday, destroying most of the building and wounding one person, witnesses said.
04/03/04 AP: Gunmen kill 4 Iraqi police officers
Two attacks on Iraqi police south of Baghdad today left four people dead
04/03/04 AP: Salvadoran soldiers attacked in Najaf
A convoy of Salvadoran soldiers was attacked in the southern city of Najaf on Friday, wounding three troops. About 380 troops from El Salvador are in Iraq as part of the Spanish-led Plus Ultra brigade.
04/03/04 StarBulleten: Another Schofield soldier is wounded
Another Schofield Barracks soldier was wounded last night in Iraq when his unit responded to small arms fire and an explosion near the town of Huwija.
04/03/04 AP: 2 Bombs Found In School In Ramadi
a bomb was discovered Saturday in a school in the western city of Ramadi, police said. The building was evacuated and U.S. and Iraqi security forces detonated the explosive device, shattering windows.
04/03/04 Saba: Car bomb explodes near US convoy north of Baghdad
A car bomb exploded near a U.S. military patrol north of Baghdad on Saturday, wounding several people, official sources reported.
04/03/04 Reuters: Gunmen kill senior police officer in Baghdad
Gunmen have killed a senior police officer in the Iraqi capital, riddling his car with bullets as he left home for work, police said.
Bad Blood With The Press
From An Amazing Article By Jay Rosen (?) About The Deteriorating Relationship Between the Press And The Administration.
Here are some excerpts beginning with what happened under the noses of the public but burned rather hotly a few weeks ago. Karen Ryan ran a Political Consulting firm and was hired by the HHS Department on Capitol Hill to create videos and commercials that would help sell the Bush Administration’s prescription plan. In the videos, she poses as a reporter.
She is not a reporter.
I must admit I am having a hard time finding the original page and authors when I linked back to it. Forgive me. It’s message is important in the extreme. It’s important that we all know the truth, the whole truth in these stormy times.
Ms. Ryan, you will easily recall, is the public relations person, owner of her own agency, who appeared in a video news release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) praising the benefits of the new Medicare bill. A New York Times editorial called the videos "plugs for the controversial new drug program the White House is selling to elderly voters." What got Ryan into trouble with the press, and in the press was the way she faked the standard sign off in television news by saying in earnest tones: "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, began looking at the use of taxpayer money for something akin to propaganda (which is against the law, unless Congress says it's okay) and this is how Ryan became news. The Times account (March 15) said:
The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."
In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."…
…. "What seems new..." is further context for the Ryan affair: a calculated contempt for the press, a kind of percentage play, expressed more and more boldly, and joined to a perception (which may be accurate) that the press has lost a lot of its power in Washington. I wrote about an an earlier incident at PressThink: John Aschcroft granting interviews only to TV reporters ("not talking to print") during his speaking tour for the Patriot Act. It's one of many showing the same impulses at work. Indeed, last night on CNBC, David Gergen, the insider's insider for a time in Washington, observed that the Administration's stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission was of a piece with its treatment of the press…
,,, But the trouble is she is a sort of fraud, and what collapsed for her was a style of video fraudulence she happened to be good at. It may be a commonplace in politics, but if so then Ryan is just a more common type of fraud than some who find their way into the news pages. There is no rational interpretation, professional ethic, or angle of vision in which the sentence, "From Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" looks like anything other than a simple lie.
There is no sense in which she was tricked into it, either, although tricking the eventual viewer of the "spot" was certainly on her professional mind-- not as a cunning or devious thing, but as a banal and automatic thing. (Make it seem real, like you're doing the news.) Ryan knew she was reading from a script prepared by others, not from one driven by her reporting, which of course did not exist.
Similarly, the suggested words, "Reporter Karen Ryan has the details," part of the package she helped prepare, is a suggestion to news people that they put on the public airwaves a lie. When brought to life by a local anchor person's voice (a home run in the video news release game) the words suggest to United States citizens than an agent of their government is actually a watchdog of their government. This is the whole point of Ryan's impersonation of a reporter, and of the HHS man's attempted deceit: oh, she's a freelance journalist.
About that guy, the brazen Bill Pierce: If the spokesman thought reporters would never check, that's the Administration's contempt for journalism right there. If he thought they would check, but no big deal, because no one cares what the press uncovers, anyway... that would be evidence of the Administration's greater and newer-model contempt….
…. ..But how? Could most Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Bush haters, Bush supporters, white collar, blue collar--even complete the kind of act in question, which involves lying with smooth demeanor about who you are, falsifying what you do for a living, tapping the remaining credibility of another profession to promote your own, and hoping you make it on the air to complete the government's deception?
I doubt that most people not in the game could manage to do it without troubling over basic matters of truth. By "basic" I mean capable of being understood by a fourth-grader. Could you put your average American nurse in front of a microphone, and have her calmly read the words, "I'm Doctor Karen Ryan," as part of an informational feature for patients, without some kind of objection arising from conscience, or self-respect? I don't think so.....
Here are some excerpts beginning with what happened under the noses of the public but burned rather hotly a few weeks ago. Karen Ryan ran a Political Consulting firm and was hired by the HHS Department on Capitol Hill to create videos and commercials that would help sell the Bush Administration’s prescription plan. In the videos, she poses as a reporter.
She is not a reporter.
I must admit I am having a hard time finding the original page and authors when I linked back to it. Forgive me. It’s message is important in the extreme. It’s important that we all know the truth, the whole truth in these stormy times.
Ms. Ryan, you will easily recall, is the public relations person, owner of her own agency, who appeared in a video news release from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) praising the benefits of the new Medicare bill. A New York Times editorial called the videos "plugs for the controversial new drug program the White House is selling to elderly voters." What got Ryan into trouble with the press, and in the press was the way she faked the standard sign off in television news by saying in earnest tones: "In Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting."
The General Accounting Office, an arm of Congress, began looking at the use of taxpayer money for something akin to propaganda (which is against the law, unless Congress says it's okay) and this is how Ryan became news. The Times account (March 15) said:
The government also prepared scripts that can be used by news anchors introducing what the administration describes as a made-for-television "story package."
In one script, the administration suggests that anchors use this language: "In December, President Bush signed into law the first-ever prescription drug benefit for people with Medicare. Since then, there have been a lot of questions about how the law will help older Americans and people with disabilities. Reporter Karen Ryan helps sort through the details."…
…. "What seems new..." is further context for the Ryan affair: a calculated contempt for the press, a kind of percentage play, expressed more and more boldly, and joined to a perception (which may be accurate) that the press has lost a lot of its power in Washington. I wrote about an an earlier incident at PressThink: John Aschcroft granting interviews only to TV reporters ("not talking to print") during his speaking tour for the Patriot Act. It's one of many showing the same impulses at work. Indeed, last night on CNBC, David Gergen, the insider's insider for a time in Washington, observed that the Administration's stonewalling of the 9/11 Commission was of a piece with its treatment of the press…
,,, But the trouble is she is a sort of fraud, and what collapsed for her was a style of video fraudulence she happened to be good at. It may be a commonplace in politics, but if so then Ryan is just a more common type of fraud than some who find their way into the news pages. There is no rational interpretation, professional ethic, or angle of vision in which the sentence, "From Washington, I'm Karen Ryan reporting" looks like anything other than a simple lie.
There is no sense in which she was tricked into it, either, although tricking the eventual viewer of the "spot" was certainly on her professional mind-- not as a cunning or devious thing, but as a banal and automatic thing. (Make it seem real, like you're doing the news.) Ryan knew she was reading from a script prepared by others, not from one driven by her reporting, which of course did not exist.
Similarly, the suggested words, "Reporter Karen Ryan has the details," part of the package she helped prepare, is a suggestion to news people that they put on the public airwaves a lie. When brought to life by a local anchor person's voice (a home run in the video news release game) the words suggest to United States citizens than an agent of their government is actually a watchdog of their government. This is the whole point of Ryan's impersonation of a reporter, and of the HHS man's attempted deceit: oh, she's a freelance journalist.
About that guy, the brazen Bill Pierce: If the spokesman thought reporters would never check, that's the Administration's contempt for journalism right there. If he thought they would check, but no big deal, because no one cares what the press uncovers, anyway... that would be evidence of the Administration's greater and newer-model contempt….
…. ..But how? Could most Americans--Republicans, Democrats, Bush haters, Bush supporters, white collar, blue collar--even complete the kind of act in question, which involves lying with smooth demeanor about who you are, falsifying what you do for a living, tapping the remaining credibility of another profession to promote your own, and hoping you make it on the air to complete the government's deception?
I doubt that most people not in the game could manage to do it without troubling over basic matters of truth. By "basic" I mean capable of being understood by a fourth-grader. Could you put your average American nurse in front of a microphone, and have her calmly read the words, "I'm Doctor Karen Ryan," as part of an informational feature for patients, without some kind of objection arising from conscience, or self-respect? I don't think so.....
Sunday, April 04, 2004
Trajan from comments in Atrios
Trajan (4.00 / 7)
In 116 AD, Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, also known as Trajan, Emperor of Rome, conquered the lands around the Persian Gulf. His campaign included the capture of much of modern Iraq, including the historic city of Babylon.
Wealth flowed into the empire. Victory had come easily after a series of brilliant campaigns. Rome had never been stronger.
And it never would again be so strong. What Trajan didn't know -- what no Roman knew -- was that this would represent the limits of Rome's power. From here, it was all downhill.
Hatra, a fortress city in northern Iraq, held out against repeated attacks from the Roman forces and forced them to squander thousands of troops. Meanwhile, rebellion brewed in the conquered lands. Both Arabs and Jews revolted against Roman rule. Trajan was forced to pull back his forces. On his death, the succeeding emperor was forced to surrender much of the land the empire had aquired in the middle east.
Never again would Rome extend so far. Never again would it have laud so many victories.
Though the Rome Empire would linger for hundreds of years, it would never shine so brightly again. The defeats in the east proved to Rome's enemies that the empire was not perfect. From this moment on, it would be erored away, tattered at every edge like clothing slowly eaten by moths.
This venture in Iraq was the moment of the empire's last great triumph, and the seeds of their ultimate defeat.
by Devilstower on Sun Apr 4th, 2004 at 18:11:16 EDT
In 116 AD, Marcus Ulpius Nerva Traianus, also known as Trajan, Emperor of Rome, conquered the lands around the Persian Gulf. His campaign included the capture of much of modern Iraq, including the historic city of Babylon.
Wealth flowed into the empire. Victory had come easily after a series of brilliant campaigns. Rome had never been stronger.
And it never would again be so strong. What Trajan didn't know -- what no Roman knew -- was that this would represent the limits of Rome's power. From here, it was all downhill.
Hatra, a fortress city in northern Iraq, held out against repeated attacks from the Roman forces and forced them to squander thousands of troops. Meanwhile, rebellion brewed in the conquered lands. Both Arabs and Jews revolted against Roman rule. Trajan was forced to pull back his forces. On his death, the succeeding emperor was forced to surrender much of the land the empire had aquired in the middle east.
