Eva-Marie's Weblog

Misrepresenting war mongering neocons....

2008-01-13T18:36:00.000-05:00

In a weird blog titled "Neocon and Sonderkommando," Art Downs attempts to confuse the issue of the role played by neoconservatives, mostly Jewish individuals with dual allegiance to Israel and the U.S., in that order, in the formulation of U.S. foreign policy.

Policies devised by arrogant neocons have been adopted by the Cheney-Bush administration and the result has been highly counterproductive for both, Israel and the U.S.

Only one of the Republicans campaigning for the presidency, Ron Paul, has had the guts to call it as it is, namely, that actions taken by the U.S. in the Middle East have led to actions taken against the U.S., including the tragedy of 9/11.

U.S. military presence on Arab/Muslim lands coupled with the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict have enraged much of the Middle East and the unprovoked war on Iraq has served to aggravate a bad situation.

"How would we like it if foreign troops established bases in the U.S." asks Mr. Paul.

Answer: We would not tolerate such a presence.

The question then becomes: Why is it so difficult to understand that Arabs/Muslims are as outraged as we would be if the roles were reversed?

Speaking of neocons, Art Downs reaches the following conclusion:

Some of these executives may be Jewish and they seem to be supporting the Democrats. Could these be part of the latter-day sonderkommando syndrome?

Huh? Supporting the Democrats?

Last time I checked, Douglas Feith, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Max Boot, H. Ledeen, John Podhoretz, Abrahams, to mention just a few, were members of the Republican party.

Why Art Downs would want to misrepresent their party affiliation, is a mystery that only he can unravel. After all, anyone with even a slight interest in politics knows that these individuals are right-wingers who drag our nation into an unprovoked war that cost the lives of hundreds of thousands of innocent individuals, both Americans and Iraqis.

That resentment and hatred leads to terrorism is a no-brainer.

If Israelis prefer to live behind walls rather than allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state and live in peace with their neighbors, is something I'll never understand. However, it is their decision to make.

But for Israelis to be allowed to use the U.S. military as their proxy to achieve their objectives, is a decision for the American people to make. Unfortunately, they were never asked to make that decision as they were dragged into an unprovoked war that was on the neocon-Israeli "to do" list.

Hopefully, the next U.S. president, whoever she will be, will take the U.S.'s best interests into consideration....FIRST and foremost.

A soldier speaks for me and millions of others....

2008-01-06T05:39:00.000-05:00

I have nothing to add to his comments given that he speaks the truth and nothing but the truth.

Speaking of truth, when it comes to the unprovoked war on Iraq, Mr. Ron Paul is the only Republican who has the guts to call it as it is: A major Bush-Cheney policy blunder, pushed by neoconservatives, that must be corrected by ending the war.

Huckabee, McCain and other Republicans believe that we must "finish the job" in order to "leave with honor."

Huh? Honor" What is "honorable" about using the U.S. military as baby sitters in a fractured nation that is unable to reach common ground?

Obviously, our young men and women deserve better than be dragged into an unprovoked war based on greed on the one hand and Israeli demands for "regime change" of leaders in the region who are not of their liking on the other.

Sure, we have interests in the Middle East, but enraging Arabs/Muslims by occupying their lands, is definitely not going to make us, or Israel for that matter, "safer."

A question for my buddies Dana and Art

2007-12-30T14:36:00.000-05:00

I see that Dana and Art, two of my cyberspace buddies, are still undecided as to which of the right-wingers they will vote for.

Soooooo, here comes a suggestion: How about Ron Paul?

Lieberman's dual allegiance

2007-12-23T08:37:00.000-05:00

It should come as no surprise that Joe Lieberman, an Orthodox Jew with dual allegiance to Israel and the U.S., in that order, decided to support John McCain for president given the latter's strong support for the Iraq war.

Now that Iraq has undergone several bloody years of ethnic cleansing, and with U.S. troops serving as "baby sitters" as a result of the "surge," the Cheney-Bush administration has been in a position to continue wasting zillions of U.S. tax payers' dollars in a desperate attempt to save face as they prepare to leave the scene.

That these highly incompetent individuals were allowed to serve a second term, is incomprehensible to those of us who believe in efficient and effective government.

It is no secret that Israelis and their neoconservative cohorts in the U.S. have been instrumental in driving our nation into an unprovoked war on Iraq given their stated goal of "restructuring the Middle East in their image."

The arrogance of such an attitude is breathtaking in scope given that Israel is viewed as an intruder in a region dominated by Arabs/Muslims.

However, their objectives were embraced by Cheney-Bush since they had their own agenda, namely, to "liberate" Iraq from Saddam in order to pave the way for access of U.S. corporations to Iraq's energy infrastructure.

The fact that Saddam was doing business with nations such as Russia and France, while U.S. corporations were unable to do so due to the embargo, was a situation they were determined to rectify.

There was, obvious, an alternative to war, namely, to allow inspectors to complete their jobs and once they had determined that WMD were non-existent, the embargo could have been lifted and U.S. corporations allowed to bid for contracts in Iraq.

But, that was not to be. After all, Bush was also intent on proving who was the "real man" in his family given that Poppy refused to go into Baghdad during Gulf War I.

Israel, on the other hand, was intent on using the U.S. military as its proxy to get rid of neighboring leaders it did not like. Iran is clearly next on its list of "regime change" in the region.

Amazingly, much has been said and written about Lieberman's peculiar choice of backing a Republican for president, particularly since he had been chosen to run for Democratic V.P. by Al Gore. Predictably, the fact of his dual allegiance is nowhere to be found in the debate surrounding his support for a Republican aspirant to the presidency.

The fact that U.S. and Israeli interests in the geopolitical sphere are not always one and the same is obvious to any objective observer.

The question then becomes: Do we really want leaders in positions of power with dual allegiances to the U.S. and a given foreign nation?

Last time I checked, that was patriotism was all about.

The fact that Lieberman is in a position to throw the Senate back into Republican hands clearly weighs on steps that can be taken by Democrats given their slim majority in Congress.

Hopefully, the 2008 election will result in the selection of a candidate who has, first and foremost, the U.S.'s best interests at heart.

If Israel were a true ally of the U.S., it would have made a major effort to settle the bloody, never-ending conflict with Palestinians by allowing the establishment of a VIABLE Palestinian state with E. Jerusalem as its capital.

Reason: U.S. support for this bloody conflict has played a major role in the resentment and hatred by Arabs/Muslims vis a vis the U.S. Coupled with U.S. military presence on their lands, it has clearly led to the tragedy of 9/11.

Among the presidential candidates of both parties, only Libertarian Ron Paul understands, and has the guts to express, what should be obvious to everyone but is carefully concealed by members of both parties.

Actions taken by Israel have not only hurt U.S. interests in the region but Israelis as well. Had a viable Palestinian state been born, Arabs/Muslims in the region were willing to establish diplomatic relations with Israel, thereby paving the way for their nation to become the center of a flourishing region.

Given Israel's expertise in many areas and the need for such expertise in the region, one can only wonder why they waste their time hiding behind a wall and pretending that their Jewish State of Israel is a democracy as opposed to the theocracy it clearly is.

These are the double standards that drive Arabs/Muslims up a wall, as well as many others around the globe. A nation with two sets of laws, for Jews and non-Jews, is clearly not a true democracy.

As for Lieberman, he obviously doesn't get it either. His Jewishness trumps everything, including allegiance to his own party as well as the U.S.

Now, if the majority of Americans want another four years of Cheney-Bush, all they have to do is vote for McCain. He is clearly determined to continue the highly counterproductive foreign policy devised by right-wing Israelis and right-wing Americans.

It's the Double-Standards stupid!

2007-12-09T14:32:00.000-05:00

On his latest trip to the Middle East, Sec. of Defense Gates hoped to convince Arab/Muslim leaders to support U.S. policy vis a vis Iran.

Instead, he was faced with complaints of double-standards and hypocrisy, given the U.S.'s unilateral and unambiguous support for Israel.

In an article entitled "Gulf Challenges US on Iran, Israel" by the Associated Press, several delegates to the security conference in Bahrain said the US was "hypocritical for supporting Israeli nuclear weapons and questioned Washington's refusal to meet with Iran."

Furthermore, Abdul-Rhaman al-Atillah, secretary of the six-nation cooperation council, stated that not considering Israel a threat to security in the region is considered "a biased policy based on double standards."

Needless to say, this view is shared by most nations around the globe given that it is indeed a double standard.

As a result, anti-Semitism and anti-Americanism has been on the rise, particularly since Cheney-Bush decided to ignore the Israeli-Palestinian conflict until just recently.

By attempting to convince Arab Sunnis that Iranian Shiites are a threat to the region, Gates hoped to garner their support for tougher sanctions on Iran. Seemingly, they did not oblige.

While there may not be much sympathy for Shiites among Sunnis in the region, they are still preferred to Israelis who, in the words of Qatari Prime Minister Sheik Hamad bin Jassem Al Thani:

"We can't really compare Iran with Israel. Iran is our neighbor, and we shouldn't really look at it as an enemy. I think Israel, through 50 years, has taken land, kicking out the Palestinians, and interferes under the excuse of security, blaming the other party."

In short, Sec. Gates was encouraged to speak to Iranians directly, particularly not that Arabs had traveled to the U.S. and met with Israelis at Annapolis, MD.

One can only wonder if Cheney-Bush will ever understand that when Arabs/Muslims are asked to chose between supporting policies that are in the interests of Israel and support for ANY other nation in the region, they will side with the latter.

IF and when the U.S. administration decides to pressure Israel into allowing the establishment of a viable Palestinian state with E. Jerusalem as its capital, this attitude on the part of Arab nations will change.

Until that happens, however, Arabs/Muslims will not allow the U.S. to promote further division between Sunnis and Shiites, regardless of how many differences there may be among them.

But then, if there is one thing that can be said of Cheney-Bush...it's their total inability to function effectively in a world where policies based on arrogance and "machismo" are highly counterproductive.

Mr. it's my way or the highway Bush, is simply a caricature of what a real, insightful leader is all about.

The sad part is that we will have WASTED eight years when he finally leaves office not counting the thousands of lives lost and the zillions of tax payers' dollars that could have been used for construction as opposed to....destruction....:-(

An Amazing Spectacle to Watch

2007-12-08T14:56:00.000-05:00

I listened to Hank Paulson on the tube, ex-Mr. Goldman Sachs, presently Sec. of Treasury, talk about the incredible mortgage mess that was triggered by individuals such as...Hank Paulson.

He was CEO of Goldman at the time many of these sub-prime loans were bundled, shipped all across the globe, and loaded with derivatives (options and futures) that even most experts do not understand.

The sub-prime mortgages at the heart of this issue are not the whole problem given that, in relative terms, the number of individuals unable to refinance or repay their mortgages is small. However, what was left unmentioned is the leverage of derivatives that were slapped on these bundled securities that are rumored to be in the trillions.

True, derivatives can result in enormous profits given their leverage. However, if incorrectly positioned, they can lead to humongous losses. Obviously, Greed Street got it wrong. While no one knows for sure the extent of the losses incurred in these transactions, they continue over hanging financial markets and threaten the whole system.

To understand how this incredible MESS started, one must go back in time to the beginning of the Bush administration with its emphasis on the "ownership society" and tax cuts as well as Mr. Greenspan's willingness to lower interest rates to next to nothing, thereby flooding the system with liquidity in an effort to rekindle the economy.

Those of us watching his "generosity," could not help but wonder where the money trees were growing from which these $$$ were being picked.

While ownership is indeed a worthy goal of most individuals, it was understood in the pre-Bush era that in order to own a home, certain qualifying requirements must be met. Yes, a down payment was among them as were potential earnings to determine if a given candidate qualified for a given loan amount.

But, all those requirements went the way of the dinosaur once the system was flooded with cheap dollars.

Banks and S&Ls had a field day issuing mortgages to both, qualified and non-qualified buyers...owner occupied as well as speculators.

The name of the game: Anything Goes!

Pre-approved credit card solicitations flooded our mail boxes and credit was extended to most individuals with the ability to sign on the dotted line.

It did not take long for Wall St. a.k.a. GREED STREET to participate in the "Games People Play," and the result became a threat to the global financial system.

Predictably, economic growth accelerated in the short run and prices of homes started to go up...and up....and up....leading to a frenzy with all the signs of a potential bust.

And bust they did, leaving in their wake a disfunctional debt market that continues overhanging the economy not only to this day but for many days/months to come.

Spending non-existent funds was the hallmark of the "conservative" Bush administration. The enormous cost of the unprovoked war on Iraq was financed by foreigners with $$$ they collected from the American consumer as the trade imbalance of payments continued growing.

Meantime, back at the ranch, the dollar started tanking and continues tanking to this day. Against the Euro, the dollar lost roughly half of its value during the Bush years. Americans traveling overseas are shocked by the prices they must pay given that their former almighty dollar is on life support.

If there ever was an administration that threw caution to the winds, the Bush-Cheney administration is it. They waged a very costly war while cutting taxes for the wealthiest in our nation, never asking where the money to repay our debts would come from.

Amazingly, "conservative" Republicans in Congress were silent as this saga unfolded and they were still in the majority. Had Democrats behaved in such an irresponsible manner, all hell would have broken loose.

The question then becomes: with friends like these....who needs enemies?

"Armageddon," temporarily postponed?

2007-12-05T11:37:00.000-05:00

I see that Bush's "Armageddon" has, seemingly, been temporarily postponed. given the latest conclusions reached in the NIE report.

In an article published in the Wash Post titled "The Right Nuclear Red Line" by Gareth Evans, the author correctly reaches the following conclusion after returning from a trip to the Middle East:

But the psychological arguments I heard were a different story: This is a country seething with both pride and resentment against past humiliations, and it wants to cut a regional and global figure by proving its sophisticated technological capability

Finally, an individual who seemingly understands what lies at the very core of Iran's insistence it be allowed to proceed in accordance with standards spelled out in the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

If it's one approach Arabs/Muslims will not tolerate, it is public humiliation.

The latest NIE report opens the door for a new approach to Iran, regardless of loud voices of protestation coming from Israel and their neoconservative cohorts in the U.S. Israelis would be much better served if they allowed the establishment of a viable Palestinian state since it would go a very long way toward alleviating the anti-Israel/American sentiment in the region.

Resolving this never-ending bloody saga is of the essence for the very simple reason that Arabs/Muslims see in the humiliation of Palestinians, the humiliation of them all.

Needless to say, the double-standards applied to Israel vis a vis the Arab/Muslim world are, understandably, resented.

On the one hand, Israel proclaims to be a "democracy" while on the other hand it demands to be recognized as a Jewish state, otherwise known as a theocracy. With two sets of laws, one for Jews and one for non-Jews, it can hardly be considered a true democracy.

Hopefully, the heated rhetoric emanating from the Administration will give way to serious negotiations and save the world the pain of witnessing yet another assault on a Middle Eastern nation.

Those of us who abhor war, are fed up with policies adopted by Bush-Cheney-neocons, whose war mongering, arrogant stance has been so highly counterproductive in terms of lives lost...treasure wasted...and U.S. standing in the world at its lowest level in decades.

The Karl Rove Marathon

2007-12-02T17:37:00.000-05:00

Run Karl run....

I watched him run his mouth this morning on FOX News Sunday, his favorite right-wing watering hole. In incredibly fast succession, he told a lie...followed by a distortion...a lie...distortion...a lie....you get the picture....

Of all the outrageous babble that shot out of his mouth, what I found most insulting and deceptive was: "Democrats don't support our troops."

It was, of course, not the first time that such lies emanated from the lips of his as well as other members of the Administration. For reasons that escape me, "supporting our troops" means ordering them to risk their lives while awaiting the decision of Iraqis of who will kill whom and when...who will steal what from whom...who must be bribed to get a job...

But, it was not this allegation that made me fall off my chair given that I had heard it before. Suddenly, out of the clear blue sky, Rove shocked and awed his audience by insisting that it was Democrats, not Republicans, who pushed Bush into war on Iraq at an accelerated pace.

WOW! Talk about gall!

Those of us who had carefully watched the deceptive tactics used by Bush-Cheney to entrap the American people into supporting their unprovoked war were truly shocked, to put it mildly. I simply could not believe what I was hearing.

True, I should be used to outrageous statements by now, given the many I've heard during the past seven years. However, there should be a limit to the abuses perpetrated by those who are presently intent on rewriting history.

By the way, I hear that the "surge" has been declared a success, and according to Administration officials, we are now "winning" in Iraq. Well, that being the case, why not bring our troops home?

I, for one, strongly support our troops, and it is precisely for that reason I want them to come home....in one piece. Isn't that what "support for our troops" is truly all about?

It was one thing to launch war on the Taliban and al Qaeda after 9/11, a war that was almost universally supported. It was quite another to use the tragedy of 9/11 to scare the American people into supporting an unprovoked war on yet another Arab/Muslim nation.

Had right-wingers truly cared for our troops, they would have been true to what their leaders proclaimed over and over again: WAR is a LAST resort. Sadly, nothing was further from the truth since preparation for war was well on the way long before the Congressional vote to authorize it took place.

And regardless of how many words Rove uses to justify the unjustifiable...when everything is said and done: ACTIONS speak louder than words.

"I coulda stayed home and baked cookies...."

2007-12-01T15:02:00.000-05:00

Hillary Clinton has come a long way since she uttered those words, words that later would come back to haunt her....

As one of the freshly baked, well-educated female professionals that would fall into the "F-AAA" category ("Assertive, Aggressive, Abrasive"), her tone and mannerism was viewed by many as arrogant (it was) and righteous. In short, it left much room for improvement.

Obviously, a very bright woman, Mrs. Clinton has come a long way from that shaky start. Much subdued in tone and attitude, she ran a very successful race for Senator of New York. Her systematic, well-planned approach to the job she ran for, her willingness to let bygones by bygones vis a vis Republicans, her thorough familiarity with the issues that mattered to voters, resulted not only in her election as senator but also to a very successful re-election.

Fast forward to the present....

As she runs for president of the U.S., the first woman with a realistic chance to make it to the top of the most powerful nation on earth, Hillary is displaying, once again, the same serious, systematic approach to running that served her so well in the past.

Fully aware that she still has high negatives as a result of the Clinton witch hunt, relentlessly pursued by right-wingers during her husband's two terms in office, she trusts that the good judgment of the majority of Americans will make it possible for her to achieve her goal. Those who have listened to her in the debates, have almost unanimously approved of the manner in which she has conducted herself: poised, well-informed and at the height of her intellectual prowess.

If there ever was a candidate who carefully studied the issues during most of her adult life, it was indeed Hillary Clinton. If there ever was an individual who learned from his/her mistakes, it was Hillary Clinton. If there ever was a candidate exposed to the demands of the White House, it is Hillary Clinton.

In sum, if there ever was a moment when this great nation needs the services of an insightful, common sensical, experienced individual to restore its rightful place among nations, Bill and Hillary have what it takes. And, yes, we will get two for one this time around. Both of them insightful and experienced.

True, Bill was dragged into impeachment procedures because he lied about sex and demonized by his opponents. However, he never lied about issues that dealt with life and death, as is presently the case in the Oval Office. Furthermore, he worked tirelessly for peaceful coexistence, as is presently not the case.

As a result, Bill is liked and respected all across the globe while, sadly, the man presently sitting in the Oval Office took the opposite approach, namely, "it's my way or the highway" and, predictably, failed.

Needless to say, Bill would be an enormous asset to Hillary as, say, America's roving ambassador in search of mutual cooperation...as opposed to confrontation.

A much needed change in this era of globalization when free TRADE should be front and center, not "shock and awe."

We've definitely had enough shocks during the past seven years to last us a lifetime....

Is U.S. Foreign Policy in the U.S.'s Best Interests?

2007-12-01T10:10:00.000-05:00

To the insightful observer, it has long been obvious that U.S. foreign policy is largely devised in Tel Aviv in conjunction with so-called neoconservatives in the U.S., most of whom are Jewish-Americans with dual allegiance to Israel and the U.S., in that order.

The problem with this approach is that what is deemed in Israel's best interests by these individuals is, more often than not, not in the U.S.'s best interests.

In fact, the never-ending, bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict has fueled resentment and hatred in the region against both, Israelis and their U.S. sponsors for decades and is one of the root causes that led to terrorism in the region.

Reason: The humiliation of Palestinians is viewed in the Arab/Muslim world as the humiliation of them all.

If there if there are two words in the Arab/Muslim world with a negative connotation, they are...public humiliation.

After seven years of neglect, Mr. Bush, in a belatedly effort to save something, anything to make his legacy less painful, has directed his attention to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict at the behest of his Sec. of State, Ms. Rice.

Needless to say, skepticism prevailed when representatives of 49 nations met in Annapolis, Md. this week. This skepticism was well placed given that just a few short days after the conference adjourned, members of the Administration, at the behest of Israelis, withdrew the document that had called for a U.N. resolution based on the agreement for a peaceful resolution of the conflict before the end of 2008.

Soooooo, what else is new?

Time and time again the Administration embraced policies devised by neoconservatives in the U.S. and Likudniks in Israel whose primary objective was "to restructure the Middle East."

In essence, the U.S. would use military force to get rid of Israel's neighboring leaders whom they deemed as their enemies, starting with Iraq.

Bush-Cheney, on the other hand, had promised their campaign supporters in the energy field that they would have access to contracts in Iraq once the occupation had succeeded. Given the U.S. embargo against Iraq, U.S. corporations had been unable to participate in the development of oil fields. Contracts signed by Saddam were primarily with Russian and French corporations.

The alternative course of action, namely, to await the result of inspectors who had been given carte blanche by Saddam to inspect his nation at will after they were re-admitted, was cut short before they were able to certify WMD non-existence.

Since war had been pre-determined, the last thing Bush-Cheney wanted to hear is that WMD were indeed nowhere to be found in Iraq.

Had inspectors been allowed to complete their task, the embargo could have been lifted and U.S. companies could have proceeded to bid for contracts, given their unsurpassed expertise in building energy infrastructures.

But, that was not to be, given that hawks in the U.S. and Israel were, unfortunately, in charge and the decision to go to war had been before the tragedy of 9/11 occurred.

The fact that Iraq had nothing to do with this tragedy played absolutely no role in making the decision. It simply played a role in convincing the American people that getting rid of Saddam was "of the essence" since he supported "terrorists" and "mushroom clouds" were building on the horizon.

And so, the world was "shocked and awed" as bombs and missiles were dropped on a largely unprotected population. As the bombs fell, the goodwill toward the U.S. that had prevailed after 9/11 around the globe, instantly evaporated.

And, the rest is history....a bloody history that continues unfolding with no end in sight.

By the way, I noticed that Mr. Rove is busy these days attempting the re-write history on this issue. But, that will be a blog for another day.

Wall Street a.k.a. Greed Street

2007-11-29T10:28:00.000-05:00

Bush's tax cuts have kept the economy growing, we are told again and again and again.

WRONG! While tax cuts may have contributed at the margins, what kept the economy growing was Mr. Greenspan's "generosity.

By lowering the Fed funds rate to next to nothing and flooding the system with $$ picked from his "money tree," Mr. Greenspan did indeed help the economy perform well...in the short run. In fact, if lower taxes and interest rates had been offset by budget cuts, a case could have been made for sustainable economic growth.

Alas, that was not to be. In fact, precisely the opposite occurred as the Administration engaged in a spending spree of humongous proportions, aggravated by launching a very costly, unprovoked war on Iraq. These expenditures were financed from $$$ picked from Bush-Cheney's "money tree," (read: money borrowed from overseas).

Once the system was flooded with liquidity, Mr. Bush declared that the "ownership" economy was now in full swing. And, for a short while, that was indeed the case.

Anxious to oblige, lending standards were rendered obsolete by banks and S&Ls, teaser rates became the rage, and with the exception of the homeless, everyone was able to obtain a mortgage, whether qualified or not.

Prices of homes skyrocketed and allowed owner to borrow against their equity. This in turn led to increased spending and GDP growth.

Down payment anyone? Oh, never mind. Just sign on the dotted line and we'll take care of the rest.

Credit cards were issued to everyone, qualified or not. Teenagers were also a preferred target given that they love shopping, say "charge it" and present the bill to mom and dad. In short, no one was immune from the credit card assault and the debt loads on both, the economy and the consumer, continued growing.

If these totally irresponsible actions were not bad enough, the arrival of Wall Street on the scene made a bad situation much, much worse. By engaging in their favorite sport, namely, deadly "Games People Play" with derivatives, they triggered a major financial crisis that is presently being played out in the U.S., and to a lesser degree, overseas.

While it is true that the use of derivatives (options and futures) can be very profitable, it is also true that they can lead to enormous losses, as is presently the case. These are the actions that led to the sub-prime mess that affected and infected U.S. debt markets to the point they are practically frozen.

By "bundling" mortgages that included "the good, the bad, and the ugly" and selling this tainted merchandise both at home and abroad, many foreign institutions have also suffered major losses.

While no one knows the precise nature and or extent of derivatives on their books, they are rumored to be in the trillions. Hence, it should not come as a surprise that the value of the dollar has dropped precipitously of late.

Presently, pressure on Fed Chairman Bernanke to lower interest rates, once again, has reached a crescendo and he seems ready to oblige on Dec. 11th or earlier. Whether lower rates will solve the problem is yet to be determined.

According to financial "experts," it is the only way to normalize a financial system that has run amok, given that well-functioning debt markets are at the very core of capitalism.

It's a classic case of GREED trumping rational thought....

The History of Two Markets

2007-11-29T08:47:00.000-05:00

To say that markets are nervous these days, is an understatement.

With oil reaching the $100 mark, the sub-prime mess weighing on markets, commodities at very high prices, the housing market in the doldrums and the dollar on life support, the question then becomes: Why invest in equities at a time of so much turbulence?

Answer: Because we are living in extraordinary times in terms of global economic development, as large nations such as China, India, Russia and others embrace capitalism and with it the potential for enormous economic growth in the years to come.

Result: The history of two markets.

At a time that many sectors in U.S. markets must be avoided in the short run (housing, finance, retail), others must be embraced (industrials, minerals, energy, technology, drillers) given their potential for continued profits.

Given the drop in the dollar of late, America is on sale as far as foreign buyers are concerned. Hence, goods exported by large U.S. corporations (Boeing, GE, oil drillers, cyber-retailers and others) are doing very well as they overseas profits are translated into dollars.

In short, selectivity is the name of the game as far as equity investments.

To sit and watch the unprecedented growth in a large portion of the globe would be a major mistake given its enormous potential.

Sure, stocks swing widely at times given that investors are either too anxious to join the party at any cost, or allow fear to trump reason when bad news come to the fore.

The intelligent investor tries to avoid both, fear and greed, by tailoring a portfolio of companies that are growing earnings in timely sectors, both abroad and at home.

A portfolio that does not include foreign stocks these days, is doomed to under-perform given that the S&P is largely unchanged year to date. Hence, an investment in an S&P index fund would also be largely unchanged.

Conversely, a portfolio largely tilted toward foreign equities that trade on the NY stock exchange and NASDAQ in the form of ADRs, have yielded gains of 50% to 100%, depending of the ratio of foreign to domestic stocks in the portfolio.

For those who prefer to invest in mutual funds, the advent of FTFs (exchange traded funds) is a welcomed change given that these funds trade like stocks and can be bought and sold at the click of a mouse. In addition, ETFs can be found for all sectors and or exchanges, say, the Great China Fund that covers "A" shares in the mainland that are listed in Shanghai, or the "H" shares that trade in Hong Kong and are, generally, less costly.

However, since nothing goes up in a straight line, taking profits as equities advance too fast is recommended given that a profit is not a profit until it has been taken. The patient investor will wait until these stocks have corrected (they always do), at which time he may want to jump back in and ride the next leg up, assuming that particular company is still of interest.

As they say...no one has ever gone broke by taking profits....

And finally, had the Administration embraced free trade, even with nations such as Iraq, as opposed to wasting lives and treasure by launching an UNprovoked war, the dollar would not be in the cellar nor would our national debt have grown exponentially during the past seven years.

After all, if we can do business with China, a Communist nation, why not do business with the rest of the world, regardless of leadership, given that it is precisely free trade that can trigger major change within those governments?

Better Late than Never....

2007-11-27T13:59:00.000-05:00

It took roughly seven years for Mr. Bush to become interested in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

That this conflict was at the root of the reasons the U.S. is resented in the region has been obvious to every serious observer. Coupled with the presence of U.S. troops on Arab/Muslim lands, it has led to what has been called the "war of all wars" by the Bush administration.

Why they would accord bin Laden the "honor" of having triggered the "war of all wars," is a mystery that only Bush-Cheney can explain. After all, he had a relatively small following when he launched the attack on 9/11 while he presently has an enormous following not only in the Middle East but also in many other nations.

Reason: Policies pursued by the Administration that have been highly counterproductive.

So, as they say, better late than never...only by attacking and resolving the ROOT CAUSES that lead to resentment and hatred, can the "war of all wars" be brought to a successful conclusion.

Needless to say, skepticism prevails as the conference presently being held in Annapolis with participation of Israelis, Arabs and others is opened for business.

But, who knows...miracles do happen on occasion and most observers will be happy to give the parties the benefit of the doubt.

Should a positive result emerge after decades of bloody entanglements, the world will surely applaud, and Mr. Bush will have one feather in his cap that is peaceful, as opposed to the other bloody feathers he has rightly been tarred with as the world looked on in horror at his inept leadership.

Blogging about Blogs....

2007-11-27T13:08:00.000-05:00

What is it that makes blogs unique, interesting or uninteresting?

And why is it that millions are engaged in an activity that was, just a very few years ago unknown, and has recently exploded?

It's obviously the inherent need that many individuals feel to communicate with others and or simply make their views known to the rest of the world.

I, for one, started blogging a few years ago but have neglected to do so of late. Admittedly, I lost interest when Bush-Cheney were SELected to occupy the Oval Office by five U.S. Supremes.

So this blog is basically posted to remind me that: a) making one's voice heard is important, particularly as we approach a new election cycle and b) because my son has been on my case and wants me to add my voice to that of millions of others concerned about the future of our nation as well as the future of mother earth.

Therefore, I hereby declare that I will try to blog at least once a day to: a) help change the direction that our nation has been dragged in for the past seven years and b) turn my son into a happy camper as he reads the "words of wisdom" posted by his mom.

Will Iran become Bush's "Eastern Front?"

2007-01-20T04:09:00.000-05:00

In an article published in today's NYTimes titled "Leading Senator Assails President Over Iran Stance," Sen. John D. Rockefeller Iv, chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, wars that the Administration is getting ever closer to a military confrontation with Iran:

Mr. Rockefeller was biting in his criticism of how President Bush has dealt with the threat of Islamic radicalism since the Sept 11 attacks, saying he believed that the campaign against international terrorism was "still a mystery" to the president.

I don't think he understands the world, Mr. Rockefeller said. "I don't think he's particularly curious about the world. I don't think he reads like he says he does.

That is, in a nutshell, the reason the Administration's policies have served to promote rather than combat terrorism.

The arrogance and petulance displayed by Cheney-Bush and their neoconservative cohorts in their dealings with the rest of the world are in and by themselves a barrier that inevitably leads to growing resentment and hatred that translates into growing terrorism.

While it is true that the Administration's policies are largely devised by Cheney and his neoconservative buddies, the ultimate responsibility for the irresponsibility of these war mongers and their right-wing Israeli cohorts rests with Bush.

Some Democrats have suggested that Mr. Bush's speech was the beginning of a meticulously choreographed campaign to demonize Iran, much the way the administration built its public case against Iraq.

There is every indication that the Administration has indeed decided to engage in this process much as it did before dragging our nation into an unprovoked war in Iraq that resulted in such an enormous failure.

Fortunately, control of Congress has reverted into Democratic hands. One can only hope that they can stop the nuts sitting in the White House from wreaking more havoc around the globe...before it is too late.

The latest diplomatic effort by Bushites...

2007-01-15T07:41:00.000-05:00

The latest diplomatic effort by Bushites seems specifically designed to drag the whole region into major sectarian conflicts.

Fear mongering is, once again, at the very core of the strategy adopted by Cheney-Bush-neocons as they proceed with their "surge" in U.S. troops in Iraq, a surge that will, most likely, lead to an even larger civil war.

In fact, the latest diplomatic efforts in the region, if implemented, would drag Iraq's neighbors into civil wars that have yet to unfold.

Given the failur of the Cheney-Bush-neocon plan to restructure the Middle East in their image, a new approach is seemingly in the works that would transform the Israeli-Palestinian conflict into a Palestinian-Palestinian civil war and the Arab/Muslim-U.S./Israeli conflict into a Sunni-Shiite confrontation encompassing the whole region.

That seems to be the message Condi Rice is charged with in her present visit to the region, albeit not one that will be spelled out overtly to her hosts or promulgated publicly.

It will be interesting to note the reaction of so-called moderate states to her plan, as she points out the growing influence of Iran in the region in an attempt to drag Sunni majority nations such as Egypt, Jordan, Saudi Arabia and Kuwait into the mess Bushites triggered in Iraq.

Should she succeed in her efforts, it won't take long for the whole region to go up in flames with dire consequences for the world at large given the reliance of industrialized nation on oil imports from the region.

Desperate Administration officials are well aware that time is running out for them to claim "victory in their unprovoked war, given that support is at an all time low and...rapidly dropping.

