Jay Dedman was twittering about wanting people to spread the word about Political Video.org -- a cool new George W. mash-up site.

They have a raging, searchable archive of G.W. in action!

Go there and see...

Bush Talks about using "the google"

This is from CNBC.

This is from the October 30, 2005 program of 60 minutes

I've been clearing off my TIVO since I've been home so much lately, and what do I run across but a 60 Minutes piece from October 30, 2005 about Valerie Plame. Not about the scandal per se, but about Valerie: who she was, what she did, and the lives potentially at risk and irrepairable damage that has been done to our National Security as a result of her identity being revealed.

Valerie was an undercover Agent gathering intelligence about numerous countries' Nuclear Weapons programs. She dedicated her life to protecting the National Security of the United States. She recommended her husband, Joseph Wilson, to go on another patriotic mission to Nigeria to verify whether or not Saddam Hussein had purchased uranium from there. Wilson went on this mission, almost as a favor, for the Vice President himself. When Wilson came back with the truth - that the documents saying Saddam had purchased uranium were forged, the Vice President wanted Wilson to keep quiet about it.

When he did not, and instead offered up to the press what he had uncovered, our Bush, Cheney and Rove conspired to reveal his wife's identity in retaliation.

Wow. You've really got to see this for yourself.

Video - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - All

Video - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - Part One

Video - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - Part Two

Audio - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - All

Audio - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - Part One

Audio - 60 Minutes On The CIA Leak - Part Two

I'm late for lunch and swamped finishing my masters (three more days!)....

But I just finished uploading Keith Olbermann's report on this situation from last Thursday, April 6, 2006, so I wanted to at least make it available to you raw style until I can blog it properly later.

The file is available as "all three parts together" and in three parts here w/pics.

1- Olbermann's overview

2-Shuster's take on it

3- John Dean's take on it.

This is from Sunday, April 9, 2006:

A "Concerted Effort" to Discredit Bush Critic
Prosecutor describes Cheney, Libby as key voices pitching Iraq-Niger story.
By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer for The Washington Post

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" - using classified information - to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year - in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there - as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision – un-remarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it - is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.

The first of those conversations, according to the evidence made known thus far, came when Libby met with Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, on June 27, 2003. In sworn testimony for Fitzgerald, according to a statement Woodward released on Nov. 14, 2005, Woodward said Libby told him of the intelligence estimate's description of Iraqi efforts to obtain "yellowcake," a processed form of natural uranium ore, in Africa. In an interview Friday, Woodward said his notes showed that Libby described those efforts as "vigorous."

Libby's next known meeting with a reporter, according to Fitzgerald's legal filing, was with Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003. He spoke again to Miller, and to Time magazine's Matt Cooper, on July 12...

Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney and his aides saw Wilson as a threat to "the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq." They decided to respond by implying that Wilson got his CIA assignment by "nepotism."

They were not alone. Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that "multiple officials in the White House" - not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified - discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/08/AR2006040800916.html

A "Concerted Effort" to Discredit Bush Critic
By Barton Gellman and Dafna Linzer
The Washington Post

Sunday 09 April 2006

Prosecutor describes Cheney, Libby as key voices pitching Iraq-Niger story.

As he drew back the curtain this week on the evidence against Vice President Cheney's former top aide, Special Counsel Patrick J. Fitzgerald for the first time described a "concerted action" by "multiple people in the White House" - using classified information - to "discredit, punish or seek revenge against" a critic of President Bush's war in Iraq.

Bluntly and repeatedly, Fitzgerald placed Cheney at the center of that campaign. Citing grand jury testimony from the vice president's former chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Fitzgerald fingered Cheney as the first to voice a line of attack that at least three White House officials would soon deploy against former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV.

Cheney, in a conversation with Libby in early July 2003, was said to describe Wilson's CIA-sponsored trip to Niger the previous year - in which the envoy found no support for charges that Iraq tried to buy uranium there - as "a junket set up by Mr. Wilson's wife," CIA case officer Valerie Plame.

Libby is charged with perjury and obstruction of justice for denying under oath that he disclosed Plame's CIA employment to journalists. There is no public evidence to suggest Libby made any such disclosure with Cheney's knowledge. But according to Libby's grand jury testimony, described for the first time in legal papers filed this week, Cheney "specifically directed" Libby in late June or early July 2003 to pass information to reporters from two classified CIA documents: an October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate and a March 2002 summary of Wilson's visit to Niger.

One striking feature of that decision – un-remarked until now, in part because Fitzgerald did not mention it - is that the evidence Cheney and Libby selected to share with reporters had been disproved months before.

United Nations inspectors had exposed the main evidence for the uranium charge as crude forgeries in March 2003, but the Bush administration and British Prime Minister Tony Blair maintained they had additional, secret evidence they could not disclose. In June, a British parliamentary inquiry concluded otherwise, delivering a scathing critique of Blair's role in promoting the story. With no ally left, the White House debated whether to abandon the uranium claim and became embroiled in bitter finger-pointing about whom to fault for the error. A legal brief filed for Libby last month said that "certain officials at the CIA, the White House, and the State Department each sought to avoid or assign blame for intelligence failures relating to Iraq's weapons of mass destruction."

It was at that moment that Libby, allegedly at Cheney's direction, sought out at least three reporters to bolster the discredited uranium allegation. Libby made careful selections of language from the 2002 estimate, quoting a passage that said Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium" in Africa.

The first of those conversations, according to the evidence made known thus far, came when Libby met with Bob Woodward, an assistant managing editor of The Washington Post, on June 27, 2003. In sworn testimony for Fitzgerald, according to a statement Woodward released on Nov. 14, 2005, Woodward said Libby told him of the intelligence estimate's description of Iraqi efforts to obtain "yellowcake," a processed form of natural uranium ore, in Africa. In an interview Friday, Woodward said his notes showed that Libby described those efforts as "vigorous."

Libby's next known meeting with a reporter, according to Fitzgerald's legal filing, was with Judith Miller, then of the New York Times, on July 8, 2003. He spoke again to Miller, and to Time magazine's Matt Cooper, on July 12.

At Cheney's instruction, Libby testified, he told Miller that the uranium story was a "key judgment" of the intelligence estimate, a term of art indicating there was consensus on a question of central importance.

In fact, the alleged effort to buy uranium was not among the estimate's key judgments, which were identified by a headline and bold type and set out in bullet form in the first five pages of the 96-page document.