Never again would Rome extend so far. Never again would it have laud so many victories.
Though the Rome Empire would linger for hundreds of years, it would never shine so brightly again. The defeats in the east proved to Rome's enemies that the empire was not perfect. From this moment on, it would be erored away, tattered at every edge like clothing slowly eaten by moths.
This venture in Iraq was the moment of the empire's last great triumph, and the seeds of their ultimate defeat.
by Devilstower on Sun Apr 4th, 2004 at 18:11:16 EDT
Slo Mo Civil War
For months I have been writing about the slow motion civil war unfolding in Iraq. Remember now that there is ample evidence that the Iraqi Press Corps is filled with Bush operatives…
BAGHDAD, Iraq April 4 — Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq.
Dan Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham, the Michigan Republican who's now Energy Secretary, heads the office packed with former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill staffers.
One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern. Senor and others inside the coalition say they follow strict guidelines that steer clear of politics.
One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications known as stratcom is to ensure Americans see the positive side of the Bush administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, where 600 U.S. soldiers have died and a deadly insurgency thrives.
Fake Journalists Occupy Iraq...
…it seems to me that we are about to see a massive increase in hostilities on not two, but perhaps several fronts. First there are the Sunnis in the Sunni Triangle, that has become our own Westbank. Then there are the Shias who are like our Gaza Strip.
This is an unpopular war now fought, in part, by Reservists and National Guardsmen who really didn’t have this in mind when they were trying to get a college education.
Here are choices: Stay
Look, a civil war is unfolding and we might already be unable to stop it. Honestly, after reading that the Iraqi press Corp is filled with Bush operatives and re-election team members, it seems like we could be hearing sanitized news.
Hwwhat????!!!...OUR news sanitized????!!@!!
Or Leave: They won't be accepting out government which will look to them to be hand picked and they will have a civil war anyway. That might be the only way to figure out who will emerge and run this country. It might also be a way of forcing the hand of the rest of the world to become involved.
Joe Biden has an idea that will never be followed,..
The president should convene a summit with our allies in Europe, including countries that opposed the war, and repair the transatlantic alliance. He should tell them that none of us can afford failure in Iraq, that he understands they need political cover to support us and that he will seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to create a high commissioner who would be in charge of managing Iraq's political transition. This arrangement has worked before -- in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
Imagine this happening with Colin Powell, totally emasculated.
Rough Days Ahead In Iraq
We should begin by totally decoupling our economic stakes in this enterprise. Fuck
Halliburton and KB&R.; And DynoCorp.
The REAL risk here for the Bushies is, that by the time there is an election, Iraq might be a full scale civil war.
BAGHDAD, Iraq April 4 — Inside the marble-floored palace hall that serves as the press office of the U.S.-led coalition, Republican Party operatives lead a team of Americans who promote mostly good news about Iraq.
Dan Senor, a former press secretary for Spencer Abraham, the Michigan Republican who's now Energy Secretary, heads the office packed with former Bush campaign workers, political appointees and ex-Capitol Hill staffers.
One-third of the U.S. civilian workers in the press office have GOP ties, running an enterprise that critics see as an outpost of Bush's re-election effort with Iraq a top concern. Senor and others inside the coalition say they follow strict guidelines that steer clear of politics.
One of the main goals of the Office of Strategic Communications known as stratcom is to ensure Americans see the positive side of the Bush administration's invasion, occupation and reconstruction of Iraq, where 600 U.S. soldiers have died and a deadly insurgency thrives.
Fake Journalists Occupy Iraq...
…it seems to me that we are about to see a massive increase in hostilities on not two, but perhaps several fronts. First there are the Sunnis in the Sunni Triangle, that has become our own Westbank. Then there are the Shias who are like our Gaza Strip.
This is an unpopular war now fought, in part, by Reservists and National Guardsmen who really didn’t have this in mind when they were trying to get a college education.
Here are choices: Stay
Look, a civil war is unfolding and we might already be unable to stop it. Honestly, after reading that the Iraqi press Corp is filled with Bush operatives and re-election team members, it seems like we could be hearing sanitized news.
Hwwhat????!!!...OUR news sanitized????!!@!!
Or Leave: They won't be accepting out government which will look to them to be hand picked and they will have a civil war anyway. That might be the only way to figure out who will emerge and run this country. It might also be a way of forcing the hand of the rest of the world to become involved.
Joe Biden has an idea that will never be followed,..
The president should convene a summit with our allies in Europe, including countries that opposed the war, and repair the transatlantic alliance. He should tell them that none of us can afford failure in Iraq, that he understands they need political cover to support us and that he will seek a U.N. Security Council resolution to create a high commissioner who would be in charge of managing Iraq's political transition. This arrangement has worked before -- in the Balkans and Afghanistan.
Imagine this happening with Colin Powell, totally emasculated.
Rough Days Ahead In Iraq
We should begin by totally decoupling our economic stakes in this enterprise. Fuck
Halliburton and KB&R.; And DynoCorp.
The REAL risk here for the Bushies is, that by the time there is an election, Iraq might be a full scale civil war.
Christopher Dickey’s Amazing Review Of Pulitzer Prize Winning Author’s New Book by Rick Atkinson.
“Tell me how this ends?'' Through the sandstorms and skirmishes, the street-to-street fighting in Najaf and then the collapse of Baghdad, Maj. Gen. David H. Petraeus, commander of the 101st Airborne Division, kept posing that question to himself and to Rick Atkinson, the reporter at his side through most of the action. It was the right question -- the essential question for any soldier who's in harm's way -- and it was the question that Petraeus, along with many of the other thoughtful, professional, superbly trained and highly motivated field commanders in the United States military, knew had not been answered as they went to war last year.
Atkinson, a reporter on assignment for The Washington Post, was sympathetic. (Although Atkinson and I have both been war correspondents for many years, working in different branches of the same Washington Post Company, I don't believe we've ever met.) On a field of battle where more than 770 journalists were ''embedded'' with American troops, Atkinson stood apart as one of the very rare war correspondents who are also fine military historians. One of his earlier books dealt with the West Point class of 1966, including those platoon leaders sent to Vietnam who were bloodied in combat and embattled at home. Another of his books explored in detail the way Desert Storm was waged to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Atkinson actually learned he'd won the 2003 Pulitzer for ''An Army at Dawn,'' his history of the World War II North African campaign, while he was eating dust in the push toward Baghdad…
.. It was the 101st that killed Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay, in July. Trying to bring good news to the people, the troops worked hard distributing money, engaging the population, holding local elections, restoring infrastructure. The Screaming Eagles built schools, they cleaned up the water and sewage systems, they won hearts and minds, and they continued to give their lives. By the time Petraeus arrived in Baghdad in April 2003 his command had lost only two soldiers in combat, with another 46 wounded. When he finally came home to Fort Campbell, Ky., in February, he had lost 60, with some 500 wounded.
Petraeus tried to put the best face on what had happened. ''Hope was given to a people that had no hope,'' he told the press at home. But Atkinson feels no such obligation to defend the policy. The son of an infantry officer, he knows better than ''to conflate the warriors with the war.'' Politicians' pieties about the need to support our troops do nothing to compromise Atkinson's bitterness about this war and the use it made of these warriors.
The soldiers of the 101st ''took hardship in stride and refused to let bloodlust, cynicism or other despoilers of good armies cheat them of their battle honors,'' Atkinson writes. ''They were better than the cause they served, which would soon be tarnished by revelations that the casus belli -- that Iraq posed an imminent, existential danger to America and its allies -- was inflated and perhaps fraudulent. If the war's predicate was phony, it cheapened the sacrifices of the dead and living alike.'' A grim conclusion to a fine book, and no, the end is not in sight.
In The Company Of Soliders
Atkinson, a reporter on assignment for The Washington Post, was sympathetic. (Although Atkinson and I have both been war correspondents for many years, working in different branches of the same Washington Post Company, I don't believe we've ever met.) On a field of battle where more than 770 journalists were ''embedded'' with American troops, Atkinson stood apart as one of the very rare war correspondents who are also fine military historians. One of his earlier books dealt with the West Point class of 1966, including those platoon leaders sent to Vietnam who were bloodied in combat and embattled at home. Another of his books explored in detail the way Desert Storm was waged to liberate Kuwait in 1991. Atkinson actually learned he'd won the 2003 Pulitzer for ''An Army at Dawn,'' his history of the World War II North African campaign, while he was eating dust in the push toward Baghdad…
.. It was the 101st that killed Saddam Hussein's two sons, Uday and Qusay, in July. Trying to bring good news to the people, the troops worked hard distributing money, engaging the population, holding local elections, restoring infrastructure. The Screaming Eagles built schools, they cleaned up the water and sewage systems, they won hearts and minds, and they continued to give their lives. By the time Petraeus arrived in Baghdad in April 2003 his command had lost only two soldiers in combat, with another 46 wounded. When he finally came home to Fort Campbell, Ky., in February, he had lost 60, with some 500 wounded.
Petraeus tried to put the best face on what had happened. ''Hope was given to a people that had no hope,'' he told the press at home. But Atkinson feels no such obligation to defend the policy. The son of an infantry officer, he knows better than ''to conflate the warriors with the war.'' Politicians' pieties about the need to support our troops do nothing to compromise Atkinson's bitterness about this war and the use it made of these warriors.
The soldiers of the 101st ''took hardship in stride and refused to let bloodlust, cynicism or other despoilers of good armies cheat them of their battle honors,'' Atkinson writes. ''They were better than the cause they served, which would soon be tarnished by revelations that the casus belli -- that Iraq posed an imminent, existential danger to America and its allies -- was inflated and perhaps fraudulent. If the war's predicate was phony, it cheapened the sacrifices of the dead and living alike.'' A grim conclusion to a fine book, and no, the end is not in sight.
In The Company Of Soliders
Comment Section Hour- From Atrios
For all the pro Iraqi war lovers, faux patriots, and administration apologists, why are you so shocked and upset over the ugly images from Fallujah? Has your smug, guilt-free, and entertaining TV view of war suddenly lost its innocence over the hideous deaths of four security KTRs? Perhaps as many as 50 KTRs have been killed in Iraq, albeit not so graphic. Well, get over it. What did you expect? War is, after all, brutal and it kills people. I fear for the Iraqis and I fear for our soldiers, because I believe that America now has its very own West Bank and Gaza, and it's called the Sunni Triangle. This whole occupation and potential death spiral is so fucking stupid and for what reason, outside of the profits to be made on this war? Don't lose sight of the goal: Regime change begins at home. This administration truly is corrupt, incompetent, and it must be replaced for the good of the country.
Ricardo | Email | Homepage | 04.04.04 - 11:33 am | #
Ricardo | Email | Homepage | 04.04.04 - 11:33 am | #
MaxSpeak Strikes Back- The Chasm Between Left And Right Continue To Grow
This is a very partisan comment. I agree with much of it. But I post this demonstrate that this country is not just divided, it is severely divided.
