Los primeros inmigrantes ilegales entran en América

PALAST ON BUSH IN IRAQ: "MISSION ACCOMPLISHED"-REALLY!

THE MISSION WAS INDEED ACCOMPLISHED
by Greg Palast
for The Guardian
20 March 2006

All the complaining about George Bush's incompetence in Iraq, from both the Left and now the Right, is just dead wrong.On the third anniversary of the tanks rolling over Iraq's border, most who voted for Bush are beginning to doubt if his mission was accomplished.But don't kid yourself -- Bush and his co-conspirator, Dick Cheney, accomplished exactly what they set out to do."It's about oil," Robert Ebel told me.

Who is Ebel? Formerly the CIA's top oil analyst, he was sent by the Pentagon, about a month before the invasion, to a secret confab in London with Saddam's former oil minister to finalize the plans for "liberating" Iraq's oil industry. In London, Bush's emissary Ebel also instructed Ibrahim Bahr al-Ulum, the man the Pentagon would choose as post-OIF oil minister for Iraq, on the correct method of disposing Iraq's crude.And what did the USA want Iraq to do with Iraq's oil?

The answer will surprise many of you: and it is uglier, more twisted, devilish and devious than anything imagined by the most conspiracy-addicted blogger. The answer can be found in a 323-page plan for Iraq's oil secretly drafted by the State Department. Our team got a hold of a copy; how, doesn't matter. The key thing is what's inside this thick Bush diktat: a directive to Iraqis to maintain a state oil company that will "enhance its relationship with OPEC."

Enhance its relationship with OPEC??? How strange: the government of the United States ordering Iraq to support the very OPEC oil cartel which is strangling our nation with outrageously high prices for crude.Specifically, the system ordered up by the Bush cabal would keep a lid on Iraq's oil production -- limiting Iraq's oil pumping to the tight quota set by Saudi Arabia and the OPEC cartel.There you have it.

Yes, Bush went in for the oil -- not to get MORE of Iraq's oil, but to prevent Iraq producing TOO MUCH of it.You must keep in mind who paid for George's ranch and Dick's bunker: Big Oil. And Big Oil -- and their buck-buddies, the Saudis -- don't make money from pumping more oil, but from pumping LESS of it. The lower the supply, the higher the price.It's Economics 101. The oil industry is run by a cartel, OPEC, and what economists call an "oligopoly" -- a tiny handful of operators who make more money when there's less oil, not more of it. So, every time the "insurgents" blow up a pipeline in Basra, every time Mad Mahmoud in Tehran threatens to cut supply, the price of oil leaps. And Dick and George just LOVE it. Dick and George didn't want more oil from Iraq, they wanted less.

I know some of you, no matter what I write, insist that our President and his Veep are on the hunt for more crude so you can cheaply fill your family Hummer; that somehow, these two oil-patch babies are concerned that the price of gas in the USA is bumping up to $3 a gallon.No so, gentle souls. Three bucks a gallon in the States (and a quid a litre in Britain) means colossal profits for Big Oil, and that makes Dick's ticker go pitty-pat with joy. The top oily-gopolists, the five largest oil companies, pulled in $113 billion in profit in 2005 -- compared to a piddly $34 billion in 2002 before Operation Iraqi Liberation. In other words, it's been a good war for Big Oil.

As per Plan Bush, Bahr Al-Ulum became Iraq's occupation oil minister; the conquered nation "enhanced its relationship with OPEC;" and the price of oil, from Clinton peace-time to Bush war-time, shot up 317%.In other words, on the third anniversary of invasion, we can say the attack and occupation is, indeed, a Mission Accomplished. However, it wasn't America's mission, nor the Iraqis'.

It was an Mission Accomplished for OPEC and Big Oil.

BUSH'S RHETORIC

[-See what happens when you live in a Bubble? You start arguing with yourself in public-ed]

Bush's Rhetoric Targets Unnamed Critics
By JENNIFER LOVEN, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - "Some look at the challenges in Iraq and conclude that the war is lost and not worth another dime or another day," President Bush said recently. Another time he said, "Some say that if you're Muslim you can't be free."
"There are some really decent people," the president said earlier this year, "who believe that the federal government ought to be the decider of health care ... for all people."

Of course, hardly anyone in mainstream political debate has made such assertions.

When the president starts a sentence with "some say" or offers up what "some in Washington" believe, as he is doing more often these days, a rhetorical retort almost assuredly follows.
The device usually is code for Democrats or other White House opponents. In describing what they advocate, Bush often omits an important nuance or substitutes an extreme stance that bears little resemblance to their actual position.

He typically then says he "strongly disagrees" — conveniently knocking down a straw man of his own making.

Bush routinely is criticized for dressing up events with a too-rosy glow. But experts in political speech say the straw man device, in which the president makes himself appear entirely reasonable by contrast to supposed "critics," is just as problematic. Because the "some" often go unnamed, Bush can argue that his statements are true in an era of blogs and talk radio.

Even so, "'some' suggests a number much larger than is actually out there," said Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania.
A specialist in presidential rhetoric, Wayne Fields of Washington University in St. Louis, views it as "a bizarre kind of double talk" that abuses the rules of legitimate discussion. "It's such a phenomenal hole in the national debate that you can have arguments with nonexistent people," Fields said. "All politicians try to get away with this to a certain extent. What's striking here is how much this administration rests on a foundation of this kind of stuff."

Bush has caricatured the other side for years, trying to tilt legislative debates in his favor or score election-season points with voters. Not long after taking office in 2001, Bush pushed for a new education testing law and began portraying skeptics as opposed to holding schools accountable. The chief opposition, however, had nothing to do with the merits of measuring performance, but rather the cost and intrusiveness of the proposal.

Campaigning for Republican candidates in the 2002 midterm elections, the president sought to use the congressional debate over a new Homeland Security Department against Democrats.
He told at least two audiences that some senators opposing him were "not interested in the security of the American people." In reality, Democrats balked not at creating the department, which Bush himself first opposed, but at letting agency workers go without the usual civil service protections.

Running for re-election against Sen. John Kerry in 2004, Bush frequently used some version of this line to paint his Democratic opponent as weaker in the fight against terrorism: "My opponent and others believe this matter is a matter of intelligence and law enforcement."
The assertion was called a mischaracterization of Kerry's views even by a Republican, Sen. John McCain (news, bio, voting record) of Arizona.

Straw men have made more frequent appearances in recent months, often on national security — once Bush's strong suit with the public but at the center of some of his difficulties today. Under fire for a domestic eavesdropping program, a ports-management deal and the rising violence in Iraq, Bush now sees his approval ratings hovering around the lowest of his presidency. Said Jamieson, "You would expect people to do that as they feel more threatened."

Last fall, the rhetorical tool became popular with Bush when the debate heated up over when troops would return from Iraq. "Some say perhaps we ought to just pull out of Iraq," he told GOP supporters in October, echoing similar lines from other speeches. "That is foolhardy policy." Yet even the speediest plan, as advocated by only a few Democrats, suggested not an immediate drawdown, but one over six months. Most Democrats were not even arguing for a specific troop withdrawal timetable.

Recently defending his decision to allow the National Security Agency to monitor without subpoenas the international communications of Americans suspected of terrorist ties, Bush has suggested that those who question the program underestimate the terrorist threat. "There's some in America who say, 'Well, this can't be true there are still people willing to attack,'" Bush said during a January visit to the NSA.

The president has relied on straw men, too, on the topics of taxes and trade, issues he hopes will work against Democrats in this fall's congressional elections. Usually without targeting Democrats specifically, Bush has suggested they are big-spenders who want to raise taxes, because most oppose extending some of his earlier tax cuts, and protectionists who do not want to open global markets to American goods, when most oppose free-trade deals that lack protections for labor and the environment. "Some people believe the answer to this problem is to wall off our economy from the world," he said this month in India, talking about the migration of U.S. jobs overseas. "I strongly disagree."