Unknown to the reporters, the uranium claim lay deeper inside the estimate, where it said a fresh supply of uranium ore would "shorten the time Baghdad needs to produce nuclear weapons." But it also said US intelligence did not know the status of Iraq's procurement efforts, "cannot confirm" any success and had "inconclusive" evidence about Iraq's domestic uranium operations.

Iraq's alleged uranium shopping had been strongly disputed in the intelligence community from the start. In a closed Senate hearing in late September 2002, shortly before the October NIE was completed, then-director of central intelligence George J. Tenet and his top weapons analyst, Robert Walpole, expressed strong doubts about the uranium story, which had recently been unveiled publicly by the British government. The State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research, likewise, called the claim "highly dubious." For those reasons, the uranium story was relegated to a brief inside passage in the October estimate.

But the White House Iraq Group, formed in August 2002 to foster "public education" about Iraq's "grave and gathering danger" to the United States, repeatedly pitched the uranium story. The alleged procurement was a minor issue for most US analysts - the hard part for Iraq would be enriching uranium, not obtaining the ore, and Niger's controlled market made it an unlikely seller - but the Niger story proved irresistible to speechwriters. Most nuclear arguments were highly technical, but the public could easily grasp the link between uranium and a bomb.

Tenet interceded to keep the claim out of a speech Bush gave in Cincinnati on Oct. 7, 2002, but by Dec. 19 it reappeared in a State Department "fact sheet." After that, the Pentagon asked for an authoritative judgment from the National Intelligence Council, the senior coordinating body for the 15 agencies that then constituted the US intelligence community. Did Iraq and Niger discuss a uranium sale, or not? If they had, the Pentagon would need to reconsider its ties with Niger.

The council's reply, drafted in a January 2003 memo by the national intelligence officer for Africa, was unequivocal: The Niger story was baseless and should be laid to rest. Four US officials with firsthand knowledge said in interviews that the memo, which has not been reported before, arrived at the White House as Bush and his highest-ranking advisers made the uranium story a centerpiece of their case for the rapidly approaching war against Iraq.

Bush put his prestige behind the uranium story in his Jan. 28, 2003, State of the Union address. Less than two months later, the International Atomic Energy Agency exposed the principal US evidence as bogus. A Bush-appointed commission later concluded that the evidence, a set of contracts and correspondence sold by an Italian informant, was "transparently forged."

On the ground in Iraq, meanwhile, the hunt for weapons of mass destruction was producing no results, and as the bad news converged on the White House - weeks after a banner behind Bush declared "Mission Accomplished" on the deck of the USS Abraham Lincoln - Wilson emerged as a key critic. He focused his ire on Cheney, who had made the administration's earliest and strongest claims about Iraq's alleged nuclear program.

Fitzgerald wrote that Cheney and his aides saw Wilson as a threat to "the credibility of the Vice President (and the President) on a matter of signal importance: the rationale for the war in Iraq." They decided to respond by implying that Wilson got his CIA assignment by "nepotism."

They were not alone. Fitzgerald reported for the first time this week that "multiple officials in the White House" - not only Libby and White House Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who have previously been identified - discussed Plame's CIA employment with reporters before and after publication of her name on July 14, 2003, in a column by Robert D. Novak. Fitzgerald said the grand jury has collected so much testimony and so many documents that "it is hard to conceive of what evidence there could be that would disprove the existence of White House efforts to 'punish' Wilson."

At the same time, top officials such as then-deputy national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley were pressing the CIA to declassify more documents in hopes of defending the president's use of the uranium claim in his State of the Union speech. It was a losing battle. A "senior Bush administration official," speaking on the condition of anonymity as the president departed for Africa on July 7, 2003, told The Post that "the reference to Iraq's attempt to acquire uranium from Africa should not have been included in the State of the Union speech." The comment appeared on the front page of the July 8 paper, the same morning that Libby met Miller at the St. Regis hotel.

Libby was still defending the uranium claim as the administration's internal battle burst into the open. White House officials tried to blame Tenet for the debacle, but Tenet made public his intervention to keep uranium out of Bush's speech four months earlier. Hadley then acknowledged that he had known of Tenet's objections but forgot them as the State of the Union approached.

Hoping to lay the controversy to rest, Hadley claimed responsibility for the Niger remarks.

In a speech two days later, at the American Enterprise Institute, Cheney defended the war by saying that no responsible leader could ignore the evidence in the NIE. Before a roomful of conservative policymakers, Cheney listed four of the "key judgments" on Iraq's alleged weapons capabilities but made no mention of Niger or uranium.

On July 30, 2003, two senior intelligence officials said in an interview that Niger was never an important part of the CIA's analysis, and that the language of Iraq's vigorous pursuit of uranium came verbatim from a Defense Intelligence Agency report that had caught the vice president's attention. The same day, the CIA referred the Plame leak to the Justice Department for criminal prosecution, the fateful step that would eventually lead to Libby's indictment.

From the "Hey is anybody listening? The information we've been waiting for years to break has broken" department, Jason Leopold and like five other reporters are covering what has got to be the most exciting development in this dismal administration: not only did Cheney tell Libby to leak the information to the press about Joseph Wilson's wife, Valerie Plame, being a CIA agent, but , according to Libby himself, Bush told Cheney to tell him to do it.

I have some nice clips from Keith Olbermann going up next, but this story published this morning in the Times sums it up nicely too.

Bush and Cheney Discussed Plame Prior to Leak
by Jason Leopold for t r u t h o u t.

In early June 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney met with President Bush and told him that CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson and that she was responsible for sending him on a fact-finding mission to Niger to check out reports about Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium from the African country, according to current and former White House officials and attorneys close to the investigation to determine who revealed Plame-Wilson's undercover status to the media.

Other White House officials who also attended the meeting with Cheney and President Bush included former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her former deputy Stephen Hadley, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

This information was provided to this reporter by attorneys and US officials who have remained close to the case. Investigators working with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald compiled the information after interviewing 36 Bush administration officials over the past two and a half years.

The revelation puts a new wrinkle into Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year-old criminal probe into the leak and suggests for the first time that President Bush knew from early on that the vice president and senior officials on his staff were involved in a coordinated effort to attack Wilson's credibility by leaking his wife's classified CIA status.

Now that President Bush's knowledge of the Plame Wilson affair has been exposed, there are thorny questions about whether the president has broken the law - specifically, whether he obstructed justice when he was interviewed about his knowledge of the Plame Wilson leak and the campaign to discredit her husband.

Details of President Bush's involvement in the Plame Wilson affair came in a 39-page court document filed by Fitzgerald late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington.

Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators for not telling grand jury he spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson.

Libby's attorneys have in the past months have argued that the government has evidence that would prove Libby's innocence and that the special prosecutor refuses to turn it over to the defense. Fitzgerald said in court documents he has already turned over thousands of pages of evidence to Libby's attorneys and that further discovery requests have been overly broad.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/041006Z.shtml

Bush and Cheney Discussed Plame Prior to Leak
By Jason Leopold
t r u t h o u t | Report

Monday 10 April 2006

In early June 2003, Vice President Dick Cheney met with President Bush and told him that CIA officer Valerie Plame Wilson was the wife of Iraq war critic Joseph Wilson and that she was responsible for sending him on a fact-finding mission to Niger to check out reports about Iraq's attempt to purchase uranium from the African country, according to current and former White House officials and attorneys close to the investigation to determine who revealed Plame-Wilson's undercover status to the media.

Other White House officials who also attended the meeting with Cheney and President Bush included former White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card, then-National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice, her former deputy Stephen Hadley, and Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove.

This information was provided to this reporter by attorneys and US officials who have remained close to the case. Investigators working with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald compiled the information after interviewing 36 Bush administration officials over the past two and a half years.

The revelation puts a new wrinkle into Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald's two-year-old criminal probe into the leak and suggests for the first time that President Bush knew from early on that the vice president and senior officials on his staff were involved in a coordinated effort to attack Wilson's credibility by leaking his wife's classified CIA status.

Now that President Bush's knowledge of the Plame Wilson affair has been exposed, there are thorny questions about whether the president has broken the law - specifically, whether he obstructed justice when he was interviewed about his knowledge of the Plame Wilson leak and the campaign to discredit her husband.

Details of President Bush's involvement in the Plame Wilson affair came in a 39-page court document filed by Fitzgerald late Wednesday evening in US District Court in Washington.

Fitzgerald's court filing was made in response to attorneys representing I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, Vice President Dick Cheney's former chief of staff, who was indicted on five counts of perjury, obstruction of justice, and lying to investigators for not telling grand jury he spoke to reporters about Plame Wilson.

Libby's attorneys have in the past months have argued that the government has evidence that would prove Libby's innocence and that the special prosecutor refuses to turn it over to the defense. Fitzgerald said in court documents he has already turned over thousands of pages of evidence to Libby's attorneys and that further discovery requests have been overly broad.

The attorneys and officials close to the case said over the weekend that the hastily arranged meeting was called by Cheney to "brief the president" on Wilson's increasing public criticism about the White House's use of the Niger intelligence and the negative impact it would eventually have on the administration's credibility if the public and Congress found out it was true, the sources said.

Bush said publicly in October 2003 that he had no idea who was responsible for unmasking Plame Wilson to columnist Robert Novak and other reporters. The president said that he welcomed a Justice Department investigation to find out who was responsible for it.

But neither Bush nor anyone in his inner circle let on that just four months earlier, they had agreed to launch a full-scale campaign to undercut Wilson's credibility by planting negative stories about his personal life with the media.

A more aggressive effort would come a week or so later when Cheney - who, sources said, was "consumed" with retaliating against Wilson because of his attacks on the administration's rationale for war - met with President Bush a second time and told the president that there was talk of "Wilson going public" and exposing the flawed Niger intelligence.

It was then that Cheney told Bush that a section of the classified National Intelligence Estimate that purported to show Iraq did seek uranium from Niger should be leaked to reporters as a way to counter anything report Wilson might seek to publish, these sources said.

Throughout the second half of June, Andrew Card, Karl Rove, and senior officials from Cheney's office kept Bush updated about the progress of the campaign to discredit Wilson via numerous emails and internal White House memos, these sources said, adding that some of these documents were only recently turned over to the special counsel.

One attorney close to the case said that Bush gave Cheney permission to declassify the NIE and that Cheney told Libby to leak it to Bob Woodward, the Washington Post's assistant managing editor, which Libby did on June 27, 2003.

But Woodward told Libby shortly after he received the information about the NIE that he would not be writing a story about it for the Post but that he would use the still classified information for the book he was writing at the time, Plan of Attack.

Woodward would not return calls for comment nor would Libby's attorneys Ted Wells and William Jeffress.

Libby told Cheney that he had a good relationship with New York Times reporter Judith Miller and that he intended to share the NIE with her. Libby met with Miller on July 8, 2003 and disclosed the portion of the NIE that dealt with Iraq and Niger to her.

According to four attorneys who last week read a transcript of President Bush's interview with investigators, Bush did not disclose to the special counsel that he was aware of any campaign to discredit Wilson. Bush also said he did not know who, if anyone, in the White House had retaliated against the former ambassador by leaking his wife's undercover identity to reporters.

Attorneys close to the case said that Fitzgerald does not appear to be overly concerned or interested in any alleged discrepancy in Bush's statements about the leak case to investigators.

But "if Mr. Libby continues to misrepresent the government's case against him ... President Bush and most certainly Vice President Cheney may be caught in an embarrassing position," one attorney close to the case said. "Mr. Fitzgerald will not hesitate to remind Mr. Libby of his testimony when he appeared before the grand jury."

Speaking to college students and faculty at California State University Northridge last week, Wilson said that after President Bush cited the uranium claims in his State of the Union address he tried unsuccessfully for five months to get the White House to correct the record.

"I had direct discussions with the State Department, Senate committees," Wilson said during a speech last Thursday. "I had numerous conversations to change what they were saying publicly. I had a civic duty to hold my government to account for what it had said and done."

Wilson said he was rebuffed at every instance and finally decided to write an op-ed in the New York Times and expose the administration for knowingly "twisting" the intelligence on the Iraqi nuclear threat to make a case for war. The op-ed appeared in the newspaper July 8, 2003. Wilson wrote that had he personally traveled to Niger to check out the Niger intelligence and had determined it was bogus.

"Nothing more, nothing less than challenging the government to come clean on this matter," Wilson said. "That's all I did."

In the interest of fairness, any person identified in this story who believes he has been portrayed unfairly or that the information about him is untrue will have the opportunity to respond in this space.

Jason Leopold spent two years covering California's electricity crisis as Los Angeles bureau chief of Dow Jones Newswires. Jason has spent the last year cultivating sources close to the CIA leak investigation, and is a regular contributor to t r u t h o u t.

Did the White House make a conscious decision to do nothing about getting Katrina rescue efforts to the people of New Orleans?

If not, how could Bush have been relieved on Tuesday morning when he mistakenly thought that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet?"