OUR MORAL LEADER
. . . has been appointed, by himself. His latest occasion for pontificating is a remark by Daily Kos. The latter, just coincidentally, seems to have risen to the very top in terms of blog traffic. I happened to disagree with his remark, but that is no reflection on its source. Nor did I suggest any.
But our leader directs more sermonizing at what he takes to be "The Left," which he says is infested with rot. How about the rot infesting InstaPundit's blogroll? Flaming racist loons, like "Little Green Footballs" or "Gut Rumbles." Those who wax hysterical and instigate violence against other bloggers.
And what of the Leader himself? Always on the hunt for anti-semitism when it serves their right-wing political cliches, not when it stares them in the face on movie screens across the country.
Always ready to accuse the peace movement of sedition, he disparages a blogger who has actually served in the military, unlike you-know-who.
There is no greater rot on "the left," a thing that defies generalization for any intellectually honest person, than "the right" or "the middle." It's easy to be loose with statements like that, which lack any meaning except political prejudice. The true, deep rot is IP's endless hypocritical, inane bloviations in defense of a war he won't be fighting in and an economic policy he is not equipped to evaluate.
Put simply, Reynolds is the leading purveyor of modern McCarthyism on the Internet. He is a daily source of cheap shots, pot-kettle criticisms, and two-cent sanctimony. I confess he is one reason I started blogging. I guess everybody can be a star at something. Moral stature? What a joke.
OUR MORAL LEADER
. . . has been appointed, by himself. His latest occasion for pontificating is a remark by Daily Kos. The latter, just coincidentally, seems to have risen to the very top in terms of blog traffic. I happened to disagree with his remark, but that is no reflection on its source. Nor did I suggest any.
But our leader directs more sermonizing at what he takes to be "The Left," which he says is infested with rot. How about the rot infesting InstaPundit's blogroll? Flaming racist loons, like "Little Green Footballs" or "Gut Rumbles." Those who wax hysterical and instigate violence against other bloggers.
And what of the Leader himself? Always on the hunt for anti-semitism when it serves their right-wing political cliches, not when it stares them in the face on movie screens across the country.
Always ready to accuse the peace movement of sedition, he disparages a blogger who has actually served in the military, unlike you-know-who.
There is no greater rot on "the left," a thing that defies generalization for any intellectually honest person, than "the right" or "the middle." It's easy to be loose with statements like that, which lack any meaning except political prejudice. The true, deep rot is IP's endless hypocritical, inane bloviations in defense of a war he won't be fighting in and an economic policy he is not equipped to evaluate.
Put simply, Reynolds is the leading purveyor of modern McCarthyism on the Internet. He is a daily source of cheap shots, pot-kettle criticisms, and two-cent sanctimony. I confess he is one reason I started blogging. I guess everybody can be a star at something. Moral stature? What a joke.
Frank Rich In The Probably The Year’s Best Opinion Column
That afternoon had brought Richard Clarke's testimony before the 9/11 commission, a classic piece of Washington committee-room theater. Mr. Clarke's mea culpa — "Your government failed you, those entrusted with protecting you failed you and I failed you" — is likely to join our history's greatest-hits video reel, alongside Joseph Welch's "Have you no sense of decency, sir?," Howard Baker's "What did the president know, and when did he know it?" and Clarence Thomas's "high-tech lynching." That evening, Tom Brokaw, generally the least contentious (and most watched) of the three network anchors, took the startling step of giving Condoleezza Rice the first hard slap of her heretofore charmed life in the public eye: "Dr. Rice, with all due respect, I think a lot of people are watching this tonight, saying: `Well, she can appear on television, write commentary, but she won't appear before the commission under oath. It just doesn't seem to make sense.' " As indeed it did not, to anyone.
Was this the best night for the president to do a comedy routine touching on his administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Maybe you had to be in the hall — an annual black-tie dinner for broadcast journalists in Washington — as I was not. But as Howard Dean learned in Iowa, it's only how you come across on TV that matters in America, not what it feels like in the moment. On TV, Mr. Bush's jocular slide show, in which he is seen searching for Saddam's arsenal in the Oval Office, proved an unwanted bookend to Mr. Clarke's opening act. A nation of viewers that had watched a public servant mourn the unnecessary loss of American life on 9/11 now saw the president make light of the rationale that necessitated the sacrifice of an additional 500-plus Americans (so far) in the war fought in 9/11's name….
…The White House, so often masterly in its TV management, particularly where 9/11 is concerned, has been wildly off its game. First, the White House press secretary said that Mr. Bush was too busy to watch the hearings — always a bad idea in a country of TV addicts. Soon administration emissaries went on full-court press to chastise Mr. Clarke for promoting a self-serving book at the height of election season. The only problem with that strategy is that one of its creators, Mr. Bush's once and future communications czar, Karen Hughes, was just days from starting her current nonstop TV tour to hype her own self-serving book about her White House tenure (9/11 included). Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, went even further, attacking Mr. Clarke's book as an attempt to profiteer on his inside access and "highly classified information." Apparently Mr. Frist did not know that the White House itself had vetted Mr. Clarke's book for possible security transgressions and approved it…
… Someone should get poor Ms. Rice a book contract just to keep her off the air. She's been the wackiest serial TV guest since Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, turning up everywhere except "Hollywood Squares" to insist that she would really, truly love to testify before the 9/11 commission but wouldn't — except in private. It was easy to see why she held to this doomed strategy for so long. From day to day, her changing recollection of what Mr. Bush did or didn't say about Iraq to Mr. Clarke in the Situation Room on 9/12 had been harder to track than Colonel Mustard's perambulations in the billiard room in a protracted game of Clue. Now that she has bowed to the inevitable and will testify in public under oath after all, she had better resolve all her contradictory statements pronto, lest Senator Frist unleash the same reckless insinuations of perjury that he had leveled at Mr. Clarke….
…But neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry is in command. As the families will continue to fight for their ownership of 9/11, so will forces beyond anyone's control. Like all gripping dramas, this one has a subtext, and the subtext in this case is fear. Last Sunday on "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley dipped a toe into it by noting that there were fewer attacks in the 30-month period leading up to 9/11 than there have been in "the 30 months afterward when you had this war against it." Ms. Rice was dismissive of his logic. "Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it," she said. But that's the way many, if not most, in America do look at it. For all the sturm and drang we've watched in Washington since Richard Clarke went on "60 Minutes" two weeks ago, nothing has happened yet to dispel our underlying terror that the real owner of 9/11 is still al Qaeda.
Was this the best night for the president to do a comedy routine touching on his administration's failure to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq? Maybe you had to be in the hall — an annual black-tie dinner for broadcast journalists in Washington — as I was not. But as Howard Dean learned in Iowa, it's only how you come across on TV that matters in America, not what it feels like in the moment. On TV, Mr. Bush's jocular slide show, in which he is seen searching for Saddam's arsenal in the Oval Office, proved an unwanted bookend to Mr. Clarke's opening act. A nation of viewers that had watched a public servant mourn the unnecessary loss of American life on 9/11 now saw the president make light of the rationale that necessitated the sacrifice of an additional 500-plus Americans (so far) in the war fought in 9/11's name….
…The White House, so often masterly in its TV management, particularly where 9/11 is concerned, has been wildly off its game. First, the White House press secretary said that Mr. Bush was too busy to watch the hearings — always a bad idea in a country of TV addicts. Soon administration emissaries went on full-court press to chastise Mr. Clarke for promoting a self-serving book at the height of election season. The only problem with that strategy is that one of its creators, Mr. Bush's once and future communications czar, Karen Hughes, was just days from starting her current nonstop TV tour to hype her own self-serving book about her White House tenure (9/11 included). Bill Frist, the Senate majority leader, went even further, attacking Mr. Clarke's book as an attempt to profiteer on his inside access and "highly classified information." Apparently Mr. Frist did not know that the White House itself had vetted Mr. Clarke's book for possible security transgressions and approved it…
… Someone should get poor Ms. Rice a book contract just to keep her off the air. She's been the wackiest serial TV guest since Monica Lewinsky's lawyer, William Ginsburg, turning up everywhere except "Hollywood Squares" to insist that she would really, truly love to testify before the 9/11 commission but wouldn't — except in private. It was easy to see why she held to this doomed strategy for so long. From day to day, her changing recollection of what Mr. Bush did or didn't say about Iraq to Mr. Clarke in the Situation Room on 9/12 had been harder to track than Colonel Mustard's perambulations in the billiard room in a protracted game of Clue. Now that she has bowed to the inevitable and will testify in public under oath after all, she had better resolve all her contradictory statements pronto, lest Senator Frist unleash the same reckless insinuations of perjury that he had leveled at Mr. Clarke….
…But neither Mr. Bush nor Mr. Kerry is in command. As the families will continue to fight for their ownership of 9/11, so will forces beyond anyone's control. Like all gripping dramas, this one has a subtext, and the subtext in this case is fear. Last Sunday on "60 Minutes" Ed Bradley dipped a toe into it by noting that there were fewer attacks in the 30-month period leading up to 9/11 than there have been in "the 30 months afterward when you had this war against it." Ms. Rice was dismissive of his logic. "Ed, I think that's the wrong way to look at it," she said. But that's the way many, if not most, in America do look at it. For all the sturm and drang we've watched in Washington since Richard Clarke went on "60 Minutes" two weeks ago, nothing has happened yet to dispel our underlying terror that the real owner of 9/11 is still al Qaeda.
Scott Armstrong’s Questions For The 9/11 Panel
3. Why was Iraq viewed by the president — and others — as a likely, if not the most likely, perpetrator of 9/11?
4. What was the accumulated evidence on Sept. 11 that Iraq was a direct and imminent threat to the United States? How much reliance did our government put on human sources, Iraqi defectors and former Iraqi officials for this intelligence? In retrospect, do you consider these sources to have been credible?
Questions For The National Security Advisor
4. What was the accumulated evidence on Sept. 11 that Iraq was a direct and imminent threat to the United States? How much reliance did our government put on human sources, Iraqi defectors and former Iraqi officials for this intelligence? In retrospect, do you consider these sources to have been credible?
Questions For The National Security Advisor
Why It's Painful at the Pump By DANIEL YERGIN
Here it is in a nutshell
POLITICS partly explains today's gasoline prices. Turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria have disrupted supplies. Iraq's exports are constrained by domestic violence and insecurity along its northern export pipeline route. More broadly, conflict in the Middle East and anxiety about terrorism are pushing up prices. Then there's OPEC, which last week announced a new production cut. Meanwhile, demand is growing more strongly than it has for several years. The No. 1 reason is China, which is experiencing rapid economic growth.
Prices have receded from their near-$40-a-barrel level, but are still above the $22 to $28 range that has been OPEC's target for the last few years.
Crude oil is not the whole explanation for current gasoline prices. In late winter and early spring, as it gets ready for the driving season, the American refining industry switches a significant part of its output from heating oil to gasoline. It also needs to shift from making environmentally mandated winter gasoline blends to summer ones.