MARCH MADNESS Part 4: War Is Propoganda

Full Story http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1174448,00.html

Posted Friday, Mar. 17, 2006

Four Black Hawk helicopters landed in a wheat field and dropped off a television crew, three photographers, three print reporters and three Iraqi government officials right into the middle of Operation Swarmer. Iraqi soldiers in newly painted humvees, green and red Iraqi flags stenciled on the tailgates, had just finished searching the farm populated by a half-dozen skinny cows and a woman kneading freshly risen dough and slapping it to the walls of a mud oven.
The press, flown in from Baghdad to this agricultural gridiron northeast of Samarra, huddled around the Iraqi officials and U.S. Army commanders who explained that the "largest air assault since 2003" in Iraq using over 50 helicopters to put 1500 Iraqi and U.S. troops on the ground had netted 48 suspected insurgents, 17 of which had already been cleared and released. The area, explained the officials, has long been suspected of being used as a base for insurgents operating in and around Samarra, the city north of Baghdad where the bombing of a sacred shrine recently sparked a wave of sectarian violence.
But contrary to what many many television networks erroneously reported, the operation was by no means the largest use of airpower since the start of the war. ("Air Assault" is a military term that refers specifically to transporting troops into an area.) In fact, there were no airstrikes and no leading insurgents were nabbed in an operation that some skeptical military analysts described as little more than a photo op. What’s more, there were no shots fired at all and the units had met no resistance, said the U.S. and Iraqi commanders.

MARCH MADNESS Part 3: War Is Expensive

As third anniversary of war nears, Iraq reconstruction stalls
By LISA ZAGAROLI , McClatchy Newspapers WASHINGTON — As the third anniversary of the war approaches, the $21 billion the United States has allocated for reconstruction of Iraq has yet to lift the war-torn nation from ruin...

...While poor security conditions have slowed reconstruction and increased costs, "a variety of management challenges" also impeded progress, according to a recent report by the Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of Congress. "Difficulties include lack of agreement among U.S. agencies, contractors, and Iraqi authorities, high staff turnover, and an inflationary environment that makes it difficult to submit accurate pricing," the GAO said. While corruption isn't pervasive, Bowen said, there have been cases of contract fraud, particularly early in the war. On Thursday, a jury found a defense contractor liable for fraudulently billing U.S. funds in the first Iraq contracting case brought under the False Claims Act...

http://www.southcoasttoday.com/daily/03-06/03-14-06/07world-nation.htm

MARCH MADNESS Part 2: War Is Stupid

Pew Research: Support For War At All-Time Low.

All Things Considered, March 16, 2006 · Three years after the start of the war in Iraq, U.S. public support for the effort is at an all-time low, according to the latest poll from the Pew Research Center. Two-thirds of those polled say the United States is "losing ground" in preventing civil war in Iraq.
Forty-nine percent of those polled say they believe the United States will succeed in establishing a stable democracy in Iraq, compared to 57 percent in December. The results also show that in a range of areas -- from defeating the insurgency to reducing civilian casualties -- Americans say the United States is failing to make progress.
Andrew Kohut, the center's director, discusses the poll's findings with Robert Siegel.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5284515

MARCH MADNESS Part One: War Is Hell.

ISAHAQI , IRAQ MARCH 15: The bodies of two children allegedly killed in a U.S raid lay on the ground before burial on March 15, 2006 in the village of Isahaqi about 50 miles north of Baghdad, Iraq. Eleven people were killed when a house was allegedly bombed during an early morning U.S military raid. The dead were mainly women and children. (Photo by Getty Images)


[NOTE: Thanks and All Credit to infoshop.com for photos and post: See http://www.infoshop.org/inews/article.php?story=20060315075846322]

THIS IS HOW DEMOCRATS CAN FIND THEIR VOICE IN 2006!

The Commonsense Budget Act of 2006.

Pundits--especially in the Republican Echo Chamber of corporate media--like to point out that, although the GOP is in trouble with the American people, they are in no danger of losing the 2006 election because the "Democrats don't have a coherent voice..." (Peggy Noonan).

I have always held that the "Center" is a political myth. If centrists values were critical to winning elections, the Republicans couldn't get elected dog catcher!

The Democrats have to take the so-called "progressive" ground and fight for it, debate it, and win on point and quit running from our core values.

The Commonsense Budget Act of 2006 is a great start for Democrats to take the fight to the Corruptlicans. Being good on 'National Defense' doesn't mean larding defense contractors with everything they want. It does mean funding the basics and redirecting some of that lard to the hungry and to the increasingly financially-strapped middle-class. After all, economic and social equity is critical to maintaining the domestic tranquility and social welfare that undergirds out national stability.

It makes sense to fully fund veterans' health care, but it is ridiculous to pay bonuses to Halliburton, which the GAO has determined has underperformed and overcharged for services in Iraq. Likewise, it is sensible to pay for body armor and bullets for our troops, but it is nonsensical to pour billions more into useless weapons systems like the F-22A Raptor, which was designed to outpace Soviet fighter jets.

Commonsense Budget Act of 2006 sponsor Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) may have found exactly the framework for Democrats to carry the ball down field this Fall. Let's hope Democrats have both guts AND Commonsense to support this legislation.

____________________________________________________________
109TH CONGRESS
1ST SESSION
H. R. 4898
To reallocate funds toward sensible priorities such as improved children's education, increased children's access to health care, expanded job training, and increased energy efficiency and conservation through a reduction of wasteful defense spending, and for other purposes.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
Ms. WOOLSEY(for herself and Ms. LEE) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on
A BILL
To reallocate funds toward sensible priorities such as improved children's education, increased children's access to health care, expanded job training, and increased energy efficiency and conservation through a reduction of wasteful defense spending, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ''Common Sense Budget Act of 2006''.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds the following:
(1) The Department of Defense's increasingly large budget provides for total defense spending that is greater than that of the other 192 countries in the world combined, yet-
(A) the United States now ranks 25th in the world in infant mortality, behind most of the nations of Western Europe and the industrialized Far East, while $60,000,000,000 of the United States defense budget is expended annually on weapons designed to thwart Soviet Union aggression during the Cold War and other wasteful programs;
(B) Federal spending on elementary and secondary education has fallen to less than 10 percent of the proposed 2006 outlays for the Department of Defense, while schools through- out the Nation are eliminating programs in music, foreign language, and physical education;
(C) 61,000,000 individuals in the United States lack health insurance during some period of any given year, and half that number of individuals (over 10,000,000 of whom are children) lack such insurance for the entire year;
(D) the Government Accountability Office estimates that-
(i) 1⁄3 of the Nation's public schools, serving 14,000,000 children, need extensive repair or need to have their entire physical plants replaced;
(ii) 85 percent of the Nation's public schools, 73,000 facilities serving 40,000,000 children, need some repair work; and
(iii) the total cost for the repairs and replacement described in this subparagraph is over $120,000,000,000;
(E) research conducted by the National Center for Education Statistics shows that middle school students in the United States rank 18th in science test scores and 19th in math test scores internationally, behind students in such countries as the Republic of Korea, the Slovak Republic, Singapore, the Russian Federation, and Malaysia; and
(F) the Government Accountability Office estimated in 2003 that the Department of Defense could not account for over $1,000,000,000,000 in funds appropriated to the Department of Defense.
(2) The United States spends over $20,000,000,000 annually to maintain its nuclear arsenal, although many of the weapons in that arsenal no longer have practical utility. The United States needs to eliminate spending on obsolete weapons systems and use the funds saved to meet urgent domestic needs for health care, education, job training, and increased energy efficiency and conservation.
(3) The Department of Defense is spending billions of dollars developing space weapons and pre- paring plans to deploy them, although-
(A) those expenditures and plans contravene White House policy, in place for a decade, that emphasizes arms control and non- proliferation pacts; and
(B) the development of those weapons is opposed by many United States allies, who have rightly stated that a shift in policy towards that development will create an arms race in space.
(4) The United States needs to reduce its dependence on foreign oil by promoting long-term energy security through greater investment in sustain- able and renewable energy alternatives.
(5) The United States is facing unprecedented challenges to national security and broader national interests. Sustainable development and humanitarian assistance programs should be a central part of United States foreign policy. To address the root causes of instability and terrorism and undercut the ability of terrorist organizations to recruit effectively, the United States needs to address the global challenges of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and disaster by increasing funding for sustain- able development and humanitarian assistance pro- grams.
SEC. 3. REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR CER- TAIN DEFENSE AND ENERGY PROGRAMS.
(a) REDUCTIONS IN AMOUNTS AVAILABLE FOR PROGRAMS.-
(1) DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE PROGRAMS.-
(A) IN GENERAL.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or otherwise available for fiscal year 2006 for each program or account of the Department of Defense specified in subparagraph (B)
(i) the amount available in such fiscal year for such program or account shall be reduced by the amount specified with respect to such program or account in that subparagraph; and
(ii) an amount equal to the aggregate amount of all such reductions under clause
(i) shall be available instead for the purposes set forth in subsection (b).
(B) SPECIFIED PROGRAMS AND ACCOUNTS AND AMOUNTS.-The programs and accounts, and amounts with respect to such programs and accounts, specified in this subparagraph are as follows:
(i) The F-22 fighter aircraft pro- gram, $3,300,000,000.
(ii) The F-35 Joint Strike fighter air- craft program, $3,200,000,000.
(iii) The C-130J aircraft program, $1,600,000,000.
(iv) The V-22 Osprey aircraft pro- gram, $1,600,000,000.
(v) The Virginia class submarine pro- gram, $2,300,000,000.
(vi) The next generation destroyer (DD(X)) program, $1,800,000,000.
(vii) The Ballistic Missile Defense program, $7,500,000,000.
(viii) Cross-service accounts for re- search, development, test, and evaluation, $5,000,000,000.
(ix) Accounts providing funds for personnel and other costs associated with drawdowns and other reductions in the Armed Forces, $9,000,000,000.
(x) Space weapons programs, $5,000,000,000.
(xi) The Future Combat System, $2,400,000,000.
(xii) Programs relating to the operations of the Department of Defense that can be combined to achieve efficiencies in such operations, $4,300,000,000.
(2) DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY NATIONAL SECU- RITY PROGRAMS.-Notwithstanding any other provision of law, of the amounts appropriated or other- wise available for fiscal year 2006 for the Department of Energy for the National Nuclear Security Administration for national security programs-
(A) the amount available in such fiscal year for such programs shall be reduced by $13,000,000,000; and
(B) an amount equal to the amount of the reduction under subparagraph (A) shall be available instead for the purposes set forth in subsection (b).
(b) DOMESTIC PROGRAMS.-From amounts made available under subsection (a)-
(1) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out the modernization of school facilities under section 8007(b) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 7707(b));
(2) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out State child health plans under title XXI of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1397aa et seq.);
(3) $5,000,000,000 shall be made available to carry out employment and training activities under chapter 5 of subtitle B of title I of the Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (29 U.S.C. 2861 et seq.);
(4) $10,000,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of Energy for such programs as that Secretary may specify to increase energy efficiency and conservation and increase investment in sustain- able and renewable energy alternatives;
(5) $13,000,000,000 shall be made available to the Secretary of State for such sustainable development and humanitarian assistance programs as that Secretary may specify to alleviate the global challenges of poverty, illiteracy, unemployment, disease, and disaster;
(6) $5,000,000,000 shall be available to the Secretary of Homeland Security to improve safe- guards pursuant to the Homeland Security Act of 2002;
(7) $5,000,000,000 shall be made available to reduce the deficit; and
(8) $2,000,000,000 shall be made available for medical research.
SEC. 4. EFFECTIVE DATE.
This Act takes effect 90 days after the date of enactment of this Act.