Consequently, rather that withdrawing U.S. forces from Iraq, they are seemingly willing to drag the whole region into their mess, regardless of consequences.

As Bush has said repeatedly, actions taken today will be judged in historical terms as having been "necessary to bring "democracy" to the region. The fact that for democracy to flourish it must grow from within, is totally ignored by the right-wing powers-that-be.

The fact that U.S. meddling in the Middle East is almost universally resented and rejected is also immaterial as far as U.S./Israeli leaders are concerned.

There is, of course, a rational course of action but it is not one that right-wingers are likely to pursue:

a) allow the establishment of a viable Palestinian state with E. Jerusalem as its capital in order to remove a major bone of contention in the region; b) take unilateral steps (to accelerate the process) to disengage from the West Bank and remove all roadblocks so that Palestinians can see progress and demand an end to attacks on Israel by extremists; c) engage in direct talks with friend and foe alike (Iran and Syria) given that leaders in the region react positively when treated with respect and negatively when treated as "evildoers;" d) withdraw U.S. troops from Arab/Muslim lands given that their presently is a major source of resentment (how would we like foreign troops stationed in, say, TX, CA, ND and VA?); e) stop comparing the present situation to the 1930s and WWII at which time nukes were non-existent and the U.S. was not in a position to respond with overwhelming force, if necessary.

Yes, I am well aware that individuals who suffer from greed and paranoia are not likely to take such a rational course of action. After all, to do so they would have to answer the question "why do they hate us?" honestly, something they are not willing to do.

Instead, their hypocritical stance and double standards will continue to breed ever-growing contempt from the world at large.

Reminder: You can NOT fool most of the people...all of the time.

"Neoconservatives" gain the upper hand...again

2007-01-11T05:34:00.000-05:00

Never mind public opinion...never mind a congressional majority opposed to troop "surge"...never mind world opinion...never mind the view of the Iraq Study Group...never mind the view of high ranking military...never mind the loss of life and treasure....

Cheney-Bush-neocons and their right-wing Israeli cohorts "know best." Period.

Consequently, the final decision was made by individuals in the White House and TelAviv who are determined to continue digging the same hole as was made clear by our "fearless leader" in his address to the nation last night.

So, the massacre will continue unabated and Iraqis will continue suffering as a result of plans devised by a bunch of greedy individuals determined to gain access to the Iraq's oil infrastructure (as promised by Cheney to his buddies in the energy sector) and those who dislike Israel's neighbors and are determined to restructure the whole Middle East in their image (right-wing Israelis).

Yes, Condi will be traveling to the Middle East to "reignite" the Israeli-Palestinian peace process if for no other reason than put on a show that will lead....nowhere.

After six years and enormous costs, both in lives and treasure, the great majority of Americans have finally reached the conclusion that following blindly an individual who is clearly not up to the challenge of our times is NOT a good idea.

In the era of globalization and instant communication, using the military to force democracy on a given nation by triggering an unprovoked war, is a waste of humongous proportions.

Hopefully, on of these days Americans will realize that the war mongers who dragged us into this war should be thrown into the dust bin of history, given the enormous damage they have done to our nation and the world.

Greenspan to the rescue....

2007-01-06T06:34:00.000-05:00

Of all the outrageous statements emanating from the White House, Bush's claim that economic growth and growing tax revenue is a direct result of his tax cuts is one of the most misleading.

What is invariably left out of the equation when this issue is addressed is the intervention of the FED, led by Alan Greenspan, who cut Fed funds time and time again until the system was flush with liquidity.

Amazingly, this little fact of life is rarely brought up by the opposition when Republicans make the outrageous claim that their tax cuts were THE major factor in promoting economic growth.

Yes, tax cuts did promote growth but... growth was in the national DEBT!

From an editorial published in the Wash Post titled "Mr. Bush is Oblivious to the Consequences of his Tax Cuts:"

PRESIDENT BUSH wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed Wednesday that "it is also a fact that our tax cuts have fueled robust economic growth and record revenues." The claim about fueling record revenue is flat wrong, and it is shocking that the president should persist in making such errors. After all, tax cuts are the central plank of his domestic policy. How can he fail to understand the basic facts about them?
This is not just our opinion. Harvard's N. Gregory Mankiw, an economic conservative who served as chairman of Mr. Bush's Council of Economic Advisers, has tested the hypothesis on which Mr. Bush's claim is based: He looked at the extent to which tax cuts stimulate extra growth and the extent to which that growth generates extra tax revenue that offsets the initial loss of revenue from the tax cut. Mr. Mankiw's conclusion: Even over the long term, once you've allowed all of the extra growth to feed through into extra revenue, cuts in capital taxes juice the economy enough to recoup half of the lost revenue, and cuts in income taxes deliver a boost that recoups 17 percent of the lost revenue. So a $100 billion cut in taxes on capital widens the budget deficit by $50 billion, and a $100 billion cut in income taxes widens the budget deficit by $83 billion.

It doesn't take a brain surgeon to realize that as the national debt grows the cost of servicing it grows exponentially. Were it not for foreign nationals, such as the Chinese and Saudis who, so far, have been willing to buy our bonds, interest rates in the U.S. would be much higher.

The question then becomes: How long will we rely on the good will of foreigners to do so? And, assuming the dollar continues tanking, how long will they be willing to continue subsidizing our economy?

Hopefully, now that Democrats are in charge of Congress, Americans will be told the truth before it is too late.

If there is one thing we should have learned during the past six years is that members of the Bush administration specialize in deception, both in the foreign or domestic arenas.

"Arabs are not Westerners?" No kiddin"....

2007-01-01T09:38:00.000-05:00

What I find most amusing in Dana's response to my post is its title: "What our liberal friends simply don't realize: the Arabs are not Westerners and don't think like Western liberals."

No kiddin'Dana...:-) Actually, what you still fail to grasp is that they don't think as Westerners. Period.

I've made that point over and over and over again during our chats, for roughly ten years. That you would choose my words in a belated recognition of the importance that taking foreign customs and cultures into consideration when preparing for war, is indeed encouraging.

Unfortunately,your "fearless leaders" in the White House and their neoconservative cohorts are still living under the delusion that this bloody conflict can be resolved militarily given that they are seemingly convinced that a "surge" in U.S. troops will accomplish what has not been accomplished during the past three years.

After nine months of study, the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group had reached a rational conclusion, namely, that it was time for Iraqis to complete the task in what had clearly become a civil war with U.S. troops playing the role of "referees."

However, all indications are that their suggestions will be summarily rejected and that hawkish neoconservatives will gain the upper hand, once again, as more U.S. "referees" are introduced into Iraq to be shot at from all sides.

As for the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian saga, it will continue to provoke resentment and hatred in the region unless it is resolved given that the daily humiliation of Palestinians is seen by Arabs/Muslims as the humiliation of them all.

Individuals who must wait for hours at roadblocks, a wall that cuts through their lands, thousands of prisoners in Israeli jails, monies owed them and not delivered and on and on and on.

For a Jewish theocracy to be accepted and flourish in the Arab/Muslim world, the establishment of a viable Palestinian state with E. Jerusalem as its capital is a must, regardless of what Christian evangelicals such as Dana may have in mind regarding "God's Chosen People's" role in the upcoming Apocalypse followed by the "Second Coming."

That Arabs/Muslims harbor resentment toward Jewish Israelis is understandable given that they see the eviction of Palestinians from their homes as punishment for a crime they did not commit, namely, the Holocaust.

If I were evicted from my home and shoved into a refugee camp to make room for, say, Muslims, I would feel the same resentment and hatred.

The question then becomes: Why is that so difficult to understand?

If I were Prime Minister of Israel, I would order all roadblocks removed immediately as well as the settlements that stand in the way of a viable Palestinian state. Jewish occupants would have a choice of moving to Israel proper or to another country of their choice at government expense.

Once Palestinians can see a true light at the end of the tunnel, as opposed to never-ending talk, the great majority of them would turn against the extremists among them and peaceful coexistence would -- finally -- erupt.

Given Israeli expertise in many fields, close cooperation with Palestinians would transform both nations into the center of a flourishing region. Nations that comprise the Arab League would recognize Israel diplomatically and a whole continent would open its doors to trade and investments.

What I would suggest is: TRY IT...you may indeed LIKE IT!

Bush, "The Manchurian Candidate?"

2006-12-29T11:33:00.000-05:00

As the Bush Administration prepares to release its latest strategy to turn tragedy into "triumph" in Iraq, all indications are that the lessons of Vietnam have been for naught.

The view that a "surge" in U.S. troops would lead to "victory" is strongly supported by individuals such as Sen. Lieberman, who has dual allegiances to Israel and the U.S. (in that order).

Given that right-wing Israelis and their U.S. "neoconservative" cohorts were instrumental in driving the U.S. into an unprovoked war, their continued influence can be felt as Cheney and Bush simply ignore the suggestions presented by the bipartisan Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group, as well as many other influential voices, both Democratic and Republican.

Not only are neoconservatives, such as Frank Gaffney, determined to continue destroying Iraq, but, as he stated on CNN yesterday, they are now convinced that the U.S. must also take on Iran militarily.

In short, the dream of neoconservatives and right-wing Israelis to restructure the Middle East in their image is alive and well. I suspect they won't be satisfied until the whole region goes up in flames, if that is what it takes for Israel's survival.

The fact that such a hawkish approach is most definitely NOT in the U.S.'s best interests (nor Israel's for that matter), seems to escape these arrogant, greedy individuals who are, rightly, universally despised.

The result of the implementation of their failed policies is the topic of an article by Robert Buzzanco, Professor of History at the University of Houston, who writes "Is Bush the Manchurian Candidate?" in which he describes the damage done by the Administration in vivid color:

If enemies of the United States had gotten together a few years ago to devise a plan to damage and undermine its global position-diminish its power and credibility, drag it into a stubborn war, harm its relations with allies, create international financial disarray, run up huge deificts, create political openings for the Europeans and China to exploit and become equals in global economic matters, motivate terrorists, bring the U. S. image in the Middle East to its nadir, restrict civil liberties at home, and so forth--they would have been hard-pressed to create a program that would be more effective than the Bush administration's policies on these issues of war, terrorism and global economics have.

Mr. Buzzanco proceeds to recall what could have been:

In the immediate aftermath of 9/11 the United States had the sympathy and respect of much of the world. The outpouring of goodwill was unprecedented in the post-Vietnam period, and the United States stood alone as a military and economic power. When Bush responded in the September attacks a month later with the invasion of Afghanistan, where al Qaeda leaders were hiding out, the world community and the U.S. populace supported him.

But beginning in mid-2002, when he returned to his obsession with Iraq, the worm began to turn. Using politicized intelligence and outright lies, the Bush administration, congress and the media all went along with the invasion of Iraq, beginning in March 2003. Consequently, in what we can not see was a remarkably short time, the amity and power accrued after 9/11 melted away.

Once support from the world community dissipated, the U.S. found itself "twisting slowly in the wind" with the sole support of Tony-the-Poodle and Sharon/Olmert.

The amazingly bad judgment of Cheney-Bush and their neoconservative cohorts will be remembered as one of the darkest moments in U.S. history. Warnings from friendly governments, both in Europe and the Middle East, were totally ignored as the Administration proceeded to implement the "Project for the New American Century," developed by neoconservatives and rejected by President Clinton.

Unfortunately, the Administration is seemingly determined to continue digging deeper and deeper a hole, which makes it all that much harder to climb out of in the end.

Will Bush invade Iran to save his personal legacy?

2006-12-25T14:04:00.000-05:00

I agree with Mark Parent who writes:

But Bush can’t stop now. He figures his legacy as a disgrace to America and all mankind can be postponed or perhaps somehow even reversed if he could have just a little more time.

Time for what? Could it be that Bush truly intends to carry out the full neoconservative program in the Middle East, complete with more regime changes?

Could spreading his most spectacular failure to Iran and Syria make Iraq seem merely a “catastrophic success“? Are even Bush and Cheney stupid enough to think an air war against Iran will accomplish anything other than forcing their withdrawal from the Treaty on the Non Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons, pushing their rebellious populace back into the arms of the Mullahs, driving the price of oil over $200 a barrel and beginning a brand new war in Iraq against the Iran-friendly Shia whom the U.S. has spent hundreds of thousands of lives and hundreds of billions of dollars installing in power?

The thought that Cheney-Bush and their neoconservative cohorts might attack yet another Muslim nation would strike me as a bad joke were it not for the fact that these individuals have shown such incompetence and bad judgment during the past six years. Nothing would surprise me.

The rational suggestions proposed by the Baker-Hamilton Iraq Study Group have seemingly been totally rejected by the "know-it-alls" in the White House, according to the latest news coming from Condi Rice and her bosses.

Instead of talking to Iran, a fleet of U.S. navy ships was dispatched to its neighborhood. I wonder what we would do if Iran parked its warships on our coasts.

Instead of replying to two long letters sent by the Iranian President, one to Bush and one to the American people, the word from the White House is: We won't reply because they know what they MUST DO!

Obviously, members of the Administration have yet to learn that the words MUST DO will, invariably, achieve the opposite result to the one desired, given the arrogance implied in those words.

The question then becomes: Will Democrats sit by, once again, and allow another tragedy to develop right in front of their noses?

We can only hope that, once in control of Congress, Democrats will find the pants they took off six years ago and...wear them.

Yes, Hillary has relatively strong negatives, but....

2006-12-22T07:58:00.000-05:00

Can't you just see Hillary and Bill flanking Obama, her chosen V.P., on the campaign trail?

I suspect that combining experience with charm would be a winning combination.

Doubtless, Bill would be an asset to Hillary if she decides to run, particularly as the striking difference between his successful presidency is compared to Bush's failures.

As U.S. representative to the U.N., he would be in his element.

Obama, while not ready for prime time after just two short years in the Senate, would indeed be a major assetto the ticket should he settle for #2. His low key approach with emphasis on bi-partisanship would be applauded, particularly after roughly 20 years of growing, visceral party estrangement.

Needless to say, it would be a history-making event and would, most likely, meet with the approval of the majority of Americans who are aching for change.

"Humiliation," key to Arab/Muslim resentment

2006-12-22T06:58:00.000-05:00

In an article entitled "Mideast Rules to Live By," Tom Friedman addresses an issue that is usually ignored by U.S. government officials, particularly those of the Cheney-Bush administration: humiliation of Arab/Muslims, given that it is at the very core of the relationships between East and West.

Mr. Friedman writes:

"Rule 11: The most underestimated emotion in Arab politics is humiliation. The Israeli-Arab conflict, for instance, is not just about borders. Israel's mere existence is a daily humiliation to Muslims, who can't understand how, if they have the superior religion, Israel can be so powerful. Al Jazeera's editor, Ahmed Sheickh, said it best when he recently told the Swiss weekly Die Weltwoche: "It gnaws at the people in the Middle East that such a small country as Israel, with only about seven million inhabitants, can defeat the Arab nation with its 350 million. That hurts our collective ego. The Palestinian problem is in the genes of every Arab. The West's problem is that it does not understand this."

I have made this point for as long as I can remember, given its importance in dealing with proud people who have indeed been humiliated time and time again, humiliation that reached a crescendo when arrogant supreme, Cheney-Bush, assumed power.

The damage done by this lack of sensitivity to foreign customs and cultures, has played a key role in promoting terrorism.

Given that promoting terrorism should NOT be our objective, one can only wonder why our "fearless leaders" insist on treating Arab/Muslims with such contempt.

Not only have Arab/Muslims been used as U.S. proxies to "maintain the balance of power" in the region but they also paid a very high price for the Holocaust as hundreds of thousands of Palestinians were evicted from their homes and forced to live in refugee camps to this day.

And, is it any wonder that resentment flourishes as U.S. troops encircle the region and establish military bases on their lands?

I can just hear the outcry in our nation should a foreign power establish military bases on our soil. Obviously, we would not tolerate such an incursion into a sovereign state.

That brings to mind the following dictum: "Do unto others as you would want others do unto you."

It's really not that complicated when you think about it....

Rumsfeld: "Perception of U.S. weakness is provocative"

2006-12-16T04:57:00.000-05:00

In his farewell speech, Donald Rumsfeld warns that "perception of U.S. weakness is provocative:"

"Today, it should be clear that not only is weakness provocative," Mr. Rumsfeld said, standing at a lectern with President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney as his side, "but the perception of weakness on our part can be provocative as well."

As Bill Clinton would say: It all depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

Is a nation that spends roughly half a TRILLION a year on defense, more than all other nations combined, perceived as weak? And, if so, by whom?

Or, is the presence on foreign soil of a nation with overwhelming military power viewed as provocative?

The correct answer to that question has been missed by the Cheney-Bush-neocon administration all along as it embarked on an unprovoked war on Iraq designed to restructure the whole Middle East in its image.

Had the Administration focused its attention intently on Afghanistan where the culprits of 9/11 resided, the result would have been, most likely, a picture of progress that the world would have embraced and would have made Americans proud.

But, that was not to be. Instead, hawkish ideologues in the U.S. and Israel known as "neoconservatives" were embraced by Cheney-Bush and the world looked on in horror as thousands of bombs and missiles were dropped on Baghdad in an unprovoked assault designed to "shock and awe" the world:

"Present in the crowd were some of the former hawks with whom he planned the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq: Paul D. Wolfowitz, his former deputy, and Douglas J. Feith, his under secretary for defense policy. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, his frequent rival in Mr. Bush's cabinet, did not attend."

Admittedly they did achieve their objective in that the world was indeed SHOCKED and the goodwill shown toward the U.S. evaporated almost instantly.

That everything went down hill from there has been widely documented. Rumsfeld was "correct" as it proved that "weakness is provocative," given that action/inaction in Iraq painted just such a picture of weakness.

The Cheney-Bush administration will go down in history as the most incompetent in modern times given that, had it restricted its efforts to Afghanistan, it could have shown the world what the U.S. can achieve with the cooperation of the global community.

That it chose Baghdad as "the route that leades to Jerusalem" when the opposite is true, is a tragedy of enormous proportions.

And, finally, to add insult to injury, the following words from Dick Cheney during the farewell ceremony:

"Mr. Cheney's declaration that "Don Rumsfeld is the finest secretary of defense the nation has ever had," was more in keeping with the event."

One can only wonder which planet these individuals inhabit. It surely is not planet Earth

When the balance of power hangs by a thread....

2006-12-14T07:32:00.000-05:00

News on this Thursday morning are alarming, as far as Democrats are concerned.

Wire services inform us that Tim Johnson, Democratic Senator from South Dakota, has undergone what seems to be emergency brain surgery.

Leaving aside the human element of this story for the moment, should the Senator be unable to fulfill his job, the Governor, a Republican, would choose his replacement. Needless to say, it is expected that his replacement would be a Republican.

Assuming this scenario to play out, the Senate would be evenly divided (50-50) and Cheney, of all people, would have the tie-breaking vote.

I suspect that Democrats would not cave silently to such an unexpected turn of events, particularly since every poll indicates that the great majority of Americans are aching for change in leadership.

The thought that Cheney, one of the most despised hawks in government, would be tie-breaker, adds insult to injury should this course of events play out.

Finally an honest answer to the question: Why do they hate us?

2006-12-12T10:35:00.000-05:00

Question: How would we like a foreign power to establish military bases on our soil, say, in Texas, N. Dakota, California and Virginia?

Answer: We would not tolerate it.

The question then becomes: Why should foreign powers be expected to tolerate U.S. military presence on their soil?

Answer: They shouldn't.

The following article addresses this issue and provides a rational answer to the question: Why do they hate us?

Unfortunately, honest answers to difficult questions were never even considered by the Cheney-Bush-neocon cabal. Instead, they charged into not one but two Arab/Muslim nations with the intent of restructuring the whole region in their image.

That such a misguided policy was predetermined to fail was obvious to every observer even vaguely familiar with historical precedent.

Therefore, the conclusion reached by the authors is, by far, the most intelligent and pragmatic assessment of the situation presently unfolding in the Middle East:

"The Iraq war is now a painful failure for the United States. One silver lining brightens that gray backdrop. The Iraq debacle creates and opportunity to reassess longstanding policies that would otherwise be too difficult to change and prompts us to rethink the premises of the United States military policy toward the Persian Gulf region. The best way to increase our security and the stability of that troubled region is, paradoxically, to drastically reduce our military precense there."

Sadly, as long as bullies Cheney-Bush continue in the White House, U.S. foreign policy will continue on the same highly counterproductive road and the world will become an ever-more dangerous place due to their incredible incompetence and arrogance.

Following is the article in its entirety:

New York Times - Published December 12, 2006

Time to Offshore Our Troops by Eugene Gholz, Daryl G. Press and Benjamin Valentino

The Iraq Study Group's recommendation that the United States withdraw its combat forces from Iraq reflects a growing national consensus that our military cannot quell the violence there and may even be making matters worse. Although many are hailing this recommendation as a bold new course, it is not bold enough. America will best serve its interests in the Persian Gulf by withdrawing its ground-based military forces not only from Iraq, but from the entire region.

Critics of the report continue to debate the wisdom and details of a drawdown in Iraq, but there has been no debate about America's broader strategy in the gulf. Policymakers and analysts from across the political spectrum assume that the United States must maintain a robust military presence there.

The bipartisan authors of the report, for example, advocate maintaining "a considerable military presence in the region" including "powerful air, ground and naval deployments in Kuwait, Bahrain and Qatar" even after the last American combat troops leave Iraq. Others -- including Donal Rumsfeld and Hillary Clinton -- go further and consider strengthening our forces around the gulf by shifting some troops from Iraq to neighboring countries.

Maintaining a large military presence in the region has been the cornerstone of American policy since the 1991 Persian Gulf war, and remains so today. With the Iraq war, we now have tens of thousands of troops elsewhere in the neighborhood.

But the strategy is flawed. In fact, many of the same considerations that led the Iraq Study Group to call for withdrawal of combat forces from Iraq suggest that the Unites States should withdraw its troops from neighboring states as well -- leaving only naval forces offshore in international waters. As in Iraq, a large United States military footprint on the ground undermines American interests more than it protects them.

Just as our troops on Iraqi streets haves provided a rallying point for the insurgency, the United States military presence throughout the region has been a key element in Al Qaeda's recruitment campaign and propaganda. If America withdrew from Iraq but left behind substantial forces in neighboring states, Al Qaeda would refocus its attacks on American troops in those countries -- remember the 1996 bombing of the Khobar Towers in Saudi Arabia?

Worse, the continued presence of our military personnel across the region will continue to incite extremists to attack American cities. Osama bin Laden repeated stated that the presence of American forces on the holy ground of the Arabian Peninsula was a primary reason for 9/11.

Our presence also destabilizes our important regional allies. Not only do American bases make these countries a target for terrorists, but many of their citizens bristle at the sight of Unites States bases on their soil. Indeed, the most serious near-term threat to our energy interests is the overthrow of friendly governments by domestic Islamic extremists, a danger that is increased by the presence of our troops.

The good news is that the United States does not need to station military forces on the ground in the Persian Gulf contries to protect its allies or to secure its vital oil interests. For nearly 30 years, Pentagon planners have focuses on two principal threats in the gulf: the conquest of major oil reserves (by the Soviet Union or a regional power like Iraq or Iran) and interference with shipping through Persian Gulf waters, particularly through the Straight of Hormuz. Forces stationed "over the horizon" -- afloat in the Indian Ocean and at bases outside the Middle East -- can address both threats.

By remaining a strong naval presence in the Indian Ocean, along with some naval forces in the international waters of the Persian Gulf itself, the United States would be able to thwart an invasion of any gulf oil producer. Long-range American aircraft stationed at Diego Garcia, an island in the Indian Ocean, could contribute as well. Should more substantial threats arise, those air and naval forces would buy time for ground forces and land-based aircraft to return to bases in the region.

This is the same strategy that the United States used to defend the Persian Gulf during the later years of the cold war. It would be even more effective now. Today's adversaries have considerable less offensive military power than 15 years ago: the Soviet Union is gone; two wars with the United States have destroyed Iraq's offensive capacity; and Iran's poorly trained and ill-equipped ground forces have grown even more obsolete.

While the threats have withered, new technology has vastly increased American military capabilities. Today, aircraft carrier strike groups can carry hundreds of precision land-attack cruise missiles in addition to their complement of aircraft (which also drop precision weapons). And long-range Air Force bombers are now far more lethal against ground targets, particularly targets advancing across highways and open desert.

Yes, there are limits to our military might. America's vast firepower is ill suited for policing the streets of Baghdad, or forcing Sunnis, Shiites and Kurds to get along in Iraq. But our modern weapons could easily halt an Iraqi or Iranian invasion in its tracks.

Protecting the flow of oil through narrow shipping lanes in the gulf is a more difficult mission. But responding to Iranian mines or cruise-missile attacks on oil tankers would not require ground forces or land-based aircraft to be stationed in the Persian Gulf during peacetime. In fact, in a war in the Strait of Hormuz, American operations would be carried out largely by submarines, surface ships and naval aircraft -- all of which could be stationed in the Indian Ocean during peacetime.

There are, of course, other threats to American interests in the region. Terrorists could damage key oil fields and ports, or friendly governments in the gulf could be toppled by anti-American extremists. These concerns, however, do not justify peacetime forward deployment. Unites States allies play the primary role defending their own oil fields and safeguarding their internal security, and their forces are better suited for the job. If anything, the presence of "infidel" soldiers nearby increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks and political upheaval.

This does not mean the United States can withdraw all its military from the region tomorrow. As the Iraq Study Group persuasively argues, forces will be needed in Iraq during a transition to train Iraqi troops, to guard against threats to topple the government in Baghdad, and to strike at any newly discovered Al Qaeda threats. But these missions can be conducted from a small number of temporary Iraqi bases in remote parts of the country, where the American soldiers would be less visible and less vulnerable.

The Iraq war is now a painful failure for the United States. One silver lining brightens that gray backdrop. The Iraq debacle creates an opportunity to reassess longstanding policies that would otherwise be too difficult to change and prompts us to rethink the premises of Unites States military policy toward the Persian Gulf region. The best way to increase our security and the stability of that troubled region is, paradoxically, to drastically reduce our military presence there."

As a long-time advocate of precisely such a strategy, all I can say is: I hope our "fearless leaders" in D.C. have the willingness to listen and the ability to grasp what is, by far, the most enlightened proposal made public to date.

It is precisely what Democrats should have proposed a long time ago.

79 recommendations but missing the one that would, most likely, work

2006-12-09T19:55:00.000-05:00

The Iraqi Study Group's report was released last week and was received, predictably, with loud criticism by right-wing die hards, particularly those of the "neoconservative" variety, who whined "surrender" while the left pushed for a reasonable time table for U.S. troop withdrawal from Iraq.

A large number of the Commission's suggestions is focused on diplomacy, particularly the need to engage Syria and Iran in regional dialogue. Needless to say, threats and demands, the specialty of the Bush administration, will never replace diplomacy.

Since anyone even vaguely familiar with with customs and cultures in the region was well aware that Syria and Iran would reject preconditions, one cannot help but wonder why Bushites wasted so much time.

"Dumb and Dumber" comes to mind, again, and again, and again.

With Iraq in shambles and the situation in the region rapidly deteriorating, one would think that the world community would be willing to help. But, that has obviously not been the case.

Reason: As long as Bush-Cheney-neocon cabal is in charge, leaders around the globe are willing to sit back and watch 'em "twisting slowly in the wind."

Conversely, had Sen. Kerry won the 2004 election, leaders around the globe would have rushed to the U.S.'s side for no other reason than to prove that their lack of support was not driven by anti-Americanism but simply by the arrogance of the individuals sitting in the White House.

Given the enormity of their failure, it is quite amazing that the word impeachment is not being seriously considered given that two more years of failed leadership is a very high price for our nation to pay.

The fact that President Clinton was impeached because he lied about SEX becomes even more irrational when compared to the lies and distortions of the present occupants of the White House who, so far, have escaped unscathed.

Unfortunately, the Baker-Hamilton Study Group was not in a position to suggest that what was truly needed to win the war in Iraq was wide-ranging cooperation of its neighbors as well as the whole global community given that the price to pay would have to be the resignation/ impeachment of Bush-Cheney.

Given the close association of Baker with the Bush family, such a suggestion was clearly never in the cards.

Jimmy Carter violates "taboo"

2006-12-07T10:29:00.000-05:00

If former President Jimmy Carter expected to trigger a debate, he most certainly succeeded when his latest book, "Palestine: Peace Not Apartheid," was published.

To say that the never-ending Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been an albatross around our nation's neck for decades is an understatement.

To say that individuals living in the Middle East should be willing to live and work with their neighbors is stating the obvious.

To say that this drama should have ended a long time ago given the suffering of both peoples is a fact.

That a resolution of this conflict is imperative as a precondition for peaceful coexistence in the Middle East, regardless of Mr. Olmert's protestations, as unanimously agreed by all nations in the region.

By bringing the attention of Americans to this conflict, viewed from the Palestinian perspective, President Carter made a gutsy move given that, as he stated on "Meet the Press," criticism of Israel is taboo in our nation.

Furthermore, it became increasingly clear during the past six years that U.S. foreign policy was largely devised in conjunction with Tel Aviv, particularly as it applied to the invasion of Iraq that was strongly encouraged by Sharon and right-wing members of the U.S. Jewish community, better known as "neoconservatives."

Their rationale: Israel does not like many of its neighbors and U.S. troops should get rid of their leaders. Nations such as Iraq, Iran and Syria were prominent on their list.

For a tiny nation such as Israel, living in the midst of Arab/Muslim nations, to decide that restructuring the Middle East to its liking was of the essence for its survival, can only be described as the ultimate exercise in arrogance.

While many of us would like to see changes in the region, "regime change" by military force is definitely not the answer as the enormous drama playing out in Iraq clearly proved.

Neoconservatives exercised a major influence in governmental and journalistic circles. Amazingly, their policies were embraced by Cheney-Bush until -- finally -- the results of their failed policies became clear to the great majority of Americans who expressed their views in the '06 election.

While the debate about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict has been going on for over five decades, failure to comprehend that Arabs/Muslims see in the humiliation of Palestinians the humiliation of them all, has been a major obstacle in negotiations.

Obviously, Prime Minister Olmert doesn't comprehend this fact of life given that, to this day, he would want us believe that there is no connection between the drama being played out in the region and the never-ending humiliation of Palestinians.

Unfortunately, during the past six years the Bush administration turned its back on the conflict and provided Sharon with carte blanche to do as he pleased -- just one of the innumerable mistakes that have led to the present situation in the Middle East.

The mixture of arrogance, greed and naivete displayed by Cheney-Bush and their neoconservative cohorts is truly mind boggling to those even vaguely familiar with Arab/Muslim customs and cultures.

Did these individuals really believe that they could impose "democracy" by military force given past history?

Arabs/Muslims are proud people and, when treated with arrogance they react negatively. Conversely, when treated with respect, they are very likely to respond positively.

But, that is clearly an issue that the occupants of the White House have not grasped. In fact, even after the release of the report by the Baker-Hamilton commission that made a strong case for dealing directly with Iran and Syria, Bush repeats the same preconditions that have not worked in the past and will not work in the future.

It takes a very dense individual to take actions that are so highly counterproductive.

The fact that the President of Iran has sent not one but two letters to the U.S. (one to the White House and one to the American people) is proof that Iranians are indeed interested in dialogue. But, as long as Bush sticks to his stupid preconditions, Iran will never cave.

As for President Carter, he clearly understands the urgency of settling the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as part and parcel of peaceful coexistence in the region.

Predictably, he has been the target of criticism by various Jewish individuals/institutions after the publication of his latest book given his "audacity" in criticizing Israel. One can only hope that by bringing these facts to light an honest debate will finally ensue that will accelerate the beginning of the end of this sad and bloody conflict.

Tearing down the wall Israel erected would be a great first step. In the era of globalization, living behind walls is a sure sign of defeat.

A Day to Remember....

2006-12-02T16:17:00.000-05:00

To Whom It May Concern:

You know who you are since you've been around me for quite a few years now.

But today is that special day, the day to remember....to remember the happiness when we first met, the many places we visited together, the many experiences we shared.

As time goes by and life gets shorter, memories become ever more precious as the fleetingness of life becomes ever more apparent.

If I say more than I should at times, it is because...I care. If I left a small mark in your life, I hope it's one that says...I care.

And so I tell you on this special day that it has been a great pleasure meeting you and that my thoughts are always with you wishing you the very best.

From your one and only....

Role of Cheney's "Energy Task Force" revealed?

2006-12-02T10:20:00.000-05:00

What could have been, but wasn't....

The stage was set, after the tragedy of 9/11, to achieve a major success in a part of the world that had remained largely isolated and was ruled by religious extremists whose policies dated back to the "stone age."

The world had responded to the attacks with and almost universal show of sympathy for the U.S. and a willigness to participate in what was seen as a necessary retaliation against those who had planned and implemented the attack, namely, Osama bin Laden and his sponsors, the Taliban.

Unfortunately, that was not to be since GREED rudely intruded and became the major factor that eventually led to failure.

Given its priorities, the Bush administration engaged in a half-hearted effort to oust the Taliban and go after bin Laden since their primary objective had been, since day one, the occupation of Iraq.

Result: Two tragedies instead of one success.