This article is from Friday, February 10, 2006.

Now we can't give the reorganization of the Department of Home Security all the credit for single handedly screwing up the rescue system that Clinton had taken 8 years to build. The Shrub gets some credit for cutting a lot of FEMA funding too, straight across the board.

So in many areas, it didn't matter who was in charge, there was no money for the program anyway. (Here's factcheck.org and washington monthly for some more good information on that.)

White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm
By Eric Lipton for The New York Times.
via
t r u t h o u t

Washington - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush administration officials said they had been caught by surprise when they were told on Tuesday, Aug. 30, that a levee had broken, allowing floodwaters to engulf New Orleans.

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency official, Marty Bahamonde, first heard of a major levee breach Monday morning. By late Monday afternoon, Mr. Bahamonde had hitched a ride on a Coast Guard helicopter over the breach at the 17th Street Canal to confirm the extensive flooding. He then telephoned his report to FEMA headquarters in Washington, which notified the Homeland Security Department.

"FYI from FEMA," said an e-mail message from the agency's public affairs staff describing the helicopter flight, sent Monday night at 9:27 to the chief of staff of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and recently unearthed by investigators. Conditions, the message said, "are far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting. Finding extensive flooding and more stranded people than they had thought - also a number of fires."

Michael D. Brown, who was the director of FEMA until he resigned under pressure on Sept. 12, said in a telephone interview Thursday that he personally notified the White House of this news that night, though he declined to identify the official he spoke to.

White House officials have confirmed to Congressional investigators that the report of the levee break arrived there at midnight, and Trent Duffy, the White House spokesman, acknowledged as much in an interview this week, though he said it was surrounded with conflicting reports.

But the alert did not seem to register. Even the next morning, President Bush, on vacation in Texas, was feeling relieved that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet," he later recalled. Mr. Chertoff, similarly confident, flew Tuesday to Atlanta for a briefing on avian flu. With power out from the high winds and movement limited, even news reporters in New Orleans remained unaware of the full extent of the levee breaches until Tuesday.

The federal government let out a sigh of relief when in fact it should have been sounding an "all hands on deck" alarm, the investigators have found.

This chain of events, along with dozens of other critical flashpoints in the Hurricane Katrina saga, has for the first time been laid out in detail following five months of work by two Congressional committees that have assembled nearly 800,000 pages of documents, testimony and interviews from more than 250 witnesses. Investigators now have the documentation to pinpoint some of the fundamental errors and oversights that combined to produce what is universally agreed to be a flawed government response to the worst natural disaster in modern American history.

On Friday, Mr. Brown, the former FEMA director, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He is expected to confirm that he notified the White House on that Monday, the day the hurricane hit, that the levee had given way, the city was flooding and his crews were overwhelmed...

"There is no question in my mind that at the highest levels of the White House they understood how grave the situation was," Mr. Brown said in the interview.

The problem, he said, was the handicapping of FEMA when it was turned into a division of the Homeland Security Department in 2003.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/10/politics/10katrina.html?hp&ex=1139634000&en=914abcf6c2b5fc5a&ei=5094&partner=homepage

also from truthout: http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/021006K.shtml

White House Knew of Levee's Failure on Night of Storm
By Eric Lipton
The New York Times

Friday 10 February 2006

Washington - In the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, Bush administration officials said they had been caught by surprise when they were told on Tuesday, Aug. 30, that a levee had broken, allowing floodwaters to engulf New Orleans.

But Congressional investigators have now learned that an eyewitness account of the flooding from a federal emergency official reached the Homeland Security Department's headquarters starting at 9:27 p.m. the day before, and the White House itself at midnight.

The Federal Emergency Management Agency official, Marty Bahamonde, first heard of a major levee breach Monday morning. By late Monday afternoon, Mr. Bahamonde had hitched a ride on a Coast Guard helicopter over the breach at the 17th Street Canal to confirm the extensive flooding. He then telephoned his report to FEMA headquarters in Washington, which notified the Homeland Security Department.

"FYI from FEMA," said an e-mail message from the agency's public affairs staff describing the helicopter flight, sent Monday night at 9:27 to the chief of staff of Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff and recently unearthed by investigators. Conditions, the message said, "are far more serious than media reports are currently reflecting. Finding extensive flooding and more stranded people than they had thought - also a number of fires."

Michael D. Brown, who was the director of FEMA until he resigned under pressure on Sept. 12, said in a telephone interview Thursday that he personally notified the White House of this news that night, though he declined to identify the official he spoke to.

White House officials have confirmed to Congressional investigators that the report of the levee break arrived there at midnight, and Trent Duffy, the White House spokesman, acknowledged as much in an interview this week, though he said it was surrounded with conflicting reports.

But the alert did not seem to register. Even the next morning, President Bush, on vacation in Texas, was feeling relieved that New Orleans had "dodged the bullet," he later recalled. Mr. Chertoff, similarly confident, flew Tuesday to Atlanta for a briefing on avian flu. With power out from the high winds and movement limited, even news reporters in New Orleans remained unaware of the full extent of the levee breaches until Tuesday.

The federal government let out a sigh of relief when in fact it should have been sounding an "all hands on deck" alarm, the investigators have found.

This chain of events, along with dozens of other critical flashpoints in the Hurricane Katrina saga, has for the first time been laid out in detail following five months of work by two Congressional committees that have assembled nearly 800,000 pages of documents, testimony and interviews from more than 250 witnesses. Investigators now have the documentation to pinpoint some of the fundamental errors and oversights that combined to produce what is universally agreed to be a flawed government response to the worst natural disaster in modern American history.

On Friday, Mr. Brown, the former FEMA director, is scheduled to testify before the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee. He is expected to confirm that he notified the White House on that Monday, the day the hurricane hit, that the levee had given way, the city was flooding and his crews were overwhelmed.

"There is no question in my mind that at the highest levels of the White House they understood how grave the situation was," Mr. Brown said in the interview.

The problem, he said, was the handicapping of FEMA when it was turned into a division of the Homeland Security Department in 2003.

"The real story is with this new structure," he said. "Why weren't more things done, or what prevented or delayed Mike Brown from being able to do what he would have done and did do in any other disaster?"

Although Mr. Bahamonde said in October that he had notified Mr. Brown that Monday, it was not known until recently what Mr. Brown or the Homeland Security Department did with that information, or when the White House was told.