THE REAL DP WORLD PORT ISSUE: BUSH INCOMPETENCE, LYING, DETACHMENT AND CORRUPTION

Once again the Bush Administration has successfully shifted the ground of debate in a key controversy, thus sparing the president from taking a fatal hit on his leadership flank.
As damaging as the Dubai Port controversy is, the situation has moved from ‘critical’ to ‘serious’ by a subtle shifting of the ground for debate from the real issue of his leadership to the question of the Dubai-based DP World contract itself. Scott McClellan now perfunctorily casts the issue in terms of “reassuring congress and the American people” about the transaction.

There are four critical issues that have been virtually ignored by the press and the public: the incompetence, lying, detachment and corruption revealed by this deal.

Incompetence is reflected when the president raises his hand to protect his face with one of his favorite rhetorical techniques: argumentis ad ignoramus: “I found out about this deal at the same time you did…” Bush told reporters in a rare news conference held on Air Force One on 02.21.06. This next point is a toss-up between the “lying” category or the “incompetence” category. But the lying one is long, so I am plugging it in this paragraph. The Bushniks in the White House Kremlin can’t even get their stories straight. On the one hand, we are told that the Committee on Foreign Investment was unanimous in it’s recommendation to move forward with the deal. On the other hand, Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, a member of the Committee, told a press briefing on 02.22.06 that he didn’t know anything about it!
QUESTION: Are you confident that any problems with security — from what you know, are you confident that any problems with security would not be greater with a UAE company running this than an American company?
RUMSFELD: I am reluctant to make judgments based on the minimal amount of information I have because I just heard about this over the weekend.

Lying. Despite the fact that he never reviewed the deal, nor read the recommendation, nor even KNEW about it until hours before, on 02.22.06, Bush was threatening a veto of any legislation that would block the deal and was reassuring congress and America that if the deal had even the remotest possibility of compromising the security of the nation that he would be supporting it. I am never as reassured as when I am told that everything is taken care of in a document that the one providing the reassurance admits he hasn’t read…

Scott McClellan who has, of late, taken to intoning from his highly controlled sphincter muscles, acts as if this controversy is just a silly little oversight--like forgetting to send out legal notices of Aunt Hattie’s Estate Settlement to the rest of the family. In his press briefing of 02.27.06, McClellan intones:
Our interest is in making sure that congress has a better understanding of these transactions…we recognize that congress wants to look at the transaction and get additional facts, and that’s important too… I want to say that “It’s really White of You, Scott…”, but, In fact, the White House only cares about the political ass-kicking they have gotten, and they really don’t care about congress. The only time the Bush White House cares about congress is when congress gets in the way of White House agenda. And we all know that this congress gets in the way of the White House so rarely that president Bush has not used his veto power ONCE in SIX years!

Detachment. Remember when Bush took exception to the December 19, 2005 Newsweek Cover? The cover graphic shows Bush in a bubble floating over the Header: Bush’s World. “I don’t live in a bubble…” he commented defensively at a photo op after Newsweek hit the stands. I believe that was about the time Bush made a seasonal round of travel by Presidential Bubble-Jet to deliver speeches in aircraft hangers on military bases before the only audience he is guaranteed to outrank. The DP World deal raises the bubble issue anew. On 02.22.06, Reuters reported …Surprised by a backlash from Bush's own Republican Party, the White House said it erred in not explaining the deal to Congress where members have decried the sale of the company to a Dubai-based firm as a risk to U.S. security. Surprised? It makes me wonder how many OTHER deals have been done like this. Apparently this is standard operating procedure for the Bushniks. There has been considerable talk about this being “blowback” from his own 6 year subtext of the Evil Muslim Empire vs Christian America and the result is both ironic and predictable. Bush’s famous detachment is starkly revealed.

Corruption. It turns out that this deal was part of the good old boys network. That is why it didn’t need congressional oversight. We should rest assured because Treasury Secretary Snow, assures us that the deal is good for America. John Snow was the CEO of CSX when he was appointed Treasury Secretary on Feb. 7, 2003. CSX was subsequently purchased by DB World. David Sanborn, who was appointed by Bush to be the new administrator of the Maritime Administration was an executive with CSX and, then, a senior Dubai Ports World executive before coming on board the bush administration. Sanborn worked as Dubai Ports World's director of operations for Europe and Latin America. These connections are explored in detail in BuzzFlash.com

I only hope in the next few days that the mainstream media and the Democrats hold Bush accountable for his failure of competent and moral leadership.

A LESSON FOR BUSH: YOU REAP WHAT YOU SOW

President tries to defend ports sale to Arab firm
Feb. 25, 2006. 01:00 AM
THOMAS WALKOM



Irony is a constant in politics.

Since Sept. 11, 2001, U.S. President George W. Bush has deliberately defined the world in the black-and-white, us-versus-them language of his war on terror. Now, the rhetorical demons he so assiduously promoted are coming back to bite.

They are doing so in the form of what should be a run-of-the-mill corporate takeover. A company based in the United Arab Emirates has bought another company based in the United Kingdom.

In a normal world, this would be a ho-hum event. However, in the fraught world of Bush's war on terror (or "long war" as he now likes to call it), the sale is anything but.

The ostensible problem is that the British company, Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co., manages six vital U.S ports, including those of New York, Miami and New Orleans.
The sale would put management of these ports in the hands of an Arab, state-owned company, Dubai Ports World.
What's more, critics of the sale say, two of the 9/11 terrorists came from the U.A.E.— a country made up of seven emirates, including Dubai.

What more need be said?

All of this has left Bush and Co. in the unusual position of decrying guilt by association.

The American president points out, correctly, that the arch-conservative and profoundly undemocratic U.A.E. government is a staunch U.S. ally.
His defence secretary, Donald Rumsfeld notes — also correctly — that terrorists can come from anywhere, including the U.S. and Britain. Why condemn an entire nation because a few of its citizens made the wrong choice?
The editors of The Wall Street Journal, who find the entire episode distasteful, note that security at these ports will continue to be handled by the U.S. government.

The only effective difference is that profits made by running the ports will flow to princelings in Dubai rather than capitalists in the City of London.