In an article in today's Wash Post entitled "Afghan District Makes Own Deal with Taliban," it becomes increasingly clear that neither objective has been achieved: Osama is still on the run and the Taliban was in remission and is, seemingly, on its way to full recovery.

The question then becomes: What was the Administration's rush to occupy Iraq when their full efforts should havse been devoted to Afghanistan?

Obviously, it is a question that has commanded much attention of late since the various rationales given changed drastically over time.

Hopefully, not that Democrats will be in charge of both Houses of Congress, the truth will finally emerge.

I suspect if and when they get access to transcripts of documents dealing with Cheney's Energy Task Force, much will become clear. After all, why would the V.P. go all the way to the Supreme Court and in effort to keep them under wraps?

An educated guess would lead to the conclusion that attending CEOs of energy related companies were informed at the time that they would soon have access to Iraq since the embargo would be lifted as soon as Saddam was removed from power.

Needless to say, the Administration was anxious to keep such promises from the public since Bush-Cheney were in the process of gathering "intel" that would convince the American people that launching an assault on Iraq was imperative given the "threats" posed by Saddam to his neighbor and...the world.

The fact that Saddam was not in a position to attack anyone at that point in time was obvious to anyone familiar with the facts, such as inspectors who had been on site, off and on, for years on end and had been given unchallenged access to every corner of the nation.

But, instead of allowing them to complete their job, they were hastily recalled from Iraq before they could certify that WMD were non-existent. After all, it was the LAST thing Cheney-Bush wanted to hear since preparations for war were in full swing.

What makes the actions of the Deceptive Gang so incredibly callous is their utter contempt for the many warnings they were given by individuals familiar with the complexities of the occupation of not one but two Arab/Muslim nations.

But then, GREED always has trumped reason...and tens of thousands of innocent individuals must, once again, pay for it.

Sooooo...Whodunit?

2006-11-25T19:40:00.000-05:00

Russian Israelis or Russian "Putinists?"

According to news media accounts, all signs point to "Putinists" as the culprits for the murder of Alexander V. Litvinenko, a former Russian K.G.B. officer killed by radiation poisoning in London.

However, lost in the shuffle is the fact that, while working for the K.G.B., Litvinenko had been instrumental in the investigation of so-called oligarchs, mostly Jewish Russians with Israeli connections, who had abused their power and came close to controlling the State.

One of them, Boris Berezhovsky, had appointed himself Prime Minister during the Yeltsin era. There was a minor scandal when it became known that he (like most of the oligarchs) had acquired Israeli citizenship, but he gave up his Israeli passport and everything was in order again.

These oligarchs were a tiny group of entrepreneurs who exploited the disintegration of the Soviet system to loot the treasures of the state and amass fortunes amounting to hundreds of billions of dollars including control of Yukos, the largest energy producing company in Russia.

At one point, they had almost reached their objective of taking control of the State. Eventually, it was Putin to put an end of their abuses with the incarceration of Mikhail Khodorovsky (presently in a Siberian jail) and caused others such as Vladimir Gusinsky and Boris Berezhovsky to flee to Israel and England.

How the murder of Mr. Litvinenko will eventually play out is unknown at present and it is unlikely that the truth and nothing but the truth will ever be revealed in full.

What is highly likely, however, is that his life story will become a must-see movie when it is brought to the screen.

Buenos Aires...a city where stealing has been elevated to an art

2006-11-23T22:49:00.000-05:00

"W's" daughter Barbara was just another victim of what has become a true epidemic in Buenos Aires, Argentina: theft.

I too had been to San Telmo for dinner, an older part of the city that has been rehabilitated.

Since I had lived in B.A. many years ago, I was fully aware that theft was a problem. But I had never seen anything that comes even close to the skill displayed by thieves these days or the number of thefts being reported.

On day two, I was "welcomed" with the loss of my laptop in what was a highly skilled, incredibly daring operation. About an hour later, in what was a totally separate incident, another member of our party also fell victim to thievery. He had just cashed $100 and when he got home realized that that the money was no longer in his possession.

In both cases, it was a "joint venture" operation in that one individual distracted the potential victim while the other disappeared with the loot.

Advice for anyone traveling to Argentina: BE CAREFUL...leave your laptop at home and take all precautions given that the skill displayed by these robbers was truly amazing.

Paulson and Bernake head for Beijing

2006-11-23T22:45:00.000-05:00

Be careful what you wish for....

An article in today's New York Times begins thus:

WASHINGTON, Nov. 22 — Treasury Secretary Henry M. Paulson Jr. has enlisted Ben S. Bernanke, the Federal Reserve chairman, to join an unusual delegation of cabinet members to China next month that will press for changes in Chinese economic policies long criticized by the administration and Congress, officials said Wednesday.

Wow! With the heavy artillery en route to Beijing, the Chinese leadership must be quaking in its boots.

Since U.S. interest rates have remained relatively low even in the face of 17 rate hikes by the Fed, due in large part to cheap imports from China and other rapidly developing nations, one cannot help but wonder what effect pressure by the U.S. to accelerate the reevaluation of China's currency will have on inflation and, ultimately, interest rates.

As usual, U.S. demands are one-sided. Again, quoting the Times:

Because China exports far more than it imports, it has piled up reserves of foreign currencies that are expected to approach $1 trillion in coming months. China owns several hundred million dollars in American-denominated debt and may be eager to use its reserves to purchase American companies, a step that faces resistance in Congress.

Needless to say, U.S. companies have moved in force into China and are, increasingly, taking stakes in Chinese corporations.

Again, from the Times:

But criticism of the Chinese has not been limited to the Democrats. Many Republicans in Congress have assailed China for its military spending, and the administration says China has fallen short in helping to defuse crises in Iran, North Korea and Sudan.

This at a time when Bush-Cheney and their right-wing cohorts are spending roughly half a trillion dollars a year for defense.

What would you do if you ran China?

Charlie Rangel's exercise in awareness

2006-11-23T09:22:00.000-05:00

Well aware that re-instituting the draft is an exercise in futility at this point in U.S. history, the question then becomes: Why is he stickin' out his neck and inviting criticism by proposing an issue that is almost universally opposed?

All indications are that his is a remainder to the American people that the issue of 'fairness' should be considered at this crucial time.

After roughly six years of GOP "occupation," the rich have grown super-rich due to Greenspan's generosity (cheap money) and tax cuts that favored the investment class. A glance at Wall Street tells the whole story as private investors, flush with cash, swallow public companies and "flip" them over making zillions in the process. But, I digress....

Much more outrageous is the fact that our nation was dragged into an unprovoked war, fought largely by those who can't afford to buy even one share of Google, let alone invest in one of the many hedge funds that have sprung up during this euphoric "wealth creation" for...the wealthiest among us.

To find a son or daughter, of those who most strongly advocated war on Iraq, volunteering for this battle is next to impossible since their parents would do whatever it takes to keep them safe at home.

After all, who would inherit the great wealth our "fearless leaders" are accumulating with their investments in, say, the Carlyle Group where earning "blood money" has been the order of the day?

As the gap between rich and poor in our nation becomes increasingly embarrassing, one can only hope that decent individuals, such as Charlie Rangel, continue speaking out if for no other reason than to point out that FAIRNESS is indeed still an American issue.

Charlie would like rich people to feel the pain, too.

Time is running out...Where to from here?

2006-11-20T13:36:00.000-05:00

Will the "Iraq Study Group" set up by "W" have the last word, or will Poppy lead the way out of Iraq once the Baker-Hamilton Commission issue its anxiously awaited recommendations?

And now that "neocons" such as Adelman, Perle and their right-wing Israeli cohorts have fallen out of favor and are busily blaming "W" and Rumsfeld for the (predictable) "disaster" they triggered in Iraq, what new "brilliant" foreign policy strategies are they cooking up?

And now that Joe Lieberman was, amazingly, handed the power to switch the Senate back into GOP hands, will he remain loyal to Democrats or will he listen to his right-wing cohorts in Israel and vote with the hawks?

The problem with individuals with dual allegiance to Israel and the U.S., in that order, is that ignore the fact that policies Israel supports are not always in the best interests of the U.S.

The question then becomes: Will U.S. foreign policy be devised in the U.S., or will the influence of TelAviv continue to be the commanding force that has led to such an incredible mess in the Middle East?

Will "W" start serious negotiations with Syria and Iran, or continue treating them as outcasts, as demanded by right-wing Israelis and some right-wingers in the U.S.?

Will Prime Minister Olmert be open to restart negotiations with Palestinians and get serious about the establishment of a Palestinian state, given that such a move is imperative if peace is to come to the region or, will the next two years of "W's" administration trigger an all out war in the region?

Will Israel attack Iran's nuclear structures and, thereby, undoubtedly trigger another major conflict with or without U.S. blessing?

Given the pressures from all sides, time is rapidly running out for the White House.

The question that remains to be answered is: "Does Father Know Best" or, will his stubborn kid continue throwing temper tantrums that have inflicted so much unnecessary pain and suffering, particularly in Iraq?

The lesson to be learned: Never allow inexperienced individuals take on tasks that are WAY over their heads, or allow individuals with dual allegiances to implement policies that are not, FIRST and foremost, in the U.S.'s best interests.

"Fool me once, shame on you...Fool me twice, shame on me"

2006-10-13T11:08:00.000-04:00

The fact that Bush was allowed to sit in the Oval Office, not once but twice, brings that old adage to mind.

Admittedly, I was taken aback when I realized in 2004 there were still enough Americans willing to support policies that were so highly counterproductive. In fact, I was so distraught that observant readers may have noticed that I lost interest in blogging.

As the mid-term 2006 election approaches, the question becomes: Have the majority of Americans awakened from their slumber? And, if so, will one or both Houses of Congress revert to the Democrats?

Or, will the prevailing conventional wisdom, a win for Democrats, be proven wrong even in light of the incredible ineptness displayed by the Administration?

As one who supported war on Afghanistan but strongly opposed war on Iraq, I realized shortly after 9/11 that Cheney-Bush-neocons had already decided to occupy Iraq and nothing would stop them.

Unfortunately, the great majority of Americans, including usually savvy individuals, both in government and the private sector, were totally fooled as Cheney-Bush-neocons went through the motions of getting congressional approval and pushing through a U.N. resolution based on "proof" that was highly suspect. So it goes.

The dream of so-called neconservatives to restructure the Middle East in their image was received with open arms by Cheney-Bush who, for their own reasons (read: energy corporate sponsors), happily acquiesced to the neocon plan as detailed in the "Project for the New American Century."

A comprehensive analysis of pre-war machinations can be found in an article entitled "The War They Wanted, the Lies They Needed" by Craig Unger, published in Vanity Fair on June 6, 2006.

The incredible arrogance implied in the steps proposed by neoconservatives to restructure the Middle East boggles the mind. When was the last time Arab/Muslims asked the U.S. to occupy their nations and effect "regime change?"

Based on historical evidence, Arabs/Muslims are not only proud individuals highly sensitive to foreign occupations but fiercely loyal to their own sectarian and religious ties.

For right-wing war mongers to believe our troops would be received with hugs and kisses, even as U.S. troops got rid of the Iraqis' much disliked leadership, is the height of gullibility and naivete, or plain ol' stupidity. I go with the latter....

Finally, and most important, the arrogance and bravado displayed by the Gang that couldn't shoot straight, starting with "Axis of Evil," proceeding to "bring 'em on" and "Syria and Iran know what they MUST do" and other such provocative, childish displays of bravado, practically ensured a lack of cooperation from most nations around the globe.

Hopefully, the American people will send a strong message in November, a message that informs the world that Americans will no longer blindly follow the leadership of individuals whose policies have proven, time and again, not to be in anyone's best interests.

Why can't Democrats get their act together?

2006-08-25T10:55:00.001-04:00

When GOP talking points revert to the economy, they invariably point to tax cuts as the main reason the economy recovered after 9/11.

Nothing could be further from the truth. At best, they helped at the edges. At worst, they contributed to the roughly two TRILLION dollars in the increase of the national debt since Bush & Co. charged into town.

The real reason the economy recovered is that Alan Greenspan flooded the system with liquidity by driving interest rates to the lowest level in recent memory.

As a result, mortgage rates dropped precipitously and the price of real estate increased dramatically allowing millions of Americans to refinance and use the proceeds of home equity loans to buy second homes, redecorate, travel or make purchases that suddenly became affordable.

Now, you'd think that Democrats would bring this FACT to the attention of the American people whenever GOPers brag about their tax cuts.

Amazingly, that is not the case. Instead, they simply change the subject or try to explain that tax cuts helped mainly the wealthiest among us.

While that is indeed the case, it doesn't address the main issue, namely, Greenspan's "generosity" that, predictably, changed the surplus of the Clinton years into humongous deficits during the Bush years and the corresponding increase in our national debt.

The Industrial Revolution is dead...Long live the Service Economy

2006-06-28T12:30:00.000-04:00

Or, so we are told as more and more good jobs disappear over the horizon.

The question then becomes: How efficient and competitive is the new Service Economy?

Answer: It's inefficient and getting worse.

Reason: Service in our nation is in a rapidly deteriorating condition that, if not address ASAP, will soon lead to shrinking economic growth.

While it is true that the technological revolution has led to rapidly growing productivity, it is also true that it has led to much frustration on the part of users.

I, for one, recall the "good ol' times" when, say, AT&T responded to calls rapidly and courteously: AT&T, can I help you?

Sadly, human voices have been replaced by machines that present a litany of choices that, more often than not, are unable to respond effectively to the callers' request.

Result: FRUSTRATION!!!

I also recall that when buying, say, appliances with ONE warranty meant that they would be installed properly and work correctly. That is no longer the case. Instead, two warranties are generally required, one from the store and one from the manufacturer and, when something goes wrong, one blames the other for whatever went wrong.

I replaced my refrigerator, dishwasher and oven last year. I had major problems with all three, spending countless hours on the phone and wasting precious time at Best Buy and Lowe's.

The made to order refrigerator was suppose to fit in a tight spot and the two big, strong males sent to put it in place were unwilling to do so. Instead, I was forced to hire to individuals who turned out to be Mexicans, about half their size, who had no trouble doing the job. I had already paid the store for delivery but, was not reinmbursed for the extra cost. I'll skip the details about the dishwasher and stove other than to say it was an exercise in frustration.

Seeking help in a retail store is next to impossible these days. And, when available, it is highly likely that the individual is totally uninformed as to the merchandise he/she was hired to sell. Heck, even finding a cashier is difficult at times.

But, nothing is worse than losing your Web connection.

If you call AOL they'll send you to Verizon. If Verizon can't find the problem they'll send you to Lynxis (assuming you are on wireless). If Lynxis can't fix the problem they'll send you back to Verizon and on and on and on....

I'll take a root canal to seeking help from providers any time.

And have you ever tried to cancel a subscription? Once they catch you, they'll try to retain you for life. Renewals are "automatic" and the next thing you know you'll get another bill, usually for a larger amount, long before the original subscription has expired. Try as you may online, you can't find a place where it says "cancellation."

The question then becomes: How do we transform FRUSTRATION into SATISFACTION for our Service Economy to succeed?

Answer: TRAINING...TRAINING...and more TRAINING!

Advertising might work to lure the client to the store or institution but, unless he/she leaves satisfied with a job well done in a timely fashion, our economy will soon lose its luster and the U.S. will become just another wanna be leader, particularly at a time when competition from abroad becomes ever more fierce.

Will reason eventually prevail?

2006-06-18T17:25:00.000-04:00

My good ol' buddy Dana Pico says:

Part of the problem is a real intellectual split between the party activists, who want to run on real liberal ideas, including raising taxes, and the actual politicians, who see that as a looming disaster. In the end, it is the candidates, not the activists, who decide on what they are going to run.

And in the very end, the critics among the side that loses will all claim that victory would have been theirs, if only their advice had been taken.

Correction: In the end, hopefully, the best ideas will prevail now that the majority of Americans finally realize that Cheney-Bush and their "neoconservative" cohorts have led this great nation in the WRONG direction.

For a concise summary of the Winning vs. Losing strategies, please see my previous post.

Foreign Policy: Winning vs. Losing Strategy

2006-06-18T17:08:00.000-04:00

Cheney-Bush and their "neoconservative" cohorts promised the American people that they would win the war against "terror" regardless of cost in lives and treasure.

Why they decided to PROMOTE terrorism instead, is a mystery that escapes me.

For those who are confused, here comes a winning and a losing strategy.

Winning strategy:

a) Launch war on Afghanistan, dismantle the Taliban and capture bin Laden.

b) Establish a functioning government for the whole Afghan nation.

c) Develop a new "Marshall Plan" that would lead to real progress and prove that democracy can indeed work in the Arab/Muslim world

d) Lean on Ariel Sharon (now Olmert) to get serious about allowing the establishmen of a viable Palestinian state with E. Jerusalem as its capital.

e) Or, declare Jerusalem an OPEN CITY and INVITE Christians, Jews and Muslins to govern the city where all great religions converge. Highly recommended.

f) To end the Israel-Palestinian conflict is essencial since the humiliation of Palestinians is seen in the Arab/Muslim world as the humiliation of them all.

g) Withdraw U.S. military forces from Arab/Muslim lands given that they provoke resentment and hatred. (How would we like a foreign power establishing military bases in, say, Texas, Oregon and/or Arizona?)

h) Treat friend and foe with RESPECT as opposed to arrogance and petulance given that the latter invariably provoke more resentment and hatred.

Had these steps been taken, the U.S. would have gone a long way toward winning the war against hatred.

Losing Strategy

a) Invade Afghanistan and withdraw most troops before a serious effort to stabilize the country has been started in order to trigger an UNprovoked war against an Arab/Muslim nation, Iraq.

b) Arrogantly proclaim that nations that do not cave to our demands are "evildoers."

c) Ignore and/or withdraw from treaties that have served our nation and the world well for decades.

d) Ridicule those who worry about global warming instead of joining the efforts of those who care about the environment.

e) Antagonize friend and foe alike as Cheney-Bush and their "neoconservative" cohorts attempt to control the world.

f) Show incredible ineptness in implementing policies, both domestically and internationally.

g) Deceive the American people and the world by using intelligence to fit their policies.

h) Use secrecy as a weapon to restrict U.S. civil liberties

i) Abuse and torture individuals who may or may not be guilty of crimes thereby totally ignoring our very own Constitution.

Sadly, Cheney-Bush and their right-wing cohorts adopted the LOSING strategy thereby painting the face of the UGLY American on our nation and inflicting incredible pain and suffering on tens of thousands of innocent individuals.

What we are forced to witness is the making of a great tragedy that easily could have been avoided. Not surprising given the war mongering, deceitful gang sitting in the White House.

Eva-Marie

Republicans finally decide to embrace "single-payer" coverage

2006-05-02T15:54:00.001-04:00

It took several decades, but Republicans finally realized that healthcare coverage in our nation is incredibly messy, inefficient and unfair...not to mention outrageously costly.

It may finally have dawned on them that healthcare is not a luxury but a necessity that cannot be left solely in the hands of their beloved "markets."

Massachusetts' Gov. Romney is seemingly the Republican designee chosen to introduce the single-payer system to our nation without admitting, of course, that it is a single-payer system since that has been the Democratic proposal for many, many years.

In a single-payer system, the services of large health insurers are basically not required, since they don't provide healthcare services. Republicans won't state this, plus we're a long way from weaning ourselves of the insurance companies, but Romney's plan is clearly the first step toward mandatory coverage, and it will undoubtedly spread to more states sooner, rather than later.

I suspect that Gov. Romney's new venture had the tacit approval of the White House, which in turn had the tacit approval of large corporations such as General Motors, Ford and many others.

Reason: U.S. orporations can no longer compete with foreign firms given that the latter are not burdened by high employee healthcare costs, which add considerably to the ultimate cost of the vehicle.

True, "choice" of private providers remains the Republicans' primary objective; however, that too will change in time, given that they will no longer be able to raise prices at will. Medicare will increasingly become the model upon which healthcare coverage will be built.

As this new system develops, the drug coverage bill passed by Congress will also undergo major surgery that will hopefully result in a rational program that allows for negotiation with drug companies to lower prices and cover all medicines, rather than only those that a given individual may need at a given time.

The love of "choice" so dear to Republicans will go the way of the dinosaur as the healthcare industry gears up to provide services for ALL Americans, with emphasis on prevention.

The enormous amounts of tax payers' dollars spent on emergency rooms for non-emergency treatment will also be a thing of the past, since every individual will have access to a primary doctor who will refer his patient to a specialist if he/she deems it necessary.

Stockholders of insurance companies will be the only losers as our nation FINALLY realizes that healthcare coverage is a MUST for ALL!!!

It's the double-standard stupid!

2006-01-21T17:16:00.000-05:00

In the Cheney-Bush lexicon, individuals who blow themselves up and kill innocent civilians are "cowards" while those who use drones or airplanes to drop their deadly cargo are "heroes."

When American lives are lost, a "crime" has been committed. When Iraqi lives are lost, it's collateral damage, in what is clearly an UNprovoked war.

The problem with that double standard is that it leads to ever-growing resentment and hatred not only in the Arab/Muslim world but, all across the globe.

It was reported a few days ago that a drone dropped missiles on a Pakistani village where allegedly members of al Qaeda were hidding. While there may have been some in the house at the time of the attack, there was also heavy "collateral damage" that led to anti-U.S. demonstrations all across the nation.

Given that Pakistan is a nuclear power and Musharaf is hanging in there by a thread, one would think that our "fearless leaders" would not engage in such reckless behavior.

Since there are roughly a billion and a half Muslim around the globe, I would suggest that Bushites have a very long way to go to kill 'em all...given that most of them sympathize with Osama.

Reason: It's our double standards stupid! as Mr. Carville would say.

By the way, how would we like it if a foreign power established military bases in the U.S.?

I, for one, would be outraged.

And how would we like it if you were kicked out of your home to make room for immigrants who decide to relocate in your city?

I, for one, would be outraged.

And how would we like it if foreigners came to the U.S. and told us how to live our lives since their way would be "in our best interests?"

I, for one, would be outraged.

And how would you like it if a foreign power used us as proxies to achieve their objectives? (Reagan-Poppy used Saddam and the Afghanistan mujahedeen for just that purpose)

I, for one, would be outraged.

And how would we like it if a foreign power dumped tens of thousands of bombs and missiles on our heads in the dark of night and occupied our nation because their leaders disliked ours and decided to effect "regime change"?

I, for one, would be outraged.

You see, resentment and hatred do not grow in a vacuum. From time to time we should look in the mirror and realize that, if the roles were reversed, we too would feel resentment and hatred.

Only then will we adopt a course of action that will eventually lead to peaceful coexistence as we "win the hearts and minds" of Arabs/Muslims and the rest of the world for that matter.

Meantime, back at the ranch...as long as Cheney, Bush and their cohorts continue threatening those who do not cave to their demands, nothing will change.

While these individuals seem convinced that Arabs/Muslims"respect force," they are sadly mistaken since their reaction is precisely the opposite.

Therefore, the never-ending struggle they proclaimed as "the war of all wars" will continue unabated until Bushites are OUT and, hopefully, replaced by intelligent, insightful Americans who, sadly, have been sidelined.

Truth telling by U.S. newsmedia is a lost art

2005-12-28T11:09:00.000-05:00

Truth telling is an art that, by any measure, has been relegated to the past by the U.S. newsmedia.

Members of the press, generally, no longer present the facts in an objective manner, particularly as it affects developments in the Middle East.

Pressure by right-wing Jewish groups and others on the media has been highly effective and Americans have been brainwashed into believing one side of the story while the other side is simply distorted or ignored.

The stories we get are a highly sophisticated form of disinformation.

Robert Fisk addresses this issue in an article entitled "Telling It Like It Isn't," first published in the L.A. Times. (Here is the link via Truthout.)

"I used to call the Israeli Likud Party 'right wing,'" he said. "But recently, my editors have been telling me not to use the phrase. A lot of our readers objected." And so now, I asked? "We just don't call it 'right wing' anymore."....

This is only the tip of the semantic iceberg that has crashed into American journalism in the Middle East. Illegal Jewish settlements for Jews and Jews only on Arab land are clearly "colonies," and we used to call them that. I cannot trace the moment when we started using the word "settlements." But I can remember the moment around two years ago when the word "settlements" was replaced by "Jewish neighborhoods" - or even, in some cases, "outposts."...

Then there is the "wall," the massive concrete obstruction whose purpose, according to the Israeli authorities, is to prevent Palestinian suicide bombers from killing innocent Israelis. In this, it seems to have had some success. But it does not follow the line of Israel's 1967 border and cuts deeply into Arab land. And all too often these days, journalists call it a "fence" rather than a "wall." Or a "security barrier," which is what Israel prefers them to say. For some of its length, we are told, it is not a wall at all - so we cannot call it a "wall," even though the vast snake of concrete and steel that runs east of Jerusalem is higher than the old Berlin Wall....

For Palestinians to object violently to any of these phenomena thus marks them as a generically vicious people. By our use of language, we condemn them.

In conclusion Mr. Pitts writes: "So let's call a colony a colony, let's call occupation what it is, let's call a wall a wall. And maybe express the reality of war by showing that it represents not, primarily, victory or defeat, but the total failure of the human spirit."

Given this biased reporting, it is no wonder that most Americans have been brainwashed into believing that Israelis are "good" and Palestinians are "bad."

The question that remains unanswered and has led to so much resentment and hatred not only in the region but all across the globe is: Given that Palestinians had absolutely nothing to do with the Holocaust, why were hundreds of thousands thrown out of their homes to make room for Jewish immigrants after WWII?

Is it any wonder that the Arab/Muslim world resents the humiliation that Palestinians have suffered for the better part of six decades given that Palestinians are seen as one of their own?

Answering these and other questions honestly is clearly taboo and one of the reasons that the war on hatred declared by members of the "Bush-Sharon Axis" will not be won anytime soon.

Talking about impeachment....

2005-12-25T16:03:00.000-05:00

I am obviously not alone in thinking that abuse of power should result in impeachment, particularly in light of Republican righteousness when insisting in making fools of themselves by impeaching President Clinton for a matter totally unrelated to governing.

How could these same individuals possibly ignore the lies, deceptive tactics and total disregard for the rule of law practiced by Bush-Cheney and not take steps to impeach these individuals?

To suggest that lying about SEX is a worse offense than lying about issues that directly led to WAR is obviously the height of irresponsibility. Hopefully, Congress will realize the seriousness of the situation as the following article brings to light:

The following is from a Barron's December 26 article entitled "Unwarranted Executive Power - The Pursuit of terrorism does not authorize the president to make new laws" by Thomas G. Donlan (emphasis mine):

"Certainly, there was an emergency need after the Sept. 11 attacks to sweep up as much information as possible about the chances of another terrorist attack. But a 72-hour emergency or a 15-day emergency doesn't last four years.

In that time, Congress has extensively debated the rules on wiretaps and other forms of domestic surveillance. Administration officials have spent many hours before many committees urging lawmakers to provide them with great latitude. Congress acted, and the president signed.

Now the president and his lawyers are claiming that they have greater latitude. They say that neither the USA Patriot Act nor the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act actually sets the real boundary. The administration is saying the president has unlimited authority to order wiretaps in the pursuit of foreign terrorists, and that the Congress has no power to overrule him.

"We also believe the president has the inherent authority under the Constitution, as commander-in-chief, to engage in this kind of activity," said Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. The Department of Justice made a similar assertion as far back as 2002, saying in a legal brief: "The Constitution vests in the president inherent authority to conduct warrantless intelligence surveillance (electronic or otherwise) of foreign powers or their agents, and Congress cannot by statute extinguish that Constitutional authority." Gonzales last week declined to declassify relevant legal reviews made by the Department of Justice.

Perhaps they were researched in a Star Chamber? Putting the president above the Congress is an invitation to tyranny. The president has no powers except those specified in the Constitution and those enacted by law. President Bush is stretching the power of commander-in-chief of the Army and Navy by indicating that he can order the military and its agencies, such as the National Security Agency, to do whatever furthers the defense of the country from terrorists, regardless of whether actual force is involved.

Surely the "strict constructionists" on the Supreme Court and the federal judiciary eventually will point out what a stretch this is. The most important presidential responsibility under Article II is that he must "take care that the laws be faithfully executed." That includes following the requirements of laws that limit executive power. There's not much fidelity in an executive who debates and lobbies Congress to shape a law to his liking and then goes beyond its writ.

Willful disregard of a law is potentially an impeachable offense. It is at least as impeachable as having a sexual escapade under the Oval Office desk and lying about it later. The members of the House Judiciary Committee who staged the impeachment of President Clinton ought to be as outraged at this situation. They ought to investigate it, consider it carefully and report either a bill that would change the wiretap laws to suit the president or a bill of impeachment.

It is important to be clear that an impeachment case, if it comes to that, would not be about wiretapping, or about a possible Constitutional right not to be wiretapped. It would be about the power of Congress to set wiretapping rules by law, and it is about the obligation of the president to follow the rules in the Acts that he and his predecessors signed into law.

Some ancillary responsibility, however, must be attached to those members of the House and Senate who were informed, inadequately, about the wiretapping and did nothing to regulate it. Sen. John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, told Vice President Dick Cheney in 2003 that he was "unable to fully evaluate, much less endorse these activities." But the senator was so respectful of the administration's injunction of secrecy that he wrote it out in longhand rather than give it to someone to type. Only last week, after the cat was out of the bag, did he do what he should have done in 2003 -- make his misgivings public and demand more information.

Published reports quote sources saying that 14 members of Congress were notified of the wiretapping. If some had misgivings, apparently they were scared of being called names, as the president did last week when he said: "It was a shameful act for someone to disclose this very important program in a time of war. The fact that we're discussing this program is helping the enemy."

Wrong. If we don't discuss the program and the lack of authority for it, we are meeting the enemy -- in the mirror."

The time has long past when the administration was able to play offense and silence the opposition. But, they keep on trying....

Eva-Marie

My Christmas wish list....

2005-12-25T16:00:00.000-05:00

My Christmas wish list...

1. I want my country back.

2. Impeach His Royal Lowness George II for abuse of power.

3. Impeach Cheney-the-Machiavellian for deceptive tactics.

4. Get rid of Tom-the-DeLayed for abuse of power.

5. Get rid of Bill-the-Friskie for insider trading.

6. Clean up the political system. Allow restricted individual contributions only.

7. Get rid of politicians who advocate and/or support unprovoked wars fought largely by those who are poorest while the "elite" fills its pockets with blood dollars. A highly disgusting spectacle to watch given that the kids of those who give the orders are safely ensconced in their warm nests at home.

8. Use tax payers' dollars for construction as opposed to destruction.

9. Teach science (evolution) in science class and the HISTORY of religion in history class. Other references to religion should be taught in churches, synagogues and mosques. Separation of church and state is one of the most valuable gifts we were given by our Founding Fathers.

10. Don't confuse the next generation with fairy tales in a cynical attempt to exercise political control over the "unwashed masses."

11. Decide whether U.S. employers want to hire undocumented immigrants. If they are needed to perform jobs in the U.S., they should be treated with respect and afforded the basic necessities. If not, employers should be fined for hiring illegals. Nothing else will work.

12. Individuals in power should STOP attempting to control the world. Resentment and hatred do not grow in a vaccum. It is high time to ask the question "why do they hate us" and answer it honestly: It's the double standards stupid!

13. Stop telling the American people that "Osama hates our freedoms" and respond by severely restricting those same freedoms.

14. Stop engaging in transparent double standards that inevitably lead to resentment and hatred. Is it any wonder that, say, Iran wants to become a nuclear power, particularly after witnessing the occupation of Iraq?

15. If non-proliferation is to work, ALL nations in the Middle East should be nuclear free, including Israel.

16. Declare Jerusalem, the city where all great religions converge, an OPEN CITY and invite Christian, Jewish and Muslim representatives to govern it. Such a gesture would be applauded all across the globe and serve as a much needed symbol of unity at a time where divisiveness continues growing.

17. Stop using "God" or "Jesus" to justify bloody occupations of foreign nations. It's the ultimate insult to those who truly believe in a Creator who "loves us all."

18. Stop using the Bible, both the Old and New Testaments, written largely by white male mortals (as opposed to God), to lash out against individuals whose sexual preferences are not those prescribed by the majority. To use religion as an instrument to justify bigotry is the ultimate exercise in cynicism.

19. Torture is an instrument that has no place in U.S. policy decision making. Those who advocate its use, should move to a nation where it is practiced.

It's time that decency and honesty returned to our great nation. Sadly, as long as individuals are in power who have seemingly rewritten the Constitution to fit their tactics and objectives, nothing will change.

But, who knows....maybe we'll be lucky and, as we enter 2007, all those individuals who abused their power will no longer be leading this great nation.

Eva-Marie

Tom DeLay a.k.a. the UGLY American

2005-10-17T16:32:00.000-04:00

HYPOCRITES is the word that instantly comes to mind as right-wingers, both Christians and Jews, use religion as a political tool to transform this great nation into a one-party dominated colossus designed to control the world.

The cultural wars that have been waged in Israel for decades have arrived on our shores with a vengeance as members of the "Bush-Sharon Axis" continue their pseudo-religious brainwashing efforts that result in ever-growing divisiveness, both at home and abroad.

"The values alleged so far in this scandal - greed, hypocrisy, favor-selling, dissembling - belong to no creed except the ruthless pursuit of power. They are not exclusive to either political party. But the religious trappings add a note that distinguishes these Beltway creeps from those who have come before: a supreme righteousness that often spirals into anger and fire-and-brimstone zealotry that can do far more damage to America than ill-begotten golf junkets."