Missteps at All Levels

It has been known since the earliest days of the storm that all levels of government - from the White House to the Department of Homeland Security to the Louisiana Capitol to New Orleans City Hall - were unprepared, uncommunicative and phlegmatic in protecting Gulf Coast residents from the floodwaters and their aftermath. But an examination of the latest evidence by The New York Times shines a new light on the key players involved in the important turning points: what they said, what they did and what they did not do, all of which will soon be written up in the committees' investigative reports.

Among the findings that emerge in the mass of documents and testimony were these:

Federal officials knew long before the storm showed up on the radar that 100,000 people in New Orleans had no way to escape a major hurricane on their own and that the city had finished only 10 percent of a plan for how to evacuate its largely poor, African-American population.

Mr. Chertoff failed to name a principal federal official to oversee the response before the hurricane arrived, an omission a top Pentagon official acknowledged to investigators complicated the coordination of the response. His department also did not plan enough to prevent a conflict over which agency should be in charge of law enforcement support. And Mr. Chertoff was either poorly informed about the levee break or did not recognize the significance of the initial report about it, investigators said.

The Louisiana transportation secretary, Johnny B. Bradberry, who had legal responsibility for the evacuation of thousands of people in nursing homes and hospitals, admitted bluntly to investigators, "We put no plans in place to do any of this."

Mayor C. Ray Nagin of New Orleans at first directed his staff to prepare a mandatory evacuation of his city on Saturday, two days before the storm hit, but he testified that he had not done so that day while he and other city officials struggled to decide if they should exempt hospitals and hotels from the order. The mandatory evacuation occurred on Sunday, and the delay exacerbated the difficulty in moving people away from the storm.

The New Orleans Police Department unit assigned to the rescue effort, despite many years' worth of flood warnings and requests for money, had just three small boats and no food, water or fuel to supply its emergency workers.

Investigators could find no evidence that food and water supplies were formally ordered for the Convention Center, where more than 10,000 evacuees had assembled, until days after the city had decided to open it as a backup emergency shelter. FEMA had planned to have 360,000 ready-to-eat meals delivered to the city and 15 trucks of water in advance of the storm. But only 40,000 meals and five trucks of water had arrived.

Representative Thomas M. Davis III, Republican of Virginia, chairman of the special House committee investigating the hurricane response, said the only government agency that performed well was the National Weather Service, which correctly predicted the force of the storm. But no one heeded the message, he said.

"The president is still at his ranch, the vice president is still fly-fishing in Wyoming, the president's chief of staff is in Maine," Mr. Davis said. "In retrospect, don't you think it would have been better to pull together? They should have had better leadership. It is disengagement."

One of the greatest mysteries for both the House and Senate committees has been why it took so long, even after Mr. Bahamonde filed his urgent report on the Monday the storm hit, for federal officials to appreciate that the levee had broken and that New Orleans was flooding.

Eyewitness to Devastation

As his helicopter approached the site, Mr. Bahamonde testified in October, there was no mistaking what had happened: large sections of the levee had fallen over, leaving the section of the city on the collapsed side entirely submerged, but the neighborhood on the other side relatively dry. He snapped a picture of the scene with a small camera.

"The situation is only going to get worse," he said he warned Mr. Brown, then the FEMA director, whom he called about 8 p.m. Monday Eastern time to report on his helicopter tour.

"Thank you," he said Mr. Brown replied. "I am now going to call the White House."

Citing restrictions placed on him by his lawyers, Mr. Brown declined to tell House investigators during testimony if he had actually made that call. White House aides have urged administration officials not to discuss any conversations with the president or his top advisors and declined to release e-mail messages sent among Mr. Bush's senior advisors.

But investigators have found the e-mail message referring to Mr. Bahamonde's helicopter survey that was sent to John F. Wood, chief of staff to Secretary Chertoff at 9:27 p.m. They have also found a summary of Mr. Bahamonde's observations that was issued at 10:30 p.m. and an 11:05 p.m. e-mail message to Michael Jackson, the deputy secretary of homeland security. Each message describes in detail the extensive flooding that was taking place in New Orleans after the levee collapse.

Given this chain of events, investigators have repeatedly questioned why Mr. Bush and Mr. Chertoff stated in the days after the storm that the levee break did not happen until Tuesday, as they made an effort to explain why they initially thought the storm had passed without the catastrophe that some had feared.

"The hurricane started to depart the area on Monday, and then Tuesday morning the levee broke and the water started to flood into New Orleans," Mr. Chertoff said on CBS's "Face the Nation" on Sunday, Sept. 4, the weekend after the hurricane hit.

Mr. Chertoff and White House officials have said that they were referring to official confirmation that the levee had broken, which they say they received Tuesday morning from the Army Corps of Engineers. They also say there were conflicting reports all day Monday about whether a breach had occurred and noted that they were not alone in failing to recognize the growing catastrophe.

Mr. Duffy, the White House spokesman, said it would not have made much difference even if the White House had realized the significance of the midnight report. "Like it or not, you cannot fix a levee overnight, or in an hour, or even six hours," he said.

But Senator Susan Collins, Republican of Maine and chairwoman of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs, said it was obvious to her in retrospect that Mr. Chertoff, perhaps in deference to Mr. Brown's authority, was not paying close enough attention to the events in New Orleans and that the federal response to the disaster may have been slowed as a result.

"Secretary Chertoff was too disengaged from the process," Ms. Collins said in an interview.

Compounding the problem, once Mr. Chertoff learned of the levee break on Tuesday, he could not reach Mr. Brown, his top emergency response official, for an entire day because Mr. Brown was on helicopter tours of the damage.

Senator Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut, the ranking Democrat on the homeland security committee, said the government confusion reminded him of the period surrounding the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001.

"Information was in different places, in that case prior to the attack," Mr. Lieberman said, "and it wasn't reaching the key decision makers in a coordinated way for them to take action."

Russ Knocke, a homeland security spokesman, said that although Mr. Chertoff had been "intensely involved in monitoring the storm" he had not actually been told about the report of the levee breach until Tuesday, after he arrived in Atlanta.

"No one is satisfied with the response in the early days," Mr. Knocke said.

But he rejected criticism by Senator Collins and others that Mr. Chertoff was disengaged.

"He was not informed of it," Mr. Knocke said. "It is certainly a breakdown. And through an after-action process, that is something we will address."

The day before the hurricane made landfall, the Homeland Security Department issued a report predicting that it could lead to a levee breach that could submerge New Orleans for months and leave 100,000 people stranded. Yet despite these warnings, state, federal and local officials acknowledged to investigators that there was no coordinated effort before the storm arrived to evacuate nursing homes and hospitals or others in the urban population without cars.