But among Americans, none of this seems to matter. A citizenry whose fears have been so successfully exploited by this administration remains unconvinced.
"I'm a big Republican and I think Bush has lost his mind," Newark longshoreman Tom DiDomenico told a local news service here in New Jersey.

Those kinds of fears, however irrational, are echoed throughout the U.S. — which may explain why opposition to the sale is growing among both Democratic and Republican lawmakers.
New Jersey has filed a lawsuit to prevent the takeover. In Washington, Democratic senators want to ban any foreign, state-owned firms from operating U.S. ports.

Republicans are so uneasy about the deal that Dubai Ports has agreed to temporarily delay the U.S. portion of its takeover.

For his part, Bush has vowed to veto any Congressional bill blocking the transfer.
In effect, he is saying that his war on international terror should not be transformed into a war against international capital.

Americans are understandably confused by this.

In the wake of 9/11, they were told by this same president that it was just fine to arrest and lock up Muslim immigrants without charge.
They were told that when it came to taking prisoners of war in places like Afghanistan, it was necessary for America to abandon its long commitment to the Geneva Conventions.
They were told it was necessary for the U.S. to hold prisoners indefinitely and without charge at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba or other secret jails in Europe and the Mideast.
They were told it was crucial for American interrogators to be able to employ techniques against prisoners that both the International Committee of the Red Cross and the United Nations have said amount to torture.
They were told that the war on terror required Americans themselves to give up some civil rights — that it was necessary for the president to authorize illegal wiretaps; that in some national security areas, it was necessary for the courts to be denied jurisdiction.
They were told that they had to put up with government intrusion at an unprecedented level, that virtually everything they did, from using the Internet to reading library books was, and had to be, subject to FBI surveillance.
They were told that their soldiers had to invade Iraq and, if necessary, die there.

So, perhaps, it is understandable that so many Americans balk at the idea of their ports being run by an Arab company. It is irrational; it is even racist.

But in the topsy-turvy world that George W. Bush helped to create, it is sadly logical.
Additional articles by Thomas Walkom

The Dubai Port Deal & The Ruination of Congress

COMES NOW CONGRESS in the throes of indignation and outrage; not just Democrats, who usually suffer that condition, but Republicans.

"In regards to selling American ports to the United Arab Emirates, not just NO — but HELL NO," conservative Rep. Sue Myrick, R-N.C., wrote Bush in a terse letter on Wednesday that she also posted on her Web site. No matter that no American port is actually being sold, Bush faces a spreading rebellion among Republicans, Democrats and port-state governors. "I think somebody dropped the ball. Information should have flowed more freely and more quickly up into the White House. I think it has been mishandled in terms of coming forward with adequate information," said Rep. Vito Fossella, R-N.Y.

Even Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist of Tennessee and House Speaker Dennis Hastert of Illinois threaten legislation to put the deal on hold.

Sorry, congress…you don’t matter anymore. Bush doesn’t care and your vaunted “core supporters” don’t really care all that much I am sure. The Rove Machine has the “core” all ginned up over immigration, gay marriage and child pornography initiatives. Furthermore, while Bush’s poll numbers are in the low 40’s, congress’ approval is in the low 30’s.

So who cares what you have to say? Certainly not the Whitehouse.

By allowing the Whitehouse to claim executive privilege, exercise War-Time powers of secrecy to the exclusion of congressional oversight for everything from Katrina to warrantless wiretaps, secret imprisonment and torture, congress has failed in its oversight and emboldened an already arrogant executive.

So now congress is wringing its hands. Like a jilted mistress, congress’ protests seem way too little and waaaay too ironic to take seriously.

Dubai , United Arab Emirates: A Winter Wonderland!

--UPDATE: My Cousin in Dubai confirms that this is true. Thanks for all the emails and comments confirming same. m2k--






These photos were emailed to me by a friend, Loren Young. The first, to the left, represents the building during construction phase and the second, above, after completion. The rest of the pics are inside. My question to you, friends...is this a hoax? If so, it's a clever one and quite awesome to behold!

Powell's Former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson Calls Pre-War Intelligence a 'Hoax on the American People'

Friday February 3,2006

COMPLETE TRANSCRIPT:
http://www.pbs.org/now/politics/wilkerson.html

In an interview airing tonight on the PBS weekly newsmagazine NOW, Colin Powell's former Chief of Staff Lawrence Wilkerson makes the startling claim that much of Powell's landmark speech to the United Nations laying out the Bush Administration's case for the Iraq war was false.


"I participated in a hoax on the American people, the international community, and the United Nations Security Council," says Wilkerson, who helped prepare the address.


The NOW report, which airs days before the third anniversary of Powell's speech, examines the serious doubts that existed about the key evidence being used by the American government at the very time Powell's speech was being planned and delivered.


"I recall vividly the Secretary of State walking into my office," Wilkerson tells NOW. "He said: 'I wonder what will happen if we put half a million troops on the ground in Iraq and comb the country from one end to the other and don't find a single weapon of mass destruction?'" In fact, no weapons of mass destruction were found in Iraq.


NOW, hosted by David Brancaccio, airs Friday nights at 8:30 on PBS (check local listings).

HAPPY NEW YEAR ROUND-UP

Cartoon (above) From Last Year, But Still Relevant: Different Year, Same Old Crap.





Three Cheers For Google! Wired News On How To Foil Search Engine Snoops.

On Thursday, The Mercury News reported that the Justice Department has subpoenaed search-engine records in its defense of the Child Online Protection Act, or COPA. Google, whose corporate credo famously includes the admonishment "Don't Be Evil," is fighting the request for a week's worth of search engine queries. Other search engines have already complied.

The government isn't asking for search engine users' identifying data -- at least not yet. But for those worried about what companies or federal investigators might do with such records in the future, here's a primer on how search logs work, and how to avoid being writ large within them.

http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,70051-0.html?tw=rss.index


The Jack Abramoff Donor List.

The next time someone tells you that Democrats recieved donations from Jack Abramoff too, give them this reference.

http://www.capitaleye.org/abramoff_donor.asp

Note: a Tribe that donates to a congressman like Patrick Kennedy because of his strong support of and respect for Native American affairs is NOT equivalent to a donation to a congressman like Bob Ney by Jack Abramoff in a "Pay To Play" arrangement. This is an important note, because a number of Republican bloggers are trying to blur this distinction so they can lump Democrats into the Abramoff mess.

Will 2006 Be A Watershed Year For Republican Race-Baiting?

The following is a brief review of some stories going back a couple of years that demonstrate the use of organized anti-immigrant and race-baiting campaigns by the Republican Party around the United States.

I have been trying to put my finger on a prime offense of the Bush Era, there are so many, after all. Today I have found it among the news headlines of my my home portal of choice:

"Hispanics Increasingly Targets of Hate Crimes"

Over 760 hate crime incidents against hispanics are reported. Experts estamate that the numbers of unreported crimes are far greater, meaning that perhaps 1-'s of thousand incidents may be occuring in the United States.

The Bush Adminsitration has been oddly silent about the anarchy that is breaking accross the land. So has the Congressional leadership.

If there was ever a time for Bush to act like the president he claims to be, then this is it! If ever there was a time for a Congressional leadership put in power by "Values Voters" to walk the values talk, then this is it.


It appears that the Rovean Polarizers managing the GOP are working overtime to ride this anti-immigration sentiment to victory in key states in 2006. The Republican Party is actively involved in anti-immigration candidacies in critical races here in the West including Arizona, Colorado and Idaho. These are states that the Democrats have placed high in their political crosshairs to turn "from Red to Blue" in the words of Chairman Dean.

Republican leadership counted on the defection of hispanic voters from the Democratic base for their victory in 2004. Karl Rove went so far as to enlist the services of Conservative Catholic Bishops to frame a vote for Bush as a 'moral imperative' among hispanic voters. It worked. Al Gore's margin of victory among hispanics shrank dramatically ending with a 5% spread from what was once a 2:1 lead. in most Western states.

So what has changed?

It's called Bush's base and the 2006 elections. The 2006 elections are local and the key states are subject to the politics of immigration--Colorado, Arizona, California...you get the message. Bush's base does not consist of the immigrant population upon whom American agriculture and service industry depends, but the base belongs to the OWNERS of those industries and the blue-collar workers who see their pay-scale threatened by cheap labor. So for the OWNERS, Bush is peddling so-called immigration reform that allows guest workers and for the HATERS Karl Rove is peddling anti-immigration initiatives that are being pushed by the Republican party in key Western States.