Never in modern U.S. history have we seen anything that comes even close to the abuses of power being perpetrated by Bush-Cheney and their right-wing "neoconservative" cohorts.

And, to add insult to injury, Bush nominated individuals to highly sensitive posts who are known for their deceptive tactics and are universally distrusted at a time when the U.S. government has lost all credibility around the globe.

Negroponte, of Iran-Contra fame lied to Congress...Wolfowitz, advocate of UNprovoked wars whose mismanagement in the wake of the Iraqi occupation led to thousands of deaths that continue to this day and Bolton, an expert in "cookin'" intelligence to fit his specifications.

Actually, Bolton is not alone since all three individuals are experts at disinformation.

What these individuals have in common can be summarized as: "The ends justify the means" as clearly demonstrated at Abu Gharib.

Unless Americans wake up from their slumber in 2006 and get rid of some of the most abusive individuals presently in power, our nation will be unrecognizable by the time 2008 rolls around:

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/17/opinion/17rich.html

New York Times - April 17, 2005

Get Tom DeLay to the Church on Time by Frank Rich

A scandal is like any other melodrama: It can't be a crowd pleaser unless the audience can follow the plot. That's why Monica Lewinsky trumped Whitewater, and that's why of all the story lines ensnaring Tom DeLay, the one with legs is the one with the craps tables. It's not just easy to follow, but it also has a combustive cultural element that makes it as representative of its political era as Monicagate was of the Clinton years. As the lies and subterfuge of the go-go 1990's coalesced around sex, so the scandal of our new "moral values" decade comes cloaked in religion. The hair shirt is the new thong.

This time the plot begins with money. Two K Street fixers, a lobbyist named Jack Abramoff and a flack named Michael Scanlon, managed to snooker six American Indian tribes into handing over $82 million in exchange for furthering their casino interests. According to The Washington Post, some of their tribal takings, cycled through a nonprofit center for "public policy research," helped send Mr. DeLay golfing in Scotland. The pious congressman, a gambling foe, says he had no idea of his trip's sinful provenance. Never mind that Mr. DeLay was joined abroad by Mr. Abramoff, whom he has described as one of his "closest and dearest friends," or that Mr. Scanlon had once been his spokesman. Mr. DeLay was as innocent of the goings-on around him as a piano player in a brothel.

Beltway cronyism, dubious junkets, loophole-laden denials are all, of course, time-honored Washington fare. The few on the right backing away from Mr. DeLay, from The Wall Street Journal's editorial page to Newt Gingrich, make a point of reminding us of that. As they see it, more in sorrow than in anger, the Gingrich revolutionaries who vowed to end the corruption practiced by Congressional Democrats have now been infected by the same Washington virus as their opponents. That's true, but this critique of Mr. DeLay and company by their own camp all too conveniently sidesteps the distinguishing feature of this scandal. Democratic malefactors like Jim Wright and L.B.J.'s old fixer Bobby Baker didn't wear the Bible on their sleeves.

In the DeLay story almost every player has ostentatious religious trappings, starting with the House majority leader himself. His efforts to play God with Terri Schiavo were preceded by crusades like blaming the teaching of evolution for school shootings and raising money for the Traditional Values Coalition's campaign to save America from the "war on Christianity." Mr. DeLay's chief of staff was his pastor, and, according to Time magazine, organized daily prayer sessions in their office. Today this holy man, Ed Buckham, is a lobbyist implicated in another DeLay junket to South Korea.

But it's not merely Christian denominations that figure in the religious plumage of this crowd. Mr. Abramoff, who is now being investigated by nearly as many federal agencies as there are nights of Passover, is an Orthodox Jew who in his salad days wore a yarmulke to press interviews. In Washington, he opened not one but two kosher restaurants (I hear the deli was passable by D.C. standards) and started a yeshiva. His uncompromising piety drove him to condemn the one Orthodox Jew in the Senate, Joe Lieberman, for securing "the tortuous death of millions" by supporting abortion rights. Mr. Abramoff's own moral constellation can be found in e-mail messages in which he referred to his Indian clients as "idiots" and "monkeys" even as he squeezed them for every last million. A previous client was Zaire's dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, who, unlike Senator Lieberman, actually was a practitioner of torture and mass murder.

Another Abramoff crony is the political operative Ralph Reed, whom Mr. Abramoff hired for his College Republicans operation in the early 1980's. Mr. Reed, who has called gambling "a cancer on the body politic" and is running for lieutenant governor in Georgia, is now busily explaining that he, like Mr. DeLay, had no idea that some of his consulting firm's Abramoff-Scanlon paydays ($4.2 million worth) were indirect transfers of casino dough. Mr. Reed, of course, is best known for his stint as the public altar boy's face of Pat Robertson's political machine, the Christian Coalition.

It was at a Christian Coalition convention in Washington in 1994 that I first encountered yet another religious figure who pops up in this tale, the South African-born Rabbi Daniel Lapin. He was regaling the crowd with scriptural passages proving that high taxes are "immoral." Now the show rabbi of the Christian right, Rabbi Lapin has moved on to bigger broadcast pulpits. When he's not preaching the virtues of "The Passion of the Christ," he is chastising "Meet the Fockers" for promoting "vile notions of Jews" that "are not too different from those used by Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels." He apparently didn't like the idea that Barbra Streisand and Dustin Hoffman played characters who enjoy sex.

Rabbi Lapin, according to Slate, is the networker who jump-started the mutually beneficial business relationship of Jack Abramoff and Tom DeLay by introducing them in the early 90's. That was some mitzvah. As Marshall Wittmann, a former Christian Coalition lobbyist who later jumped to the Democratic Leadership Council, told me recently, "We now see the meaning of Judeo-Christian values."

The values alleged so far in this scandal - greed, hypocrisy, favor-selling, dissembling - belong to no creed except the ruthless pursuit of power. They are not exclusive to either political party. But the religious trappings add a note that distinguishes these Beltway creeps from those who have come before: a supreme righteousness that often spirals into anger and fire-and-brimstone zealotry that can do far more damage to America than ill-begotten golf junkets.

It's not for nothing that Mr. DeLay's nickname is the Hammer. Or that early in his Christian Coalition career, Ralph Reed famously told a Knight-Ridder reporter that he wanted to see his opponents in a "body bag." The current manifestation of this brand of religious politics can be found in the far right's anti-judiciary campaign, of which Mr. DeLay is the patron saint. As he flew off to the pope's funeral in Rome, the congressman left behind a rabble-rousing video for a Washington conference on "Confronting the Judicial War on Faith" staged by a new outfit called The Judeo-Christian Council for Constitutional Restoration. Another speaker, a lawyer named Edwin Vieira, twice invoked a Stalin dictum whose unexpurgated version goes, "Death solves all problems; no man, no problem." The reporter who covered the event for The Washington Post, Dana Milbank, suggested in print that one prime target of the vitriol, Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, might want to get "a few more bodyguards." It wasn't necessarily a joke.

You can see why Dick Cheney and President Bush in rapid succession distanced themselves from Mr. DeLay's threats of retribution against judges who presided in the Schiavo case. If an Eric Rudolph murders a judge in close chronological proximity to that kind of rhetoric, they've got a political Armageddon on their hands. Mr. DeLay got the message, sort of. At his Wednesday news conference, he tried to dial back some of his words, if only as a way of changing the subject from Indians and his own potential outings in a court of law. Unlike Bill Frist, he has yet to sign on to next Sunday's national Christian right telecast bashing what its organizer, the Family Research Council, calls "out-of-control courts."

Many believe that Mr. DeLay's legal fate is tied to that of Mr. Abramoff, whom the congressman has now downsized into one of "hundreds of relationships I have in Washington, D.C." Mr. Abramoff, intriguingly enough, hasn't always been a creature of the capital. He was raised in Beverly Hills, the town that is supposed to be anathema to every value that Republican theocrats stand for. And he returned there for a time in the late 1980's, when he produced an anti-Communist action film called "Red Scorpion." Once it was reported that extras and military equipment had been supplied by South Africa's racist government, Arthur Ashe's Artists and Athletes Against Apartheid condemned the film, and no major studio would touch it. But it opened nationwide nonetheless, to few customers and many protesters.

In 1992 Mr. Abramoff, eager to prove that he was unlike secular show-business Democrats, told The Hollywood Reporter that he was starting a Committee for Traditional Jewish Values in Entertainment to emulate Christian anti-indecency campaigns. (He didn't.) But "Red Scorpion," on which Mr. Abramoff shares the writing credit, has many more four-letter words than "Meet the Fockers," as well as violence, bloodied beefcake (Dolph Lundgren's) and crucifixion imagery anticipating "The Passion of the Christ."

Though Mr. Abramoff has closed his yeshiva and is now being sued for back wages by its former employees, his cinematic creation survives on DVD. "Red Scorpion" is seriously Godawful, but, unlike the Ten Commandments displayed in Tom DeLay's office, it may yet endure as a permanent monument to what these people are about.

Warning: RELIGION!

2005-04-05T11:25:00.000-04:00

Warning: RELIGION!

Following is an objective assessment of Pope John Paul II's undisputed contribution to peaceful coexistence as well as his dogmatic stance on social issues that affect everyday lives and have led to divisiveness among Catholics as well as a major decrease in males willing to serve as priests.

As one who appreciates objectivity, I found the following article of interest:

"Sadly, John Paul II represented a different tradition, one of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church."

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/05/opinion/cahill.html?pagewanted=all&position=

New York Times - April 5, 2005

The Price of Infallibility by Thomas Cahill

WITH the news media awash in encomiums to the indisputable greatness of Pope John Paul II, isn't it time to ask to which tradition he belonged? Partisans unfamiliar with Christian history may judge this a strange question. Why, they may answer, he belonged to the Catholic tradition, of course. But there is no single Catholic tradition; there are rather Catholic traditions, which range from the voluntary poverty of St. Francis of Assisi to the boundless greed of the Avignon popes, from the genial tolerance for diversity of Pope Gregory the Great in the sixth century to the egomaniacal self-importance of Pope Pius IX in the 19th century, from the secrecy and plotting of Opus Dei to the openness and humane service of the Community of Sant'Egidio. Over its 2,000-year history, Roman Catholicism has provided a fertile field for an immense variety of papal traditions.

Despite his choice of name, John Paul II shared little with his immediate predecessors. John Paul I lasted slightly more than a month, but in that time we were treated to a typical Italian of moderating tendencies, one who had even, before his election, congratulated the parents of the world's first test-tube baby - not a gesture that resonated with the church's fundamentalists, who still insist on holding the line against anything that smacks of tampering with nature, an intellectual construct far removed from what ordinary people mean by that word.

Paul VI, though painfully cautious, allowed the appointment of bishops (and especially archbishops and cardinals) who were the opposite of yes men, outspoken champions of the poor and oppressed and truly representative of the parts of the world they came from, like Cardinal Joseph Bernardin of Chicago, who tried so hard at the end of his life to find common ground within a church rent by division. In contrast, Cardinal Bernard Law of Boston rebuked the dying Cardinal Bernardin for this effort because, as Cardinal Law insisted, the church knows the truth and is therefore exempt from anything as undignified as dialogue. Cardinal Law, who had to resign after revelations that he had repeatedly allowed priests accused of sexual abuse to remain in the ministry while failing to inform either law enforcement officials or parishioners, must stand as the characteristic representative of John Paul II, protective of the church but often dismissive of the moral requirement to protect and cherish human beings.

John Paul II has been almost the polar opposite of John XXIII, who dragged Catholicism to confront 20th-century realities after the regressive policies of Pius IX, who imposed the peculiar doctrine of papal infallibility on the First Vatican Council in 1870, and after the reign of terror inflicted by Pius X on Catholic theologians in the opening decades of the 20th century. Unfortunately, this pope was much closer to the traditions of Pius IX and Pius X than to his namesakes. Instead of mitigating the absurdities of Vatican I's novel declaration of papal infallibility, a declaration that stemmed almost wholly from Pius IX's paranoia about the evils ranged against him in the modern world, John Paul II tried to further it. In seeking to impose conformity of thought, he summoned prominent theologians like Hans Kung, Edward Schillebeeckx and Leonardo Boff to star chamber inquiries and had his grand inquisitor, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger, issue condemnations of their work.

But John Paul II's most lasting legacy to Catholicism will come from the episcopal appointments he made. In order to have been named a bishop, a priest must have been seen to be absolutely opposed to masturbation, premarital sex, birth control (including condoms used to prevent the spread of AIDS), abortion, divorce, homosexual relations, married priests, female priests and any hint of Marxism. It is nearly impossible to find men who subscribe wholeheartedly to this entire catalogue of certitudes; as a result the ranks of the episcopate are filled with mindless sycophants and intellectual incompetents. The good priests have been passed over; and not a few, in their growing frustration as the pontificate of John Paul II stretched on, left the priesthood to seek fulfillment elsewhere.

The situation is dire. Anyone can walk into a Catholic church on a Sunday and see pews, once filled to bursting, now sparsely populated with gray heads. And there is no other solution for the church but to begin again, as if it were the church of the catacombs, an oddball minority sect in a world of casual cruelty and unbending empire that gathered adherents because it was so unlike the surrounding society.

Back then, the church called itself by the Greek word ekklesia, the word the Athenians used for their wide open assembly, the world's first participatory democracy. (The Apostle Peter, to whom the Vatican awards the title of first pope, was one of many leaders in the primitive church, as far from an absolute monarch as could be, a man whose most salient characteristic was his frequent and humble confession that he was wrong.) In using ekklesia to describe their church, the early Christians meant to emphasize that their society within a society acted not out of political power but only out of the power of love, love for all as equal children of God. But they went much further than the Athenians, for they permitted no restrictions on participation: no citizens and noncitizens, no Greeks and non-Greeks, no patriarchs and submissive females. For, as St. Paul put it repeatedly, "There is no longer Jew or Greek, slave or free, male and female; for all are one in Christ Jesus."

Sadly, John Paul II represented a different tradition, one of aggressive papalism. Whereas John XXIII endeavored simply to show the validity of church teaching rather than to issue condemnations, John Paul II was an enthusiastic condemner. Yes, he will surely be remembered as one of the few great political figures of our age, a man of physical and moral courage more responsible than any other for bringing down the oppressive, antihuman Communism of Eastern Europe. But he was not a great religious figure. How could he be? He may, in time to come, be credited with destroying his church.

Thomas Cahill is the author of "How the Irish Saved Civilization," "Pope John XXIII" and, most recently, "Sailing the Wine-Dark Sea: Why the Greeks Matter."

Will "necons" prevail, again, or, is it Poppy's turn?

2004-11-15T13:38:00.000-05:00

Will the "neocons" prevail, again, or, is it Poppy's turn this time around?

With the U.S. election over (sort of) and Arafat under the ground, the question now becomes: Will Bush remain in the "neocon" camp inhabited by Frank Gaffney and his war mongering Sharonite cohorts or, will he finally listen to Poppy who is sending another public message through Brent Scowcroft to his kid? (both articles follow)

As you may or may not recall, the first public message sent by Poppy to his kid was also an article by Brent Scowcroft published in the Wash Post suggesting he go to the U.N. before charging into Iraq unilaterally.

The approach to foreign policy described by Mr. Scowcroft stands in sharp contrast to the one espoused by Cheney, Gaffney, Wolfowitz and their war mongering cohorts.

In his press conference with Tony-the-Poodle who had been pushing him on the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, Bush signaled he would turn his full attention to the Israel-Palestinian conflict, which he largely ignored during his first term.

However, when asked for further details it was the same old chant "the Palestinians MUST....."

``I intend to use the next four years to spend the capital of the United States on such a state,'' Bush said. ``I think it is possible.''

But Palestinian political analyst Ali Jarbawi said any attempt by Bush to impose a solution would fail.

``Bush will make the Palestinians swallow whatever Sharon wants them to swallow,'' he said. ``He can be effective only if he changes course with his policies. But if they remain the same, he will not achieve much."

As for Gaffney, he couches his WAR mongering approach in "appreciation of freedom" that translates into getting rid of Mideast leaders and other evildoers:

http://www.nationalreview.com/gaffney/gaffney200411051020.asp

November 05, 2004, 10:20 a.m.

Worldwide Value - Bush’s appreciation of freedom shapes his foreign policy by Frank J. Gaffney

According to the exit polls, George W. Bush owes his victory to the priority attached by millions of voters to "moral values." This somewhat nebulous term is said to have trumped terrorism, Iraq, and the economy as a driving force behind the turnout — and the outcome.

Inevitably, some of President Bush's critics (possibly on the right, and certainly on the left, once they recover from the electoral-shock trauma)will interpret this finding insidiously: They will assert that the president's conduct of the war on terror and, in particular, his efforts to consolidate the liberation of Iraq do not enjoy the popular mandate accorded to his social conservative agenda. We will be told, at the very least, that W. won despite his handling of the war, thanks to the help of the evangelical Christians and like-minded folks who turned out for other reasons.

Don't believe it for a minute. Such contentions would miss the point of this election almost as much as John Kerry did.

The reality is that the same moral principles that underpinned the Bush appeal on "values" issues like gay marriage, stem-cell research, and the right to life were central to his vision of U.S. war aims and foreign policy. Indeed, the president laid claim squarely to the ultimate moral value — freedom — as the cornerstone of his strategy for defeating our Islamofascist enemies and their state sponsors, for whom that concept is utterly anathema.

It follows, then, that among those who deserve credit for shaping this stunning triumph of American virtues and values are the much-maligned "neoconservatives" and their friends, who have been responsible for helping Bush design and execute his wartime agenda. Special recognition and thanks are thus accorded, for example, to: Vice President Dick Cheney and key members of his staff (including Lewis "Scooter" Libby, John Hannah, and David Wurmser); the National Security Council's Condoleezza Rice, Robert Joseph, and Elliott Abrams; the Defense Department's Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith, and William Luti; and the State Department's John Bolton, Paula Dobriansky, and Paula DeSutter. These people — and too many others — have helped the president imprint moral values on American security policy in a way and to an extent not seen since Ronald Reagan's first term.

The important thing now, of course, is not simply to acknowledge past achievements, but to build upon them. This will require, among other things:

The reduction in detail of Fallujah and other safe havens utilized by freedom's enemies in Iraq — a necessary precondition not only to holding elections there next year, but to the establishment of institutions essential to a functioning and stable democracy;

Regime change — one way or another — in Iran and North Korea, the only hope for preventing these remaining "Axis of Evil" states from fully realizing their terrorist and nuclear ambitions;

Providing the substantially increased resources needed to re-equip a transforming military and rebuild human-intelligence capabilities (minus, if at all possible, the sorts of intelligence "reforms" contemplated pre-election that would make matters worse on this and other scores) while we fight World War IV;

Providing, to the fullest extent possible, for the protection of our homeland — including the adoption of sensible policies on securing our borders and contending with illegal aliens, and by deploying effective missile defenses at sea and in space, as well as ashore;

Keeping faith with Israel, whose destruction remains a priority for the same people who want to destroy us (and for the same reasons — i.e., our shared, "moral values") — especially in the face of Yasser Arafat's demise and the inevitable, post-election pressure to "solve" the Mideast problem by forcing the Israelis to abandon defensible boundaries;

Contending with the underlying dynamic that made France and Germany so problematic in the first term: namely, their willingness to make common cause with our enemies for profit, and their desire to employ a united Europe and its new constitution — as well as other international institutions and mechanisms — to thwart the expansion and application of American power where deemed necessary by Washington;

Adapting appropriate strategies for contending with China's increasingly fascistic trade and military policies, Vladimir Putin's accelerating authoritarianism at home and aggressiveness toward the former Soviet republics, the worldwide spread of Islamofascism, and the emergence of a number of aggressively anti-American regimes in Latin America.

These items do not represent some sort of neocon "imperialist" game plan. Rather, they constitute a checklist of the work the world will demand of this president and his subordinates in a second term.

None of these priorities will be easy or painless. All will require of President Bush a readiness to incur political costs and to assume risks far in excess of those his handlers were comfortable running before the election.

Yet President Bush has amply demonstrated his willingness to take such risks. More to the point, he appears to fully appreciate that his values, America's long-term strategic interests, and his electoral mandate allow him to do no less.

By redoubling his administration's efforts along these lines, President George W. Bush will not only be making the world less dangerous for America and her vital interests. He will also be doing so in a way that is consistent with our country's moral values, the stuff of which history — not just consequential elections and presidencies — is made.

— Frank J. Gaffney Jr. is an NRO contributor and president of the Center for Security Policy in Washington.<< Meantime, back at the ranch, Poppy sends a much less confrontational message:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44083-2004Nov11.html

Wash Post - Friday, November 12, 2004

A Middle East Opening By Brent Scowcroft

With a hard-fought election behind us, the United States is now free to refocus its energies on the myriad problems that have a direct impact on its security and destiny. Nowhere do those problems press more insistently on our vital interests than in the Middle East.

The region has been changed forever by the decision to go into Iraq. The debate about the timing and rationale for the war is behind us, but the continued presence of U.S. forces, and changes in the regional balance of power, mean that we no longer have the luxury of treating Middle East policy as a series of unrelated events running on separate calendars. We face the need for simultaneous actions to avoid failed states while reducing the incentives to violence and instability that threaten America and friendly states throughout the region.

Iraq, Israel-Palestine, Iran and terrorism are parts of a whole and can only be satisfactorily engaged as such. To cut through this Gordian knot will require not only a new approach but the deep, sustained commitment of the United States and a significant investment of the president's attention.

But American resolve will not suffice without the willing engagement of other states, especially those of Europe and the region itself. Our appeal to the Europeans, with whom our differences over the Middle East have been significant, must be based on reaching out to them on the Palestinian peace process and Iran, and soliciting their help on Iraq. Similarly, we need to ensure that the Arab states are substantive participants in finding a solution to the Israeli-Palestinian issue, and we must engage them more fully in securing Iraq's future.

The goal we seek in Iraq is to create a secure environment in which reconstruction of the economy can vigorously get underway and national reconciliation can proceed. Unpalatable though it may be, the reality is that providing such an environment in a reasonable time frame will require a larger coalition force than is currently deployed there. This force increment must come either from our own already stretched military or from our friends and allies.

Comfortably reelected, President Bush is in an excellent position to renew his appeal for a greater international presence in Iraq. The leaders of Europe and the Arab world surely recognize -- even if their publics may not -- that a failed Iraq would affect their countries every bit as seriously as it would the United States. As evidenced by the NATO deployment in Afghanistan, our allies are also stretched thin. But European willingness to provide even a modest nucleus of troops could provide inducement and cover for other states, especially Muslim ones, to make militarily meaningful contributions. This would also serve to reduce the profile of the United States in Iraq but, it must be emphasized, would not -- and should not -- provide any near-term basis for reducing our own forces.

This essential step in Iraq needs to be accompanied by a U.S. undertaking to revitalize the peace process between Israel and the Palestinians. Yasser Arafat has passed from the scene. His death represents a sea change in the Palestinian situation and, as the president has remarked, "an opening for peace." Both the United States and Israel have refused to deal with Arafat. The United States must seize this unique opportunity to make a decisive move.

The president should add substance to his commitment to an independent Palestinian state. It must include steps to provide security to Israel and to give the Palestinians the ability and means to construct a viable political entity free from the crushing presence of Israeli troops. The United States should insist that Israel stop construction of its wall on the West Bank and mirror its withdrawal from Gaza with the evacuation of the West Bank. In return, the wall and Israeli troops would be replaced by an international force, principally European or perhaps NATO troops.

The Palestinians should be pressed to take urgent measures to replace Arafat with political leadership that is both willing and able to undertake responsible negotiations and deliver on its commitments. Arab friends, notably Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Morocco, should provide vital guidance, encouragement and support.

The "road map" plan of the United States, the European Union, Russia and the United Nations should be revived and fortified by the actions I've described and vigorously pushed by its sponsors to final settlement. The outlines of such a settlement have, by the otherwise unfortunate stagnation of the process, become much less contested. A unified Jerusalem would serve as capital to both peoples. While the "right of return" could be left as a principle, the reality is that most Palestinian refugees will remain outside Israel, just as most Jewish settlers will return to Israel. A donor pool may need to be organized to provide compensation for both groups. Border rectifications would be necessary to compensate for the settlement solution and would complete the package.

Substantial, visible progress on the Palestinian issue would significantly improve the atmosphere in Iraq and the rest of the Middle East, including Iran, the third side of this triangle of tension and violence. The United States has three objectives with respect to Iran: a cessation of any moves toward nuclear proliferation; cooperation that contributes actively to stability in the Persian Gulf and in Iraq; and Iranian restraint on Hezbollah and other radical groups. To obtain these goals -- and encourage European cooperation -- the United States must take several initiatives.

To begin, it should modify its attitude toward the British-French-German negotiations with Iran over its pursuit of uranium enrichment capabilities. We should actively embrace the European position, urge the Russians to join us and jointly approach Iran. Such an approach would support Iranian efforts to develop nuclear power, including the offer of an ensured supply of nuclear reactor fuel (low enriched uranium) at concessionary prices -- or even gratis -- in exchange for a comprehensive, verifiable freeze of Iran's uranium enrichment program.

Iran not only has strong interests in the future of Iraq but a powerful influence through its religious connections to the Shiite majority there. We should engage Iran about the future of Iraq, comparing our separate perspectives and emphasizing our joint interests. In that regard, the multilateral discussions over Iraq scheduled later this month at Sharm el-Sheikh should become the start of a dialogue, with U.N. participation. Those discussions could be broadened to include a Gulf security group of nations, blessed and supported by the United States. This could serve to assuage Iran's security concerns and temper its urge to acquire a nuclear capability.

Finally, the United States should indicate a willingness to modify its sanctions regime and thereby its relationship to Iran, were Iran willing to restrain Hezbollah and exercise its influence over other extremist groups. This would greatly minimize the risk that violence and other radical disruptions would hinder the Palestinian peace process.

The stakes are high. Progress in the region, in addition to being extremely critical for its own sake, holds the promise of making a substantial and lasting contribution to the war on terrorism.

The writer was national security adviser under presidents Gerald Ford and George H.W. Bush. He is founder and president of the Forum for International Policy.

Eva-Marie

The role of religion in politics....

2004-10-24T08:32:00.000-04:00

It is a troubling fact of life that religion is playing an ever-growing role in American politics just as Europeans have awakened from their long slumber and are, finally, marching in precisely the opposite direction.

No longer willing to swallow religious DOGMA obediently and unquestioningly, Europeans have largely opted to live by the "Golden Rule," a rule that is clearly not tailored to satisfy those who use the Scriptures to justify their personal prejudices.

Given the discriminatory commandments found in the Old/New Testaments/ Koran/ Torah and other religious literature, most Europeans have discovered what to some of us had been obvious for a very long time, namely, that hypocritical religious dictats often stand in sharp contrast to the "Golden Rule."

Twenty-thirty years ago I would not have suggested that the air of freedom is purer in Europe than it is in the U.S. However, after various trips to Europe during the nineties and early twenties I found a much more relaxed, tolerant attitude embraced particularly by the younger generation.

Not only did they learn the painful lessons of WWII by turning against oppressive regimes but, they also turned against intolerant religious DOGMA and rebelled against it. Cruelty is a game that most Europeans are no longer willing to play....

Conversely, on the other side of the pond, more Americans are seemingly willing to dismantle the wall that separates church and state, guided by a "Crusader for Jesus" and his deceptive right-wing cohorts who understand the power of religion as a political tool.

Europeans have discovered, belatedly, that fairness and equalty for all citizens can only be achieved when both, the political and religious powers that be are challenged. They realized that as long as their lives were still largely controlled by church mandates, be they by the majority of Protestants or Catholics who dominate the Continent, discrimination against females, homosexuals and others whom the churches found wanting would continue plaguing their lives.

As a result, most Europeans adopted a more secular stance based on mutual respect and equality as opposed to the discriminatory practices demanded by church leaders.

It's no wonder that the Vatican is concerned....

That is not to say that Europeans have lost their moral compass. In fact, I would suggest they finally found it by using the "Golden Rule" as their guide.

True. I am indeed generalizing since traditionalists have not yet disappeared totally from the landscape. However, the younger generation is not only wiser but much more willing to decry openly the double-standards and hypocrisy that accompany the "articles of faith" largely designed by white males living in the "stone age."

Unfortunately, such a wise course of action has not reached parts of the world such as the Middle East where religious differences continue wreaking havoc with no sign of abating.

Jerusalem, the city where all great religions supposedly converge has been painted, sadly, with the ugly face of discrimination.

And, finally, unless the "faith-based" U..S. government is replaced on Nov. 2 with individuals who are NOT intent on using religion as a political tool, as clearly signaled by Sen. Kerry, Americans will find that their political/religious powers that be will increasingly sneak into their PRIVATE lives as well as continue their inexorable course toward a war of civilizations.

Those are the reasons why insightful individuals view the upcoming election as a watershed that will affect their lives, either positively if Sen. Kerry is elected, or negatively if the "faith-based" powers that be are allowed to remain in office and alter the direction of our nation and the world...for decades to come.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A46226-2004Oct19.html

Washington Post Foreign Service - Wednesday, October 20, 2004

Vatican Is Alarmed by Political Trend In Europe - Policies in Many Countries Contradict Church Doctrine By Daniel Williams

VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican is becoming increasingly alarmed at what it regards as official anti-Roman Catholic sentiment and secular trends in Europe, as government after government approves measures on abortion, family law and scientific study that run counter to Catholic teaching.

Vatican concerns rocketed into view during a controversy in the European Parliament this month over remarks on homosexuality and women by an Italian politician who has close ties to the Holy See.

On Oct. 5, a committee of European Parliament members voted to oppose Italy's nomination of Rocco Buttiglione, a Christian Democrat, to be the European Union's justice commissioner. During a hearing before the Parliament's Civil Liberties Committee, he had labeled homosexuality a sin and asserted that the family exists so a woman can raise children under a man's protection. Buttiglione is a friend of Pope John Paul II and various high-ranking Vatican officials.

"It looks like a new Inquisition. It is a lay Inquisition, but it is so nasty," Cardinal Renato Martino, who heads the Vatican's Council for Justice and Peace, told reporters this week in response to the dispute. "You can freely insult and attack Catholics and nobody will say anything. If you do so for other confessions, let's see what would happen."

The controversy was new proof of the heat of a long debate in Europe over issues of women's equality in the workplace, gay marriage, abortion, scientific research using human embryos and separation of church and state.

Such debates are also intense in the United States, where the Vatican has waged a campaign against abortion, advising U.S. bishops on the inadmissibility of giving Communion to Catholic politicians who persist in supporting abortion rights. It did not specify names, but some bishops in the United States have said they would not administer the sacrament to Sen. John F. Kerry, the Democratic presidential candidate.

Yet trends that go against the preaching of the pope are more advanced in parts of Western Europe than in the United States, some Vatican officials contend. To the Vatican, Europe's moral landscape is bleak.

Vatican officials and media outlets have expressed alarm over new policies being prepared in Spain by the Socialist prime minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero. His government is considering legalizing gay marriage, speeding up divorces and ending obligatory religious instruction in public schools.

Concurrently, Britain has approved research on the curative possibilities of stem cells from human embryos. In the Netherlands, the practice of euthanasia continues over church objections. In Italy, secular politicians have mounted a campaign to hold a referendum aimed at loosening a new law on laboratory-assisted fertilization. The law currently prohibits the use of donor sperm, frozen embryos and surrogate mothers.

In a speech on Sept. 20, Cardinal Camillo Ruini, the head of Italy's bishops conference, criticized Spain for "emptying the family of its significance." He accused the Italian press of "hammering" the issue of artificial insemination in order to promote a referendum. Stem cell research in Britain and euthanasia for children with incurable diseases in the Netherlands "clearly demonstrate developments that result in the loss of recognition of the uniqueness and inviolability of the human subject," Ruini said.

The lay offensive, as some Vatican officials call it, has prompted the pope to intensify the search for common ground with non-Catholics on key moral and ethical issues. In particular, the pontiff has called for teaching and promoting the philosophical notion of "natural law," unchanging truths that underlie human activity across religion and cultures.

In February, during an audience with Cardinal Josef Ratzinger, the head of the Vatican department of doctrine, the pope said, "Natural law, accessible per se to every rational creature, indicates the first and essential norms that regulate moral life." He urged construction of "a platform of shared values . . . on which a constructive dialogue can be developed with all men and women of goodwill and, more in general, with secular society."

References to natural law are designed "to emphasize that issues like preserving life are not imposition of Catholic teaching but rather truths that are not religion-specific," explained the Rev. Augustine DiNoia, an assistant of Ratzinger's.

DiNoia said that over the past 20 years, John Paul and senior Vatican officials have become disillusioned with moral and ethical trends in Europe. He said the pope, more than any of his predecessors, had embraced Western democracy on the assumption that it was rooted in natural law, including a consensus for the protection of life at conception and the sanctity of marriage and family.

Dialogue with Europeans is complicated by histories of violent religious conflict that in some cases left behind strong sentiments against the Catholic Church, and not only in Protestant countries. Spain's civil war in the 1930s pitted Republicans against Fascists who were backed by large segments of the Catholic clergy. Catholic support for the long rule of the dictator Francisco Franco colors today's view of the church among Spain's Socialists, historical heirs to the Republican backers of the civil war.