These days there is less flexibility to move around supplies because of environmental rules that require motor fuels with different recipes for different cities and states. Also, the growing number of commodity investors accentuates price movements.
Still, the supplies will surely be forthcoming. By Memorial Day, United States refineries should be making almost 10 percent more gasoline than in February. And OPEC may end up producing well above its new quota. By summer, prices should be lower than they are today, as long as there are no unexpected problems and no political upheavals in oil-exporting countries.
Why Gas Is Up
POLITICS partly explains today's gasoline prices. Turmoil in Venezuela and Nigeria have disrupted supplies. Iraq's exports are constrained by domestic violence and insecurity along its northern export pipeline route. More broadly, conflict in the Middle East and anxiety about terrorism are pushing up prices. Then there's OPEC, which last week announced a new production cut. Meanwhile, demand is growing more strongly than it has for several years. The No. 1 reason is China, which is experiencing rapid economic growth.
Prices have receded from their near-$40-a-barrel level, but are still above the $22 to $28 range that has been OPEC's target for the last few years.
Crude oil is not the whole explanation for current gasoline prices. In late winter and early spring, as it gets ready for the driving season, the American refining industry switches a significant part of its output from heating oil to gasoline. It also needs to shift from making environmentally mandated winter gasoline blends to summer ones.
These days there is less flexibility to move around supplies because of environmental rules that require motor fuels with different recipes for different cities and states. Also, the growing number of commodity investors accentuates price movements.
Still, the supplies will surely be forthcoming. By Memorial Day, United States refineries should be making almost 10 percent more gasoline than in February. And OPEC may end up producing well above its new quota. By summer, prices should be lower than they are today, as long as there are no unexpected problems and no political upheavals in oil-exporting countries.
Why Gas Is Up
Peter Bergen, in this morning’s Gray Lady Posits 9 Questions For Dr. Rice.
9. Why has there been no public apology or resignation by any Bush administration official over the most catastrophic intelligence and national security failure of the past five decades?
More Questions For The Good Doctor
More Questions For The Good Doctor
Independant Agrees As Well: The Bush And Blair Conspired Early On To Attack Iraq
Sir Christopher's account presents a new challenge to Mr Blair's assertion that no decision was taken on the invasion of Iraq until just days before operations began, in March 2003. It implies regime change in Iraq was US policy immediately after 11 September.
Independant Agrees As well: The Bush And Blair Conspired Early On To Attack Iraq
My God, The Guardian Claims That Bush And Blair Planned To Attack Iraq No Matter What
MEA CULPA
'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'
Before the call, this official says, he had the impression that the probability of invasion was high, but still below 100 per cent. Afterwards, he says, 'it was a done deal'.
'The way it read was that, come what may, Saddam was going to go; they said they were going forward, they were going to take out the regime, and they were doing the right thing. Blair did not need any convincing. There was no, "Come on, Tony, we've got to get you on board". I remember reading it and then thinking, "OK, now I know what we're going to be doing for the next year".'
Before the call, this official says, he had the impression that the probability of invasion was high, but still below 100 per cent. Afterwards, he says, 'it was a done deal'.
Madam Dowd On The Chaos In iraq
Telling The Truth
Just as they once conjured a mirage of a Saddam sharing lethal weapons with Osama, now the president and vice president make the disingenuous claim that Al Qaeda is on the run and that many of its capos are behind bars. Meanwhile, counterterrorism experts say terrorism has become hydra-headed, and one told Newsweek that the spawned heads have perpetrated more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. Experts agree that the nature of the threat has shifted, with more than a dozen regional militant Islamic groups reflecting growing strength.
Senator Bob Graham compared the new, decentralized Al Qaeda to a blob of mercury that "you slam your fist into and it suddenly bursts into a hundred small pieces."
Mr. Bush also likes to brag that the Taliban is no longer in power. But the Taliban roots are deep. At least a third of Afghanistan is still so dicey that voters there cannot be registered, and the Kabul government has postponed June elections.
The president did not want to mar the gay mood of his fund-raiser here Wednesday night, so he did not mention the ghoulish slam dance in Falluja. As The Times's David Sanger wrote, "In the Bush campaign, casualties are something to be alluded to obliquely, if at all." In the Bush alternative universe of eternal sunshine, where the environment is not toxic and Medicare is not a budget buster, body bags and funerals just muddy the picture.
Just as they once conjured a mirage of a Saddam sharing lethal weapons with Osama, now the president and vice president make the disingenuous claim that Al Qaeda is on the run and that many of its capos are behind bars. Meanwhile, counterterrorism experts say terrorism has become hydra-headed, and one told Newsweek that the spawned heads have perpetrated more major terror attacks in the 30 months since 9/11 than in the 30 months before. Experts agree that the nature of the threat has shifted, with more than a dozen regional militant Islamic groups reflecting growing strength.
Senator Bob Graham compared the new, decentralized Al Qaeda to a blob of mercury that "you slam your fist into and it suddenly bursts into a hundred small pieces."
Mr. Bush also likes to brag that the Taliban is no longer in power. But the Taliban roots are deep. At least a third of Afghanistan is still so dicey that voters there cannot be registered, and the Kabul government has postponed June elections.
The president did not want to mar the gay mood of his fund-raiser here Wednesday night, so he did not mention the ghoulish slam dance in Falluja. As The Times's David Sanger wrote, "In the Bush campaign, casualties are something to be alluded to obliquely, if at all." In the Bush alternative universe of eternal sunshine, where the environment is not toxic and Medicare is not a budget buster, body bags and funerals just muddy the picture.
Saturday, April 03, 2004
This Is Cool
From (AP)
A $750 million satellite designed to test two fundamental predictions made by Albert Einstein about the universe is finally ready for launch, 45 years after it was first proposed at the dawn of the space age, NASA and Stanford University officials say.
Since 1959, Gravity Probe B has overcome a half-dozen attempts at cancelation, countless technical hurdles and several delayed launches. The NASA-funded, university-developed spacecraft is now scheduled to begin its 16-month mission following an April 17 liftoff.
"It's the longest-running physics experiment in history," Richard Packard, a University of California, Berkeley, experimental physicist who participated in a 1995 review of the mission, said Friday.
The unmanned, Earth-orbiting probe is designed to test two of Einstein's predictions about the nature of space and time, and how the Earth and other bodies warp and twist the fabric that combines the two.
If it works, everybody expects the Lockheed Martin Corp.-built satellite to prove Einstein right, said Ed Weiler, the associate administrator for space science at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
If the satellite's results contradict Einstein, that could throw science's understanding of the structure of the universe into flux, he said.
"If it produces a positive result, ho-hum. If it doesn't, it could get a Nobel Prize," said Weiler, who over the years called for several cancelation reviews of the project, NASA's longest-lived mission.
"It's great to be beyond the point of building, the point of actually launching," said Stanford physicist Francis Everitt, the mission's main scientist, whose persistent lobbying long kept the project alive.
Scientists marvel at the simplicity of the spacecraft's premise and the complexity of its execution.
"Of course, the more simple something is, the more difficult it is. And I would say that is the case with Gravity Probe B," said Anne Kinney, director of NASA's division of astronomy and physics.
At the spacecraft's heart are four pingpong-sized balls of quartz, the most perfect spheres ever made. Each is just a few dozen atoms shy of being perfectly round.
To ensure accuracy, the balls must be kept chilled to near absolute zero in the vacuum of the largest thermos ever flown in space, and isolated from any disturbances in the quietest environment ever produced, Kinney said.
Once in space, lined up with a distant star and set spinning, nothing should disturb the orientation of the balls - unless Einstein was right.
In 1916, he proposed that space and time form a structure that can be curved by the presence of a body, like the Earth. The warping of space-time is like the dimple created by a bowling ball resting on a soft mattress. That distortion accounts for gravity.
Two years later, others suggested that the rotation of such a mass should drag space-time with it, twisting the structure of the fabric.
If theory holds and the 3.5-ton satellite works as designed, the mass and rotation of the Earth, 397 miles below the probe while in orbit, should throw the alignment of the spinning balls off kilter in subtle but measurable ways.
The warping effect has been measured before. The twisting effect, called frame-dragging, has never been directly detected. Gravity Probe B aims to detect both.
"The principle goal of Gravity Probe B, in my mind, is to see that (frame-dragging) effect, to measure it with high precision," said Kip Thorne, a California Institute of Technology physicist.
Gravity Probe B spun off dozens of Ph.Ds, as well as nine new technologies before it made it to the launch pad, following decades of work and delays.
"It always seemed when we got to a year from launch there would be a major problem and we'd be two years from launch," Weiler said.
Gravity Probe B is scheduled to lift off from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., aboard a Boeing Co. Delta II rocket.
Gravity Probe A was a separate mission, launched in 1976, that looked at the warping of time.
A $750 million satellite designed to test two fundamental predictions made by Albert Einstein about the universe is finally ready for launch, 45 years after it was first proposed at the dawn of the space age, NASA and Stanford University officials say.
Since 1959, Gravity Probe B has overcome a half-dozen attempts at cancelation, countless technical hurdles and several delayed launches. The NASA-funded, university-developed spacecraft is now scheduled to begin its 16-month mission following an April 17 liftoff.
"It's the longest-running physics experiment in history," Richard Packard, a University of California, Berkeley, experimental physicist who participated in a 1995 review of the mission, said Friday.
The unmanned, Earth-orbiting probe is designed to test two of Einstein's predictions about the nature of space and time, and how the Earth and other bodies warp and twist the fabric that combines the two.
If it works, everybody expects the Lockheed Martin Corp.-built satellite to prove Einstein right, said Ed Weiler, the associate administrator for space science at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration.
If the satellite's results contradict Einstein, that could throw science's understanding of the structure of the universe into flux, he said.
"If it produces a positive result, ho-hum. If it doesn't, it could get a Nobel Prize," said Weiler, who over the years called for several cancelation reviews of the project, NASA's longest-lived mission.
"It's great to be beyond the point of building, the point of actually launching," said Stanford physicist Francis Everitt, the mission's main scientist, whose persistent lobbying long kept the project alive.
Scientists marvel at the simplicity of the spacecraft's premise and the complexity of its execution.
"Of course, the more simple something is, the more difficult it is. And I would say that is the case with Gravity Probe B," said Anne Kinney, director of NASA's division of astronomy and physics.
At the spacecraft's heart are four pingpong-sized balls of quartz, the most perfect spheres ever made. Each is just a few dozen atoms shy of being perfectly round.
To ensure accuracy, the balls must be kept chilled to near absolute zero in the vacuum of the largest thermos ever flown in space, and isolated from any disturbances in the quietest environment ever produced, Kinney said.
Once in space, lined up with a distant star and set spinning, nothing should disturb the orientation of the balls - unless Einstein was right.
In 1916, he proposed that space and time form a structure that can be curved by the presence of a body, like the Earth. The warping of space-time is like the dimple created by a bowling ball resting on a soft mattress. That distortion accounts for gravity.