AlterNet.org,
http://www.alternet.org/columnists/story/20031

"...The California Republican Assembly, a Monrovia-based, ultra right-wing grassroots GOP group headed by Mike Spence, is aiming to gather enough signatures to qualify another anti-immigrant initiative for the March 2006 state ballot. According to Copley News Service, the Save Our License initiative "is a narrowed version of the polarizing Proposition 187,” a 1994 ballot measure that was handily approved by voters by a 59 percent to 41 percent margin.

Proposition 187 was later invalidated by the state’s courts, which decided to allow children of illegal immigrants to attend school and receive medical care.

The new initiative would not ban services the courts have already exempted..."

In Colorado, the anti-immigrant fever and the campaign inspired by it has a particularly partisan twist. The Website for the Rove Reactionaries (read: pro-Republican) running the campaign states

"...The Colorado General Assembly was in session between Jan. 12 and May 11, 2005. Four pieces of pro-citizen, pro-legal immigrant, anti-illegal alien legislation were drafted by Representative David Schultheis (R-Colorado Spring) and supported by [Defend Colorado Now] and many others in committee hearings at the Colorado Capitol. In a straight partisan vote, the Democrat majority voted to "kill" the legislation in committee (6-5), calling all those who supported the legislation "hated filled" and "racist." These six Democrats are surely traitors to our country and should be thrown from office; they should never hold elected office again..."

Defend Colorado Now, http://www.defendcoloradonow.org/

In Arizona, the anti-immigration 'movement' has taken on overtly racist characteristics:
"...Meanwhile, some anti-immigration activists have been reaching out to unambiguous white supremacists. The recent "Protect Arizona Now" (PAN) initiative, an anti-immigration ballot initiative that recently passed in Arizona, was spearheaded by a group led by Virginia Abernethy, an unabashed "white supremacist" associated with the racist publication, "The Occidental Quarterly." " From Anti-Defamation League Report, http://www.adl.org/PresRele/Extremism_72/4731_72.htm

These patterns are seen throughout the country where there is an anti-immigration zietgeist.


Racism Shocks Anti-Defamation League Into Action.

While Rove's politics of polarization has a tried and true formula of success, many powerful groups and organizations are shocked at the overt racism of the anti-immigrant strategy. The AntiDefamation League noted last June:

… With mounting public awareness and concern over illegal immigration in America, the issue is being co-opted and exploited by anti-immigration activists, some of whom are reaching out to racist and anti-Semitic hate groups, according to the Anti-Defamation League (ADL). The rhetoric of these activists is largely aimed at Mexicans, not other illegal aliens, and frequently does not distinguish between Mexicans and Mexican-Americans...

The ADL notes that a three day conference held in Las Vegas held to discuss immmigration reform was festooned with racist overtones:

"...In the most recent effort by radical anti-immigration organizations and individuals to exploit mainstream immigration concerns, a three-day summit to "Unite to Fight Against Illegal Immigration" was held in Las Vegas, Nevada, May 27 – 29. More than 400 people gathered to hear speakers describe illegal immigrants as "the enemy within" and "illegal barbarians," while suggesting that America was "at war" with illegal immigrants and calling for the need to "take America back." "

The ADL continues:

"...Organized by Mark Edwards, a local talk radio host and his "Wake Up America Foundation," a new anti-immigrant group, and promoted by Team America, an anti-immigration PAC founded by Colorado Congressman Tom Tancredo, the Las Vegas rally was held as a follow-up on the perceived success of the so-called "Minuteman Project," which organized vigilante patrols of the U.S.-Arizona border in April. The project attracted a number of white supremacists. At the rally, Minuteman Project co-founder Jim Gilchrist claimed his group wasn't racist, but referred to immigrants as the "Mexican Klan" and "Mexican Nazis."

In the weeks leading up to the event, the virulently anti-Semitic and neo-Nazi National Alliance circulated fliers throughout southern Arizona describing illegal immigration as an "invasion" that would cause whites to become a minority.

National Alliance spokesman Shaun Walker endorsed the project and a number of National Alliance members took part. Another white supremacist group, Aryan Nations, called the Minuteman Project, "a call for action on the part of ALL ARYAN SOLDIERS." "

How Do Republicans Use Immigration?

The carefully managed image of the Republican Party being divided over the President's Reform package is a straw man. This gives the campaign strategists cover to fill the mailboxes of voters with anti-immigration positions and not be vulnerable to accusations of partisan Racism. Brilliant. And the tactic is working all over the country:

The Massachussetts Eagle-Tribune Reports:

With two weeks to Election Day, the Massachusetts Republican Party is taking aim at select suburban Democratic lawmakers with mailings that accuse them of "educating illegal immigrants over our children."

Some of the 100,000 fliers sent to targeted districts statewide arrived in local mailboxes last week, accusing state Rep. Barbara L'Italien of Andover of giving illegal immigrants a tuition break and "turning her back on some of our best and brightest students here in Massachusetts."

http://www.eagletribune.com/news/stories/20041020/FP_003.htm

TRUTH, INC., The Evil Twin

The News Wire is replete with stories yesterday and today about the least shocking secret of the Iraq war, that the Department of Defense is salting paid propaganda into the Iraqi Press. The Lincoln Group, the private contractor providing the propaganda support in behalf of the Coalition, has at least two contracts with the military to provide media and public relations services. One contract, for $6 million, is for public relations and advertising work in Iraq. The other Lincoln contract, which is with the Special Operations Command, is worth up to $100 million over five years for media operations with video, print and Web-based products.

Senator Warner and General Peter Pace, Chairman of the JCS, defended the program.
"Things like this happen. It's a war," Warner said. "The disinformation that's going on in that country is really affecting the effectiveness of what we're achieving, and we have no recourse but to try and do some rebuttal information."

Lt. Col. Barry Johnson spoke of the "information battlespace" which is

"... contested at all times and is filled with misinformation and propaganda by an enemy intent on discrediting the Iraqi government and the coalition, and who are taking every opportunity to instill fear and intimidate the Iraqi people,"

Just a few days ago the world learned about The Rendon Group who was paid $100 Million funded by the CIA and the Pentagon to sell the war and its perception to the World, including the United States. John Rendon who has been a paid propagandist for years bills himself as an "Information Warrior..."

Information Battlespace?
Information Warriors?

All this makes me wonder about any newspaper. Where is it deployed in the "information battlespace"? The role of reporters Judith Miller (New York Times) and Bob Woodward (Washington Post) in the “information war” on behalf of the Bush Whitehouse proves that no news organization is above manipulation, no matter how prestigious. This makes me question anything I hear from my government.

If I believe my government and then support my child's deployment to Iraq and she comes back damaged for what turns out to be a lie, does that make our family "collateral damage" in the “information war"?

And what is my favorite newspaper’s role in this, since I read it every day? Is my favorite morning paper an information warrior? Or is it an information stooge?

Senator Warner and the Military Establishment are quick to point out that War-Is-Hell and that "the enemy" is publishing "lies" about us so we need to "balance" those "lies" with the "Truth".

I would be interested to know what those lies spread by "the enemy" are. Are you?

I know Al-Jazeera publishes photographs of babies and women seared to the bone by white phosphorous bombs that first the military denied and then admitted were used offensively in Fallujha. I have read that local papers publish the names of civilians killed by BOTH insurgents and coalition forces. Stories are also printed of the forcible entry into homes by Coalition forces and Iraqi "Police" (who look like combat soldiers) in search of combatants. I have also read that a common practice among feuding Iraqi families is to "report" the target home to the Coalition and stand around and watch the fun as the forces break down doors and ransack the house. This is reported as well by the small, local presses as well.

Perhaps the "lies" that "the enemy" tells include stories like the story of Ayad Allawi.

In an interview published late last month, Ayad Allawi, a secular Shiite Muslim, told the London newspaper The Observer that fellow Shiites are responsible for death squads and secret torture centers and said brutality by elements of Iraqi security forces rivals that of Saddam's secret police.

"People are remembering the days of Saddam. These were the precise reasons that we fought Saddam and now we are seeing the same thing," the newspaper quoted Allawi as saying.

Allawi's allegation of widespread human rights abuses follows the discovery this month of up to 173 detainees, some malnourished and showing signs of torture, in a Shiite-led Interior Ministry building in Baghdad.

"People are doing the same as Saddam's time and worse," he said. "It is an appropriate comparison."

It is on our own President's watch and under his command that the sewage of disinformation sloshes so prodigiously about the world: from crudely forged documents in Italy to support the pre-War case for invading Iraq, to crudely forged documents designed to discredit Bush and Blair critic, M.P. George Galloway, to secret prisons in foreign countries, to torture at Abu Ghraib, to the revelations about the Rendon Group and the Lincoln Group and on and on.

If truth is the first casualty of war, then “Truth, Inc.” is its living, Evil Twin.