Even Italy, home of the papacy, contains a streak of anti-clericalism dating from the Italian nationalists' 19th-century defeat of the pope's state in central Italy and the crushing of his political power.

Buttiglione, a seasoned politician and political science professor, was nominated to the European Commission by Italy's prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.

In Buttiglione's appearance before the European Parliament panel, he argued that he could keep to his own moral standards and still do the job, which would include upholding E.U. prohibitions against discrimination on the basis of race, sexual orientation and other grounds. "I may think that homosexuality is a sin, and it has no effect on politics unless I say homosexuality is a crime," he said.

On women, he said, "The family exists to permit a woman to have children and be protected by her husband."

Buttiglione's opponents insist they are not anti-Catholic but believe that it is proper to veto a commissioner whose views run counter to anti-discrimination laws and who has politically opposed equal rights for gays. "The justice portfolio is not appropriate for him," said Sophia Helena in't Velt, a member of the Alliance of Democrats and Liberals for Europe, a bloc that opposed Buttiglione's nomination.

A final, full vote on Buttiglione's candidacy is scheduled for Oct. 27, when the entire list of two dozen E.U. commissioners is to be put before the European Parliament for ratification. It cannot veto only one candidate. Negotiations among E.U. politicians are underway about Buttiglione's fate. He has said he will not withdraw.<<

The "Bush-Sharon Axis" NOT in the U.S.'s best interests

2004-10-24T08:12:00.000-04:00

Echoing the views expressed in my previous post, Tom Friedman's article in today's NYTimes is right on the mark.

As I watched the establishment of the "Bush-Sharon Axis" and subsequent developments in Israel and the U.S., I asked the following questions:

Are their policies in the best interests of Israelis?

Answer: NO!

Are their policies in the best interests of the global Jewish community?

Answer: NO!

Are their policies in the best interests of the United States of America?"

Answer: HELL...NO!!!

Well aware that these policies triggered ever-growing anti-Americanism and anti-Semitism, I simply could not understand why anyone with even half a brain in good working condition would support actions/INactions that were so highly counterproductive for all involved.

Tom Friedman seems to have reached largely the same conclusion and, as a Jewish American, has the guts to write about a subject that has been largely taboo, namely, the high price we are all paying for the stupidity of right-wing extremists, both in the U.S. and Israel.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/24/opinion/24friedman.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 24, 2004

Jews, Israel and America by Thomas L. Friedman

I was speaking the other day with Scott Pelley of CBS News's "60 Minutes" about the mood in Iraq. He had just returned from filming a piece there and he told me something disturbing. Scott had gone around and asked Iraqis on the streets what they called American troops - wondering if they had nicknames for us in the way we used to call the Nazis "Krauts" or the Vietcong "Charlie." And what did he find? "Many Iraqis have so much distrust for U.S. forces we found they've come up with a nickname for our troops," Scott said. "They call American soldiers 'The Jews,' as in, 'Don't go down that street, the Jews set up a roadblock.' "

I have no idea how widespread this perception is, but it does not surprise me that some Iraqis would talk that way. Our communications in Iraq have been so inept since we arrived, many Iraqis still don't know who America is or why it came. But such talk is also indicative of a trend in the Arab media, after a century of Arab-Jewish strife, where if you want to brand someone as illegitimate, just call him a "Jew." Indeed, this trend has widened since 9/11. Now you find a steadily rising perception across the Arab-Muslim world that the great enemy of Islam is JIA - "Jews, Israel and America," all lumped together in a single threat.

This wider trend has been fanned by Arab satellite TV stations, which deliberately show split-screen images of Israelis bashing Palestinians and U.S. forces bashing the Iraqi insurgents. The trend has also been encouraged by some mosque preachers looking to explain away all the Arab world's ills by wrapping all the Satans together into JIA. This trend has been helped by the Bush team's failed approach to the Arab-Israel problem, which is to tell the truth only to Yasir Arafat, while embracing Ariel Sharon so tightly that it's impossible to know anymore where U.S. policy stops and Mr. Sharon's begins.

This trend of JIA is now metastasizing from the core of the Arab-Israel conflict, across the Muslim world and into Europe. There is no quick fix. One thing that Israel can do is push harder to defuse the conflict with the Palestinians in order to deprive the Arab media of the raw images that help to feed this phenomenon, not because the continuing conflict is all Israel's fault - it is not - but because Israel has such an overriding interest in forging a partnership with a legitimate Palestinian Authority, and getting this poisonous show off the air. A generation of Muslims raised on these images on the Internet is enormously dangerous for Jews, Israel and America.

This brings us to this week's vote in the Israeli Parliament about whether to proceed with Mr. Sharon's plan for a unilateral withdrawal from the Gaza Strip. Mr. Sharon, a man of the right, has finally realized the demographic threat posed by Gaza to Israel and wants to get out. He is being opposed by the Israeli far right - the Jewish Hezbollah. This includes settler rabbis who have urged soldiers to disobey orders and, with winks and nods, have let it be known that if someone were to eliminate Ariel Sharon he would be acting out God's will. In this struggle between Jewish fanatics and Ariel Sharon, we must stand with Mr. Sharon. These settler rabbis are a blot on the Jewish people.

But in the struggle between Mr. Sharon and common sense, America should be with common sense. The late Yitzhak Rabin wanted to get out of Gaza to make peace with the Palestinians, because he understood the danger of "Jews, Israel and America" all getting melded together in the nuclear age. Mr. Rabin knew that no peace deal would resonate in the Arab-Muslim world if it did not have a legitimate Palestinian partner. Mr. Sharon seems to want to get out of Gaza to make peace with the Jews. His aides have made clear that he is getting out of Gaza in order to entrench Israel even more deeply in the West Bank and the Jewish settlements there.

In the face of this plan, the Bush team is silent. This is partly because the Palestinians continue to stick with Arafat as their leader, even though this bum has led them to ruin - so the U.S. has nothing to offer Israel. And it's partly because the Bush team, which is so inept at diplomacy, has never had the energy or creativity to shape a better Palestinian alternative to Arafat. As a result, the Sharon vision of getting out of Gaza in order to take over the West Bank will probably win by default. If that happens, "Jews, Israel and America" will be bound together more tightly than ever as the enemies of Arabs and Muslims.<<

Politicizing intelligence

2004-10-23T07:41:00.000-04:00

Politicizing intel....

Zillions of tax payers' dollars are spent for intel gathering every year with some 15 agencies in the snoopin' business.

Unfortunately, the views of analysts who do not toe the official line are often ignored and/or their views skewed to justify preconceived notions.

Once intel is tailored to the requirements of a given administration to justify its actions, such as dragging our nation into an UNprovoked war, all the money spent is basically wasted.

To this day, Bush-Cheney use DISinformation provided by Douglas Feith's office (read: Sharonites) on the campaign trail that does not accurately reflect the views of intelligence services.

"Neoconservatives" such as Wolfowitz, Feith, Abrams, Libby and others with close ties to Israel's Likud party (Sharonites) have been instrumental in making the case for war on Iraq starting in the mid-nineties.

In fact, their "Project for a New American Century" called not only for removing Saddam but, for restructuring the whole Middle East thereby "cleaning up" Israel's neighborhood.

Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld proved receptive to their goals given that they too were interested in removing Saddam to allow their campaign contributors access to an OIL-rich nation.

Thus, the "Bush-Sharon Axis" was born and Americans were dragged into war under false pretenses.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/23/opinion/23sat1.html

New York Times - October 23, 2004

How to Skew Intelligence

It's long been obvious that the allegations about Saddam Hussein's dangerous weapons and alliance with Osama bin Laden were false. But as the election draws closer, the remaining question is to what extent President Bush's team knew the allegations were wrong and used them anyway to persuade Americans to back the invasion of Iraq.

A report issued Thursday by the senior Democrat on the Senate Armed Services Committee, Carl Levin of Michigan, shows that on the question of an Iraqi-Qaeda axis, Mr. Bush, Vice President Dick Cheney and others offered an indictment that was essentially fabricated in the office of Douglas Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy.

Mr. Levin's report does not prove that President Bush knew that the Hussein-bin Laden alliance was fiction. But officials like Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and his deputy, Paul Wolfowitz - as well as Mr. Cheney's chief of staff and the deputy national security adviser - knew that Mr. Feith's tailored conclusions were contrary to the views of the entire intelligence community. Mr. Cheney presented them to the public as confirmed truth about Iraq and Al Qaeda.

The Levin report is a primer on how intelligence can be cooked to fit a political agenda. It is another sad reminder of this administration's refusal to hold anyone accountable for the way the public was led into the war with Iraq.

It focuses on the intelligence operation set up by Mr. Rumsfeld, who had been advocating an invasion of Iraq long before Mr. Bush took office and wanted more damning evidence against Baghdad after 9/11 than the Central Intelligence Agency had.

This operation, run by Mr. Feith, tried to persuade the Pentagon's own espionage unit, the Defense Intelligence Agency, to change its conclusion that there was no alliance between Iraq and Al Qaeda. When the Defense Intelligence Agency rebuffed this blatant interference, Mr. Feith's team wrote its own report.

It took long-discredited raw intelligence and resurrected it to create the impression that there was new information supporting Mr. Feith's preordained conclusions. It misrepresented the C.I.A.'s reports and presented fifth-hand reports as authoritative, all to depict Iraq as an ally of Al Qaeda.

Bipartisan reports from the 9/11 commission and the Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that the intelligence community had been right and Mr. Feith wrong: there was no operational relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, and no link at all between Mr. Hussein and the 9/11 attacks.

For those who were confused before the war, and still are, by all the Bush administration's claims - that the hijacker Mohamed Atta met with an Iraqi official shortly before 9/11, that a member of Al Qaeda set up a base in Iraq with the help of Mr. Hussein, that Iraq helped Al Qaeda learn to make bombs and provided it with explosives - the evidence is now clear. The Levin report, together with the 9/11 panel's findings and the Senate intelligence report, show that those claims were all cooked up by Mr. Feith's shop, which knew that the C.I.A. and the Defense Intelligence Agency had already shown them to be false.

We don't know exactly how much of that the White House knew because Mr. Feith tried to confuse things. He eliminated points that the C.I.A. disputed when he showed the intelligence agency his report, and he put them back in when he sent it to the White House.

The Bush administration called Mr. Levin's report pre-election partisan sniping. It is far more than that, but voters, unfortunately, won't get final answers.

The Senate Intelligence Committee, which has reported on the C.I.A.'s actions before the war, has delayed a review of the administration's behavior until after the election. We also will not see the C.I.A.'s own report because Mr. Bush's new intelligence chief, Porter Goss, has rebuffed a bipartisan request from Congress to release it.

Voters have to decide whether to hold Mr. Bush accountable for the skewed intelligence cooked up by his administration to justify the war. <<>Intelligence

Pentagon Reportedly Skewed C.I.A.'s View of Qaeda Tie by Douglas Jehl

As recently as January 2004, a top Defense Department official misrepresented to Congress the view of American intelligence agencies about the relationship between Iraq and Al Qaeda, according to a new report by a Senate Democrat.

The report said a classified document prepared by Douglas J. Feith, the under secretary of defense for policy, not only asserted that there were ties between the Baghdad government and the terrorist network, but also did not reflect accurately the intelligence agencies' assessment - even while claiming that it did.

In issuing the report, the senator, Carl M. Levin, the senior Democrat on the Armed Services Committee, said he would ask the panel to take "appropriate action'' against Mr. Feith. Senator Levin said Mr. Feith had repeatedly described the ties between Iraq and Al Qaeda as far more significant and extensive than the intelligence agencies had.

The broad outlines of Mr. Feith's efforts to promote the idea of such close links have been previously disclosed.

The view, a staple of the Bush administration's public statements before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003, has since been discredited by the Sept. 11 commission, which concluded that Iraq and Al Qaeda had "no close collaborative relationship.''

The 46-page report by Senator Levin and the Democratic staff of the Armed Services Committee is the first to focus narrowly on the role played by Mr. Feith's office. Democrats had sought to include that line of inquiry in a report completed in June by the Senate Intelligence Committee, but Republicans on the panel postponed that phase of the study until after the presidential election.

In an interview, Mr. Levin said he had concluded that Mr. Feith had practiced "continuing deception of Congress.'' But he said he had no evidence that Mr. Feith's conduct had been illegal.

Mr. Levin began the inquiry in June 2003, after Republicans on the panel, led by Senator John W. Warner of Virginia, declined to take part. He said his findings were endorsed by other Democrats on the committee, but complained that the Defense Department and the Central Intelligence Agency had declined to provide crucial documents.

In a statement, the Pentagon said the Levin report "appears to depart from the bipartisan, consultative relationship" between the Defense Department and the Armed Services Committee, adding, "The unanimous, bipartisan Senate Select Committee on Intelligence report of July 2004 found no evidence that administration officials tried to coerce, influence or pressure intelligence analysts to change their judgments."

Senator Warner said, "I take strong exception to the conclusions Senator Levin reaches." He said his view was based on the Intelligence Committee's "analysis thus far of the public and classified records."

Among the findings in the report were that the C.I.A. had become skeptical by June 2002, earlier than previously known, about a supposed meeting in April 2001 in Prague between Mohamed Atta, a leader of the Sept. 11 attacks, and an Iraqi intelligence official. Nevertheless, Mr. Feith and other senior Bush administration officials, including Vice President Dick Cheney, continued at least through the end of 2002 to describe the reported meeting as evidence of a possible link between Iraq and the Sept. 11 attacks.

Mr. Levin's report drew particular attention to statements by Mr. Feith in communications with Congress beginning in July 2003 about such a link.

A classified annex sent by Mr. Feith to the Senate Intelligence Committee on Oct. 27, 2003, which was disclosed two weeks later by The Weekly Standard, asserted that "Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein had an operational relationship from the early 1990's to 2003,'' and concluded, "There can no longer be any serious argument about whether Saddam Hussein's Iraq worked with Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda to plot against Americans.''

In a Nov. 15 news release, the Defense Department said the "provision of the classified annex to the Intelligence Committee was cleared by other agencies, and done with the permission of the intelligence community.'' But Mr. Levin's report said that statement was incorrect, because the Central Intelligence Agency had not cleared release of Mr. Feith's annex.

The Levin report also disclosed for the first time that the C.I.A., in December 2003, sent Mr. Feith a letter pointing out corrections he should make to the document before providing it to Senator Levin, who had requested the document as part of his investigation.

Perhaps most critically, the report says, Mr. Feith repeated a questionable assertion concerning a Jordanian, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, a Qaeda ally whose presence in Iraq was cited by the Bush administration before the war as crucial evidence of Mr. Hussein's support for terrorism.

In his Oct. 27 letter, Mr. Feith told Congress that the Iraqi intelligence service knew of Mr. Zarqawi's entry into Iraq. In recommending a correction, the C.I.A. said that claim had not been supported by the intelligence report that Mr. Feith had cited, the Levin report says. Nevertheless, the report says, Mr. Feith reiterated the assertion in his addendum, attributing it to a different intelligence report - one that likewise did not state that Iraq knew Mr. Zarqawi was in the country.

A reassessment completed by American intelligence agencies in September concluded that it is not clear whether Mr. Hussein's government harbored Mr. Zarqawi during his time in Iraq before the war, intelligence officials have said.<<

Why U.S. "regime change" is of the essence....

2004-10-23T07:32:00.000-04:00

The reasons for the enormous importance of the upcoming U.S. election is summarized very effectively by Timothy Garton in the following article.

Foreign policy, an issue that is usually not high up on the agenda of most Americans as they enter the voting boot, is clearly front and center this election year given that the choice we make will affect our relationship with the rest of the world for decades to come.

If peaceful coexistence is our ultimate objective, "regime change" is imperative to achieve that goal:

"If, however, Americans choose Sen. John F. Kerry as their 44th president, we will have a chance of reconstructing the transatlantic West on a new basis. In Europe, Kerry will enjoy a huge opening bonus simply because he is not George W. Bush. His offer of working with allies will be greeted with open arms. Skeptics say the difference between the two candidates' approaches is style, not substance, but in this relationship, style is substance. The difference between unilateralism and multilateralism is all about how you do it, not what you do. Half the European objections to Bush's policy concern the how, not the what. Electing Kerry will encourage the silent majority of Euro-Atlanticists in Europe to speak up. Moreover, Kerry can credibly say he wants a united Europe as a strong partner of the United States, whereas no one in Europe would now believe Bush even if he said it."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55777-2004Oct22.html

Wash Post - Sunday, October 24, 2004

President Kerry and Europe - Revitalizing an Alliance Depends on Bush's Defeat By Timothy Garton Ash

This U.S. election will shape the future of Europe and the trans- atlantic West.

If President Bush is reelected, many Europeans will try to make the European Union a rival superpower to the United States.

Led by French President Jacques Chirac, they will find the main justification for further European integration in counterbalancing what they see as irresponsible, unchecked American power. In the great European argument between Euro-Gaullists and Euro-Atlanticists, these Euro-Gaullists will be strengthened. The temptation for Europe to define itself as Not America will be increased. All this at a formative moment when an enlarged European Union is hoping to give itself a new constitution and work out what it wants to be.

Specifically, even fewer of the European states will be ready to help pull Washington's irons out of the fire in Iraq. Poland has already said it will follow Spain out of that firestorm; Tony Blair's position will be more embattled than ever. Meanwhile, Iran seems likely to precipitate the next crisis of the West. If a second Bush administration were to unilaterally threaten the use of force to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapons capability, one can imagine the furious reaction on the streets of Europe.

Yet the Iranian regime, unlike Saddam Hussein, probably is close to developing a nuclear weapons capability -- and Europe's soft diplomacy has been no more effective in preventing it than U.S. huffing and puffing. Only combined action stands a chance.

Even more important, in the longer term, is China. Chirac has been pursuing a shameless policy of wooing China, for French economic advantage and to poke Washington in the eye. He has endorsed Beijing's position on Taiwan and said the E.U. embargo on arms exports to China should be lifted. This raises the grotesque prospect of European weapons being pointed at American warships in the Taiwan Strait. But of course it's not France that is calling the shots here. In the 1970s, Henry Kissinger played the China card against the Soviet Union. Today, China is playing the European card against the United States.

The Euro-Gaullist attempt to create a rival European superpower would be catalyzed by the advent of a second Bush administration. It would not, however, succeed. The forces of Euro-Atlanticism are still much too strong, especially in an enlarged European Union of 25 member states. A second Bush administration would find plenty of opportunities to do what it has done already in the past few years: divide and rule. The result would be a divided Europe in a still more divided West.

If, however, Americans choose Sen. John F. Kerry as their 44th president, we will have a chance of reconstructing the transatlantic West on a new basis. In Europe, Kerry will enjoy a huge opening bonus simply because he is not George W. Bush. His offer of working with allies will be greeted with open arms. Skeptics say the difference between the two candidates' approaches is style, not substance, but in this relationship, style is substance. The difference between unilateralism and multilateralism is all about how you do it, not what you do. Half the European objections to Bush's policy concern the how, not the what. Electing Kerry will encourage the silent majority of Euro-Atlanticists in Europe to speak up. Moreover, Kerry can credibly say he wants a united Europe as a strong partner of the United States, whereas no one in Europe would now believe Bush even if he said it.

The difficulties are still immense. Germany and France won't send troops to Iraq. On Iran, Europe needs to get tougher while America needs to get smarter. As the largest emerging market in the world, China will find many more chances for divide-and-rule between export-hungry Western democracies.

So we may still fail. But there is a chance.

I think it important to make clear the position from which I write. I love America, spend part of each year at a great American university and believe passionately that it is possible to be both pro-European and pro-American. I have never belonged to any British political party, let alone an American one. As a contemporary historian, I conclude that some Republican presidents have done great things for Europe.

Ronald Reagan's dramatic turn from arms race to detente, in response to the emergence of Mikhail Gorbachev, was one such. The current president's father, George H.W. Bush, made the peaceful liberation of central Europe possible by his wise and mature statecraft. But not this Bush, not this time.

In any sober analysis, the chances of the world's two largest assemblages of the rich and free being able to work together to confront the coming great global challenges will be better with a President Kerry. And only if America and Europe work together can we unfold, for the rest of the world, the transforming power of liberty.

The writer is professor of European studies at Oxford University and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University. His next book, "Free World: America, Europe and the Surprising Future of the West, will be published next month.<<

From "The American Conservative"

2004-10-21T07:22:00.000-04:00

Increasingly, Republicans have come to the realization that their "fearless leader" presently sitting in the Oval Office should be sent home to pasture on Nov. 2

Their rationale is based on opposition to Bush, not enthusiastic support for Sen. Kerry.

But, be that as it may, those of us who realize the enormous damage to the U.S. and the world implied in a Bush second term, are thankful to those conservatives who will vote for Sen. Kerry albeit as an "anyone but Bush" candidate.

"The American CONSERVATIVE" - October 2004

http://www.amconmag.com/2004_11_08/cover1.html

Kerry's the One By Scott McConnell

There is little in John Kerry's persona or platform that appeals to
conservatives. The flip-flopper charge-the centerpiece of the Republican campaign
against Kerry-seems overdone, as Kerry's contrasting votes are the sort of baggage
any senator of long service is likely to pick up. (Bob Dole could tell you all
about it.) But Kerry is plainly a conventional liberal and no candidate for a
future edition of Profiles in Courage. In my view, he will always deserve
censure for his vote in favor of the Iraq War in 2002.

But this election is not about John Kerry. If he were to win, his dearth of
charisma would likely ensure him a single term. He would face challenges from
within his own party and a thwarting of his most expensive initiatives by a
Republican Congress. Much of his presidency would be absorbed by trying to clean
up the mess left to him in Iraq. He would be constrained by the swollen
deficits and a ripe target for the next Republican nominee.

It is, instead, an election about the presidency of George W. Bush. To the
surprise of virtually everyone, Bush has turned into an important president, and
in many ways the most radical America has had since the 19th century. Because
he is the leader of America's conservative party, he has become the Left's
perfect foil-its dream candidate. The libertarian writer Lew Rockwell has
mischievously noted parallels between Bush and Russia's last tsar, Nicholas II: both
gained office as a result of family connections, both initiated an unnecessary war that shattered their countries' budgets. Lenin needed the calamitous reign of Nicholas II to create an opening for the Bolsheviks.

Bush has behaved like a caricature of what a right-wing president is supposed
to be, and his continuation in office will discredit any sort of conservatism
for generations. The launching of an invasion against a country that posed no
threat to the U.S., the doling out of war profits and concessions to
politically favored corporations, the financing of the war by ballooning the deficit
to be passed on to the nation's children, the ceaseless drive to cut taxes for
those outside the middle class and working poor: it is as if Bush sought to
resurrect every false 1960s-era left-wing cliché about predatory imperialism and
turn it into administration policy. Add to this his nation-breaking immigration proposal-Bush has laid out a mad scheme to import immigrants to fill any job where the wage is so low that an American can't be found to do it-and you have a presidency that combines imperialist Right and open-borders Left in a uniquely noxious cocktail.

During the campaign, few have paid attention to how much the Bush presidency
has degraded the image of the United States in the world. Of course there has
always been "anti-Americanism." After the Second World War many European
intellectuals argued for a "Third Way" between American-style capitalism and Soviet
communism, and a generation later Europe's radicals embraced every ragged
"anti-imperialist" cause that came along. In South America, defiance of "the
Yanqui" always draws a crowd. But Bush has somehow managed to take all these
sentiments and turbo-charge them. In Europe and indeed all over the world, he has
made the United States despised by people who used to be its friends, by
businessmen and the middle classes, by moderate and sensible liberals. Never before
have democratic foreign governments needed to demonstrate disdain for
Washington to their own electorates in order to survive in office. The poll numbers
are shocking. In countries like Norway, Germany, France, and Spain, Bush is
liked by about seven percent of the populace. In Egypt, recipient of huge piles of
American aid in the past two decades, some 98 percent have an unfavorable
view of the United States. It's the same throughout the Middle East.

Bush has accomplished this by giving the U.S. a novel foreign-policy doctrine
under which it arrogates to itself the right to invade any country it wants
if it feels threatened. It is an American version of the Brezhnev Doctrine, but
the latter was at least confined to Eastern Europe. If the analogy seems
extreme, what is an appropriate comparison when a country manufactures falsehoods
about a foreign government, disseminates them widely, and invades the country
on the basis of those falsehoods? It is not an action that any American
president has ever taken before. It is not something that "good" countries do. It is
the main reason that people all over the world who used to consider the
United States a reliable and necessary bulwark of world stability now see us as a
menace to their own peace and security.

These sentiments mean that as long as Bush is president, we have no real
allies in the world, no friends to help us dig out from the Iraq quagmire. More
tragically, they mean that if terrorists succeed in striking at the United
States in another 9/11-type attack, many in the world will not only think of the
American victims but also of the thousands and thousands of Iraqi civilians
killed and maimed by American armed forces. The hatred Bush has generated has
helped immeasurably those trying to recruit anti-American terrorists-indeed his
policies are the gift to terrorism that keeps on giving, as the sons and
brothers of slain Iraqis think how they may eventually take their own revenge. Only
the seriously deluded could fail to see that a policy so central to America's
survival as a free country as getting hold of loose nuclear materials and
controlling nuclear proliferation requires the willingness of foreign countries to
provide full, 100 percent co-operation. Making yourself into the world's most
hated country is not an obvious way to secure that help.

I've heard people who have known George W. Bush for decades and served
prominently in his father's administration say that he could not possibly have
conceived of the doctrine of pre-emptive war by himself, that he was essentially
taken for a ride by people with a pre-existing agenda to overturn Saddam
Hussein. Bush's public performances plainly show him to be a man who has never read
or thought much about foreign policy. So the inevitable questions are: who
makes the key foreign-policy decisions in the Bush presidency, who controls the
information flow to the president, how are various options are presented?

The record, from published administration memoirs and in-depth reporting, is
one of an administration with a very small group of six or eight real
decision-makers, who were set on war from the beginning and who took great pains to
shut out arguments from professionals in the CIA and State Department and the
U.S. armed forces that contradicted their rosy scenarios about easy victory.
Much has been written about the neoconservative hand guiding the Bush
presidency-and it is peculiar that one who was fired from the National Security Council
in the Reagan administration for suspicion of passing classified material to
the Israeli embassy and another who has written position papers for an Israeli
Likud Party leader have become key players in the making of American foreign
policy.

But neoconservatism now encompasses much more than Israel-obsessed
intellectuals and policy insiders. The Bush foreign policy also surfs on deep currents
within the Christian Right, some of which see unqualified support of Israel as
part of a godly plan to bring about Armageddon and the future kingdom of
Christ. These two strands of Jewish and Christian extremism build on one another in
the Bush presidency-and President Bush has given not the slightest indication
he would restrain either in a second term. With Colin Powell's departure from
the State Department looming, Bush is more than ever the "neoconian candidate."

The only way Americans will have a presidency in which neoconservatives and the Christian Armageddon set are not holding the reins of power is if Kerry is elected.

If Kerry wins, this magazine will be in opposition from Inauguration Day
forward. But the most important battles will take place within the Republican
Party and the conservative movement. A Bush defeat will ignite a huge
soul-searching within the rank-and-file of Republicandom: a quest to find out how and
where the Bush presidency went wrong. And it is then that more traditional
conservatives will have an audience to argue for a conservatism informed by the
lessons of history, based in prudence and a sense of continuity with the American
past-and to make that case without a powerful White House pulling in the
opposite direction.

George W. Bush has come to embody a politics that is antithetical to almost
any kind of thoughtful conservatism. His international policies have been based
on the hopelessly naïve belief that foreign peoples are eager to be liberated
by American armies-a notion more grounded in Leon Trotsky's concept of global
revolution than any sort of conservative statecraft. His immigration
policies-temporarily put on hold while he runs for re-election-are just as extreme. A
re-elected President Bush would be committed to bringing in millions of
low-wage immigrants to do jobs Americans "won't do." This election is all about
George W. Bush, and those issues are enough to render him unworthy of any
conservative support.<<

Subliminal "strategery?"

2004-10-21T07:20:00.000-04:00

Hmmmm....

Were Pat Robertson's remarks actually designed as subliminal "strategery" in support of Sen. Kerry?

I caught his remarks live on the tube and couldn't quite believe that I was hearing...well...what I was actually hearing.

" 'He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties,' " Robertson said.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties," Robertson quoted Bush as saying. " 'Well,' I said, 'it's the way it's going to be. . . . The Lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy.' "

True. He then followed his implied criticism by stating:

"In a statement yesterday, Robertson did not back away from his comments about Bush and said, "I emphatically stated that I believe 'the blessing of heaven is upon him,' and I am persuaded that he will win this election and prevail on the war against terror."

But, the damage had been done and any subsequent reaffirmations that "God was on Bush's side" were totally ineffective.

The question then becomes: Was Robertson aware that his words would play into the opposition's hands or, is he too dumb to realize the damage to his "fearless leader" by painting him as what he truly is....an incompetent, arrogant, self-righteous nincompoop?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A49088-2004Oct20.html

Washington Post Staff Writer - Thursday, October 21, 2004

Bush Predicted No Iraq Casualties, Robertson Says By Alan Cooperman

The Rev. Pat Robertson said President Bush dismissed his warning that the United States would suffer heavy casualties in Iraq and told the television evangelist just before the beginning of the war that "we're not going to have any casualties."

Robertson related the conversation during an interview with CNN late Tuesday. He said he spoke to Bush before the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 and urged him to prepare the nation for heavy casualties. While Bush's response was a mistake, Robertson said, God has blessed the president anyhow.

Sen. John F. Kerry's campaign pounced on the remarks yesterday.

"We believe President Bush should get the benefit of the doubt here, but he needs to come forward and answer a very simple question," Kerry adviser Mike McCurry said in a statement. "Is Pat Robertson telling the truth when he said you didn't think there'd be any casualties, or is Pat Robertson lying?"

White House political adviser Karl Rove told reporters that Bush never said he did not expect casualties. "I was right there," Rove said of the president's conversation with Robertson.

In a statement yesterday, Robertson did not back away from his comments about Bush and said, "I emphatically stated that I believe 'the blessing of heaven is upon him,' and I am persuaded that he will win this election and prevail on the war against terror."

Robertson, who made a bid for the GOP presidential nomination in 1988, has repeatedly suggested on his "700 Club" cable television show that he believes God favors Bush's reelection. But he denied in Tuesday's interview with CNN's Paula Zahn that he has tried to instruct Christians on how to vote.

"I just said, I think God's blessing him, and I think it's one of those things that, even if he stumbles and messes up -- and he's had his share of goofs and gaffes -- I just think God's blessing is on him. And you remember, I think the Chinese used to say, you know, it's the blessing of heaven on the emperor. And I think the blessing of heaven is on Bush. It's just the way it is," Robertson said.

Asked about Bush's mistakes, the evangelist recalled: "I met with him down in Nashville before the Gulf war started. And he was the most self-assured man I ever met in my life." Borrowing a line from Mark Twain, Robertson said Bush looked "like a contented Christian with four aces."

"He was just sitting there, like, I'm on top of the world, and I warned him about this war. I had deep misgivings about this war, deep misgivings. And I was trying to say, 'Mr. President, you better prepare the American people for casualties,' " Robertson said.

"Oh, no, we're not going to have any casualties," Robertson quoted Bush as saying. " 'Well,' I said, 'it's the way it's going to be. . . . The Lord told me it was going to be, A, a disaster and, B, messy.' "<<

Added bonus: John Kerry speaks...ENGLISH!

2004-10-18T05:46:00.000-04:00

It boggles the mind to think that the deceptive gang presently in power could be allowed to govern for another four years.

How many more people will they antagonize and KILL before the whole world goes up in flames?

"There should no longer be any doubt that the war in Iraq is an exercise in lunacy. It was launched with a spurious rationale, the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a fantasy relentlessly stoked by obsessively hawkish middle-aged men who ran and hid when they were of fighting age and the nation was at war."

Once the inspectors were back in Iraq, why not allow them to finish their job? What was the rush to invade another Arab/Muslim nation when the work in Afghanistan was far from completed?

Answer: Members of the "Bush-Sharon Axis" had targeted Iraq as soon as both individuals were ensconced in their respective thrones.

It was never a question of IF but simply a question of WHEN they would occupy the nation and 9/11 provided the trigger they used to justify a war based on GREED and PARANOIA.

As a result, thousands of innocent Iraqis and Americans have been, and continue to be... KILLED.

Should Bush-Cheney be reelected, we, the American people, will be just as responsible for their deaths as they are.

As they say..."Fool me once, shame on you....Fool me twice, shame on me."

I, for one, don't believe that any individual(s) should be rewarded for dragging a nation into an UNprovoked war.

For Bushites to pretend that by invading Iraq the world is safer than it was before 9/11, is the ultimate exercise in deception.

Hopefully, the majority of Americans will awaken before Nov. 2 and elect an intelligent, insightful, experienced individual determined to unite the world at a time it is sorely needed.

Added bonus: John Kerry speaks ENGLISH!

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/18/opinion/18herbert.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 18, 2004

A War Without Reason by Bob Herbert

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."
- President Bush, Oct. 7, 2002

There should no longer be any doubt that the war in Iraq is an exercise in lunacy. It was launched with a spurious rationale, the weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be a fantasy relentlessly stoked by obsessively hawkish middle-aged men who ran and hid when they were of fighting age and the nation was at war.