Focus on Highway Plan

Mr. Bradberry, the state transportation secretary, told an investigator that he had focused on improving the highway evacuation plan for the general public with cars and had not attended to his responsibility to remove people from hospitals and nursing homes. The state even turned down an offer for patient evacuation assistance from the federal government.

In fact, the city was desperately in need of help. And this failure would have deadly consequences. Only 21 of the 60 or so nursing homes were cleared of residents before the storm struck. Dozens of lives were lost in hospitals and nursing homes.

One reason the city was unable to help itself, investigators said, is that it never bought the basic equipment needed to respond to the long-predicted catastrophe. The Fire Department had asked for inflatable boats and generators, as well as an emergency food supply, but none were provided, a department official told investigators.

Timothy P. Bayard, a police narcotics commander assigned to lead a water rescue effort, said that with just three boats, not counting the two it commandeered and almost no working radios, his small team spent much of its time initially just trying to rescue detectives who themselves were trapped by rising water.

The investigators also determined that the federal Department of Transportation was not asked until Wednesday to provide buses to evacuate the Superdome and the convention center, meaning that evacuees sat there for perhaps two more days longer than necessary.

Mr. Brown acknowledged to investigators that he wished, in retrospect, that he had moved much earlier to turn over major aspects of the response effort to the Department of Defense. It was not until the middle of the week, he said, that he asked the military to take over the delivery and distribution of water, food and ice.

"In hindsight I should have done it right then," Mr. Brown told the House, referring to the Sunday before the storm hit.

Go to Original

Former FEMA Director to Testify about Katrina
By Spencer S. Hsu
The Washington Post

Friday 10 February 2006

Denied executive privilege, Brown plans to discuss communications with Bush.

Michael D. Brown, the former head of the Federal Emergency Management Agency, was rebuffed in his request for a claim of executive privilege and plans to testify to a Senate panel today about his calls and e-mails to President Bush and top White House aides in the Hurricane Katrina crisis, Brown's lawyer said yesterday.

White House Counsel Harriet Miers declined to offer Brown a legal defense for declining to testify or respond to a Feb. 6 letter advising that without such protection Brown "intends to answer all questions fully, completely and accurately," said Brown's lawyer, Andrew W. Lester.

Lester wrote that Brown will testify if asked about communications with Bush, Vice President Cheney, Chief of Staff Andrew H. Card Jr., Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, Deputy Chief of Staff Joseph Hagin, domestic policy adviser Claude A. Allen and national security adviser Stephen J. Hadley.

As the federal official in charge of the disaster before he resigned, Brown is "between a rock and a hard place," his lawyer said. "On the one hand he desires to answer fully any and all questions the Committee may have," Lester wrote. "On the other hand the President's statements indicate concern that the President be able to 'get unvarnished advice from [his] advisors.'"

House and Senate investigative committees have battled the White House over its refusal to make available top aides and their correspondence from the response to the storm. Instead, the White House has provided 15,000 pages of records and briefings by a deputy White House homeland security adviser.

Bush spokesman Trent Duffy declined to comment on Brown's letter. But Duffy noted a Jan. 26 news conference in which Bush, while declining to cite Brown by name, defended "people who give me advice" from being forced to disclose such conversations, citing a "chilling effect on future advisers."

In testimony to a House committee in September, Brown did not discuss such conversations on the advice of counsel, although he estimated that he communicated with the White House "30 times" during the weekend before Katrina made landfall on Monday, Aug. 29. That included "several" calls to Bush to help speed evacuations by Louisiana and New Orleans leaders.

Yesterday, Lester said that Brown "is planning to testify by answering all questions."

Brown could shed light on the White House's lack of awareness of events on the day of Katrina's landfall. Documents released by the Senate show that although the Homeland Security Operations Center reported at 6 p.m. Aug. 29 that no New Orleans levees had been breached, authorities received no fewer than 16 reports to the contrary before then.

Beginning at 8:30 a.m. Aug. 29, levee breaks were reported by sources including New Orleans and Louisiana homeland security officials, the Transportation Security Administration, the National Weather Service, FEMA officials, White House Homeland Security Council and Homeland Security Department "spot reports," the Army Corps of Engineers, the Coast Guard, and the American Red Cross.

Today's the day you can "do something" about what's starting to look like an easy rubber stamp for Alito.

Go to http://www.nocrony.com/ to look up your local senators and give them a call *and* send them an email urging them to Filllibuster his nomination.

The Watchers: Maria Hinojosa on NOW - The Truth About Bush's Domestic Spying Program

This is from the January 13, 2006 episode of NOW.

Link to NOW website on this story, which includes documents a plenty backing up all the facts mentioned below (and much more).

So really things are getting pretty interesting.

On the one hand we have the Vice President's right hand man Scooter Libby indicted by the Justice Department for leaking CIA Agent Valerie Plame's identity.

We have Republican House Leader Tom DeLay having to step down in the face of his indictments in Texas.

We have "Bush Pioneer" Jack Abramoff pleading guilty to various money laundering and fraud charges, and in the process revealing the names of 60 or more other corrupt Republicans that were in on the racket.

But now, it would appear we have something like "Watergate On Steroids."

This isn't some office break-in that the President "knew" about via smoke filled rooms. This is an executive order straight from Bush himself self-authorizing a no-warrants-necessary domestic spying program.

Perhaps you saw Condi Rice on Meet The Press a few weeks ago making absolutely no sense whatsoever. She cites FISA (the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act) as the reason for the President's authority to issue no-warrant spying. In reality, of course, FISA is actually the reason we can conclude so easily that the President so clearly broke the law; If he had obtained FISA warrants for his Domestic Spying program, it would have been legal.

Programs such as Bush's are exactly the reason that FISA was created: to protect Americans from the kinds of governement abuses carried out by the Kennedy, Johnson and Nixon Administrations during the 60's and early 70's. It was passed in 1978 after it came out that the government was spying heavily on whoever they wanted -- on everyone from Jane Fonda to Martin Luther King.

The point was that "No," actually, being at War isn't an excuse to throw the Constitution out the window, in case you were wondering. That part the Founding Fathers wrote about "The right of the people to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures..." -- They meant that. And they meant it *especially* during times of war. Because then, like now, there was always some war going on with someone, somewhere. These rights have to be protected...but...hey, here's this other court -- one set up explicitly for granting these kinds of spying warrants, and quickly. So really, the government can still spy on you if it wants, but not as much as it wants to, willy nilly, and not without having to answer to anyone, ever. (So if you're doing something that *looks* reasonably suspicious, look out!)