BUSH VS WAR CRITICS

-From The Anchorage Daily News 11/17/2005

Supporting the troops doesn't require suppressing dissent
Published: November 17, 2005 Last Modified: November 17, 2005 at 02:42 AM
President Bush used his stopover in Alaska to fire more shots at those who criticize his handling of the Iraq war. It was a disappointing exercise in diversionary tactics from a leader trying to rally the nation behind an increasingly unpopular war.

He all but accused his critics of giving aid and comfort to the enemy. "They are playing politics with this issue and sending mixed signals to our troops and the enemy, and that's irresponsible," he said.

What's irresponsible is the suggestion that the world's greatest democracy cannot abide questioning about a war launched under false pretenses.

The president claims his critics are trying to rewrite the history of how the war started. His charge is ironic, as it perfectly describes what he himself is doing. He convinced the nation that war was essential to protect Americans against Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and was justified as retaliation against a regime that was connected to the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks. Both rationales for war proved false.

President Bush defends the way things turned out, claiming his critics had the same intelligence he did about Saddam's alleged weapons of mass destruction. That's simply not true. As The Washington Post reported, "Bush and his aides had access to much more voluminous intelligence information than did lawmakers, who were dependent on the administration to provide the material."

President Bush claims that he didn't manipulate pre-war intelligence to steer the nation to war in Iraq, citing the findings of a commission he appointed. The Robb-Silberman Commission concluded that intelligence analysts didn't change their reports because of pressure from within the Bush administration.

However, "Our executive order did not direct us to deal with the use of intelligence by policymakers," said commission co-chair Laurence Silberman. As The New York Times noted, "What Mr. Bush left unaddressed was the question of how his administration used that intelligence, which was full of caveats, subtleties and contradiction."

The Bush administration faced a problem making the case for war. "Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran," according to the "Downing Street memo," a confidential British foreign service summary of discussions with the Bush administration in the summer before Congress voted to authorize the war. "Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action," the memo said. "The intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."


Unfortunately, it should have been the other way around, with the policy based on the facts.
U.S. forces never found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. And that wouldn't surprise anyone who listened to United Nations weapons inspectors.

As Scott Ritter, an inspector and former U.S. Marine officer who served under Gen. Norman Schwarzkopf in the first gulf war, recently stated: "We were monitoring Iraq ... with the most intrusive, technologically advanced, on-site inspection program in the history of arms control. ... We were unable to detect any evidence of either a retained capability or a reconstituted capability in weapons of mass destruction."

The New York Times wrote in an editorial: "It's obvious that the Bush administration misled Americans about Mr. Hussein's weapons and his terrorist connections. We need to know how that happened and why."

Now those pressing for a long overdue explanation are irresponsible?
The critics, and all Americans, including the brave service men and women on the front lines, deserve better.

BOTTOM LINE: President Bush insults the nation and the troops fighting and dying in Iraq when he questions the patriotism of those who question his leadership.

A Record Of Lies Leading Up To The Iraq Invasion

...Today's Seattle PI is running a great Op-Ed by James Bruner. To access the House Committee on Government Reform document referenced in Mr. Bruner's article, please click on the header of this post.--m2k
_______________________________________________________________
Monday, November 14, 2005

So you want details about who lied
JAMES BRUNER GUEST COLUMNIST

Marty McNett of Burlington (Letters, Wednesday) believes there is no proof that President Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, so we should lay off claims that he did.

I refer McNett and anyone else who is laboring under that misconception to read "Iraq On The Record: The Bush Administration's Public Statements On Iraq," prepared by the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on Government Reform -- Minority Staff Special Investigations Division, March 16, 2004.

This 36-page report goes into great detail about outright false and deceptive public statements by Bush (55 misleading statements), Vice President Dick Cheney (51), former Secretary of State Colin Powell (50), former National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (29) and Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld (52) on the subject. These 237 misleading statements were made in a variety of forums (53 interviews, 40 speeches, 26 news conferences and briefings, four written statements and articles and two appearances before Congress) beginning at least a year before the war began, and their frequency peaked at key decision-making points.

Here are a few excerpts:

In October 2002, the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research concluded in the National Intelligence Estimate that "the activities we have detected do not, however, add up to a compelling case that Iraq is currently pursuing what INR would consider to be an integrated and comprehensive approach to acquire nuclear weapons." INR added: "Lacking persuasive evidence that Baghdad has launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program, INR is unwilling to speculate that such an effort began soon after the departure of UN inspectors." The INR position was similar to the conclusions of the International Atomic Energy Agency, which concluded (in March 2003) that there was "no indication of resumed nuclear activities ... nor any indication of nuclear-related prohibited activities."

These doubts and qualifications, however, were not communicated to the public. Instead, the five administration officials repeatedly made unequivocal comments about Iraq's nuclear program. For example, Bush said in October 2002 that "the regime has the scientists and facilities to build nuclear weapons and is seeking the materials required to do so." Several days later, Bush asserted Saddam Hussein "is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon." Cheney made perhaps the single-most egregious statement about Iraq's nuclear capabilities, claiming: "We know he has been absolutely devoted to trying to acquire nuclear weapons. And we believe he has, in fact, reconstituted nuclear weapons." He made this statement just three days before the war. He did not admit until Sept. 14, 2003, that his statement was wrong and that he "did misspeak."

Bush and others portrayed the threat of Saddam waging nuclear war against the United States or its allies as one of the most urgent reasons for pre-emptively attacking Iraq. Administration officials used evocative language and images. On the eve of congressional votes on the Iraq war resolution (Oct. 7, 2002), Bush stated: "Knowing these realities, America must not ignore the threat gathering against us. Facing clear evidence of peril, we cannot wait for the final proof -- the smoking gun -- that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud."

The words "mushroom cloud" echoed time and again in speech after speech by key members of the administration from that point on until the beginning of hostilities. If that isn't lying, I don't know what is.

(Emphases added)
__________________________________________________________________
James Bruner lives in Oak Harbor. He is a retired Air Force major and was a technical editor and writer at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory for 11 years.

TAURUS EXCRETA CEREBRUM VINCIT!

Irony, indeed, drips from each syllable of Bush's Veteran's Day Speech from Tobyhanna, Pennsylvania.

THE WHITE HOUSE MOTTO: "TAURUS EXCRETA CEREBRUM VINCIT" IS ALIVE AND WELL!

Bush argues that independent commissions have determined that the Administration did not misrepresent the Intelligence...NSA Stephen Hadley, briefing reporters on 11/10/05, commented specifically that the "Silberman-Robb Commission have concluded that [manipulation of Intelligence] did not happen" Washington Post 11/12/2005, Bush Defense Of Iraq War Decisions, Milbank & Pincus.

TAURUS EXCRETA: In fact, Judge Laurence Silberman said, in releasing his report March 31, 2005, that:
"Our executive order did not directus to deal with the use of intellegence by policymakers, and all of us were agreed that that was not part of the inquiry" Post, ibid.

Bush argues that Congress saw the same pre-war intelligence the White House did and "...voted to support removing Saddam from power."

TAURUS EXCRETA: Bush does not share his most sensitive intelligence such as the President's Daily Brief, with lawmakers. Also the National Intelligence Estimate (NIE), given to congress only a couple of days before the vote, did not contain the doubts within the intelligence community, that we now know were circulated among Bush's inner circle and the neo-Cons promoting the war.

Bush, in his speech Friday, said, "...it is deeply irresponsible to rewrite history of how the war began." and then proceeds to do exactly that. He states: "When I made the decision to remove Saddam Hussein from power, Congress approved it with strong bi-partisan support"

TAURUS EXCRETA: In fact, the October 2002 Joint Resolution authorized use of force but didn't directly mention removing Saddam from power. And the Resolution also called for exhausting diplomatic efforts to enforce the Resolutions and use armed forces as a last resort to "defend against the continuing threat posed by Iraq".

We now know, for example, that Saddam had offered to let the inspectors in and negotiate terms with Washington.

From: Failed Iraqi Peace Initiatives, http://www.reference.com/browse/wiki/Failed_Iraqi_peace_initiatives

“...Later that month, Hage met with Gen. Habbush in addition to Iraqi Deputy Prime Minister Tariq Aziz. He was offered top priority to US firms in oil and mining rights, UN-supervised elections, US inspections (with up to 5,000 inspectors), to have al-Qaeda agent Abdul Rahman Yassin (in Iraqi custody since 1994) handed over as a sign of good faith, and to give "full support for any US plan" in the Arab-Israeli peace process. They also wished to meet with high-ranking US officials. On February 19th, Hage faxed Maloof his report of the trip. Maloof reports having brought the proposal to Jamie Duran. The Pentagon denies that either Wolfowitz or Rumsfeld, Duran's bosses, were aware of the plan.