Now we find that we can't win this war we started. Soldiers and civilians alike are trapped in the proverbial briar patch, unable to move around safely in a country that the warmongers thought would be easy to conquer and then rebuild.

There is no way to overstate how profoundly wrong they were.

Our troops continue to die but we can't even identify the enemy, which is why so many innocent Iraqi civilians - including women and children - are being blown away. The civilians are being killed by the thousands, even as the dreaded Saddam Hussein is receiving first-class health care (most recently a successful hernia operation) from his captors.

Last week, in a story that read like a chapter from an antiwar novel, we learned that members of an Army Reserve platoon were taken into custody and held for two days after they refused to deliver a shipment of fuel to Taji, a town 15 miles north of Baghdad. They complained that the trip was too dangerous to make without an escort of armored vehicles. Several of the reservists described the trip as a "suicide mission."

The military said that was an isolated incident, but there is evidence of growing dissatisfaction among the troops, many of whom feel they are targets surrounded by hostile Iraqis -insurgents and ordinary civilians alike - in a war that lacks a clearly defined mission.

Even the heavily fortified Green Zone, which contains the U.S. embassy and the headquarters of the interim Iraqi government, was penetrated by suicide bombers last Thursday. At least five people, including three Americans who had been providing security for diplomats, were killed in the attack.

As the pointlessness of this war grows ever clearer, the president's grand alliance, like some of the soldiers on the ground, is losing its resolve. When John Kerry, in the first presidential debate, mentioned only Britain and Australia as he mocked Mr. Bush's "coalition" in Iraq, the president famously replied, "You forgot Poland."

Poland has 2,400 troops in Iraq. But on Friday the prime minister, Marek Belka, announced that he will cut that number early next year, and then "will engage in talks on a further reduction."

Mr. Belka has a political problem. He can't explain the war to his constituents. And that's because there is no rational explanation.

As for the rebuilding of Iraq, forget about it. Hundreds of schools were damaged by U.S. bombing and thousands were looted by Iraqis. It's hard to believe that an administration that won't rebuild schools here in America will really go to bat for schoolkids in Iraq. Millions of Iraqi kids now attend schools that are decrepit and, in many cases, all but falling down-lacking such essentials as desks, chairs and even toilets, according to the United Nations Children's Fund.

Military commanders are warning that delays in the overall reconstruction are increasing the danger for American troops. A senior American military officer told The Times, "We can either put Iraqis back to work, or we can have them shoot [rocket-propelled grenades] at us."

The president and his apologists never understood what they were getting into in Iraq. What is unmistakable now is that Americans will never be willing to commit the overwhelming numbers of troops and spend the hundreds of billions of additional dollars necessary to have even a hope of bringing long-term stability to Iraq.

This is a war that never made sense and now we are seeing - from the troops on the ground, from our allies overseas and increasingly from the population here at home - the inevitable reluctance to forge ahead with the madness.

The president likes to say he made exactly the right decision on Iraq. Each new death of a soldier or a civilian, each child who loses a parent to the carnage, each healthy body that is broken or burned in this war that didn't have to happen, is a reminder of how horribly wrong he was. <<

"John Kerry for President"

2004-10-17T08:18:00.000-04:00

And the OBVIOUS choice is....

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/opinion/17sun1.html?oref=login&pagewanted=all&position=

New York Times - October 17, 2004

John Kerry for President

Senator John Kerry goes toward the election with a base that is built more on opposition to George W. Bush than loyalty to his own candidacy. But over the last year we have come to know Mr. Kerry as more than just an alternative to the status quo. We like what we've seen. He has qualities that could be the basis for a great chief executive, not just a modest improvement on the incumbent.

We have been impressed with Mr. Kerry's wide knowledge and clear thinking - something that became more apparent once he was reined in by that two-minute debate light. He is blessedly willing to re-evaluate decisions when conditions change. And while Mr. Kerry's service in Vietnam was first over-promoted and then over-pilloried, his entire life has been devoted to public service, from the war to a series of elected offices. He strikes us, above all, as a man with a strong moral core.

•

There is no denying that this race is mainly about Mr. Bush's disastrous tenure. Nearly four years ago, after the Supreme Court awarded him the presidency, Mr. Bush came into office amid popular expectation that he would acknowledge his lack of a mandate by sticking close to the center. Instead, he turned the government over to the radical right.

Mr. Bush installed John Ashcroft, a favorite of the far right with a history of insensitivity to civil liberties, as attorney general. He sent the Senate one ideological, activist judicial nominee after another. He moved quickly to implement a far-reaching anti-choice agenda including censorship of government Web sites and a clampdown on embryonic stem cell research. He threw the government's weight against efforts by the University of Michigan to give minority students an edge in admission, as it did for students from rural areas or the offspring of alumni.

When the nation fell into recession, the president remained fixated not on generating jobs but rather on fighting the right wing's war against taxing the wealthy. As a result, money that could have been used to strengthen Social Security evaporated, as did the chance to provide adequate funding for programs the president himself had backed. No Child Left Behind, his signature domestic program, imposed higher standards on local school systems without providing enough money to meet them.

If Mr. Bush had wanted to make a mark on an issue on which Republicans and Democrats have long made common cause, he could have picked the environment. Christie Whitman, the former New Jersey governor chosen to run the Environmental Protection Agency, came from that bipartisan tradition. Yet she left after three years of futile struggle against the ideologues and industry lobbyists Mr. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney had installed in every other important environmental post. The result has been a systematic weakening of regulatory safeguards across the entire spectrum of environmental issues, from clean air to wilderness protection.

•

The president who lost the popular vote got a real mandate on Sept. 11, 2001. With the grieving country united behind him, Mr. Bush had an unparalleled opportunity to ask for almost any shared sacrifice. The only limit was his imagination.

He asked for another tax cut and the war against Iraq.

The president's refusal to drop his tax-cutting agenda when the nation was gearing up for war is perhaps the most shocking example of his inability to change his priorities in the face of drastically altered circumstances. Mr. Bush did not just starve the government of the money it needed for his own education initiative or the Medicare drug bill. He also made tax cuts a higher priority than doing what was needed for America's security; 90 percent of the cargo unloaded every day in the nation's ports still goes uninspected.

Along with the invasion of Afghanistan, which had near unanimous international and domestic support, Mr. Bush and his attorney general put in place a strategy for a domestic antiterror war that had all the hallmarks of the administration's normal method of doing business: a Nixonian obsession with secrecy, disrespect for civil liberties and inept management.

American citizens were detained for long periods without access to lawyers or family members. Immigrants were rounded up and forced to languish in what the Justice Department's own inspector general found were often "unduly harsh" conditions. Men captured in the Afghan war were held incommunicado with no right to challenge their confinement. The Justice Department became a cheerleader for skirting decades-old international laws and treaties forbidding the brutal treatment of prisoners taken during wartime.

Mr. Ashcroft appeared on TV time and again to announce sensational arrests of people who turned out to be either innocent, harmless braggarts or extremely low-level sympathizers of Osama bin Laden who, while perhaps wishing to do something terrible, lacked the means. The Justice Department cannot claim one major successful terrorism prosecution, and has squandered much of the trust and patience the American people freely gave in 2001. Other nations, perceiving that the vast bulk of the prisoners held for so long at Guantánamo Bay came from the same line of ineffectual incompetents or unlucky innocents, and seeing the awful photographs from the Abu Ghraib prison in Baghdad, were shocked that the nation that was supposed to be setting the world standard for human rights could behave that way.

•

Like the tax cuts, Mr. Bush's obsession with Saddam Hussein seemed closer to zealotry than mere policy. He sold the war to the American people, and to Congress, as an antiterrorist campaign even though Iraq had no known working relationship with Al Qaeda. His most frightening allegation was that Saddam Hussein was close to getting nuclear weapons. It was based on two pieces of evidence. One was a story about attempts to purchase critical materials from Niger, and it was the product of rumor and forgery. The other evidence, the purchase of aluminum tubes that the administration said were meant for a nuclear centrifuge, was concocted by one low-level analyst and had been thoroughly debunked by administration investigators and international vetting. Top members of the administration knew this, but the selling went on anyway. None of the president's chief advisers have ever been held accountable for their misrepresentations to the American people or for their mismanagement of the war that followed.

The international outrage over the American invasion is now joined by a sense of disdain for the incompetence of the effort. Moderate Arab leaders who have attempted to introduce a modicum of democracy are tainted by their connection to an administration that is now radioactive in the Muslim world. Heads of rogue states, including Iran and North Korea, have been taught decisively that the best protection against a pre-emptive American strike is to acquire nuclear weapons themselves.

•

We have specific fears about what would happen in a second Bush term, particularly regarding the Supreme Court. The record so far gives us plenty of cause for worry. Thanks to Mr. Bush, Jay Bybee, the author of an infamous Justice Department memo justifying the use of torture as an interrogation technique, is now a federal appeals court judge. Another Bush selection, J. Leon Holmes, a federal judge in Arkansas, has written that wives must be subordinate to their husbands and compared abortion rights activists to Nazis.

Mr. Bush remains enamored of tax cuts but he has never stopped Republican lawmakers from passing massive spending, even for projects he dislikes, like increased farm aid.

If he wins re-election, domestic and foreign financial markets will know the fiscal recklessness will continue. Along with record trade imbalances, that increases the chances of a financial crisis, like an uncontrolled decline of the dollar, and higher long-term interest rates.

The Bush White House has always given us the worst aspects of the American right without any of the advantages. We get the radical goals but not the efficient management. The Department of Education's handling of the No Child Left Behind Act has been heavily politicized and inept. The Department of Homeland Security is famous for its useless alerts and its inability to distribute antiterrorism aid according to actual threats. Without providing enough troops to properly secure Iraq, the administration has managed to so strain the resources of our armed forces that the nation is unprepared to respond to a crisis anywhere else in the world.

•

Mr. Kerry has the capacity to do far, far better. He has a willingness - sorely missing in Washington these days - to reach across the aisle. We are relieved that he is a strong defender of civil rights, that he would remove unnecessary restrictions on stem cell research and that he understands the concept of separation of church and state. We appreciate his sensible plan to provide health coverage for most of the people who currently do without.

Mr. Kerry has an aggressive and in some cases innovative package of ideas about energy, aimed at addressing global warming and oil dependency. He is a longtime advocate of deficit reduction. In the Senate, he worked with John McCain in restoring relations between the United States and Vietnam, and led investigations of the way the international financial system has been gamed to permit the laundering of drug and terror money. He has always understood that America's appropriate role in world affairs is as leader of a willing community of nations, not in my-way-or-the-highway domination.

We look back on the past four years with hearts nearly breaking, both for the lives unnecessarily lost and for the opportunities so casually wasted. Time and again, history invited George W. Bush to play a heroic role, and time and again he chose the wrong course. We believe that with John Kerry as president, the nation will do better.

Voting for president is a leap of faith. A candidate can explain his positions in minute detail and wind up governing with a hostile Congress that refuses to let him deliver. A disaster can upend the best-laid plans. All citizens can do is mix guesswork and hope, examining what the candidates have done in the past, their apparent priorities and their general character. It's on those three grounds that we enthusiastically endorse John Kerry for president.

An endorsement of Senator Charles Schumer for re-election to the Senate appears today in the City, Long Island and Westchester weekly sections.<<

Bushite LIES and distortions....

2004-10-16T10:26:00.000-04:00

Why Bush is still standing in the polls, roughly two weeks before the election, is one of those mysteries that are difficult to grasp.

Lies and distortions are the trademark of Bushites who will say anything even if it can easily be proven wrong.

Talk about callousness and viciousness....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37013-2004Oct15.html

Wash Post - Sunday, October 17, 2004

We Hold This Dirt to Be Self-Evident By Michael Kinsley

The people running the Bush campaign are political alchemists: They can take anything and turn it into dirt.

Still naive, even after Swift boats and everything else, I couldn't believe that Bush's "nuisance" salvo would work. In fact, when I first heard the accusation (on a right-wing radio talk show), I couldn't even understand it. John Kerry, quoted in a New York Times Magazine profile a week ago, said that he hopes to see the threat of terrorism reduced some day to the level of a minor nuisance. The Bush campaign immediately launched a big offensive on the theme that Kerry thinks Terrorism is merely a nuisance.

Huh? Isn't there a difference between hoping that something will happen and thinking that it has happened already? Do you have to be mired in logic to suspect that these two states of mind are pretty much the opposite of each other? The distinction between how you want things to be and how they really are seems to be a particularly tough one for President Bush himself. But to count on voters to share this confusion is pretty courageous.

The media -- with an undiscriminating appetite for issues and a professional commitment to be fair and balanced between Republicans and Democrats, true and false, good and evil, crunchy and creamy, or any other dichotomy the news confronts them with -- were helpless to resist. By Monday the preposterous and baseless question whether Kerry thinks that terrorism is just a nuisance had become a major campaign issue. Bush brought it up the first time he opened his mouth at Wednesday's presidential debate.

By the weekend other issues, such as Mary Cheney, had been layered on top. Kerry, his stock soaring as polls showed him the big winner in the debates, probably wasn't too badly hurt. Bush, though, was not hurt at all. Now, with the race tightening up, there will be fresh issues emanating from the Bush-Cheney laboratories, all made entirely of artificial ingredients. Pick a sentence -- any sentence -- and see how it's done.

President Bush: "My opponent, you see, wrote -- or he helped to write -- this document, this so-called Declaration of Independence. And in it, see, he says something about how we hold these truths to be self-evident. Now, self-evident is just a fancy word -- or actually it's two words: Of course I know that! I can count! -- it's just a fancy way of saying you don't have to say anything because folks already know it.

"In other words, he's saying that you don't have to tell the truth. Well, I just happen to disagree with that. I think the truth is one of the most important things in our great country. The truth is American. And it's good. It's good to tell the truth. But my opponent disagrees with that. He thinks you don't need to tell the truth. And I happen to think that's wrong. It's a difference in philosophy, you see."

Newspaper Headline: "Kerry Opposes Truth, Bush Charges; Opponent Responds, 'Issue Is Complex' "

Sen. Kerry: "First of all, I'd like to thank President Bush for his important remarks about telling the truth. I also think the truth is very important. But so is falsehood. Falsehood is also very important. Truth and falsehood are both very important, and a president has to understand that. And I have a plan to increase both truth and falsehood by 23 percent over the next seven years by a tax increase on just two people: Warren Buffett and Bill Gates.

"Now, as to this document, this Declaration of Independence, my position is very clear. I did sign it. But I didn't read it. And I opposed it before I signed it. And again after I signed it. I think it's an important document, with important values for our country. But I also think that it is flatly wrong. I signed it because I disagree with it -- because only after it is signed and enacted can it be amended."

Newspaper News Analysis: "Is the Truth Self-Evident?" (excerpt):

"Some experts question Mr. Bush's analysis of the Declaration of Independence. They say it should not necessarily be interpreted as intending to criticize the concept of truth as directly as the president seems to be suggesting. 'The president's interpretation is unique,' said a leading constitutional scholar yesterday. A few critics were even harsher. 'It's really very unique,' one of them said.

"But other experts believe that the president has a point. The late philosopher of language Jacques Derrida, reached just seconds before he died last week, said, 'The Declaration of Independence is a text, which ultimately swallows itself and spits itself out. The concept of truth in this context has no meaning. Although I am French, I strongly support President Bush for making absurdity a top priority.' Sen. Kerry now concedes that the Declaration of Independence 'should have been more carefully worded.' But the damage to his campaign has been done.

"A longtime political strategist outside the Kerry camp yesterday said that Kerry should have pointed out that the Declaration of Independence was written in 1776, which makes it highly unlikely that he was involved in writing it. But several other consultants warned against this strategy.

" 'It's just too risky,' one said, 'to call the president of the United States a liar.' "

The writer is editorial and opinion editor of the Los Angeles Times.<<

Why "regime change" in the U.S. is of the essence

2004-10-14T11:31:00.000-04:00

Why "regime change" is of the essence on Nov. 2 is brought to light by Frank Rich in the following article.

Richard Nixon was accused of abuse of power and forced to resign since he had managed to conceal these abuses before being reelected. This time around, however, we have ample proof of the abuses perpetrated by Shrub-Cheney and their right wing cohorts before voting in Nov. 2.

IF we allow this secretive, deceptive gang to remain in power, we will have no one to blame but...ourselves.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/17/arts/17rich.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1097749621-qCo/OWgUZqRPacPu20cSZg&pagewanted=all&position=

New York Times - October 17, 2004

Will We Need a New 'All the President's Men'? by Frank Rich

SUCH is the power of movies that the first image "Watergate" brings to mind three decades later is not Richard Nixon so much as the golden duo of Redford and Hoffman riding to the nation's rescue in "All the President's Men." But if our current presidency is now showing symptoms of a precancerous Watergate syndrome - as it is, daily - we have not yet reached that denouement immortalized by Hollywood, in which our scrappy heroes finally bring Nixon to heel in his second term. No, we're back instead in the earlier reels of his first term, before the criminality of the Watergate break-in, when no one had heard of Woodward and Bernstein. Back then an arrogant and secretive White House, furious at the bad press fueled by an unpopular and mismanaged war, was still flying high as it kneecapped with impunity any reporter or news organization that challenged its tightly enforced message of victory at hand.

It was then that the vice president, Spiro Agnew, scripted by the speechwriter Pat Buchanan, tried to discredit the press as an elite - or, as he spelled it out, "a tiny, enclosed fraternity of privileged men." It was then that the attorney general, John Mitchell, under the pretext of national security, countenanced wiretaps of Hedrick Smith of The Times and Marvin Kalb of CBS News, as well as a full F.B.I. investigation of CBS's Daniel Schorr. Today it's John Ashcroft's Justice Department, also invoking "national security," that hopes to seize the phone records of Judith Miller and Philip Shenon of The Times, claiming that what amounts to a virtual wiretap is warranted by articles about Islamic charities and terrorism published nearly three years ago.

"The fundamental right of Americans, through our free press, to penetrate and criticize the workings of our government is under attack as never before," wrote William Safire last month. When an alumnus of the Nixon White House says our free press is being attacked as "never before," you listen. What alarms him now are the efforts of Patrick Fitzgerald, the special prosecutor in the Valerie Plame-Robert Novak affair, to threaten reporters at The Times and Time magazine with jail if they don't reveal their sources. Given that the Times reporter in question (Judith Miller again) didn't even write an article on the subject under investigation, Mr. Fitzgerald overreaches so far that he's created a sci-fi plot twist out of Steven Spielberg's "Minority Report."

It's all the scarier for being only one piece in a pattern of media intimidation that's been building for months now. Once Woodward and Bernstein did start investigating Watergate, Nixon plotted to take economic revenge by siccing the Federal Communications Commission on TV stations owned by The Washington Post's parent company. The current White House has been practicing pre-emptive media intimidation to match its policy of pre-emptive war. Its F.C.C. chairman, using Janet Jackson's breast and Howard Stern's mouth as pretexts, has sufficiently rattled Viacom, which broadcast both of these entertainers' infractions against "decency," that its chairman, the self-described "liberal Democrat" Sumner Redstone, abruptly announced his support for the re-election of George W. Bush last month. "I vote for what's good for Viacom," he explained, and he meant it. He took this loyalty oath just days after the "60 Minutes" fiasco prompted a full-fledged political witch hunt on Viacom's CBS News, another Republican target since the Nixon years. Representative Joe Barton, Republican of Texas, has threatened to seek Congressional "safeguards" regulating TV news content and, depending what happens Nov. 2, he may well have the political means to do it.

Viacom is hardly the only media giant cowed by the prospect that this White House might threaten its corporate interests if it gets out of line. Disney's refusal to release Michael Moore's partisan "Fahrenheit 9/11" in an election year would smell less if the company applied the same principle to its ABC radio stations, where the equally partisan polemics of Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are heard every day. Even a low-profile film project in conflict with Bush dogma has spooked the world's largest media company, Time Warner, proprietor of CNN. Its Warner Brothers, about to release a special DVD of "Three Kings," David O. Russell's 1999 movie criticizing the first gulf war, suddenly canceled a planned extra feature, a new Russell documentary criticizing the current war. Whether any of these increasingly craven media combines will stand up to the Bush administration in a constitutional pinch, as Katharine Graham and her Post Company bravely did to the Nixon administration during Watergate, is a proposition that hasn't been remotely tested yet.

To understand what kind of journalism the Bush administration expects from these companies, you need only look at those that are already its collaborators. Fox News speaks loudly for itself, to the point of posting on its Web site an article by its chief political correspondent containing fictional John Kerry quotes. (After an outcry, it was retracted as "written in jest.") But Fox is just the tip of the Rupert Murdoch empire. When The New York Post covered the release of the report by the C.I.A.'s chief weapons inspector, Charles Duelfer, it played the story on page 8 and didn't get to the clause "while no stockpiles of W.M.D. were found in Iraq" until the 16th paragraph. This would be an Onion parody were it not deadly serious.

It's hard to imagine an operation more insidious than Mr. Murdoch's, but the Sinclair Broadcast Group may be it. The owner or operator of 62 TV stations nationwide, including affiliates of all four major broadcast networks, this company gets little press scrutiny because it is invisible in New York City, Washington and Los Angeles, where it has no stations. But Sinclair, whose top executives have maxed out as Bush contributors, was first smoked out of the shadows last spring when John McCain called it "unpatriotic" for ordering its eight ABC stations not to broadcast the "Nightline" in which Ted Koppel read the names of the then 721 American casualties in Iraq. This was the day after Paul Wolfowitz had also downsized American casualties by testifying before Congress that they numbered only about 500.

Thanks to Elizabeth Jensen of The Los Angeles Times, who first broke the story last weekend, we now know that Sinclair has grander ambitions for the election. It has ordered all its stations, whose most powerful reach is in swing states like Ohio, Florida and Pennsylvania, to broadcast a "news" special featuring a film, "Stolen Honor," that trashes Mr. Kerry along the lines of the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth ads. The film's creator is a man who spent nearly eight years in the employ of Tom Ridge. Sinclair has ordered that it be run in prime time during a specific four nights in late October, when it is likely to be sandwiched in with network hits like "CSI," "The Apprentice" and "Desperate Housewives." Democrats are screaming, but don't expect the Bush apparatchiks at federal agencies to pursue their complaints as if they were as serious as a "wardrobe malfunction." A more likely outcome is that Sinclair, which already reaches 24 percent of American viewers, will reap the regulatory favors it is seeking to expand that audience in a second Bush term.

Like the Nixon administration before it, the Bush administration arrived at the White House already obsessed with news management and secrecy. Nixon gave fewer press conferences than any president since Hoover; Mr. Bush has given fewer than any in history. Early in the Nixon years, a special National Press Club study concluded that the president had instituted "an unprecedented, government-wide effort to control, restrict and conceal information." Sound familiar? The current president has seen to it that even future historians won't get access to papers he wants to hide; he quietly gutted the Presidential Records Act of 1978, the very reform enacted by Congress as a post-Watergate antidote to pathological Nixonian secrecy.

The path of the Bush White House as it has moved from Agnew-style press baiting to outright assault has also followed its antecedent. The Nixon administration's first legal attack on the press, a year before the Watergate break-in, was its attempt to stop The Times and The Washington Post from publishing the Pentagon Papers, the leaked internal Defense Department history of our failure in Vietnam. Though 9/11 prompted Ari Fleischer's first effort to warn the media to "watch what they say," it's failure in Iraq that has pushed the Bush administration over the edge. It was when Operation Iraqi Freedom was bogged down early on that it spun the fictional saga of Jessica Lynch. It's when the percentage of Americans who felt it was worth going to war in Iraq fell to 50 percent in the Sept. 2003 Gallup poll, down from 73 that April, that identically worded letters "signed" by different soldiers mysteriously materialized in 11 American newspapers, testifying that security for Iraq's citizens had been "largely restored." (As David Greenberg writes in his invaluable "Nixon's Shadow," phony letters to news outlets were also a favorite Nixon tactic.) The legal harassment of the press, like the Republican party's Web-driven efforts to discredit specific journalists even at non-CBS networks, has escalated in direct ratio to the war's decline in support.

"What you're seeing on your TV screens," the president said when minimizing the Iraq insurgency in May, are "the desperate tactics of a hateful few." Maybe that's the sunny news that can be found on a Sinclair station. Now, with our election less than three weeks away, the bad news coming out of Iraq everywhere else is a torrent. Reporters at virtually every news organization describe a downward spiral so dangerous that they can't venture anywhere in Iraq without risking their lives. Last weekend marines spoke openly and by name to Steve Fainaru of The Washington Post about the quagmire they're witnessing firsthand and its irrelevance to battling Al Qaeda, whose 9/11 attack motivated many of them to enlist in the first place. "Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better," said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day." Another marine, Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones of Ball Ground, Ga., told Mr. Fainaru: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong. We're catching them in a lie." Asked if he was concerned that he and his buddies might be punished for speaking out, Cpl. Brandon Autin of New Iberia, La., responded: "What are they going to do - send us to Iraq?"

What "they" can do is try to intimidate, harass, discredit and prosecute news organizations that report stories like this. If history is any guide, and the hubris of re-election is tossed into the mix, that harrowing drama can go on for a long time before we get to the feel-good final act of "All the President's Men."<<

Bushites "Addicted to 9/11"

2004-10-14T07:06:00.000-04:00

The following article by Tom Friedman should be mandatory reading for every American before he is allowed to vote in November.

Of all the many reasons Bush-Cheney must be sent home to pasture on Nov. 2, allowing Osama to transform our society and using 9/11 as a political tool to manipulate the "unwashed masses" by using fear mongering tactics is way up on the list.

"That's why Mr. Kerry was actually touching something many Americans are worried about - that this war on terrorism is transforming us and our society, when it was supposed to be about uprooting the terrorists and transforming their societies. "

"The Bush team's responses to Mr. Kerry's musings are revealing because they go to the very heart of how much this administration has become addicted to 9/11. The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends - trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights - to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it's also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/14/opinion/14friedman.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 14, 2004

Addicted to 9/11 by Thomas L. Friedman

I don't know whether to laugh or cry when I hear the president and vice president slamming John Kerry for saying that he hopes America can eventually get back to a place where "terrorists are not the focus of our lives, but they're a nuisance." The idea that President Bush and Mr. Cheney would declare such a statement to be proof that Mr. Kerry is unfit to lead actually says more about them than Mr. Kerry. Excuse me, I don't know about you, but I dream of going back to the days when terrorism was just a nuisance in our lives.

If I have a choice, I prefer not to live the rest of my life with the difference between a good day and bad day being whether Homeland Security tells me it is "code red" or "code orange" outside. To get inside the Washington office of the International Monetary Fund the other day, I had to show my ID, wait for an escort and fill out a one-page form about myself and my visit. I told my host: "Look, I don't want a loan. I just want an interview." Somewhere along the way we've gone over the top and lost our balance.

That's why Mr. Kerry was actually touching something many Americans are worried about - that this war on terrorism is transforming us and our society, when it was supposed to be about uprooting the terrorists and transforming their societies.

The Bush team's responses to Mr. Kerry's musings are revealing because they go to the very heart of how much this administration has become addicted to 9/11. The president has exploited the terrorism issue for political ends - trying to make it into another wedge issue like abortion, guns or gay rights - to rally the Republican base and push his own political agenda. But it is precisely this exploitation of 9/11 that has gotten him and the country off-track, because it has not only created a wedge between Republicans and Democrats, it's also created a wedge between America and the rest of the world, between America and its own historical identity, and between the president and common sense.

By exploiting the emotions around 9/11, Mr. Bush took a far-right agenda on taxes, the environment and social issues - for which he had no electoral mandate - and drove it into a 9/12 world. In doing so, Mr. Bush made himself the most divisive and polarizing president in modern history.

By using 9/11 to justify launching a war in Iraq without U.N. support, Mr. Bush also created a huge wedge between America and the rest of the world. I sympathize with the president when he says he would never have gotten a U.N. consensus for a strategy of trying to get at the roots of terrorism by reshaping the Arab-Muslim regimes that foster it - starting with Iraq.

But in politicizing 9/11, Mr. Bush drove a wedge between himself and common sense when it came to implementing his Iraq strategy. After failing to find any W.M.D. in Iraq, he became so dependent on justifying the Iraq war as the response to 9/11 - a campaign to bring freedom and democracy to the Arab-Muslim world - that he refused to see reality in Iraq. The president seemed to be saying to himself, "Something so good and right as getting rid of Saddam can't possibly be going so wrong." Long after it was obvious to anyone who visited Iraq that we never had enough troops there to establish order, Mr. Bush simply ignored reality. When pressed on Iraq, he sought cover behind 9/11 and how it required "tough decisions" - as if the tough decision to go to war in Iraq, in the name of 9/11, should make him immune to criticism over how he conducted the war.

Lastly, politicizing 9/11 put a wedge between us and our history. The Bush team has turned this country into "The United States of Fighting Terrorism." "Bush only seems able to express our anger, not our hopes," said the Mideast expert Stephen P. Cohen. "His whole focus is on an America whose role in the world is to negate the negation of the terrorists. But America has always been about the affirmation of something positive. That is missing today. Beyond Afghanistan, they've been much better at destruction than construction."

I wish Mr. Kerry were better able to articulate how America is going to get its groove back. But the point he was raising about wanting to put terrorism back into perspective is correct. I want a president who can one day restore Sept. 11th to its rightful place on the calendar: as the day after Sept. 10th and before Sept. 12th. I do not want it to become a day that defines us. Because ultimately Sept. 11th is about them - the bad guys - not about us. We're about the Fourth of July. <<

Israeli think tank: War on Iraq a "distraction"

2004-10-12T07:36:00.000-04:00

Oooooppppsssss....I suspect that Sharonites and their "neoconservative" U.S. cohorts will were not pleased with the conclusions reached by members of
the "Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University:"

_AP Wire 10/11/2004 Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted U.S._
(http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/politics/9892594.htm?1c)

Associated Press - October 12, 2004

Think Tank: Iraq War Distracted U.S. by MARK LAVIE

TEL AVIV, Israel - The war in Iraq did not damage international terror
groups, but instead distracted the United States from confronting other hotbeds of Islamic militancy and actually "created momentum" for many terrorists, a top
Israeli security think tank said in a report released Monday.

President Bush has called the war in Iraq an integral part of the war on terrorism, saying that deposed Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein hoped to develop unconventional weapons and could have given them to Islamic militants across the world.

But the Jaffee Center for Strategic Studies at Tel Aviv University said that instead of striking a blow against Islamic extremists, the Iraq war "has created momentum for many terrorist elements, but chiefly al-Qaida and its affiliates."

Jaffee Center director Shai Feldman said the vast amount of money and effort the United States has poured into Iraq has deflected attention and assets from other centers of terrorism, such as Afghanistan.

The concentration of U.S. intelligence assets in Iraq "has to be at the expense of being able to follow strategic dangers in other parts of the world," he said.

Shlomo Brom, a retired Israeli army general, said the U.S.-led effort was strategically misdirected. If the goal in the war against terrorism is "not just to kill the mosquitos but to dry the swamp," he said, "now it's quite clear" that Iraq "is not the swamp."

Instead, he said, the Iraq campaign is having the opposite effect, drawing
Islamic extremists from other parts of the world to join the battle.

"On a strategic level as well as an operational level," Brom concluded, "the
war in Iraq is hurting the war on international terrorism."

In other findings, Jaffee Center experts disagreed with the Israeli government's statements that its four-year struggle against Palestinian militants is part of the world fight against Islamic terrorism.

Yoram Schweitzer, who wrote the chapter about the Iraq war, said the local
conflict is a "national struggle," while international Islamic militant groups
like al-Qaida target not only Israel but also the entire Western world.

After interviewing Palestinian militants, including some in prison, Schweitzer said they do not consider themselves part of the al-Qaida campaign. "Many of them are critical of Al-Qaida and its methods," he told a news conference.

The Jaffee report found that Israel has succeeded in reducing Palestinian violence against Israelis.

Feldman said the motivation of Palestinian militants to attack the country remained unchanged, but praised the work of military intelligence in preventing many attacks.

"The only reason these (anti-terror) operations succeed is that we have
better intelligence," he said.

Feldman said the weekend attacks in the Egyptian Sinai Peninsula aimed at
places where Israelis gather did not figure in to the assessment. Thirteen
Israelis were among at least 34 people killed in two car bomb attacks Thursday.

"We regard the attacks in the Sinai in a different category," he said, likening it to an attack at a hotel in Mombasa, Kenya, last year that killed 10, including three Israelis.

The report includes statistical breakdowns of the military forces and their capabilities in the Middle East, as well as analyses of regional issues.i<< Finally, an honest, realistic assessment by Israelis of the differences between "terrorists" and "freedom fighters."

"Bush-Cheney Doctrine:" FOOLING most of the people...most of the time

2004-10-11T07:44:00.000-04:00

The parallel world of Bush-Cheney

"Mr. Bush turned the findings of the Duelfer report upside down and inside out, telling crowds at campaign rallies that it proved Saddam Hussein had been "a gathering threat." It didn't matter that the report, ordered by the president himself, showed just the opposite. The truth would not have been helpful to the president. So with a brazenness and sleight of hand usually associated with three-card-monte players, he pulled a fast one on his cheering listeners."