Two years later, others suggested that the rotation of such a mass should drag space-time with it, twisting the structure of the fabric.
If theory holds and the 3.5-ton satellite works as designed, the mass and rotation of the Earth, 397 miles below the probe while in orbit, should throw the alignment of the spinning balls off kilter in subtle but measurable ways.
The warping effect has been measured before. The twisting effect, called frame-dragging, has never been directly detected. Gravity Probe B aims to detect both.
"The principle goal of Gravity Probe B, in my mind, is to see that (frame-dragging) effect, to measure it with high precision," said Kip Thorne, a California Institute of Technology physicist.
Gravity Probe B spun off dozens of Ph.Ds, as well as nine new technologies before it made it to the launch pad, following decades of work and delays.
"It always seemed when we got to a year from launch there would be a major problem and we'd be two years from launch," Weiler said.
Gravity Probe B is scheduled to lift off from Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif., aboard a Boeing Co. Delta II rocket.
Gravity Probe A was a separate mission, launched in 1976, that looked at the warping of time.
Wells Fargo Economist Says Job Surge Smoke And Mirrors. read On.
Technical factors such as the end of the grocery strike and seasonable weather boosted employment in retail and construction. The report was also helped by the significant jump in part-time workers for economic reasons to 4.7 million from 4.4 million. In fact, the increase in part-timers accounted for the vast majority of the increase in employment. The average duration of unemployment has been lengthening, persuading unemployed workers to accept part-time jobs. This in part explains the reason for the decline in the average workweek and no increase in overtime.
hat tip Agonist
hat tip Agonist
Condi
Compassionate Conservatism
This Orwellian term is being batted around like it has real meaning.While many of the policies of this administration are certainly Conservative, to call the compassionate is to call Karl Rove honest.
My question is what is compassionate about cutting benefits to veterans? What is compassionate about cutting school programs for children? What is compassionate about about cutting health benefits? What is compassionate about denying a group the same rights as everyone else has? What is compassionate about going to war? What is compassionate about about lying about the underlying causes? What is compassionate about cutting overtime benfits? What is compassionate aboutabout cutting unemployment benefits? What is compassionate about cutting aid to mental health? What is compassionate about lying to the public?
My question is what is compassionate about cutting benefits to veterans? What is compassionate about cutting school programs for children? What is compassionate about about cutting health benefits? What is compassionate about denying a group the same rights as everyone else has? What is compassionate about going to war? What is compassionate about about lying about the underlying causes? What is compassionate about cutting overtime benfits? What is compassionate aboutabout cutting unemployment benefits? What is compassionate about cutting aid to mental health? What is compassionate about lying to the public?
Conspiracy Theories
The Kozlowski trial was a bust because the juror was bought and paid for by Tyco money. Weeks to go after a guy who steals billions in penions funds and binuses. But Marth Stewart who gained fifty grand is put away promptly.
Mel Gibson, known uber-Catholic created the movie and released it in time to help take the focus off the catholic Church's pedophiles.
Mel Gibson, known uber-Catholic created the movie and released it in time to help take the focus off the catholic Church's pedophiles.
Friday, April 02, 2004
The Apology
Clarke Beats Wingnuts To The Punch
Richard Clarke's apology before the 9/11 commission is giving President Bush's defenders conniptions. Big time.
Majority Leader Bill Frist had his fit on the Senate floor: "Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation."
Just about every conservative writer worth his Edmund Burke collection has taken an outraged, apoplectic swing at Clarke's apology. The White House and Republicans, of course, uncorked a full attack on Clarke's credibility. But there's something about the apology that is profoundly bugging the conservative intelligentsia.
In fact, if I hadn't sworn off vast conspiracy theories years ago, I might think there was a vast right wing conspiracy here -- the denunciations of Clarke's apology were that similar.
Richard Clarke's apology before the 9/11 commission is giving President Bush's defenders conniptions. Big time.
Majority Leader Bill Frist had his fit on the Senate floor: "Mr. Clarke's theatrical apology on behalf of the nation was not his right, his privilege or his responsibility. In my view it was not an act of humility, but an act of supreme arrogance and manipulation."
Just about every conservative writer worth his Edmund Burke collection has taken an outraged, apoplectic swing at Clarke's apology. The White House and Republicans, of course, uncorked a full attack on Clarke's credibility. But there's something about the apology that is profoundly bugging the conservative intelligentsia.
In fact, if I hadn't sworn off vast conspiracy theories years ago, I might think there was a vast right wing conspiracy here -- the denunciations of Clarke's apology were that similar.
Even More Stonewalling
The Bush administration's handling of the bipartisan commission investigating the 9/11 tragedy grows worse — and more oddly self-destructive — with each passing day. Following its earlier attempts to withhold documents from the panel and then to deny its members vital testimony, we now learn that President Bush's staff has been withholding thousands of pages of Clinton administration papers as well.
Bill Clinton authorized the release of nearly 11,000 pages of files on his administration's antiterrorism efforts for use by the commission. But aides to Mr. Clinton said the White House, which now has control of the papers, vetoed the transfer of over three-quarters of them. The White House held the documents for more than six weeks, apparently without notifying the commission, and might have kept them indefinitely if Bruce Lindsey, the general counsel of Mr. Clinton's presidential foundation, had not publicly complained this week. Yesterday the commission said the White House had agreed to allow its lawyers to review the withheld documents, but without guaranteeing any would be released.
This latest distressing episode followed the White House's pattern of resisting the commission in private and then, once the dispute becomes public, reluctantly giving up the minimum amount of ground. Earlier in the week, Mr. Bush finally agreed to allow Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to testify under oath — but only after extracting a commitment that the commission would not seek any further public testimony from any White House official. After months of foot-dragging, Mr. Bush also grudgingly agreed to let the panel question him and Vice President Dick Cheney privately. Last year the Pentagon, the Justice Department and other agencies stonewalled the commission's requests for documents until its chairman, Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, complained publicly.
Explaining the latest act of obstruction, Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, said on Thursday that some documents were duplicative, unrelated or "highly sensitive." The White House, he said, had given the commission "all the information they need." Mr. Bush's staff should not be making that judgment. The commission's 10 members can be trusted with sensitive material.
Moreover, given the repeated criticism of this administration's obsessive secrecy on other issues, it is astonishing that it would still withhold anything that did not pose an immediate and dire threat to national security. The American people would like to know that they have a government that freely gives information to legitimate investigations on matters of grave national interest, not one that fights each reasonable request until it is exposed and forced to submit. The White House is serving no public purpose by acting less interested than the rest of us in having this commission do its vital work. Its ham-handed behavior is also gravely damaging the entire concept of executive privilege.
Clinton Turns 9/11 Papers Over To Bush Who Hides Them
Bill Clinton authorized the release of nearly 11,000 pages of files on his administration's antiterrorism efforts for use by the commission. But aides to Mr. Clinton said the White House, which now has control of the papers, vetoed the transfer of over three-quarters of them. The White House held the documents for more than six weeks, apparently without notifying the commission, and might have kept them indefinitely if Bruce Lindsey, the general counsel of Mr. Clinton's presidential foundation, had not publicly complained this week. Yesterday the commission said the White House had agreed to allow its lawyers to review the withheld documents, but without guaranteeing any would be released.
This latest distressing episode followed the White House's pattern of resisting the commission in private and then, once the dispute becomes public, reluctantly giving up the minimum amount of ground. Earlier in the week, Mr. Bush finally agreed to allow Condoleezza Rice, the national security adviser, to testify under oath — but only after extracting a commitment that the commission would not seek any further public testimony from any White House official. After months of foot-dragging, Mr. Bush also grudgingly agreed to let the panel question him and Vice President Dick Cheney privately. Last year the Pentagon, the Justice Department and other agencies stonewalled the commission's requests for documents until its chairman, Thomas Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, complained publicly.
Explaining the latest act of obstruction, Scott McClellan, the president's spokesman, said on Thursday that some documents were duplicative, unrelated or "highly sensitive." The White House, he said, had given the commission "all the information they need." Mr. Bush's staff should not be making that judgment. The commission's 10 members can be trusted with sensitive material.
Moreover, given the repeated criticism of this administration's obsessive secrecy on other issues, it is astonishing that it would still withhold anything that did not pose an immediate and dire threat to national security. The American people would like to know that they have a government that freely gives information to legitimate investigations on matters of grave national interest, not one that fights each reasonable request until it is exposed and forced to submit. The White House is serving no public purpose by acting less interested than the rest of us in having this commission do its vital work. Its ham-handed behavior is also gravely damaging the entire concept of executive privilege.
Clinton Turns 9/11 Papers Over To Bush Who Hides Them
True Unemployment Numbers
In an amazing act of Journalism, a CNN reproter noted that the Bush Administration does not include in the unemployment percentage the numbers of people who have simply stopped looking for a job.
The real number if these people were counted?
7.1% unemployment.
The real number if these people were counted?
7.1% unemployment.
John Dean Says Impeach Bush
BILL MOYERS: Let me go right to page 155 of your book. You write, quote, "The evidence is overwhelming that George W. Bush and Richard B. Cheney have engaged in deceit and deception over going to war in Iraq. This is an impeachable offense."
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states-- I cite one. I cite one that I found -- I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when-- Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.
BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at the time of the Gulf of-- Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. It subsequent turns out there wasn't an attack.
Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable offense but what is happening now is?
JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it comes up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an impeachable offense. That became a high crime or offense because Nixon had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson didn't tell anybody the game he was playing to my knowledge.
And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make-- when you take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it on bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.,/b>
JOHN DEAN: Absolutely is. The founders in the debates in the states-- I cite one. I cite one that I found -- I tracked down after reading the Nixon impeachment proceedings when-- Congressman Castenmeyer had gone back to look to see what the founders said about misrepresentations and lying to the Congress. Clearly, it is an impeachable offense. And I think the case is overwhelming that these people presented false information to the Congress and to the American people.
BILL MOYERS: John, I was, as you know, in the Johnson White House at the time of the Gulf of-- Tonkin when LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam on the basis of misleading information. He said there was an attack in the Gulf of Tonkin. It subsequent turns out there wasn't an attack.
Many people said then and have said that LBJ deceived the country and concealed the escalation of the war. You even say in the book that he hoodwinked Congress. Are you saying that that was not an impeachable offense but what is happening now is?
JOHN DEAN: No. I'm saying that was an impeachable offense. In fact, it comes up in the Nixon debates over whether the secret bombing would be an impeachable offense. That became a high crime or offense because Nixon had, in fact, told privately some members of the Congress. Johnson didn't tell anybody the game he was playing to my knowledge.
And these are probably the most serious offenses that you can make-- when you take a country to war, blood and treasure, no higher decision can a President of the United States make as the Commander-in-Chief. To do it on bogus information, to use this kind of secrecy to do it is intolerable.,/b>
Bush Can Invade Iraq But Can't Speak To the 9/11 Commission Alone
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi says it's baffling and embarrassing that President Bush is appearing before the Sept. 11 commission with Vice President Dick Cheney at his side instead of by himself.