On February 21st, Maloof informed Duran in an email that Perle wished to meet with Hage and the Iraqis if the Pentagon would clear it. Duran responded "Mike, working this. Keep this close hold.". On March 7th, Perle met with Hage in Knightsbridge, and stated that he wanted to pursue the matter further with people in Washington (both have acknowleged the meeting). A few days later, he informed Hage that Washington refused to let him meet with [head of Iraqi Intelligence, Gen. Tahir Jalil Habbush al Takriti] to discuss the offer (Hage stated that Perle's response was "that the consensus in Washington was it was a no-go"). Perle told the Times, "The message was 'Tell them that we will see them in Baghdad."
(Emphasis Added)

A CARNEGIE ENDOWMENT FOR THE PEACE ALTERNATIVE TO INVASION OFFERED UP AT THE LAST MINUTE.

When it appeared that the Iraqi back-channels for negotiations were going nowhere and it was evident that the Weapons Inspectors were going to be forced out of the country by the United States in advance of its immanent invasion, an unusual and not well-publicized effort was made by the Carnegie Endowment for the Peace to advance an alternative to war. Needless to say, the Bushniks and the Neo-Cons who were itching to invade laughed at this. Nevertheless, it is interesting to review it and, in light of what has transpired since, looks especially inspired.

The following is a transcript from an All Things Considered story on the Carnegie Plan.

Carnegie Endowment Proposal to Back Weapons Inspectors in Iraq With a U.N. Military Troop of 50,000

All Things Considered: September 5, 2002

Iraq: Inspections


ROBERT SIEGEL, host:

From NPR News, this is ALL THINGS CONSIDERED. I'm Robert Siegel.

JACKI LYDEN, host:

And I'm Jacki Lyden.

President Bush is considering whether to seek a UN Security Council resolution that would set a deadline for Iraq to allow inspectors to search for weapons of mass destruction. But Bush administration officials have made clear these inspections must be far more effective than earlier efforts, which were thwarted by Iraq. A group of policy analysts has come up with a new proposal for a UN military force to back any weapons inspections. That idea has sparked some interest in Washington, as NPR's Michele Kelemen reports.

MICHELE KELEMEN reporting:

If you listen to some of the hawks in Washington, the choice seems stark. Either the Bush administration goes it alone, mounting an all-out war to topple Saddam Hussein's regime, or it sits by as Iraq continues to develop weapons of mass destruction. Retired General Charles Boyd argues there is a way to force Saddam Hussein to make the choice, by sending in troops to back up weapons inspections.

General CHARLES BOYD (Retired): He can submit to effective, comprehensive inspections backed by military force or he can accept an inevitable invasion for the purpose of a regime change.

KELEMEN: Boyd and other analysts, ex-officials and former inspectors outlined their proposal in a report just released by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. That organization's president, Jessica Mathews, says this third way or middle ground should appeal to those who want to focus on disarming Saddam Hussein but don't support unilateral US action to topple him.

Ms. JESSICA MATHEWS (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace): This says, `Sorry, we're not negotiating. There are no off-limit sites. The inspectors will go where they want, when they want. They will have operational security, which they did not have before. The Iraqis bugged them all the time and knew where they were going. And they will have force to back them up.'

KELEMEN: A force of about 50,000 troops and airpower, according to authors of the Carnegie proposal. That would be smaller than an invasion force, but large enough to establish no-fly and no-drive zones in areas that are under inspection. Mathews see is as a largely American force.

Ms. MATHEWS: We would have air cavalry forces, which is armored helicopter mobile troops that could accompany the inspectors that would be strong enough to do whatever they chose to do--that is, whether they chose to simply protect the inspectors, to protect themselves, to engage if there were direct opposition or to disengage.

KELEMEN: When White House spokesman Ari Fleischer was asked about the possibility of such coercive inspections, he would only say the president is considering various options.

Mr. ARI FLEISCHER (White House Spokesman): The bottom line, though, is that Iraq needs to live up to its commitments to disarm, not simply allow inspectors in, not to resume a cat-and-mouse game, not to put people in there in harm's way where Saddam Hussein would again use the powers of the state police to rough up inspectors and make their job impossible to do.

KELEMEN: And Fleischer has repeatedly insisted that regime change is still the US policy. Mathews of the Carnegie Endowment says her proposal would only work and Saddam Hussein would only be persuaded to accept inspectors if that goal were pushed aside.

Ms. MATHEWS: The crucial part of this proposal is to recognize that the US has to make a give, and that give is to say for as long as inspections are working we forgo action on a regime change. We may still believe regime change is the best preferable outcome. We have felt that way about Cuba, for example, for 40 years without doing anything about it. But we would have to make that explicit commitment for this to work.

KELEMEN: That may be difficult for some in the Bush administration to accept. The UN Security Council would also have to approve a military operation to back weapons inspectors. Mathews believes that council members will be interested in this new proposal, if only to stop the US from acting alone. Michele Kelemen, NPR News, Washington.

Copyright ©2002 National Public Radio®.


CONGRESS IS NOT OFF THE HOOK.

The selective use of Intelligence by the NeoCons in DoD and the White House is, in the opinion of many, criminal and impeachable. But that doesn't let Congress off the hook. While Congress was not spoon-fed the information by the Administration, it had resources to get at the Truth.
But, in the post 9-11 political environment and the near total domination of the media by the Administration, the Congressional opposition was demoralized and weakened. With very few exceptions Congress seemed to be willing to go along with the White House on the WMD.

Dana Milbank and Walter Pincus, in today's (11-12-05) edition of the Washington Post write:

“Lawmakers are partly to blame for their ignorance. Congress was entitled to view the 92-page NIE about Iraq before the October, 2002 vote. But, as the Washington Post reported last year, no more than six senators and a handful of House members read beyond the five-page executive summary." (Emphasis Added)

We get a sense of the divided opposition during that time in a story reported by the AP on October 4, 2002.

After a meeting with CIA Chief George Tenant, Sen. Richard Durbin, D-Ill., said some information that could weaken the Bush administration's case against Iraq remains classified. He and others felt that the whole story wasn't being told. "It is troubling to have classified information which contradicts statements made by the administration," he said. "It is maddening to have classified information which contradicts classified information leaked by the administration."

But Sen. Evan Bayh, D-Ind., said he believed intelligence officials were "giving us the vast majority of what they know." Senator “Sponge” Bayh (my name for him) goes on to say: "They're giving us their best judgment, the facts that they have," he said. "But one of the difficulties in addressing this whole issue is that there is just a lot that is unknown and unknowable."

Ugh. I bet the late Senator Birch Bayh is spinning like an dervish in his grave!

BOTTOM LINE: MORE LIES FROM THE LYING LIARS WHO TELL THEM.

We now know that the Bush administration dismissed peace overtures and buried them in the rush to go to war. Bush never entertained any alternatives to war, like the one proposed by the Carnegie Endowment for the Peace. And we know that Congress didn't do its job.

Bush’s ex-post facto spinning of the situation only adds to the layers of deception and lies that have become the hallmark of this Administration. And it makes some of the current criticism from the likes of John Kerry, who voted for extending war powers to Bush, turn to ashes in the mouth.

All of this makes Bush's use of Veteran's Day to dissemble before America and the world even more vile. He chose to go to war NOT because it was necessary, but because he wanted to and, thanks to a spineless Congress, he could!


The Bush administration continues to post now-discredited WMD analysis on the State Department Web Site. Are you nostalgic for a taste of the pre-war lies? Go back in time.

CLUB FOR GROWTH POST QUOTES ALASKA DAILY NEWS

Right-Wing Bloggers are getting sick of Alaska's freeloading!

The following is a current post from the Club For Growth (click Header)
***********************************************************************************
Great Alaskan Editorial
Sage words from the Anchorage Daily News:
How would Alaskans feel about sending a big share of their federal taxes to another state whose residents keep taking more than they give to the federal treasury, insist on paying no state income or sales tax and receive hundreds of millions every year in payments from their state government for individual shares of their state’s resource wealth?
In Illinois and Louisiana and West Virginia and elsewhere, it’s logical to ask: More than $31 billion in the Alaska Permanent Fund, generating interest and dividends, and you want the rest of America to bankroll your bridges? Death grip on your state dividends and a zealot’s passion against taxes, and yet you demand the taxes of others to pay for things you won’t pay for yourself? How long do you think you can play this game?
We’re getting closer to the day when the rest of the country says: “You want the goodies? Pay for them yourselves.” [emphasis added]
Pay heed, Stevens, Murkowski, and Young. Pay heed.
Posted by Andrew Roth at 10:22 AM TrackBack (0) Print

JACK ABRAMOFF & THE SELLING OF THE CHRISTIAN RIGHT

If you are not paying attention to the hearings being conducted by the Senate Committee on Indian Affairs, you should be!