Never have U.S. politicians been so skillful at painting a non-existent picture in their desperate effort to win an election.

"Bush-Cheney Doctrine:" FOOLING most of the people...most of the time

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/11/opinion/11herbert.html

New York Times - October 11, 2004

Webs of Illusion by Bob Herbert

It's understood that incumbents campaigning for re-election will spotlight the good news and downplay the bad. The problem for President Bush, with the election just three weeks away, is that the bad news keeps cascading in and there is very little good news to tout.

So the president and his chief supporters have resorted to the odd tactic of claiming that the bad news is good.

The double talk reached a fever pitch last week after the release of two devastating reports - the comprehensive report by Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector, which destroyed any remaining doubts that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction; and the Labor Department's dismal employment report for September, which heightened concerns about the strength of the economic recovery and left Mr. Bush with the dubious distinction of being the first president since Herbert Hoover to stand for re-election with fewer people working than at the beginning of his term.

Mr. Bush turned the findings of the Duelfer report upside down and inside out, telling crowds at campaign rallies that it proved Saddam Hussein had been "a gathering threat." It didn't matter that the report, ordered by the president himself, showed just the opposite. The truth would not have been helpful to the president. So with a brazenness and sleight of hand usually associated with three-card-monte players, he pulled a fast one on his cheering listeners.

Vice President Cheney had an equally peculiar response to the report, which said Iraq had destroyed its illicit weapons stockpiles in the early 1990's. Referring to the president's decision to launch the war, Mr. Cheney said, "To delay, defer, wait wasn't an option."

The September jobs report, released on the same day as Mr. Bush's second debate with Senator John Kerry, was deeply disappointing to the White House. Just 96,000 jobs were created, not even enough to keep up with the monthly expansion of the working-age population.

The somber findings forced the president's spin machine into overdrive. Reality, once again, was shoved aside. The administration's upbeat public response to the Labor Department report was described in The Times as follows: "The White House hailed it as evidence of continued employment expansion, saying that it validated Mr. Bush's strategy of pursuing tax cuts to support a recovery from the 2001 economic downturn."

In the president's parallel universe, things are always fine.

Mr. Bush sold his tax cuts as a mighty force for job creation. They weren't. The Times article that reported the sunny White House response to the disappointing job creation figures also said: "In September, an estimated 62.3 percent of the working-age population was employed, two full percentage points below the level at the beginning of the recession in March 2001. That difference represents over 4.5 million people without work."

Hyperbole is part of every politician's portfolio. But on the most serious matters facing the country, Mr. Bush's administration has often gone beyond hyperbole to deliberate misrepresentations that undermine the very idea of an informed electorate. If unpleasant realities are not acknowledged by the officials occupying the highest offices in the land, there is no chance that the full resources of the government and the people will be marshaled to meet those challenges.

The president continues to behave as if he's in denial about the war. Iraq remains a tragic mess and the electorate needs to know that.

In yesterday's Week in Review section, The Times's Dexter Filkins wrote movingly from Baghdad about the reporters trying to cover the war. There's been a relentless expansion, he said, of areas that reporters dare not venture into because they are too dangerous. Most European reporters have left the country, and there are far fewer Americans than just a few months ago.

Forty-six reporters have been killed and Mr. Filkins himself has been attacked by a mob, shot at and detained by the Mahdi Army.

If Mr. Bush has a plan to clean up the mess in Iraq, he should say so. If he has a strategy - besides more tax cuts - to bolster employment in the U.S., he should tell us. If he's in touch with the real world in which these and other very serious problems exist, he might consider letting us know.

Spinning gets old after a while. A president who spends too much time spinning webs of illusion can find himself trapped in them. <<

"Who Hates Who?"

2004-10-10T13:47:00.000-04:00

The obvious question that all candidates avoid addresssing honestly is:

"Why do they hate us?"

As long as our nation lives in DENIAL, the war against hatred will be very difficult, if not impossible, to win.

The follwowing editorial provides food for thought for those unwilling to look at the facts and see the world only from their own perspective: We good...they "evildoers."

"Evildoers" being all those who do not CAVE to Bushite demands.

You'd think that some of our leaders would have learned lessons from the never-ending, bloody Israeli-Palestinian conflict but, they clearly have not.

Otherwise, how could they possible support Sharon and give him carte blanche to take actions that lead to ever-growing hatred and, inevitably, growing terrorism?

Will our leaders ever ask the question: What have WE done wrong? Or, what are WE doing wrong?

Last time I checked, Bushites do not make mistakes and, with the exception of Tony-the-Poodle and very few others, it's the rest of the world that is...WRONG!

Hopefully, once Sen. Kerry assumes the presidency, he'll follow in Bill Clinton's shoes and stress COOPERATION as opposed to Bush's CONFRONTATION:

http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2004/711/ed.htm

New York Times - October 10, 2004

Al-Ahram Weekly - 7 - 13 September 2004

Who hates who?

Since the 11 September 2001 attacks on New York and Washington the Western media has constantly been asking why the Arab and Islamic world "hate us". The question is still being posited as the US wages its "war on terror" on several Middle Eastern fronts as well as in Afghanistan.

By contrast, the events which unfolded last week in Iraq and Palestine left an Arab public feeling that it is the West which hates it, not the opposite. Otherwise, why should there be almost total disregard by the Western media for the seriously deteriorating conditions in the Middle East? Why are catastrophes and their victims reduced to statistics, and bodies and devastated cities transformed to mundane images? Have Western audiences come to view such destruction like a movie they've seen before, tediously run over and over again?

If Arab citizens were to ask the questions, they would place the accusers -- the West -- in the seat of the accused. They would ask: what have we done to you so that you occupy our lands, kill our people and bleed our resources in flagrant violation of international legitimacy? What have we done to pay the price of what Osama Bin Laden and his followers did after he received training and arms -- far from the Middle East, in Afghanistan -- at the hands of Western intelligence?

They would ask why they are deprived of vitally needed technology and economic means by the West whose fundamental objective -- the answer would be -- is to maintain the disparity between the Arab countries and Israel.

Arab citizens would also ask why restrictions are being imposed upon their entry into Western countries and their dignity breached at airports and border checkpoints. They would ask why the West supports repressive Arab regimes, depriving their nations of the right to build democracies based on rule by the people for the people.

It is true that the Arab and Islamic peoples are primarily responsible for their conditions and their negativity. But the West, led by the US, has also consolidated such conditions, seeing as it does that their perpetuation is in its strategic interest.

The peoples of the Arab and Western worlds must engage in a real dialogue to attain an understanding of the human issues which are of mutual interest to both. Such a dialogue must transcend official government institutions like the UN and its Security Council which have consistently failed to attain any measure of international peace and security. The solution, then, must lie in the non-governmental sectors in both the Arab world and the West, guided as they are by other values and other traditions and driven by more humane considerations to say the least.

The world has suffered enough from stagnant thought and the lack of will resulting from the factional interests of the members of the UN Security Council and General Assembly.

All of this will not end unless more support is given to civil society groups like the anti-globalisation movement which, even if on a small scale, has confronted governmental schemes, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the American president on his international trips, to almost any capital he visits.<<

"What are they going to do...send us to Iraq?

2004-10-10T08:40:00.000-04:00

I noticed that Rumsfeld is presently in Iraq. I suspect that the Pentagon is finally awakening to the fact that the morale of U.S. troops is rapidly deteriorating.

"Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?"

I wonder how many members of the military and their families will be voting for Bush this time around. I suspect there will be many who will vote for Sen. Kerry if for no other reason than protest having been dragged into an UNprovoked war under false pretenses.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20794-2004Oct9.html

Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, October 10, 2004

For Marines, a Frustrating Fight - Some in Iraq Question How and Why War Is Being Waged By Steve Fainaru

ISKANDARIYAH, Iraq -- Scrawled on the helmet of Lance Cpl. Carlos Perez are the letters FDNY. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on New York, the Pentagon and western Pennsylvania, Perez quit school, left his job as a firefighter in Long Island, N.Y., and joined the U.S. Marine Corps.

"To be honest, I just wanted to take revenge," said Perez, 20.

Now, two months into a seven-month combat tour in Iraq, Perez said he sees little connection between the events of Sept. 11 and the war he is fighting. Instead, he said, he is increasingly disillusioned by a conflict whose origins remain unclear and frustrated by the timidity of U.S. forces against a mostly faceless enemy.

"Sometimes I see no reason why we're here," Perez said. "First of all, you cannot engage as many times as we want to. Second of all, we're looking for an enemy that's not there. The only way to do it is go house to house until we get out of here."

Perez is hardly alone. In a dozen interviews, Marines from a platoon known as the "81s" expressed in blunt terms their frustrations with the way the war is being conducted and, in some cases, doubts about why it is being waged. The platoon, named for the size in millimeters of its mortar rounds, is part of the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marine Regiment based in Iskandariyah, 30 miles southwest of Baghdad.

The Marines offered their opinions openly to a reporter traveling with the 1st Battalion, 2nd Marines during operations last week in Babil province, then expanded upon them during interviews over three days in their barracks at Camp Iskandariyah, their forward operating base.

The Marines' opinions have been shaped by their participation in hundreds of hours of operations over the past two months. Their assessments differ sharply from those of the interim Iraqi government and the Bush administration, which have said that Iraq is on a certain -- if bumpy -- course toward peaceful democracy.

"I feel we're going to be here for years and years and years," said Lance Cpl. Edward Elston, 22, of Hackettstown, N.J. "I don't think anything is going to get better; I think it's going to get a lot worse. It's going to be like a Palestinian-type deal. We're going to stop being a policing presence and then start being an occupying presence. . . . We're always going to be here. We're never going to leave."

The views of the mortar platoon of some 50 young Marines, several of whom fought during the first phase of the war last year, are not necessarily reflective of all or even most U.S troops fighting in Iraq. Rather, they offer a snapshot of the frustrations engendered by a grinding conflict that has killed 1,064 Americans, wounded 7,730 and spread to many areas of the country.

Although not as highly publicized as attacks in such hot spots as Fallujah, Samarra and Baghdad's Sadr City, the violence in Babil province, south of the capital, is also intense. Since July 28, when the Marines took over operational responsibility for the region, 102 of the unit's 1,100 troops have been wounded, 85 in combat, according to battalion records. Four have been killed, two in combat.

Senior officers attribute the vast difference between the number of killed and wounded to the effectiveness of armor -- bullet-proof vests, helmets and reinforced armored vehicles, primarily Humvees -- in the face of persistent attacks. As of last week, the Marines had come upon 61 roadside bombs, nearly one a day. Forty-nine had detonated. Camp Iskandariyah was hit by mortar shells or rockets on 12 occasions; 21 other times, insurgents tried to hit the base and missed.

Realities on the Ground

Several members of the platoon said they were struck by the difference between the way the war was being portrayed in the United States and the reality of their daily lives.

"Every day you read the articles in the States where it's like, 'Oh, it's getting better and better,' " said Lance Cpl. Jonathan Snyder, 22, of Gettysburg, Pa. "But when you're here, you know it's worse every day."

Pfc. Kyle Maio, 19, of Bucks County, Pa., said he thought government officials were reticent to speak candidly because of the upcoming U.S. elections. "Stuff's going on here but they won't flat-out say it," he said. "They can't get into it."

Maio said that when he arrived in Iraq, "I didn't think I was going to live this long, in all honesty." He added, "it ain't that bad. It's just part of the job, I guess."

As a reporter began to ask Maio another question, the interview was interrupted by the scream of an incoming rocket and then a deafening explosion outside the platoon's barracks. Pandemonium ensued.

"Get down! Get down!" yelled the platoon's radio operator, Cpl. Brandon Autin, 21, of New Iberia, La., his orders laced with profanity. "Get in the bunker! Get in the bunker now!"

Members of the platoon raced out of their rooms to a 5-by-15-foot bunker, located outside at the end of the one-story building. The dirt-floor room was protected by a low ceiling and walls built out of four-foot-thick sandbags. Once in the bunker, several Marines lit cigarettes, filling the already-congested room with smoke.

"The reality right now is that the most dangerous opinion in the world is the opinion of a U.S. serviceman," said Lance Cpl. Devin Kelly, 20, of Fairbanks, Alaska.

Lance Cpl. Alexander Jones, 20, of Ball Ground, Ga., agreed: "We're basically proving out that the government is wrong," he said. "We're catching them in a lie."

Senior officers said they shared many of the platoon's frustrations but added that it was difficult for low-level Marines to see the larger progress being made across Iraq. Maj. Douglas Bell, the battalion's executive officer, said "one of the most difficult things about the insurgency is identifying the enemy."

Bell said it was frustrating for "every Marine in the battalion" to search for insurgents on a daily basis, only to be attacked repeatedly with bombs and mortars detonated or launched by an invisible enemy. "You want to get your hand around his frigging collar and kick his ass," Bell said. "But they slip away."

Bell said Marines offering dire predictions for Iraq were not taking into account the training of the new Iraqi security forces. He said the installation of the new Iraqi army, Iraqi National Guard and police across the country would lay the foundation for the withdrawal of U.S. troops.

"That's how we're going to get out of Iraq," Bell said. "That's how America is going to get out of Iraq."

The Marines acknowledged that the elusiveness of the insurgents was frustrating. "You don't really know who you're fighting. You're more or less fighting objects," said Elston, the lance corporal from New Jersey. "You see something on the side of the road. It blows up."

But the Marines said their frustrations run deeper. Several said the Iraqi security forces who are supposed to ultimately replace them were nowhere near ready and may never be.

"They can't take care of themselves," said Lance Cpl. Matthew Combs, 19, of Cincinnati, who added that he didn't think the National Guardsmen "can do anything. They just do what we tell them to do."

The Price of Precaution

The Marines also expressed frustration that they were unable to fight more aggressively because of restraints in the rules of engagement imposed by senior commanders.

The rules, which require Marines to positively identify their target as hostile before shooting, are cumbersome in the face of urban guerrilla warfare, several of them said.

"When we get called out, we'll sit there staging there for an hour," Maio said. "By the time we're ready to move, they're up and gone. A few weeks ago, the Iskandariyah police station was under attack. We staged for damn near an hour before we went out. It's stupid. You have to wait to get approval and all this other stuff."

Kelly, the lance corporal from Alaska, said he understood the need to protect civilians but that the restraints were jeopardizing American lives. "It seems as if they place more value on obeying the letter of the law and sacrificing our lives than following the spirit of the law and getting the job done," he said of his commanders.

Bell said the Marines' frustration was understandable but that it was extremely difficult to make a determination of hostile intent following a roadside bombing that might have been detonated by anything from a remote-controlled toy car to a cell phone. "That's a pretty difficult decision to make for a 19-year-old kid," he said.

Lance Cpl. Jeremy Kyrk, 21, of Chicago, said the insurgents took advantage of the limitations imposed on U.S. troops. "They don't give us any leeway, they don't give us any quarter," he said. "They catch people and cut their heads off. They know our limits, but they have no limits. We can't compete with that."

A Decision to Serve

Perez said the frustrations inherent in the war became apparent almost immediately after he arrived in Iraq in late July. A Colombian immigrant, he said he decided to join the Marine Corps after attending the funeral of a friend who had died in the Sept. 11 attacks. The friend, Thomas Hetzel, was a volunteer firefighter at the Franklin Square & Munson Fire Department on Long Island, where Perez also volunteered.

At the time, Perez was studying criminal justice at Nassau Community College. "While I was at the funeral I was looking at his little daughter cry," he said. "He had a pregnant wife and two kids. I just said, 'All right, this is what I want to do.' "

But Perez said he came to think that war in Iraq was unrelated to his anger. "How do I put this?" he said. "First of all, this is a whole different thing. We're supposed to be looking for al Qaeda. They're the ones who are supposedly responsible for the Sept. 11 attacks. This has no connection at all to Sept. 11 because this war started just by telling us about all the nuclear warheads over here."

Snyder, who was listening, added: "Pretty much I think they just diverted the war on terrorism. I agree with the Afghanistan war and all the Sept. 11 stuff, but it feels like they left the bigger war over there to come here. And now, while we're on the ground over here, it seems like we're not even close to catching frigging bin Laden."

Perez said he thought that in some ways he was still fighting terrorists "and I can see how they might attack the United States in the future. It's a link, but it's not really based in the same thing."

Perez added that he now believes the primary reason for the U.S. presence is to help the Iraqis. "But they don't seem like they want to be helped," he said. "I've only been here two months, but every time you go out, people give you bad looks and it just seems like everybody wants to shoot you."

Questioning Orders

The frustration of the Marines was evident one afternoon last week as members of the platoon traveled from Forward Operating Base Kalsu back to Camp Iskandariyah. An attack had reportedly taken place in the area, and members of the platoon were asked to leave their Humvees and walk up a road to look for suspicious activity.

Traffic quickly began to pile up: cars packed with families, trucks loaded with animals and vegetables. The line of vehicles would have taken hours to search. An order was suddenly passed for the Marines to search all buses for insurgents or weapons.

"This is what we call a dog-and-pony show," said Kelly, the heavyset, sharp-tongued lance corporal from Fairbanks. He said the operation was essentially a performance for American reporters who were traveling with the Marines. "This is so you can write in your paper how great our response is," he said.

Combs and another Marine boarded a small bus packed mostly with women and children. He walked up the center aisle carrying his M-16 assault rifle, then got off, disgusted.

"We just scared the living [expletive] out of a bunch of people," he said. "That's all we did."

When the Marines returned to their truck, Autin and Kelly began to debate the merits of the American presence in Iraq.

"And, by the way, why are we here?" Autin said.

"I'll tell you why we're here," Kelly replied. "We're here to help these people."

Autin agreed and said he supported the mission.

He added later that it was difficult to wage the battle when American commanders were holding them back.

"We feel they care more about Iraqi civilians than they do American soldiers," he said.

Asked if he was concerned that the Marines would be punished for speaking out, Autin responded: "We don't give a crap. What are they going to do, send us to Iraq?" <<

TWO Bushes...TWO Gulf Wars...and counting

2004-10-10T04:42:00.000-04:00

Does anyone really believe that the pathetic ol' guy who crawled out of a hole was intent on attacking his neighbors, let alone the U.S.?

But hey, forget about facts even when squarely faced with the truth and focus on what MAY have been going on in the mind of Saddam, an egomaniac whose primary goal was...SELF-preservation.

"In the wake of the report, President Bush has reframed the way he characterizes his rationale for the launching the war. A review of his public statements before the war and this week shows how broadly his public argument has shifted, away from warnings that Hussein actually possessed horrible weapons in favor of talking almost exclusively about the dictator's intent."

Saddam was NOT a religious NUT a'la Osama. He had, however, become a major threat in the region with full participation of Reagan and Poppy who supported the dictator until...he invaded a nation, Kuwait, that was not on their "to do" list.

Without giving Saddam a strong warning before he invaded Kuwait that such an incursion would mean war with the U.S., the man misinterpreted signals coming from Washington and launched his invasion.

Once he realized that Poppy was determined to drag him into war, Saddam offered to withdraw peacefully from Kuwait IF given a face-saving-device. But, that was not to be. Then as now, Britain and Israel rooted for war and...the first Bush launched the first Gulf War that would eventually be followed by another Bush launching another Gulf War against the same individual.

That the American people allowed this family to drag their nation into two wars against the same individual is, in and by itself, truly mindboggling.

Presently, in the heat of the presidential campaign, Bush II is flip-flopping daily as to the reasons for rushing into an UNprovoked war:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A20562-2004Oct9.html

Washington Post Staff Writer - Sunday, October 10, 2004

Analysis
Bush Recasts Rationale For War After Report By Glenn Kessler

In announcing 19 months ago that the United States was poised to invade Iraq, President Bush told the nation: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. . . . The people of the United States and our friends and allies will not live at the mercy of an outlaw regime that threatens the peace with weapons of mass murder."

Bush's decision to attack Iraq came after urgent warnings by the president and his top aides about the challenge posed by Iraq -- what Bush called "a serious and mounting threat to our country" in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address before Congress. Few lawmakers questioned these warnings -- Sen. John F. Kerry, now the Democratic presidential nominee, did not -- and many frequently echoed them.

But the argument that the United States faced a moment of maximum peril in early 2003 from Iraq has been greatly weakened by the release last week of the comprehensive report of chief U.S. weapons inspector Charles A. Duelfer. The report found that the 1991 Persian Gulf War and subsequent U.N. inspections destroyed Iraq's illicit weapons capability, leaving it without any chemical, biological or nuclear weapons. Saddam Hussein hoped to someday resume his weapons efforts, the report said, but for the most part there had been no serious effort to rebuild the programs.

In the wake of the report, President Bush has reframed the way he characterizes his rationale for the launching the war. A review of his public statements before the war and this week shows how broadly his public argument has shifted, away from warnings that Hussein actually possessed horrible weapons in favor of talking almost exclusively about the dictator's intent.

This week, Bush said Iraq had been a "unique threat" and the United States was justified in attacking, largely because Hussein "retained the knowledge, the materials, the means, and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction."

"And he could have passed that knowledge on to our terrorist enemies," the president told reporters.

In the months leading up to the war, however, Bush and other administration officials made serious and specific allegations about Iraqi capabilities in biological, chemical and nuclear warfare:

• "Saddam Hussein [has] biological weapons sufficient to produce over 25,000 liters of anthrax -- enough doses to kill several million people," Bush said in his 2003 State of the Union address. He also cited reports that Iraq had "materials sufficient to produce more than 38,000 liters of botulinum toxin -- enough to subject millions of people to death by respiratory failure."

• "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent; in such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands," Bush continued. He also said Hussein had "upwards of 30,000 munitions capable of delivering chemical agents," and "several mobile biological weapons labs."

• Bush asserted that if Hussein obtained key nuclear material, he could produce a bomb within a year.

• A CIA report released by the administration in October 2002 said: "Since inspections ended in 1998, Iraq has maintained its chemical weapons effort, energized its missile program, and invested more heavily in biological weapons; most analysts assess Iraq is reconstituting its nuclear weapons program."

• The CIA also said Iraq "has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX." It said "all key aspects" of Iraq's biological weapons program "are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf War." The report said Iraq was developing drones likely "intended to deliver biological warfare agents."

Kerry, while raising questions about the administration's approach, said in an Oct. 9, 2002, Senate floor speech -- when he voted to give Bush authorization to conduct a war -- that it was clear that Hussein had "continued his quest for weapons of mass destruction" in the past four years.

"We will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations -- an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create -- to simply be ignored by this dictator," Kerry said.

All these assertions were disproved or rejected by the Duelfer report. Not only did Duelfer say Iraq had no weapons, but he said Hussein was interested in acquiring weapons because Iran, Iraq's longtime enemy, had its own weapons programs -- not because it wished to attack the United States.

Duelfer said that before the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, the sanctions on Iraq were eroding and that Hussein hoped to rebuild his programs if those sanctions were ever lifted. But the appetite for lifting the sanctions evaporated in the U.N. Security Council after Sept. 11, 2001, and Duelfer said Hussein had no formal written strategy or plan for restarting his programs.

White House officials said not attacking would have only delayed the inevitable. "The Duelfer report shows a clear choice: either remove Saddam when we did or fight him in the very near future, when he bribed enough others to bring down the sanctions and restart his WMD," Jim Wilkinson, deputy national security adviser, said.

The United States is still suffering from the diplomatic consequences of launching a war without explicit support from the U.N. Security Council. France had threatened a veto, but many smaller countries on the council also rejected a resolution authorizing force after the Bush administration refused to consider waiting a few more months -- or even weeks -- to give U.N. inspectors more time to assess whether Iraq still possessed banned weapons.

"This is a matter of weeks, not months," Bush had insisted six weeks before the attack was launched.

The result is that many countries that provided troops in the first Gulf War -- such as Canada, France, Germany, Pakistan and Syria -- refused to provide help either during this war or in its troublesome aftermath. A book published in France last week said France had been willing to commit as many as 15,000 troops, though a French official said the offer was contingent on the Security Council approving a resolution authorizing war after determining that Iraq had committed a "material breach" during the inspection process.

While the Duelfer report said that the prospect of Iraq escaping the sanctions faded after the Sept. 11 attacks, Bush took the opposite lesson.

Before Sept. 11 , "we were trying to fashion a sanction regime that would make it more likely to be able to contain somebody like Saddam Hussein," Bush told reporters on Jan. 31, 2003. "After September the 11th, the doctrine of containment just doesn't hold any water, as far as I'm concerned. . . . The strategic vision of our country shifted dramatically, and it shifted dramatically because we now recognize that oceans no longer protect us, that we're vulnerable to attack."

Bush's "big Oedipal ooops...."

2004-10-10T04:39:00.000-04:00

Insightful and witty, Maureen Dowd cuts through all the b.s. we are fed by spin masters and zeroes in on her subject with surgeon like precision:

"He can't admit what the Duelfer report says, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. or any other country. The mushroom cloud was a Fig Newton of Dick Cheney's feverish imagination. That would mean W. didn't fix his father's screw-up, but he screwed up his father's fix. A big Oedipal oops."

Bush-Cheney and their "neoconservative" cohorts continue living in denial by insisting that the pathetic ol' guy who crawled out of a hole coulda, woulda, mighta have had WMD if and/or when sanctions had been lifted.

It is possible, of course, that Bush was referring to Iran when he insisted just two days ago: "Even though his own report stated that U.N. sanctions had worked to defang Saddam, Mr. Bush decided to stand firm on nonsense, insisting in the debate Friday night that "sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein."

After all, we have a so-called president who is in a job that is WAY over his head given his inexperience, stubborness and unwillingness to listen to voices of reason.

As a result, he has been highly effective in recruiting "evildoers" for al Qaeda who are busily working overtime in an effort to destabilize the world.

The mere thought that this Deceptive Gang could be allowed to remain in power for four more years is....chilling:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/10/opinion/10dowd.html?oref=login

New York Times -October 10, 2004

Nucler Fiction by Maureen Dowd

When W. debated Al Gore, it was the Insufficient versus the Insufferable.

When W. debated John Kerry, it was the Obfuscating versus the Oscillating.

We face a choice now between a president who rolled us on Iraq and a senator who got rolled by the president on Iraq.

George Bush is not giving an inch on Iraq. He's toughing out the cascade of confirmation and criticism from his own people about the hyperpower hyperbole that led to an unnecessary war and an unruly occupation. His advisers say it's better for the president to appear out of touch than apologetic. He'd rather seem delusional than deluded.

He can't admit what the Duelfer report says, that Saddam was no threat to the U.S. or any other country. The mushroom cloud was a Fig Newton of Dick Cheney's feverish imagination. That would mean W. didn't fix his father's screw-up, but he screwed up his father's fix. A big Oedipal oops.

After Bush 41's Persian Gulf war, Saddam devolved into the Norma Desmond of vicious dictators, shrinking but pretending to still be big, writing romance novels, trying to order liposuction machines, teeth-whitening material and hair transplant equipment, soaking up American culture like his favorite song, Frank Sinatra's "Strangers in the Night,'' and his favorite book, Ernest Hemingway's "The Old Man and the Sea."

The president may not have gotten his money's worth with the report of Charles Duelfer, the chief U.S. weapons inspector. After all, in a vain retroactive attempt to justify his hokum about W.M.D., he had 1,200 people working for 15 months - stretching our scarce supply of Arab linguists - to produce 918 pages at a cost of about a billion dollars just to find out that Saddam would have liked to have had weapons if he could have, but he couldn't, so he didn't.

But at least for his billion, the president got some earnest Introduction to American Literature analysis of the Iraqi dictator and his taste for some Western culture, noting that Saddam felt a kinship with Hemingway's protagonist Santiago, the poor Cuban fisherman (even though the rich Saddam liked to grenade-fish - toss a grenade in the water and then send in scuba divers to fetch the dead fish).

"Saddam's affinity for Hemingway's story is understandable, given the former president's background, rise to power, conception of himself and Hemingway's use of a rustic setting similar to Tikrit to express timeless themes," the report stated. "In Hemingway's story, Santiago hooks a great marlin, which drags his boat out to sea. When the marlin finally dies, Santiago fights a losing battle to defend his prize from sharks, which reduce the great fish, by the time he returns to his village, to a skeleton. The story sheds light on Saddam's view of the world and his place in it. ... to Saddam even a hollow victory was by his reckoning a real one."

Even though his own report stated that U.N. sanctions had worked to defang Saddam, Mr. Bush decided to stand firm on nonsense, insisting in the debate Friday night that "sanctions were not working. The United Nations was not effective at removing Saddam Hussein."

When a questioner named Linda asked the president to give three bum decisions he had made in office, Mr. Bush took a pass. Lincoln could admit mistakes. J.F.K. could admit mistakes. But W. thinks admitting mistakes is for powder puffs. Of his decision to invade Iraq, he said: "Sometimes in this world you make unpopular decisions because you think they're right." Or you stick to them even after you know they're wrong.

The president's living in a dream world. He kept insisting that 75 percent of Al Qaeda has been "brought to justice," even though such a statistic is misleading, since counterterrorism experts say that the invasion of Iraq was a recruiting boon for Osama and that Al Qaeda has metastasized and spawned other terrorist groups.

Mr. Bush tried to pretend the devastating Duelfer report backed him up, noting after the report came out that Saddam "retained the knowledge, the materials, the means and the intent to produce weapons of mass destruction and could have passed this knowledge to our terrorist enemies."

W. should have followed his father's policy on hypotheticals. As Poppy Bush would say, when someone asked him to be speculative: "If a frog had wings, it wouldn't bump its tail on the ground." <<

Machiavellian's "clone" Cheney is at it again....

2004-10-09T06:57:00.000-04:00

While Cheney and other Administration officials have been lashing out at companies/nations involved with the oil for food program, he carefully avoided mentioning that U.S. firms were also involved.

Oh well, just par for the course. What can be expected from an administration that specializes in lies and distortions?

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/09/international/middleeast/09sanctions.html?adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1097316515-QckPjdtqOCvJVoxeoxI4kw

New York Times - October 9, 2004

Report Cites U.S. Profits in Sale of Iraqi Oil Under Hussein by Judith Miller and Eric Lipton

Major American oil companies and a Texas oil investor were among those who received lucrative vouchers that enabled them to buy Iraqi oil under the United Nations oil-for-food program, according to a report prepared by the chief arms inspector for the Central Intelligence Agency.

The 918-page report says that four American oil companies - Chevron, Mobil, Texaco and Bay Oil - and three individuals including Oscar S. Wyatt Jr. of Houston were given vouchers and got 111 million barrels of oil between them from 1996 to 2003. The vouchers allowed them to profit by selling the oil or the right to trade it.

The other individuals, whose names appeared on a secret list maintained by the former Iraqi government, were Samir Vincent of Annandale, Va., and Shakir al-Khafaji of West Bloomfield, Mich., according to the report by the inspector, Charles A. Duelfer.

The fact that these companies and individuals received oil from Iraq does not mean they did anything illegal, experts on the program said. Such allocations may have been proper if the individuals and companies received appropriate United Nations approval.

In interviews on Friday, spokesmen for the oil companies and for the El Paso Corporation, which assumed control of the assets of a company, Coastal Corporation, once run by Mr. Wyatt, said the transactions had been legal. But each confirmed that they had received subpoenas from a federal grand jury in New York, which is investigating "transactions in oil of Iraqi origin" as part of the oil-for-food program, according to a federal financial filing by El Paso.

The largest of the allocations went to Mr. Wyatt, who the list said had received allocations totaling 74 million barrels. At the profit rates of 15 cents to 85 cents per barrel that were reported in the arms inspector's study, he could have earned $23 million. The names of the American companies and citizens who benefited from the vouchers were not included in the published report prepared by the Iraq Survey Group that was released Wednesday by the C.I.A., since the names of American individuals cannot be publicly disclosed under privacy laws. But the names were contained in unredacted copies given to the White House and to several Congressional committees. A copy of the unedited list was shown to The New York Times.

Tony Fratto, a Treasury Department spokesman, said United States sanctions on Iraq had prohibited American companies and individuals from interacting directly with Iraqi officials. But the oil dealers were permitted to get special authorization from the federal government to bid on United Nations contracts under the oil-for-food program. He said the agency was "actively investigating" whether the American entities and people circumvented that requirement.

Reid Morden, the staff director of the Independent Inquiry Committee, the United Nations-appointed panel headed by the former United States Federal Reserve chairman, Paul A. Volcker, said his committee too was "reviewing" the new report "to see if it helps us with our investigation."

The oil-for-food program, which was started in 1996, was intended to allow Iraq, in a closely monitored way, to sell enough oil so that the country would have the resources to buy food, medicine and to maintain certain critical public facilities.

The program was abused when Saddam Hussein intervened, personally selecting individuals and companies to receive oil allocations. The allocations, also called vouchers, could be sold so that the recipient approved by Mr. Hussein did not have to trade the oil but could simply profit from the transaction.

Ultimately, Mr. Hussein began to demand kickbacks in return for these oil allocations, a requirement that some oil dealers were willing to honor given the large profit margins associated with oil trade.

The proceeds may have been used by Mr. Hussein to pay for purchases of arms in violation of sanctions, the report says.

Among American companies and citizens, Mr. Wyatt, who did not respond to messages left on Friday at his Houston office, was by far the largest recipient of oil allocations, as recorded on the secret list maintained by the Iraqi government, the report says.