"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."
"I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."
"I think it speaks to the lack of confidence that the administration has in the president going forth alone, period," Pelosi, D-Calif., said Friday. "It's embarrassing to the president of the United States that they won't let him go in without holding the hand of the vice president of the United States."
"I think it reinforces the idea that the president cannot go it alone," she said. "The president should stand tall, walk in the room himself and answer the questions."
How To Fight An Insurgency
The Long Haul
By T. X. Hammes
Over the past nine months, the conflict in Iraq has emerged as an insurgency. While that fact is widely recognized, our policies have not adjusted to reflect the much longer timelines inherent to insurgency. Recent history shows insurgencies span decades. The Chinese Communists fought for over 25 years, the Vietnamese over 30, the Sandinistas 18, the Afghans 10 years against the Soviets, the Chechens over 10 years and the Palestinians over 25 years -- with no end in sight. Even when the British won in Malaysia, it took 12 years.
The trend is clear. Modern insurgencies are lengthy struggles. This is an absolutely critical point. Counterinsurgents need to think in decades, not years.
An obvious question is why the insurgents would dedicate themselves to a struggle lasting so long. The answer is simple. It is the only form of war that has allowed a weak movement to defeat a major power. In the past 50 years, conventional wars have generally ended with a return to the status quo. In sharp contrast, most insurgencies have ended with major changes in the strategic, political, economic and social structure of the territories involved. While the changes may not have been for the better, there were distinct changes. Even those unconventional wars that the insurgents lost (Malaysia, Aden, El Salvador) led to significant change.
The message is clear. Only unconventional war works against established powers -- particularly superpowers. This basic observation is driving our opponents to insurgency.
Insurgency has evolved by taking advantage of information-age tools that expand its power and reach. While insurgents still use Mao's basic principle that superior political power can defeat dominant military and economic power, they no longer rely on a Maoist type of hierarchy. They have evolved to make use of loose networks and coalitions of the willing.
As al Qaeda has demonstrated, networks provide exceptional flexibility and resilience under attack. They also make use of all available networks -- political, economic, social and military -- to convince their enemy's political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for any perceived benefit. Insurgents directly attack the will of their opponents.
In Iraq, the pattern of attacks on the U.S. presence, our allies, international aid organizations and cooperating Iraqis shows that our opponents have adopted insurgency. They plan to beat us. A coalition of the willing -- former regime loyalists, international terrorists, criminals and radical elements of Iraqi society -- has become a loose, temporary alliance to drive the U.S.-led coalition out of Iraq.
They are attacking across the spectrum of human activity. Politically, they are using national, tribal, religious and ethnic differences to attack the legitimacy of the government and create distrust among Iraqis.
Economically, the terrorists have attacked humanitarian organizations, oil pipelines, rail lines, power distribution systems and the people who run them -- Iraqi and international alike. They know economic progress will encourage support for the coalition; therefore, they must defeat our efforts to improve Iraqis' standard of living.
They attack the social divisions in Iraqi society to decrease the chances for political and economic stability, while using the media to ensure that their actions are seen directly by coalition decision makers -- the voters and their elected representatives. They use the same media to reach their supporters throughout the Middle East.
Militarily, they combine improvised explosive devices, mortar and rocket attacks, and ambushes to keep the pressure on coalition forces without exposing themselves. They have developed precision munitions by having humans drive bombs to their targets.
Insurgency is a different type of conflict that the short, intense wars envisioned by proponents of high technology. It requires a fundamentally different approach to win. Most important, it requires a recognition of the duration of this kind of war.
Unfortunately, in Iraq the accelerated transition of sovereignty and lack of a clearly articulated post-transition plan indicate an early departure by the U.S.-led coalition. While early departure is not our strategy, the mere appearance of "cut and run" thinking reinforces the insurgents' greatest strength -- patience. It also provides them with one of their most powerful weapons -- intimidation. They have been telling Iraqis from the beginning not to side with America, that the Americans will go home and the insurgents will remember who helped them. They don't even have to sell the idea anymore: They simply point to the headlines in U.S. newspapers.
To win this kind of war we have to dispel any impression that we will abandon Iraq. We must develop coherent, long-term, interagency plans and processes to execute them. We must articulate them clearly, fund them and then stick to them. Only the concrete expression of our political will across the economic, social and military spectrums can lead us to victory.
The writer, an infantry officer recently returned from a two-month assignment in Iraq, is a senior military fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies.
By T. X. Hammes
Over the past nine months, the conflict in Iraq has emerged as an insurgency. While that fact is widely recognized, our policies have not adjusted to reflect the much longer timelines inherent to insurgency. Recent history shows insurgencies span decades. The Chinese Communists fought for over 25 years, the Vietnamese over 30, the Sandinistas 18, the Afghans 10 years against the Soviets, the Chechens over 10 years and the Palestinians over 25 years -- with no end in sight. Even when the British won in Malaysia, it took 12 years.
The trend is clear. Modern insurgencies are lengthy struggles. This is an absolutely critical point. Counterinsurgents need to think in decades, not years.
An obvious question is why the insurgents would dedicate themselves to a struggle lasting so long. The answer is simple. It is the only form of war that has allowed a weak movement to defeat a major power. In the past 50 years, conventional wars have generally ended with a return to the status quo. In sharp contrast, most insurgencies have ended with major changes in the strategic, political, economic and social structure of the territories involved. While the changes may not have been for the better, there were distinct changes. Even those unconventional wars that the insurgents lost (Malaysia, Aden, El Salvador) led to significant change.
The message is clear. Only unconventional war works against established powers -- particularly superpowers. This basic observation is driving our opponents to insurgency.
Insurgency has evolved by taking advantage of information-age tools that expand its power and reach. While insurgents still use Mao's basic principle that superior political power can defeat dominant military and economic power, they no longer rely on a Maoist type of hierarchy. They have evolved to make use of loose networks and coalitions of the willing.
As al Qaeda has demonstrated, networks provide exceptional flexibility and resilience under attack. They also make use of all available networks -- political, economic, social and military -- to convince their enemy's political decision makers that their strategic goals are either unachievable or too costly for any perceived benefit. Insurgents directly attack the will of their opponents.
In Iraq, the pattern of attacks on the U.S. presence, our allies, international aid organizations and cooperating Iraqis shows that our opponents have adopted insurgency. They plan to beat us. A coalition of the willing -- former regime loyalists, international terrorists, criminals and radical elements of Iraqi society -- has become a loose, temporary alliance to drive the U.S.-led coalition out of Iraq.
They are attacking across the spectrum of human activity. Politically, they are using national, tribal, religious and ethnic differences to attack the legitimacy of the government and create distrust among Iraqis.
Economically, the terrorists have attacked humanitarian organizations, oil pipelines, rail lines, power distribution systems and the people who run them -- Iraqi and international alike. They know economic progress will encourage support for the coalition; therefore, they must defeat our efforts to improve Iraqis' standard of living.
They attack the social divisions in Iraqi society to decrease the chances for political and economic stability, while using the media to ensure that their actions are seen directly by coalition decision makers -- the voters and their elected representatives. They use the same media to reach their supporters throughout the Middle East.
Militarily, they combine improvised explosive devices, mortar and rocket attacks, and ambushes to keep the pressure on coalition forces without exposing themselves. They have developed precision munitions by having humans drive bombs to their targets.
Insurgency is a different type of conflict that the short, intense wars envisioned by proponents of high technology. It requires a fundamentally different approach to win. Most important, it requires a recognition of the duration of this kind of war.
Unfortunately, in Iraq the accelerated transition of sovereignty and lack of a clearly articulated post-transition plan indicate an early departure by the U.S.-led coalition. While early departure is not our strategy, the mere appearance of "cut and run" thinking reinforces the insurgents' greatest strength -- patience. It also provides them with one of their most powerful weapons -- intimidation. They have been telling Iraqis from the beginning not to side with America, that the Americans will go home and the insurgents will remember who helped them. They don't even have to sell the idea anymore: They simply point to the headlines in U.S. newspapers.
To win this kind of war we have to dispel any impression that we will abandon Iraq. We must develop coherent, long-term, interagency plans and processes to execute them. We must articulate them clearly, fund them and then stick to them. Only the concrete expression of our political will across the economic, social and military spectrums can lead us to victory.
The writer, an infantry officer recently returned from a two-month assignment in Iraq, is a senior military fellow at the Institute for National Security Studies.
Nader to quit race
hat tip Steve Gilliard
Nedra Pickler, (AP)
March 31, 2004
The Associated Press has learned that after prolonged discussions with the Kerry Campaign, former consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader will end his presidential campaign within the next week and endorse John Kerry.
Nedra Pickler, (AP)
March 31, 2004
The Associated Press has learned that after prolonged discussions with the Kerry Campaign, former consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader will end his presidential campaign within the next week and endorse John Kerry.
Girls Gone Riled
Arrianna shows a voting block that might hurt Bush's chances for election
Arrianna Huffington
These women aren't blinded by the latest "vibrant" GDP stats touted by the White House. They occupy the front lines of the Other America. They know what it means to have a child in a failing school. They live the reality of being forced to use an E.R. as the family doctor because they can't afford health insurance. They understand the feeling of being one paycheck away from poverty. To them the Wal-Martization of our economy is not a theoretical concept.
The issues single women are most concerned with -- job security, affordable healthcare and decent educational opportunities for themselves and their children -- also skew heavily in the Democrats' favor. When you're barely making ends meet, another round of tax cuts for millionaires doesn't tend to be very high on your political must-have list. Neither is spending mega-billions fighting preemptive, ideological wars based on misleading premises -- especially when, more often than not, it's your loved ones coming home in body bags.
It can't be helping Karl Rove sleep at night to know that single women are also more likely to support gun control, gay rights and, especially, abortion rights. Talk about your potential culture war blowback.
And if that holy trinity of ugly GOP wedge issues doesn't turn out to be the final nail in the president's reelection coffin, this might: Unlike Bush, Grover Norquist and the high priests of the Leave Us Alone Coalition, single women don't see the U.S. government as the enemy. Indeed, for them government represents the last remaining strands of a desperately needed social safety net.
Arrianna Huffington
These women aren't blinded by the latest "vibrant" GDP stats touted by the White House. They occupy the front lines of the Other America. They know what it means to have a child in a failing school. They live the reality of being forced to use an E.R. as the family doctor because they can't afford health insurance. They understand the feeling of being one paycheck away from poverty. To them the Wal-Martization of our economy is not a theoretical concept.
The issues single women are most concerned with -- job security, affordable healthcare and decent educational opportunities for themselves and their children -- also skew heavily in the Democrats' favor. When you're barely making ends meet, another round of tax cuts for millionaires doesn't tend to be very high on your political must-have list. Neither is spending mega-billions fighting preemptive, ideological wars based on misleading premises -- especially when, more often than not, it's your loved ones coming home in body bags.