And spy they did. Only 5 of the more than 19,000 spy warrants presented to FISA were ever refused. But Bush wanted to spy on even more people. And on people that maybe didn't have any connections to foreigners on the outside - what FISA was initially set up for.

Bush's supporters are also saying that Congress explicitly gave Bush permission to commit these acts under the Joint Resolution passed almost unanimously by Congress in the days immediately following 911, referring to the passage that authorizes the President "To use all necessary and appropriate force against those...planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks..." But we already know that the types of people being spied on in what came to be known as "The Program" went far beyond those directly connected to Al Quaeda or 911.

Here's NOW's take on this story. They let both sides tell there story.

But I think you will agree, after seeing the details for yourself, that it's pretty matter of fact.

I've split it up into 4 pieces. I'm learning to list them all individually now so video RSS readers, such as FireAnt will download the media.

Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 1 of 4 (11 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 2 of 4 (11 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 3 of 4 (7.3 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 4 of 4 (8.6 MB)

MP3s
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 1 of 4 (MP3 6.8 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 2 of 4 (MP3 7.1 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 3 of 4 (MP3 5.2 MB)
Now The Watchers - Domestic Spying 4 of 4 (MP3 6.2 MB)

This is from the December 18, 2005 program of Meet the Press.

Here is a link to MTP Condi Rice video and mp3s Of Her Meet The Press Interview

it's still uploading as of 3:30pm on sunday the 18th. If it's close to then, it's still uploading...

I'm just watching this mornings Meet the Press with Condi Rice. Tim Russert is drilling her accordingly on why G.W. Bush isn't violating the same laws that Nixon violated when he authorized secret wire tapping.

She pauses, struggles with her answer for a moment (although she does get one out) and then she ends it with "I am not a lawyer."

She says it again later. ("Again, Tim, I am not a lawyer.")

Well hey. If you're not a lawyer, I guess there's no need for you to understand it completely.

Even if you are Secretary of State for the United States of America. You have people that handle that for you.

"I'm not going to talk about my role as National Security Advisor ...which of course is not a constitutionally confirmed role."

What does that even mean?

The bottom line is that Bush authorized some wire tapping (without getting a proper warrant) and she knew about it.

I'm way behind on this one guys. I just got here.

But I'll have her interview for ya in a few :-)

Oh wait. this is good:

Tim Russert: "Where in the Constitution does it say the President can eavesdrop, wiretap American citizens, without a court order?"

Condi Rice: "Tim. The President has authorities under FISA, which we are using and using actively. He also has constitutional authorities that derive from his role as Commander in Chief and his need to protect the country. He has acted within his Constitutional authority and within his statutory authority."

This is from the October 2, 2005 program of
60 Minutes.

This contains the "Military-Industrial Complex Speech" by Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1961.

Andy Rooney's really a stand up guy! One of the few on television these days to have the courage to tell it like it is.

Video - Andy Rooney On The Military Industrial Complex Taking Over The U.S. (6 MB)

Audio - Andy Rooney On The Military Industrial Complex Taking Over The U.S. (MP3 4 MB)

Dwight D. Eisenhower:
"We must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Andy: "Well, Ike was right. That's just what's happened."

Complete Transcription:

I'm not really clear about how much a billion dollars is. But the United States, our United States, is spending five billion, six hundred million dollars a month ($5,600,000,000.00) fighting this war in Iraq that we never should have gotten into. We still have 139,000 soldiers in Iraq today. Almost 2,000 Americans have died there. For what?

Now, we have the hurricanes to pay for. One way that our government pays for a lot of things is by borrowing from countries like China. Another way the government is planning on paying for the war and the hurricane damage is by cutting spending for things like medicare perscriptions, highway construction, farm payments, Amtrak, national public radio, loans to graduate students. Do these sound like things you'd like to cut back on to pay for Iraq?

I'll tell you where we ought to start saving, on our bloated military establishment. We're paying for weapons we'll never use. No other country spends the kind of money we spend on our military. Last year, Japan spent $42 billion dollars, Italy spent $28 billion dollars, Russia spent only $19 billion. The United States spent $455 billion. We have 8,000 tanks, for example. One Abrams tank costs 150 times as much as a Ford stationwagon. We have more than 10,000 nuclear weapons. Enough to destroy all of mankind. We're spending $200 million dollars a year on bullets alone. That's a lot of target practice.

We have 1,155,000 enlisted men and women, and 225,000 officers. One officer to tell every five enlisted soldiers what to do. We have 40,000 Colen and 870 generals.

We had a great commander in WWII, Dwight Eisenhower. He became President, and on leaving the White House in 1961 he said this:

"We must guard against the aquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disasterous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist."

Well, Ike was right. That's just what's happened.

These clips are from the May 9, 2005 program.

Actually, the blogging clip might be from the 10th. (Sorry.)

Daily Show Clips From May 9, 2005

Mirror of these clips (Please use it! :-) (thanks Guan!)

another mirror of these clips. (Thanks Matt!)

Metadata that goes with these clips (you can tell which is which from the filenames):

CNN's stupid blogging segments - where people actually just read from blogs verbatim, as if it's news.

A movie about Texas' freaked-out cheerleading censorship law.

Bush's visit to Russia - Putin on 60 minutes. (daily1.mov)

Samantha Bee covers the online gambling craze.

How Arnie's Screwing Over California Educators (and therefore California Education)

The Roadless Area conservation rule that Clinton signed into law before he left, and how the repubs are going about overturning it.

This is the kind of thing that really frustrates me about Colin Powell. Just like his coming out with what's wrong with the Shrub War after the election, instead of during the election, when it could have really helped.

Now he's talking to senators in private about what a loose cannon John Bolton is.

Why can't he come out and say what he knows publicly? He could blow this guy out of the water with two sentances. He could save us from the horrible fate of letting this war monger lead the nation into
WW III.

Some of you will think I'm overreacting, but I truly believe that I am calmly stating one likely possibility. Granted, it's already a possibility, with this administration in power, but it's a far more likely possibility with Bolton as our UN Ambassador.

Powell Plays Behind the Scenes Role in Bolton Debate
By Jim VandeHei and Robin Wright for the Washington Post.
(via
t r u t h o u t)

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind the scenes player in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is smart, but a very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), two of three GOP members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators" and considers the discussions private. A Chafee spokesman confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.