For decades, Mr. Wyatt has been a hard-driving - and controversial - oil merchant who did business with Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi of Libya and helped rescue hostages in Kuwait. In 2000, his Coastal Corporation merged with the El Paso Corporation. Mr. Wyatt is still a large shareholder in El Paso, but he is not an executive with the company, which last month received the subpoena related to the Iraqi oil deals.

Mr. Khafaji and Mr. Vincent, who both received much smaller allocations in the secret Iraqi list than Mr. Wyatt, could not be reached for comment. Mr. Vincent is an Iraqi-born businessman who headed Phoenix International.

Mr. Khafaji financed a controversial film about Iraq by Scott Ritter, the former United Nations arms inspector who opposed the American-led invasion of Iraq.

Rep. Christopher Shays, the Connecticut Republican who heads the subcommittee on government reform, which has been investigating the oil-for-food program, said his panel would "follow the list wherever it takes us."

"We want a full explanation of the involvement of all American oil companies and individuals who were involved in a thoroughly corrupt program," he said.

Representative Henry J. Hyde, Republican of Illinois, chairman of the International Relations Committee that is also investigating the seven-year oil-for-food program, said in a statement that the Iraq Survey Group's report showed the "full breadth of Saddam Hussein's corruption and manipulation of the U.N. Oil for Food program." <<

Hmmm...where can I find the money trees?

2004-10-08T07:14:00.000-04:00

With friends like these...who needs enemies?

I suspect that Bush and his right-wing cohorts discovered that money grows on trees but, refuse to tell us where they are located.

Given that they are spending tax payers' dollars faster than drunken sailors, what other explanation is there for their incredibly irresponsible behavior?

"When Bush took office in January 2001, the government was forecasting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus between then and 2011. Instead, it is now expecting to accumulate an extra $3 trillion in debt -- including a record $415 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The government has to borrow an average of more than $1.1 billion a day to pay its bills, and it spends more on interest payments on the federal debt each year -- about $159 billion -- than it does on education, homeland security, justice and law enforcement, veterans, international aid, and space exploration combined."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16134-2004Oct7.html

Washington Post Staff Writer - Friday, October 8, 2004

THE BUSH RECORD : Mounting Debt

The Tax-Cut Pendulum and the Pit By Jonathan Weisman

In 2002, with midterm elections approaching and the nation edging toward war in Iraq, President Bush's economic team divided into opposing camps, with one side worried about rising budget deficits and the other pressing for tax cuts to stimulate a stagnant economy.

One group, led by Treasury Secretary Paul H. O'Neill and White House budget director Mitchell E. Daniels Jr., watched anxiously as the government's 2002 balance sheet swung from a record $313 billion surplus projected when Bush took office to a $157 billion deficit projected that August. How could the president demand fiscal discipline from Congress, they argued, then push expensive reforms of Social Security and the tax code if he continued cutting taxes?

The other side, led by White House economists Lawrence B. Lindsey and R. Glenn Hubbard, focused on economic growth, which had slipped from a 5 percent surge in the first three months of 2002 to 1.3 percent in the next quarter. Employment had slid by 235,000 jobs between January and September. Deficits would have little if any effect on the economy, they assured Bush, but if the president wanted to halt the stock market's slide and prop up incomes, he had to cut taxes more.

After weeks of debate, Bush made his choice clear, unveiling a $674 billion tax-reduction package on Jan. 6, 2003, that was larger and bolder than even Hubbard and Lindsey had expected. The proposal locked in Bush's record as a tax cutter. But it also contributed to mounting budget deficits and debt that may prove to be one of Bush's most enduring legacies.

When Bush took office in January 2001, the government was forecasting a $5.6 trillion budget surplus between then and 2011. Instead, it is now expecting to accumulate an extra $3 trillion in debt -- including a record $415 billion in the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30. The government has to borrow an average of more than $1.1 billion a day to pay its bills, and it spends more on interest payments on the federal debt each year -- about $159 billion -- than it does on education, homeland security, justice and law enforcement, veterans, international aid, and space exploration combined.

Without doubt, the fiscal turnaround started with the bursting of the stock market bubble and was pushed forward by recession, terrorist attacks and corporate scandals not of the president's making. But conservative and liberal budget analysts agree that deficits were increased by the administration's policy choices: tax cuts amid swelling red ink and the costly invasion of Iraq.

The consequences are just coming into view. The White House has ordered draft budgets for 2006 that would cut spending on homeland security, veterans affairs and education, according to White House documents. Some economists -- although by no means most -- see a reckoning on the horizon, when foreign lenders reject U.S. debt, interest rates rise, and the value of the dollar crashes.

"The [deficit] pressures going forward are too great to allow us to borrow these kinds of moneys on the international market on a sustained basis," said Douglas Holtz-Eakin, a former White House economist who heads the Congressional Budget Office.

Through it all Bush has stood his ground, pushing through four tax cuts in four years totaling $1.9 trillion over a decade, and opposing repeated efforts to roll back any of them.

"We have a deficit challenge in the short and medium term," said Joshua B. Bolten, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget. But, he added, "the most important economic responsibility of a president is to make sure the economy is growing and people are working. Imposing a surtax or any kind of tax increase would be exactly the wrong thing to do at this time or going into the future."

Anatomy of a Deficit

Four years ago, the outlook was very different. During a campaign debate in Boston, presidential candidate Bush surveyed the economic landscape and forecast that "over the next 10 years, there's going to be $25 trillion of revenue that comes into our Treasury, and we anticipate spending $21 trillion." He urged taking advantage of that surplus to cut taxes for "the hard-working people who pay the bills."

In retrospect, Bolten now says, that vision was a mirage. "Those surpluses never existed; that's the important part," he said. "It's not that there was some change in reality. It's that the projections were simply wrong."

But other conservative and liberal analysts believe Bush helped change reality. As of 2001, the White House expected surpluses of nearly $1.3 trillion through 2004. Instead, the government fell into debt by roughly $850 billion. According to the White House budget office, about half of the change can be attributed to factors largely outside the president's control: recession, a weak recovery, the bursting of the stock market bubble and the unanticipated costs of the 2001 terrorist attacks.

But the other 50 percent is attributable to policy choices.

The four tax cuts account for about 30 percent of the change. The remaining 20 percent was spending, including the cost of the war in Afghanistan and the preemptive invasion of Iraq. Since 2001, government spending has risen 23 percent, from $1.86 trillion to $2.29 trillion this year. Defense spending increased 48 percent, while non-defense spending went from $343 billion in 2001 to $436 billion, a 27 percent increase.

Congress has allocated $174 billion so far for the Iraq war alone, with another emergency spending request expected early next year. Among the larger non-defense items Bush signed were a multiyear extension of agriculture subsidies and a prescription drug benefit for Medicare, the largest expansion of an entitlement program since the 1960s.

"The Bush administration didn't just sit there and watch the deficit get wider. They actually exacerbated it," said Larry Kantor, global head of economics and market strategy at the British financial giant Barclays Capital.

The president's first tax cut, at a cost of $1.35 trillion, was passed in June 2001 by a Congress still convinced the government would run a large surplus even without those tax revenues.

But by 2002, a "dramatic reversal of revenues" was becoming clear, Bolten said. Policy decisions going forward would be a choice, White House economic advisers believed, between the government's long-term fiscal health and the nation's short-run economic well-being.

Although some members of Bush's economic team advised fiscal restraint that crucial year, their influence waned as the economy staggered. In March 2002, Bush signed further tax reductions worth $42 billion over 10 years. Three months later, Lindsey was counseling Bush to cut taxes again. "Early on I was the most radical advocate," he said.

O'Neill and Commerce Secretary Donald L. Evans -- the more deficit-conscious members of the economic team -- pushed Lindsey back, arguing the economy was on the mend.

But on Aug. 13, at an economic summit in Waco, Tex., business executives and affluent GOP donors warned that the economy remained in trouble and pushed their own tax-cut ideas.

The political winds shifted decisively against O'Neill and the deficit hawks.

In an Aug. 23 memo detailed by a former economic aide, Bush's economic advisers laid out a menu of tax-cut options, outlining policies of intentionally modest cost.

Four days later, in a conference call with White House Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., budget director Daniels joined O'Neill in expressing concern that another tax cut would undermine efforts to demand fiscal restraint from Congress, according to staff notes from the time. Daniels, a Republican who is running for Indiana governor, declined to be interviewed.

Amid those divisions, the economic team gathered in the Oval Office on Oct. 4. Lindsey pushed a 50 percent reduction in the taxation of capital gains and dividends and an expansion of savings limits on 401(k) plans and individual retirement accounts, at a cost of $27.3 billion a year. The Congressional Budget Office had just increased its deficit forecast to $157 billion, but Hubbard assured the president that a shortfall that size would not significantly raise interest rates.

"The president's body language was 'Is this enough?' " said one participant, who spoke on the condition of anonymity for fear of angering other members of the team.

The package languished until after the 2002 midterm election, with Bush convinced it could not pass unless Republicans gained control of the Senate. When they did, the policymakers swung into high gear. At a meeting Nov. 12, a consensus formed on accelerating income tax rate cuts, eliminating taxes on half of all dividends, and passing a one-year tax write-off for new business investment. Kathleen B. Cooper, the Commerce Department's chief economist, protested that rising deficits would boost interest rates and mitigate the economic benefit; Holtz-Eakin countered that any interest rate rise would be tiny.

Days later, at a meeting with the vice president, O'Neill "tipped his hand," said an administration participant in the session, and warned that the government was careening "toward a fiscal crisis." But by then, the Treasury secretary was virtually alone. On Dec. 6, he was fired.

A Dec. 28 memo from Lindsey's deputy, Keith Hennessey, cautioned Bush that his advisers were divided over whether he should cut the top two income tax rates or limit the cuts to lower-income and middle-class taxpayers. Daniels warned that cuts to the top tax rate would prompt a new round of accusations that the administration favors the rich.

But on Jan. 6, when Bush unveiled the package, he held nothing back, calling for even steeper dividend tax cuts than his staff envisioned, and income tax rate cuts for all income levels. Economic aides said the president made the decision himself, subordinating fiscal concerns to philosophy: If it was wrong to "double-tax" dividends, then that tax should be eliminated, not merely reduced. If some taxpayers deserved lower income tax rates, all of them did.

Congress gave Bush his income tax cuts and slashed dividends and capital gains taxes. Lawmakers trimmed the cost of the proposal to $350 billion, but only by declaring that its most politically popular provisions would expire in 2005. As expected, Congress overwhelmingly voted to extend those expiring provisions, at an additional cost of $146 billion.

Staying Afloat

To finance its deficits, the Treasury has increasingly looked to investors overseas, especially foreign governments, to buy U.S. Treasury bonds. But recent economic data suggest foreign buyers may be losing interest, afraid that a sudden drop in the value of the dollar will upend portfolios swollen with U.S. currency.

According to a Treasury Department report released this month, net foreign purchases of U.S. bonds fell 45 percent in July, to $22.4 billion, while purchases by foreign central banks plummeted 76 percent, to $4 billion -- the lowest levels in a about a year. Sung Won Sohn, chief economist at Wells Fargo Bank, warned clients recently that foreign governments are already cutting back, leaving the Treasury dependent on unreliable bond traders.

"The U.S. will rely increasingly on less stable sources of funding and pay higher interest rates," he said. "It is a fait accompli that the dollar will depreciate further. The dollar depreciation will lead to higher inflation and interest rates, hurting the economy."

That downturn follows a record influx of foreign lending to the United States that accelerated under the Bush administration from $19.2 billion in 2001 to $118 billion in 2002 to $279 billion in 2003.

Foreign governments lent the Treasury $3.5 billion in 2001 and $7.1 billion in 2002. Last year, the figure soared fifteenfold, to $109 billion. Japanese reserves of U.S. Treasuries climbed from $317 billion when Bush came to office to $695 billion in July. During the president's term, China surpassed Britain as the United States' second largest foreign lender, with its holdings more than tripling from $50 billion in December 2000 to $166 billion in July.

The situation may put Washington in a bind.

If foreign investors stop buying Treasury bonds and turn away in a herd-minded rush, interest rates would shoot up to try to attract those buyers back so the government can pay its bills. The value of the dollar will drop -- perhaps sharply. Heavily indebted U.S. consumers, facing rising interest rates and soaring prices for imports, will cut spending. Moribund economies in Europe and Japan will not be able to pick up the slack.

The result? "Global recession," predicted John Williamson, a senior fellow at the Institute for International Economics.

If the lending splurge continues, however -- and some feel it is bound to, if only because China and Japan now have an interest in propping up the dollar to keep their exports cheap -- some fear U.S. policymaking will be constrained by the reliance on foreign capital. "What does this mean to our bargaining power as a nation?" asked Michael D. Granoff, president of Pomona Capital, an investment firm. "If China is financing our debt, how tough can we be the next time there's a Tiananmen Square?"

Treasury economists say such concerns are exaggerated, arguing that the U.S. economy is large enough to absorb much more borrowing. Compared with the overall economy, total outstanding U.S. debt is about 35 percent of gross domestic product, said Randy Quarles, assistant Treasury secretary for international affairs. Japan's debt, by comparison, is roughly 100 percent of GDP.

"We're not going to tell you that we don't want to see smaller deficits," said Timothy S. Bitsberger, acting assistant Treasury secretary for financial markets. "But we see nothing in the market to suggest we're having trouble funding our deficit."

Bush has shown no sign of worry either. Since the 2003 tax cut passed, he has beaten back repeated Democratic efforts to roll back some tax cuts to pay for the war in Iraq. Earlier this year, he rebuffed demands by some moderate Republicans to offset the cost of future tax cuts with spending reductions or tax loophole closures. His 2005 budget proposal included $1.4 trillion in additional tax-cut costs, including expansive new savings accounts that would eliminate taxes on capital gains, dividends and interest for virtually every American.

In July, when GOP leaders moved to extend expiring tax cuts for just two years to hold down the cost, the president quashed the deal, demanding a five-year extension at a cost of $146 billion. He signed the bill this week.

"You can pull any economic textbook off the shelf to see we did exactly the right thing," Lindsey said. "It has been an unqualified success."<<

"Hypocrisy on Spy Reform"

2004-10-08T06:12:00.000-04:00

Our tax dollars at work....

The much touted "conservative" Republican Congressional leadership is just another bad joke.

When GOPers talk about "conservatism" what they really mean is that tax payers' $$$ will be directed toward their buddies in the defense industry and intelligence services where PORK is the name of the game.

Coupled with an ideologically based agenda that centers on intruding into people's PRIVATE lives, right-wingers bring out the worst in American politics.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A16509-2004Oct7.html

Wash Post - Friday, October 8, 2004

Hypocrisy On Spy Reform By David Ignatius

Senators were patting themselves on the back yesterday for passing some of the intelligence reforms recommended by the Sept. 11 commission. But behind the scenes, the legislative process has been an egregious example of congressional politics as usual.

Legislators have embraced the commission's call for a national intelligence director and national counterterrorism center that would, in theory, coordinate intelligence efforts in the executive branch. But they have ignored or gutted the commission's proposal for similar reforms in the way Congress oversees intelligence.

"Of all our recommendations, strengthening congressional oversight may be among the most difficult and important," the commissioners stressed in their final report. They urged that Congress give its intelligence committees control over both authorizations and appropriations -- so that the committees would finally have the muscle to provide real oversight.

Why did the Senate bill scuttle these internal reforms of what the commission called a "dysfunctional" system? Because they would have threatened the turf of powerful legislators. To be blunt, the senators put their own perks and prerogatives ahead of the nation's security.

The House version of the bill isn't finished yet, but it's likely to be even worse. Not only have members ignored calls for internal reform, but the Republican leadership has loaded the bill with controversial proposals -- apparently in the hope that Democrats will have to vote against it, giving Republicans an easy script for political attack ads.

"It's outrageous. The American people should be angry," says former senator Bob Kerrey, who was a member of the Sept. 11 commission and for eight years served as a member of the Senate intelligence committee. He argues that it would have been better to drop the executive-branch changes if Congress was not going to reform itself. "These are secret agencies," he explains. "Unless you put in place strong oversight, it isn't going to work."

By focusing on appropriations power, the Sept. 11 commission was challenging one of Congress's most sacred cows. Longtime Capitol Hill observers know the appropriations committees are where Congress's real clout resides and what sustain its culture of logrolling and mutual back-scratching.

"The appropriators rule here -- the fix is in," says Sen. John McCain. The maverick Arizona Republican has compiled data showing that in the 10 years the Republicans have controlled Congress, the number of "earmarked" pork-barrel spending projects moving through appropriations committees has grown from 4,126 a session to 14,040. The Senate defense appropriations subcommittee alone gets more than 3,000 requests for special projects from other senators; this session, the House Appropriations Committee has received more than 33,000 such requests.

Because the real power lies with appropriations, the intelligence agencies know they can safely ignore pressure from the intelligence committees. Indeed, major contractors that do business with the intelligence community -- such as Lockheed Martin Corp., Boeing Co. and TRW Inc. -- are said to spend little time lobbying the intelligence panels because they know the appropriators have the power of the purse. CIA directors recognize the same reality: They can ignore the intelligence committees as long as they keep stroking the appropriators.

Congressional aides cite examples of how this system has hurt intelligence: Sen. Robert Byrd, a master of the appropriations process, is said to have agreed a few years ago to support the creation of a new Measurement and Signatures Intelligence Center -- but only if it were located in his home state, West Virginia; the proposal eventually died. Sen. Richard Shelby, a well-connected former chairman of the intelligence committee, managed to steer many projects to a Missile and Space Intelligence Center in Huntsville, Ala., that is now named after him. Congressional aides chuckle over an underused Air Force supercomputer center in Maui that was pushed by Hawaii's Sen. Daniel Inouye, another wizard of the appropriations process.

Behind this logrolling lies the biggest pork dispenser of them all, the Pentagon. In league with the armed services committees in both houses, the Pentagon has managed over the years to maintain control over about 80 percent of the intelligence budget that goes to the code-breaking National Security Agency and military units.

That system of Pentagon prerogatives will stay in place despite the Sept. 11 commission's efforts to dislodge it. Sen. John Warner, who as chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee is the Pentagon's best friend, managed to win passage of an amendment this week ensuring that the defense secretary -- not the new national intelligence director -- will nominate the heads of the NSA and the other agencies.

A telling example of how the current system misfires came not long ago, when the Senate intelligence committee decided after long study to cancel an expensive satellite reconnaissance system. The Appropriations Committee promptly restored funding. That's the sort of monkey business that's guaranteed to continue, with a Congress that's prepared to clean every house but its own.<<

Oooopppssss...make that "org" :-)

2004-10-07T05:19:00.000-04:00

It is definitely NOT what Dick Cheney had in mind when he sent listeners to a web site Factchecks.com during the Cheney-Edwards debate.

On arrival, surfers found themselves faced by George Soros who has worked tirelessly to get rid of the Deceptive Gang presently in power:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/07/politics/campaign/07fbox.html

New York Times - October 7, 2004

Just the Facts, Yes, but Where Are They? by the New York Times

If Vice President Dick Cheney told viewers once on Tuesday night, he told them at least a dozen times: Senator John Edwards had his facts wrong. Check out the truth, Mr. Cheney said, on www.factcheck.com.

But anyone clicking on that Internet site on Wednesday instead found a message Mr. Cheney had not intended, or expected: "Why we must not re-elect President Bush."

The vice president had wanted to send people to www.factcheck.org., a nonpartisan site run by the University of Pennsylvania's Annenberg Public Policy Center. There, he said, they would find information refuting Mr. Edwards's contention that there was an improper relationship between the Bush administration and Halliburton, the company with large contracts in Iraq that Mr. Cheney led before he ran for vice president.

But in urging viewers to check out www.factcheck.com, Mr. Cheney had instead sent them to a small Web site that simply could not handle the heavy traffic - 48,000 people in one hour. So the site, which sells educational material, found what it considered a "creative and amusing quick fix." According to a lawyer for the site's owner, John B. Berryhill, the company - Name Administration Inc. of the Cayman Islands - decided to bounce the crowd to another site. But which one? How about one for George Soros, the billionaire philanthropist who has given $18 million to Democratic advocacy groups to defeat President Bush? Click. In an instant, viewers were redirected to www.georgesoros.com.

Mr. Berryhill said his clients did not want to appear to support Mr. Cheney and did not want to send people to a site that could make money from the Web traffic. Instead, they made Mr. Soros an unwitting participant.

When it came to Mr. Soros and his page, www.georgesoros.com, his staff was simply perplexed. His chief of staff, Michael Vachon, issued a statement on Wednesday: "Neither George Soros nor any organization or company with which he is affiliated owns the FactCheck.com domain name, and we are not responsible for it redirecting visitors to our site. We are as surprised as anyone by this turn of events."

Then there was the Annenberg Public Policy Center's site, www.factcheck.org. Its director, Brooks Jackson, and his staff just wanted to get the facts right - as Mr. Cheney had tried to do. So for those viewers lucky enough to hit .org instead of .com, the center posted a statement on its site that read:

"In fact we did post an article pointing out that Cheney hasn't profited personally while in office from Halliburton's Iraq contracts, as falsely implied by a Kerry TV ad. But Edwards was talking about Cheney's responsibility for earlier Halliburton troubles. And in fact, Edwards was mostly right."<<

Unmasking Dick Cheney

2004-10-05T09:38:00.000-04:00

As usual, Paul Krugman gets it right. In fact, unmasking Cheney is, in a way, even more important then exposing the real Bush since he is the guy who was instrumental in dragging our nation into an UNprovoked war under false pretenses.

Rumsfeld facilitated Edwards' job by stating just yesterday he had no proof of an al Qaeda- Saddam connection. Nothing new there since, with the exception of Cheney, everyone knows there was no love lost between the two.

"So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/05/opinion/05krugman.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 5, 2004

The Falling Scales by Paul Krugman

Last week President Bush found himself defending his record on national security without his usual protective cocoon of loyalty-tested audiences and cowed reporters. And the sound you heard was the scales' falling from millions of eyes.

Trying to undo the damage, Mr. Bush is now telling those loyalty-tested audiences that Senator John Kerry's use of the phrase "global test" means that he "would give foreign governments veto power over our national security decisions." He's lying, of course, as anyone can confirm by looking at what Mr. Kerry actually said. But it may still work - Mr. Bush's pre-debate rise in the polls is testimony to the effectiveness of smear tactics.

Still, something important happened on Thursday. Style probably mattered most: viewers were shocked by the contrast between Mr. Bush's manufactured image as a strong, resolute leader and his whiny, petulant behavior in the debate. But Mr. Bush would have lost even more badly if post-debate coverage had focused on substance.

Here's one underreported example: So far, Mr. Bush has paid no political price for his shameful penny-pinching on domestic security and his refusal to provide effective protection for America's ports and chemical plants. As Jonathan Chait wrote in The New Republic: "Bush's record on homeland security ought to be considered a scandal. Yet, not only is it not a scandal, it's not even a story."

But Mr. Kerry raised the issue, describing how the administration has failed to protect us against terrorist attacks. Mr. Bush's response? "I don't think we want to get to how he's going to pay for all these promises."

Oh, yes we do. According to Congressional Budget Office estimates, Mr. Bush's tax cuts, with their strong tilt toward the wealthy, are responsible for more than $270 billion of the 2004 budget deficit. Increased spending on homeland security accounts for only $20 billion. That shows the true priorities of the self-proclaimed "war president." Later, Mr. Bush, perhaps realizing his mistake, asserted, "Of course we're doing everything we can to protect America." But he had already conceded that he isn't.

It's also not clear whether voters have noticed the collapse of Mr. Bush's cover story for the disastrous decision to invade Iraq. In Coral Gables, Mr. Bush asserted that when Mr. Kerry voted to authorize the use of force against Saddam, he "looked at the same intelligence I looked at." But as The Times confirmed last weekend, the Bush administration suppressed intelligence that might have raised doubts in Congress.

The case for war rested crucially on one piece of evidence: Saddam's purchase of aluminum tubes that, according to Condoleezza Rice, were "only really suited for nuclear weapons programs." But the truth, never revealed to Congress, was that most of the government's experts considered the tubes unsuited for a nuclear program and identical to the tubes used by Iraq for other purposes. Yes, Virginia, we were misled into war.

Now it's Dick Cheney's turn.

Mr. Cheney's manufactured image is as much at odds with reality as Mr. Bush's. The vice president is portrayed as a hardheaded realist, someone you can trust with difficult decisions. But his actual record is one of irresponsibility and incompetence.

Case in point: Mr. Cheney completely misread the nature of the 2001 California energy crisis. Although he has stonewalled investigations into what went on in his task force, there's no real question that he placed his trust in the very companies whose market-rigging caused that crisis.

In tonight's debate, John Edwards will surely confront Mr. Cheney over that task force, over domestic policies and, of course, over Halliburton. But he can also use the occasion to ask more hard questions about national security.

After all, Mr. Cheney didn't just promise Americans that "we will, in fact, be welcomed as liberators" by the grateful Iraqis. He also played a central role in leading us to war on false pretenses.

No, that's not an overstatement. In August 2002, when Mr. Cheney declared "we now know Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," he was being dishonest: the administration knew no such thing. He was also being irresponsible: his speech pre-empted an intelligence review that might have given dissenting experts a chance to make their case.

So here's Mr. Edwards's mission: to expose the real Dick Cheney, just as Mr. Kerry exposed the real George Bush. <<

"It's Double Standards stupid!"

2004-10-04T10:28:00.000-04:00

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the very core of the war on hatred. It's the elephant in the room that neither candidate is willing to address.

Michael Tarazi expresses the views not only of Arabs/Muslims but....of the great majority of individuals all across the globe.

As Carville would say: "It's the DOUBLE STANDARDS stupid!

"For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04tarazi.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 4, 2004

Two Peoples, One State by Michael Tarazi

Israel's untenable policy in the Middle East was more obvious than usual last week, as the Israeli Army made repeated incursions into Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians in the deadliest attacks in more than two years, even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reiterated his plans to withdraw from the territory. Israel's overall strategy toward the Palestinians is ultimately self-defeating: it wants Palestinian land but not the Palestinians who live on that land.

As Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state. Many Palestinians are now convinced that Israeli support for a Palestinian state is motivated not by a hope for reconciliation, but by a desire to segregate non-Jews while taking as much of their land and resources as possible. They are increasingly questioning the most commonly accepted solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - "two states living side by side in peace and security," in the words of President Bush - and are being forced to consider a one-state solution.

To Palestinians, the strategy behind Israel's two-state solution is clear. More than 400,000 Israelis live illegally in more than 150 colonies, many of which are atop Palestinian water sources. Mr. Sharon is prepared to evacuate settlers from Gaza - but only in exchange for expanding settlements in the West Bank. And Israel is building a barrier wall not on its land but rather inside occupied Palestinian territory. The wall's route maximizes the amount of Palestinian farmland and water on one side and the number of Palestinians on the other.

Yet while Israelis try to allay a demographic threat, they are creating a democratic threat. After years of negotiations, coupled with incessant building of settlements and now the construction of the wall, Palestinians finally understand that Israel is offering "independence" on a reservation stripped of water and arable soil, economically dependent on Israel and even lacking the right to self-defense.

As a result, many Palestinians are contemplating whether the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship. In other words, a one-state solution in which citizens of all faiths and ethnicities live together as equals. Recent polls indicate that a quarter of Palestinians favor the secular one-state solution - a surprisingly high number given that it is not officially advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.

Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders. There are no road signs reading "Welcome to Occupied Territory" when one drives into East Jerusalem. Some government maps of Israel do not delineate Israel's 1967 pre-occupation border. Settlers in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are interspersed among Palestinian towns and now constitute nearly a fifth of the population. In the words of one Palestinian farmer, you can't unscramble an egg.

But in this de facto state, 3.5 million Palestinian Christians and Muslims are denied the same political and civil rights as Jews. These Palestinians must drive on separate roads, in cars bearing distinctive license plates, and only to and from designated Palestinian areas. It is illegal for a Palestinian to drive a car with an Israeli license plate. These Palestinians, as non-Jews, neither qualify for Israeli citizenship nor have the right to vote in Israeli elections.

In South Africa, such an allocation of rights and privileges based on ethnic or religious affiliation was called apartheid. In Israel, it is called the Middle East's only democracy.

Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights, understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians. They fear the destruction of the never-defined "Jewish state." The one-state solution, however, neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.

For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land.

The struggle for Palestinian equality will not be easy. Power is never voluntarily shared by those who wield it. Palestinians will have to capture the world's imagination, organize the international community and refuse to be seduced into negotiating for their rights.

But the struggle against South African apartheid proves the battle can be won. The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer, before Israeli Jews can view Palestinian Christians and Muslims not as demographic threats but as fellow citizens.

Michael Tarazi is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization.<<

"It's Double-Standards stupid!

2004-10-04T10:25:00.000-04:00

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is at the very core of the war on hatred. It's the elephant in the room that neither candidate is willing to address.

Michael Tarazi expresses the views not only of Arabs/Muslims but....of the great majority of individuals all across the globe.

As Carville would say: "It's DOUBLE STANDARDS stupid!

"For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land."

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/10/04/opinion/04tarazi.html?oref=login

New York Times - October 4, 2004

Two Peoples, One State by Michael Tarazi

Israel's untenable policy in the Middle East was more obvious than usual last week, as the Israeli Army made repeated incursions into Gaza, killing dozens of Palestinians in the deadliest attacks in more than two years, even as Prime Minister Ariel Sharon reiterated his plans to withdraw from the territory. Israel's overall strategy toward the Palestinians is ultimately self-defeating: it wants Palestinian land but not the Palestinians who live on that land.

As Christians and Muslims, the millions of Palestinians under occupation are not welcome in the Jewish state. Many Palestinians are now convinced that Israeli support for a Palestinian state is motivated not by a hope for reconciliation, but by a desire to segregate non-Jews while taking as much of their land and resources as possible. They are increasingly questioning the most commonly accepted solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict - "two states living side by side in peace and security," in the words of President Bush - and are being forced to consider a one-state solution.

To Palestinians, the strategy behind Israel's two-state solution is clear. More than 400,000 Israelis live illegally in more than 150 colonies, many of which are atop Palestinian water sources. Mr. Sharon is prepared to evacuate settlers from Gaza - but only in exchange for expanding settlements in the West Bank. And Israel is building a barrier wall not on its land but rather inside occupied Palestinian territory. The wall's route maximizes the amount of Palestinian farmland and water on one side and the number of Palestinians on the other.

Yet while Israelis try to allay a demographic threat, they are creating a democratic threat. After years of negotiations, coupled with incessant building of settlements and now the construction of the wall, Palestinians finally understand that Israel is offering "independence" on a reservation stripped of water and arable soil, economically dependent on Israel and even lacking the right to self-defense.

As a result, many Palestinians are contemplating whether the quest for equal statehood should now be superseded by a struggle for equal citizenship. In other words, a one-state solution in which citizens of all faiths and ethnicities live together as equals. Recent polls indicate that a quarter of Palestinians favor the secular one-state solution - a surprisingly high number given that it is not officially advocated by any senior Palestinian leader.

Support for one state is hardly a radical idea; it is simply the recognition of the uncomfortable reality that Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories already function as a single state. They share the same aquifers, the same highway network, the same electricity grid and the same international borders. There are no road signs reading "Welcome to Occupied Territory" when one drives into East Jerusalem. Some government maps of Israel do not delineate Israel's 1967 pre-occupation border. Settlers in the occupied West Bank (including East Jerusalem) are interspersed among Palestinian towns and now constitute nearly a fifth of the population. In the words of one Palestinian farmer, you can't unscramble an egg.

But in this de facto state, 3.5 million Palestinian Christians and Muslims are denied the same political and civil rights as Jews. These Palestinians must drive on separate roads, in cars bearing distinctive license plates, and only to and from designated Palestinian areas. It is illegal for a Palestinian to drive a car with an Israeli license plate. These Palestinians, as non-Jews, neither qualify for Israeli citizenship nor have the right to vote in Israeli elections.

In South Africa, such an allocation of rights and privileges based on ethnic or religious affiliation was called apartheid. In Israel, it is called the Middle East's only democracy.

Most Israelis recoil at the thought of giving Palestinians equal rights, understandably fearing that a possible Palestinian majority will treat Jews the way Jews have treated Palestinians. They fear the destruction of the never-defined "Jewish state." The one-state solution, however, neither destroys the Jewish character of the Holy Land nor negates the Jewish historical and religious attachment (although it would destroy the superior status of Jews in that state). Rather, it affirms that the Holy Land has an equal Christian and Muslim character.

For those who believe in equality, this is a good thing. In theory, Zionism is the movement of Jewish national liberation. In practice, it has been a movement of Jewish supremacy. It is this domination of one ethnic or religious group over another that must be defeated before we can meaningfully speak of a new era of peace; neither Jews nor Muslims nor Christians have a unique claim on this sacred land.

The struggle for Palestinian equality will not be easy. Power is never voluntarily shared by those who wield it. Palestinians will have to capture the world's imagination, organize the international community and refuse to be seduced into negotiating for their rights.

But the struggle against South African apartheid proves the battle can be won. The only question is how long it will take, and how much all sides will have to suffer, before Israeli Jews can view Palestinian Christians and Muslims not as demographic threats but as fellow citizens.

Michael Tarazi is a legal adviser to the Palestine Liberation Organization.<<