It can't be helping Karl Rove sleep at night to know that single women are also more likely to support gun control, gay rights and, especially, abortion rights. Talk about your potential culture war blowback.
And if that holy trinity of ugly GOP wedge issues doesn't turn out to be the final nail in the president's reelection coffin, this might: Unlike Bush, Grover Norquist and the high priests of the Leave Us Alone Coalition, single women don't see the U.S. government as the enemy. Indeed, for them government represents the last remaining strands of a desperately needed social safety net.
Good News. Bad News. Part II
The Good news- Vigorous job growth in March.
Bad News...
The Associated Press has learned that after prolonged discussions with the Kerry Campaign, former consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader will end his presidential campaign within the next week and endorse John Kerry.
Bad News...
The Associated Press has learned that after prolonged discussions with the Kerry Campaign, former consumer activist and presidential candidate Ralph Nader will end his presidential campaign within the next week and endorse John Kerry.
Two Days In Iraq
04/02/04 AP: Police fire on protesters in Iraqi city of Basra
Iraqi security forces fired on protesters demanding jobs as policemen in the southern city of Basra on Thursday, killing one demonstrator and wounding two others
04/02/04 Reuters: Loud Blast Heard in Central Baghdad - Witnesses
A loud blast was heard in Baghdad on Friday afternoon, rattling windows in the center of the Iraqi capital, witnesses said.
04/02/04 AP: Suicide bomber kills himself and two others
A suicide attacker detonated explosives at the entrance to a town hall in northern Iraq on Friday, killing himself and two other people, police said. Some American soldiers were inside but were unhurt.
04/02/04 AP: 1 U.S. Soldier Killed In Baghdad , Marine Killed In Anbar Province
A roadside bomb killed an American soldier and wounded another in Baghdad on Friday, and a U.S. Marine died as a result of hostile action west of the capital a day earlier, the military said.
04/02/04 ABC: Three Iraqi police killed in Baquba
Three Iraqi police officers have been killed and three others wounded in continuing violence in the Sunni triangle, north and west of Baghdad.
04/01/04 Reuters: Military Service in Iraq Tied to Parasite Disease
Between 2002 and 2004, Department of Defense staff identified 522 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis, a parasite infection of the skin, in US military personnel deployed in Iraq and elsewhere, according to a report released Thursday.
04/01/04 DOD: Army Casualty Identified (fatality added to 3/30)
Master Sgt. Richard L. Ferguson, 45, of Conway, N.H., died March 30, in Somara, Iraq, when the military vehicle he was riding in rolled over.
04/01/04 AP: Six Iraqi Civilians Killed, Four Wounded In Car Bombing
In Ramadi, west of Fallujah, six Iraqi civilians died and four were wounded Wednesday evening in a car bombing.
04/01/04 AP: Three U.S. Troops Injured in Iraq Attack
A roadside bomb injured three American troops in a U.S. military convoy on Thursday near Fallujah, a day after the grisly killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in the city.
04/01/04 MidEastNews: Iraqi Policeman Abducted
Gunmen abducted an Iraqi policeman and shot and wounded a colleague early Thursday in an unprecedented incident at a checkpoint near this northern city, a senior paramilitary officer said.
04/01/04 StarBulleten: Rocket shrapnel wounds 9 Schofield soldiers in Iraq
Nine soldiers of the 25th Infantry Division are still being treated for injuries they received Tuesday night in a rocket attack on their housing complex in Kirkuk Air Base in Iraq.
04/01/04 Interfax: Ukrainian peacekeepers avert explosion of U.S. Hummer in Iraq
Ukrainian peacekeepers in Iraq on March 31 prevented the destruction of a U.S. army Hummer vehicle, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry press service said.
04/01/04 AFP: Three Soldiers Wounded By Katyusha Rocket Fire In Kirkuk
In the northern city of Kirkuk three soldiers were wounded when five Katyusha rockets struck their base located in a local airport just west of the city early on Thursday, a US officer said.
04/01/04 AP: Convoy Attacked in Northern Baghdad
In northern Baghdad Thursday, two explosions near a U.S.-escorted fuel convoy wounded at least one Iraqi, witnesses said.
04/01/04 Reuters: U.S. Military Vehicle Set on Fire West of Baghdad
Insurgents attacked a U.S. military convoy near Falluja on Thursday and set a Humvee vehicle on fire, a day after people in the town west of Baghdad burned and mutilated four U.S. contractors, witnesses said.
04/01/04 AP: Police fire on protesters in Iraqi city of Basra
Iraqi security forces fired on protesters demanding jobs as policemen in the southern city of Basra on Thursday, killing one demonstrator and wounding two others, officials said.
lunaville
Iraqi security forces fired on protesters demanding jobs as policemen in the southern city of Basra on Thursday, killing one demonstrator and wounding two others
04/02/04 Reuters: Loud Blast Heard in Central Baghdad - Witnesses
A loud blast was heard in Baghdad on Friday afternoon, rattling windows in the center of the Iraqi capital, witnesses said.
04/02/04 AP: Suicide bomber kills himself and two others
A suicide attacker detonated explosives at the entrance to a town hall in northern Iraq on Friday, killing himself and two other people, police said. Some American soldiers were inside but were unhurt.
04/02/04 AP: 1 U.S. Soldier Killed In Baghdad , Marine Killed In Anbar Province
A roadside bomb killed an American soldier and wounded another in Baghdad on Friday, and a U.S. Marine died as a result of hostile action west of the capital a day earlier, the military said.
04/02/04 ABC: Three Iraqi police killed in Baquba
Three Iraqi police officers have been killed and three others wounded in continuing violence in the Sunni triangle, north and west of Baghdad.
04/01/04 Reuters: Military Service in Iraq Tied to Parasite Disease
Between 2002 and 2004, Department of Defense staff identified 522 cases of cutaneous leishmaniasis, a parasite infection of the skin, in US military personnel deployed in Iraq and elsewhere, according to a report released Thursday.
04/01/04 DOD: Army Casualty Identified (fatality added to 3/30)
Master Sgt. Richard L. Ferguson, 45, of Conway, N.H., died March 30, in Somara, Iraq, when the military vehicle he was riding in rolled over.
04/01/04 AP: Six Iraqi Civilians Killed, Four Wounded In Car Bombing
In Ramadi, west of Fallujah, six Iraqi civilians died and four were wounded Wednesday evening in a car bombing.
04/01/04 AP: Three U.S. Troops Injured in Iraq Attack
A roadside bomb injured three American troops in a U.S. military convoy on Thursday near Fallujah, a day after the grisly killing and mutilation of four American contract workers in the city.
04/01/04 MidEastNews: Iraqi Policeman Abducted
Gunmen abducted an Iraqi policeman and shot and wounded a colleague early Thursday in an unprecedented incident at a checkpoint near this northern city, a senior paramilitary officer said.
04/01/04 StarBulleten: Rocket shrapnel wounds 9 Schofield soldiers in Iraq
Nine soldiers of the 25th Infantry Division are still being treated for injuries they received Tuesday night in a rocket attack on their housing complex in Kirkuk Air Base in Iraq.
04/01/04 Interfax: Ukrainian peacekeepers avert explosion of U.S. Hummer in Iraq
Ukrainian peacekeepers in Iraq on March 31 prevented the destruction of a U.S. army Hummer vehicle, the Ukrainian Defense Ministry press service said.
04/01/04 AFP: Three Soldiers Wounded By Katyusha Rocket Fire In Kirkuk
In the northern city of Kirkuk three soldiers were wounded when five Katyusha rockets struck their base located in a local airport just west of the city early on Thursday, a US officer said.
04/01/04 AP: Convoy Attacked in Northern Baghdad
In northern Baghdad Thursday, two explosions near a U.S.-escorted fuel convoy wounded at least one Iraqi, witnesses said.
04/01/04 Reuters: U.S. Military Vehicle Set on Fire West of Baghdad
Insurgents attacked a U.S. military convoy near Falluja on Thursday and set a Humvee vehicle on fire, a day after people in the town west of Baghdad burned and mutilated four U.S. contractors, witnesses said.
04/01/04 AP: Police fire on protesters in Iraqi city of Basra
Iraqi security forces fired on protesters demanding jobs as policemen in the southern city of Basra on Thursday, killing one demonstrator and wounding two others, officials said.
lunaville
Good News. Bad News.
The Good News is that there is vigorous job growth for the month of March. My guess is at least 100,000 of the figure is simply the California grocers going back to work.
The bad news is…
WASHINGTON, April 1 — Prosecutors investigating whether someone in the Bush administration improperly disclosed the identity of a C.I.A. officer have expanded their inquiry to examine whether White House officials lied to investigators or mishandled classified information related to the case, lawyers involved in the case and government officials say.
In looking at violations beyond the original focus of the inquiry, which centered on a rarely used statute that makes it a felony to disclose the identity of an undercover intelligence officer intentionally, prosecutors have widened the range of conduct under scrutiny and for the first time raised the possibility of bringing charges peripheral to the leak itself.
linked text
49%
Polls Don't Look So Bad For Kerry
Hat Tip Daily Kos
Gallup 3/26-28
Bush: 51 (+7)
Kerry: 47 (-5)
Pew 3/22-28
Bush: 44 (+2)
Kerry: 43 (-6)
Newsweek 3/25-26
Bush: 47 (-1)
Kerry: 48 (-)
Fox 3/23-24
Bush: 44 (-)
Kerry: 44 (-)
Arizona
SurveyUSA 3/19
Bush: 51
Kerry: 42
Florida
Rasmussen 3/1-13
Bush: 45
Kerry: 48
Miami Herald 3/3-4
Bush: 43 (51)
Kerry: 49 (38)
Iowa
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 41
Kerry: 51
Michigan
Rasmussen 3/14-16
Bush: 44
Kerry: 48
Detroit News 2/26-3/1
Bush: 40
Kerry: 46
Minnesota
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 44
Kerry: 47
Missouri
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 49
Kerry: 42
New Hampshire
ARG 3/18
Bush: 45
Kerry: 39
Ohio
UCincy 3/10-22
Bush: 44
Kerry: 46
Rasmussen 3/14-16
Bush: 41
Kerry: 45
Pennsylvania
Q-poll 3/9-15
Bush: 44
Kerry: 45
West Virginia
ARG 3/24
Bush: 46
Kerry: 46
Wisconsin
ARG 3/23-25
Bush: 43
Kerry: 46
Gallup 3/26-28
Bush: 51 (+7)
Kerry: 47 (-5)
Pew 3/22-28
Bush: 44 (+2)
Kerry: 43 (-6)
Newsweek 3/25-26
Bush: 47 (-1)
Kerry: 48 (-)
Fox 3/23-24
Bush: 44 (-)
Kerry: 44 (-)
Arizona
SurveyUSA 3/19
Bush: 51
Kerry: 42
Florida
Rasmussen 3/1-13
Bush: 45
Kerry: 48
Miami Herald 3/3-4
Bush: 43 (51)
Kerry: 49 (38)
Iowa
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 41
Kerry: 51
Michigan
Rasmussen 3/14-16
Bush: 44
Kerry: 48
Detroit News 2/26-3/1
Bush: 40
Kerry: 46
Minnesota
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 44
Kerry: 47
Missouri
Rasmussen 3/23
Bush: 49
Kerry: 42
New Hampshire
ARG 3/18
Bush: 45
Kerry: 39
Ohio
UCincy 3/10-22
Bush: 44
Kerry: 46
Rasmussen 3/14-16
Bush: 41
Kerry: 45
Pennsylvania
Q-poll 3/9-15
Bush: 44
Kerry: 45
West Virginia
ARG 3/24
Bush: 46
Kerry: 46
Wisconsin
ARG 3/23-25
Bush: 43
Kerry: 46
Bush Stonewalling Again!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
The commission investigating the Sept. 11 attacks said on Thursday that it was pressing the White House to explain why the Bush administration had blocked thousands of pages of classified foreign policy and counterterrorism documents from former President Bill Clinton's White House files from being turned over to the panel's investigators.