Americans don't have to wait for the trials of Tom DeLay or Irwin Libby to get a deep look at Power Politics in the Bush-Era. Just look at the exhibits assembled by the Senate Committee.

Money was paid by various Indian Tribes to Jack Abramoff and his colleagues to lobby on their behalf. Instead, these documents reveal, they were overcharged for millions of dollars sent to intermediary companies, which Abramoff and partner Mike Scanlon skimmed, and thence to Republican affiliates and Evangelical Christian political brokers to do the work of Abramoff, not God.

In these documents, you will see how Ralph Reed used his connections to James Dobson, Pat Robertson, and many other evangelical Big-Shots to orchestrate outrage by the Faithful to deliver for Abramoff's Casino clients. Ralph Reed delivered protesting pastors in Louisiana and angry email from baptists in a targeted congressional district. Ironically, all of this Righteousness-For-Hire was done to aid what turns out to be a criminal enterprise. This was not done once, but it was done many times in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi and Texas. There is a letter signed by Phyllis Schlafly of the Eagle Forum to Gale Norton opposing the interests of a Tribal competitor to Mr Abramoff's casino client. These documents show how easily these personalities access the highest eschalons of government. That should be of concern to every thinking American.

Please read and spread the word to your Christian friends. They need to know that they are being used like crack whores by the Republican D.C. Power Players!

Ann Coulter Argues For The Impeachment of George W. Bush!

7 years ago, The National Review published a piece by a little known lawyer by the name of Ann Coulter. Ann had just published a book titled "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" about president Clinton. Right-Wing pulp factory Regnery Press promoted Ms Coulter's vituperations.

In light of what we now know about Libby, Rove, Cheney and President Bush's subversion of congress, lying to the American people and abuse of power , Ms Coulter proves herself a Prophet. Yes, 7 years ago, Ann Coulter made a well-stated argument for the impeachment of the president of the United States today!

Below is just a fragment of her entire article that ran September 14, 1998. I have highlighted a few phrases in bold. Just read those and it is clear that Ann saw clearly the basis for impeaching George W. Bush back in 1998!

ps--I enjoyed the comment made by Pat Buchanen at the end. Ironic, eh? ;)

____________________________________________________________

For more than six hundred years, "high crimes and misdemeanors" has referred exclusively to conduct requiring impeachment. Though any serious felony will do, impeachment will not result in a prison sentence or beheading. An impeachment conviction in the Senate merely removes a statesman from his office of "honor, trust, or profit" with the United States. The criminal law is for personal punishment; impeachment is for keeping statesmen virtuous.
......
So, a "high misdemeanor" refers not, as it is commonly construed, to a criminal offense just short of a felony, but to simple misbehavior -- bad demeanor, if you will. As the Rodino Report during the Watergate investigation explained, "From the comments of the Framers and their contemporaries, the remarks of delegates to the state ratifying conventions, and the removal-power debate in the First Congress, it is apparent that the scope of impeachment was not viewed narrowly." Instead, impeachment has always been viewed as --among other things -- a guarantee of the moral behavior of public officials.

In the course of prosecuting one of the greatest impeachment trials in Anglo - American history -- that of Warren Hastings -- Edmund Burke said: "Other constitutions are satisfied with making good subjects; [impeachment] is a security for good governors." Burke meant "good" in the moral sense: "it is by this tribunal that statesmen [are tried] not upon the niceties of a narrow jurisprudence but upon the enlarged and solid principles of morality."

It is exactly this understanding of impeachment that underlies the phrase used in Article I of the Constitution. James Madison said the "first aim" of the Constitution was to ensure that men with the "most virtue" would become the nation's rulers. The Constitution's impeachment power was for "keeping them virtuous whilst they continue to hold their public trust." Or as Alexander Hamilton put it, "Men, in public trust, will much oftener act in such a manner as to render them unworthy of being any longer trusted than in such a manner as to make them obnoxious to legal punishment."

To be sure, there were differences in the practical application in Britain and the United States. Impeachments in Great Britain were often used as a weapon in the ongoing and turbulent power struggle between Parliament and the King. Consequently, impeachments tended to fall into ponderous, grand-sounding categories such as "abuse of power" or "encroachment on Parliament's prerogatives." These categories were expanded and reshuffled for use in a constitutional republic. Personal misconduct took on a larger role in impeachments, for example, and policy disputes were not areas of impeachable conduct.

Having just fought a war to get rid of a king, the framers had "the perfidity of the chief magistrate" clearly in their sights when they included broad grounds for impeachment. They discussed the Constitution's impeachment power in terms of removing a President who "misbehaves" or "behave[s] amiss," as two of the delegates put it. Madison wrote that impeachment was meant to remove Presidents for "incapacity, negligence, or perfidity."

WHAT does such presidential misconduct look like? We, of course, have a recent template. On July 27, 1974, the House Judiciary Committee adopted three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon. The charges against him were neatly summarized near the bottom of the indictment: "In all of this, Richard M. Nixon has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States."

To say that Nixon was forced to resign, as so many commentators do, for acting in a manner "subversive of constitutional government" is meaningless without knowing what acts comprised that "subversion." Nixon's subversion consisted of: One presidential lie, one invocation of presidential privilege, and zero criminal offenses. One month after Nixon resigned, a prosecutor said of some of Nixon's alleged crimes, "none of these matters at the moment rises to the level of our ability to prove even a probable criminal violation by Mr. Nixon."

As Nixon discovered, the President's obligations go far beyond the requirement that he not criminally obstruct justice. Nixon talked about political audits by the IRS, but no political audits were ever conducted (except of Nixon himself). Nixon invoked one privilege one time (and this was somewhat legitimate, since the Supreme Court did in fact recognize a brand new legal privilege). And Nixon permitted his subordinates to delay one investigation once -- for two weeks.

What really did Nixon in was his long-running campaign of public deceit. The Watergate special prosecutor, Leon Jaworski, said of Nixon's disgrace and resignation: "What sank him was his lying." Even President Nixon's most loyal defenders abandoned his cause when they found that he had lied. "The problem is not Watergate or the cover-up," Pat Buchanan told Julie Nixon. "It's that he hasn't been telling the truth to the American people. . . . The tape makes it evident that he hasn't leveled with the country for probably eighteen months. And the President can't lead a country he has deliberately misled for a year and a half."

FEED 'SMOKEY', THE REPUBLICAN PIG

...I've adopted a pig...he's a cute fellow. You'll find him over at the sidebar. No...NOT the one in the dark glasses! (everyone's a freakin' comedian!)

His name is 'Smokey', which is short for "Smoke & Mirrors". You can feed him and wash him. He's just like a Republican. His appetite is insatiable and his need for cleaning is endless.

For example,

The Senate is digging into a budget plan that would bundle Medicare and Medicaid spending cuts with a plan to open ANWR to oil drilling. (MUNCH-MUNCH, SLURP-SLURP)

Republicans are facing unanimous opposition from Democrats who contend it is part of an overall plan that will actually increase the deficit once a companion $70 billion tax cut bill is passed. (MUNCH-BURP-MUCH-MUNCH)

"When I went to Roosevelt grade school in Bismarck, North Dakota, I learned that if you reduced spending by $39 and you reduced your income by $70, you were deeper in the hole," said top Senate Budget Committee Democrat Kent Conrad. "You've added to the deficit. You haven't reduced it."

When congressional Republicans cut the federal budget for essential programs AND give a tax-cut to the Rich, they only shift the tax burden onto local government.

In an earlier post, I discuss--in an open letter to the citizens of Oregon--that it is irony, indeed, that Republican Dick Armey and his prized band of porkers are now getting fed the big apples to organize anti-tax initiatives in Oregon when Armey was an architect of the budget-and-tax cuts passed by congress during Chimp I. The result of this Republican smoke-and-mirrors in the state of Oregon has been burdensome for state and local governments.

Now they are at it again.

We are mindful of recent subsidies for oil refiners in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, the only welfare program embraced by this congress.

We are mindful of the wasted billions in the hands of Halliburton et al in the reconstruction of both Iraq and the Southwest.

Cometh now the Corruptlicans, with a blueprint for a "balanced budget" that is just as fair and balanced as Fox News.

Do YOU trust them?

I didn't think so.

Give Smokey an apple--it's free.