The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job," Mr. McClellan said.
The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.
Bush Stonewalling AGAIN
The White House confirmed on Thursday that it had withheld a variety of classified documents from Mr. Clinton's files that had been gathered by the National Archives over the last two years in response to requests from the commission, which is investigating intelligence and law enforcement failures before the attacks.
Scott McClellan, the White House spokesman, said some Clinton administration documents had been withheld because they were "duplicative or unrelated," while others were withheld because they were "highly sensitive" and the information in them could be relayed to the commission in other ways. "We are providing the commission with access to all the information they need to do their job," Mr. McClellan said.
The commission and the White House were reacting to public complaints from former aides to Mr. Clinton, who said they had been surprised to learn in recent months that three-quarters of the nearly 11,000 pages of files the former president was ready to offer the commission had been withheld by the Bush administration. The former aides said the files contained highly classified documents about the Clinton administration's efforts against Al Qaeda.
Bush Stonewalling AGAIN
Thursday, April 01, 2004
Benjamin Wallace Weiss says the housing bubble is coming. Period.
Greenspan's rather ham-handed effort to get them to go for ARMs, is a sign not of the chairman's own eccentricity or advanced age, but, instead, of the economy's current unsteadiness. Greenspan knows, perhaps better than anyone, that this economy is perched nervously on top of a wobbly, Dr. Seuss-like tower. Our recovery is propped up by consumer spending, which is in turn propped up by mortgage refinancing, and if that refinancing dries up before more props can be put in, the whole edifice could fall. "Since long-term interest rates cannot fall low enough to facilitate another wave of fixed-rate refinancings, he is trying to encourage homeowners to refinance one last time: fixed to ARM," Peter Schiff, president of Euro Pacific Capital in Los Angeles told the San Francisco Chronicle.
The Coming Housing Bubble
The Coming Housing Bubble
Sean Paul Kelley of Agonist Scores Another Important Report On The Unfolding New Cold War
Russian energy interests in Georgia are indeed significant. In August 2003 the Russian energy monopoly RAO-UES bought a 75 percent stake in Georgia's power plants. A few weeks later, they plunged the entire country into a blackout – except for the "breakaway" regions.
Energy is also clearly central to American grand strategy. "If you hold Tbilisi, you hold the Caucasus," says Rondeli. "It's the gateway to Central Asia and the Russians know this." The U.S.-funded multi-billion-dollar Baku-to-Ceyhan oil pipeline will be completed this December. The project will help make Caspian Sea oil available to Western markets, creating an alternative to sources in the Middle East.
But the Russians aren't about to give up that oil booty. It is why Abashidze recently backed out of key provisions of the March 18 agreement by refusing to disarm his private army. "The militia in the autonomous republic will be disarmed when democracy is built in Georgia," he said.
"Look," says Alex Rondeli, "the Russian military, they've cooked up this bloody dish. But now they don't know who to serve it to."
Sean Paul Kelley’s Alternet Article On The New Cold War Erupting In Georgia
Energy is also clearly central to American grand strategy. "If you hold Tbilisi, you hold the Caucasus," says Rondeli. "It's the gateway to Central Asia and the Russians know this." The U.S.-funded multi-billion-dollar Baku-to-Ceyhan oil pipeline will be completed this December. The project will help make Caspian Sea oil available to Western markets, creating an alternative to sources in the Middle East.
But the Russians aren't about to give up that oil booty. It is why Abashidze recently backed out of key provisions of the March 18 agreement by refusing to disarm his private army. "The militia in the autonomous republic will be disarmed when democracy is built in Georgia," he said.
"Look," says Alex Rondeli, "the Russian military, they've cooked up this bloody dish. But now they don't know who to serve it to."
Sean Paul Kelley’s Alternet Article On The New Cold War Erupting In Georgia
No Help There
Even publishing them on a Friday won’t help the Bush Administration. Particularly if the Labor Departyment shows an uptick in unemployment.
- Job creation unexpectedly stalled in the U.S. Midwest in March, a report showed on Wednesday, tempering optimism that Friday's national employment report will show hiring at last picking up.
A survey of regional business conditions in the Chicago area showed that overall business activity expanded for the eleventh straight month in March, albeit at a much slower pace than many had expected.
Another Month Of No Jobs
- Job creation unexpectedly stalled in the U.S. Midwest in March, a report showed on Wednesday, tempering optimism that Friday's national employment report will show hiring at last picking up.
A survey of regional business conditions in the Chicago area showed that overall business activity expanded for the eleventh straight month in March, albeit at a much slower pace than many had expected.
Another Month Of No Jobs
Bremer Admits: It’s Chaos
More I told you so…
MUNTHERIA, Iraq - In an uncommonly downbeat assessment of Iraq's security challenges, U.S. Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer told local officials Monday that it will take at least a year for the country to hire, equip and train enough police and border guards to meet its needs.
"There is no way to speed it up; it simply can't be done," he said. "And it's going to take another year. We just have to be honest about that."
Bremer's comments, just three months before the American-led coalition is scheduled to return power to an Iraqi government, made it clear that U.S. troops will continue to play the key role in maintaining security in Iraq even after the hand-over of power, scheduled for July 1.
”Progress” In Iraq
MUNTHERIA, Iraq - In an uncommonly downbeat assessment of Iraq's security challenges, U.S. Iraq administrator L. Paul Bremer told local officials Monday that it will take at least a year for the country to hire, equip and train enough police and border guards to meet its needs.
"There is no way to speed it up; it simply can't be done," he said. "And it's going to take another year. We just have to be honest about that."
Bremer's comments, just three months before the American-led coalition is scheduled to return power to an Iraqi government, made it clear that U.S. troops will continue to play the key role in maintaining security in Iraq even after the hand-over of power, scheduled for July 1.
”Progress” In Iraq
Almost All Political Appointments In This Administration Gave To Bush In Return For Favors.
From Alternet- A MUST READ!!!
Bush may claim the "political season" is just beginning, but he has spent the past nine months crisscrossing the country on a dash for cash, personally headlining 46 million-dollar fundraising events on the way to amassing an unprecedented $170 million campaign war chest. Awestruck by the sheer amount of cash on hand, the media sometimes mistake Bush's piles of money for popularity. Venality is more like it. Bush has turned the election into an auction, an invitation-only opportunity for Corporate America to prove its loyalty to the president.
The engine in Bush's money machine has been an elite regiment of 455 "Rangers" and "Pioneers," the honorary titles bestowed on fundraisers who can collect at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively. Legally, each of these individuals is limited to a maximum donation of $2,000. But the Bush campaign has perfected a sophisticated system of bundling – by which corporate executives, lobbyists or other insiders pool a large number of contributions to maximize their political influence. The Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $64.2 million so far.
In return, these worthies have received access to the administration, relaxed regulations, legislative favors, targeted tax breaks, lucrative federal contracts, and plum appointments at home and abroad. But some hold more of a stake in Bush's re-election than others: The 10 industries profiled here have been among the most generous supporters of the president – and they stand to reap the greatest rewards if Dubya prevails in November.
Bush White House Makes Appointments Based On GOP Donations Vs Real Expertise
Bush may claim the "political season" is just beginning, but he has spent the past nine months crisscrossing the country on a dash for cash, personally headlining 46 million-dollar fundraising events on the way to amassing an unprecedented $170 million campaign war chest. Awestruck by the sheer amount of cash on hand, the media sometimes mistake Bush's piles of money for popularity. Venality is more like it. Bush has turned the election into an auction, an invitation-only opportunity for Corporate America to prove its loyalty to the president.
The engine in Bush's money machine has been an elite regiment of 455 "Rangers" and "Pioneers," the honorary titles bestowed on fundraisers who can collect at least $200,000 or $100,000, respectively. Legally, each of these individuals is limited to a maximum donation of $2,000. But the Bush campaign has perfected a sophisticated system of bundling – by which corporate executives, lobbyists or other insiders pool a large number of contributions to maximize their political influence. The Rangers and Pioneers have collected at least $64.2 million so far.
In return, these worthies have received access to the administration, relaxed regulations, legislative favors, targeted tax breaks, lucrative federal contracts, and plum appointments at home and abroad. But some hold more of a stake in Bush's re-election than others: The 10 industries profiled here have been among the most generous supporters of the president – and they stand to reap the greatest rewards if Dubya prevails in November.
Bush White House Makes Appointments Based On GOP Donations Vs Real Expertise
More Bad Employment News
And they won’t even move off the talkingpoints…
Unemployment rates increased in February in nine of 17 battleground states that could decide the presidential election in November.
Jobless rates fell in six of the most contested states and held steady in two others, according to figures released Wednesday by the Labor Department.
Polls consistently show that jobs and the economy are the most important issues to voters, and that a majority think Democrat John Kerry is better suited to improve the situation than President Bush. The economy is growing, but hiring is near a standstill.
No Job Growth
Unemployment rates increased in February in nine of 17 battleground states that could decide the presidential election in November.
Jobless rates fell in six of the most contested states and held steady in two others, according to figures released Wednesday by the Labor Department.
Polls consistently show that jobs and the economy are the most important issues to voters, and that a majority think Democrat John Kerry is better suited to improve the situation than President Bush. The economy is growing, but hiring is near a standstill.
No Job Growth
John Dean Says Bush More Corrupt Than Nixon By Far
As Richard Nixon's White House counsel during the Watergate scandal, John Dean famously warned his boss that there was "a cancer on the presidency" that would bring down the administration unless Nixon came clean. In his new book, "Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush," Dean warns the country that the Bush administration is even more secretive and authoritarian than Nixon's -- in fact, he writes, it's "the most secretive presidency of my lifetime."
"To say that the [Bush-Cheney] secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement," he adds. "I'm anything but skittish about government, but I must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous."
Creepier Than Nixon
"To say that the [Bush-Cheney] secret presidency is undemocratic is an understatement," he adds. "I'm anything but skittish about government, but I must say this administration is truly scary and, given the times we live in, frighteningly dangerous."
Creepier Than Nixon