Powell has stayed out of the confirmation fight in public, but influenced it in direct and indirect ways, according to several Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, they say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven former US secretaries of state and defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A7420-2005Apr21.html

Powell Plays Behind the Scenes Role in Bolton Debate
By Jim VandeHei and Robin Wright
The Washington Post

Friday 22 April 2005

Former secretary of state Colin L. Powell is emerging as a behind the scenes player in the battle over John Bolton's nomination to the United Nations, privately telling at least two key Republican lawmakers that Bolton is smart, but a very problematic government official, according to Republican sources.

Powell spoke in recent days with Sens. Lincoln Chafee (R-R.I) and Chuck Hagel (R-Neb.), two of three GOP members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee who have raised concerns about Bolton's confirmation, the sources said. Powell did not advise the senators to oppose Bolton, but offered a frank assessment of the nominee as a man who was challenging to work with on personnel and policy matters, according to two people familiar with the conversation.

"General Powell has returned calls from senators who wanted to discuss specific questions that have been raised," said Margaret Cifrino, a Powell spokeswoman. "He has not reached out to senators" and considers the discussions private. A Chafee spokesman confirmed that at least two conversations took place. Bolton served under Powell as his undersecretary of state for arms control, and the two were known to have serious clashes.

Powell has stayed out of the confirmation fight in public, but influenced it in direct and indirect ways, according to several Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill. It is not Powell's style to weigh in strongly against a former colleague, but rather direct people to what he sees as flaws and potential problems, they say. Powell's views are highly influential with many Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill.

Those who know Powell best said two recent events provide insight into his thinking. Powell did not sign a letter from seven former US secretaries of state and defense supporting Bolton, and his former chief of staff Lawrence Wilkerson recently told the New York Times that Bolton would be an "abysmal ambassador."

"On two occasions he has let it be known that the Bolton nomination is a bad one, to put it mildly," said a Democratic congressional aide. "It would be great to have Powell on the record speaking for himself, but he's unlikely to do it.

With a final committee vote delayed until next month, Chafee is studying Bolton's record and withholding judgment, his spokesman said. Chafee told reporters Wednesday he is "much less likely" to support Bolton because of questions about his credibility.

President Bush yesterday accused Democrats of blocking Bolton's nomination to the United Nations for political reasons, as the White House intensified its campaign to confirm Bolton and discredit his critics.

"John's distinguished career and service to our nation demonstrates that he is the right man at the right time for this important assignment," Bush said in a speech to insurance agents. "I urge the Senate to put aside politics and confirm John Bolton to the United Nations."

Yet it was Sen. George Voinovich (R-Ohio) who prevented a final vote in the Senate Foreign Relations committee this week and called for more time to study Bolton's past. "The senator's motives are to do what is best for the American people," said Marcie Ridgway, Voinovich's spokesman. Chafee and Hagel share Voinovich's concerns. Powell called Hagel asking the Nebraska Republican if he should return Chafee's call. Hagel said he should, according to the sources, and be frank.

"I think it's being held up because Democrats oppose John Bolton, oppose him with passion," said Senate Foreign Relations Chairman Richard Lugar (R-Ind.), when asked if politics were to blame for the delay.

Bush entered the increasingly tense showdown over Bolton's nomination, as both sides are digging in for a tough fight over the confirmation of the next ambassador to the United Nations. Democrats are charging Bolton is an out-of-control bully with a history of berating people he works with and seeking to remove those who disagree with him. The White House is accusing Democrats of using "trumped up" charges to prevent a highly qualified Republican from shaking up the U.N. The committee yesterday failed to agree on whether Bolton should be called before the committee again to answer more questions.

Bolton, who has a reputation as a smart, but gruff, Bush ally, has been accused of mistreating subordinates throughout his career, threatening a female government contractor and misleading members about the handling of classified materials. Initially, Democrats opposed Bolton because of his harsh comments about the UN in the past. But their attack now centers on Bolton's character and tempermant. "I do not believe that's a convincing case," said Lugar.

Former State Department official Carl Ford last week told the committee that in 2002 Bolton sought to remove two intelligence analysts who refused to endorse a speech he was preparing on Cuba's weapons capability.

Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), the ranking minority member on the committee, last week also released a letter from Melody Townsel, a subcontractor for the US Agency for International Development in Kyrgyzstan, charging Bolton harassed her over work-related matters more than a decade ago. Since then, at least two people have denied Townsel's charges.

Democratic committee sources said Biden and others are opening new lines of inquiry, including looking into a report posted on yesterday's Newsweek website that Bolton twice clashed angrily with former US Ambassador to South Korea Thomas Hubbard. Hubbard, who appointed by Bush, has discussed his concerns about Bolton's credibility with committee members. In addition, Hubbard challenged Bolton's testimony to the committee that he had praised Bolton for a 2003 speech denouncing Kim Jong Il, the leader of North Korea, as a "tyrannical dictator."

Democrats are also trying to corroborate Townsel's testimony, and look into a report posted on the "Washington Note" blog that Bolton may have sought to force out members of the US Commission on International Religious Freedom, on which he served, the sources said.

White House officials are moving quickly to address concerns among Republicans. Matt Kirk, the president's liaison to the Senate, grabbed Voinovich shortly after this week's hearing to tell him the White House stood ready to provide him any information he wanted, and the administration followed up with a call to Voinovich's legislative director, according to Republican sources. The White House also helped organize Republicans to speak out in favor of Bolton yesterday and get people who have worked with Bolton in the past to do the same.

The Repubs' latest fabrication is that Roosevelt himself personally endorsed private accounts, and presumably the cuts in benefits that go with them.

According to Roosevelt's grandson, James Roosevelt Jr., who is a former Associate Commissioner on Social Security, the quote was taken completely out of context. Keith Olbermann had him on the show to clear things up. The two of them go over the quote in question with a fine-toothed comb and provide the larger context in which it appears.

(see below for full quote within context)

Even a simple reading of the quote makes it clear that Roosevelt envisioned private accounts in addition to regular benefits, for those who could afford to invest in them, so they would have additional benefits later. (Not as a replacement for the current system.)

Video - Keith Olbermann and Roosevelt's Grandson Call Bush Roosevelt Claim A Fraud (14 MB)

Audio - Keith Olbermann and Roosevelt's Grandson Call Bush Roosevelt Claim A Fraud (MP3 - 9 MB)

Transcription:
President Franklin Delano Roosevelt, father to the New Deal and, at minimum, mid-wife to the Social Security system, would have endorsed President Bush's plan to partially privatize it. Our third story of the countdown, that is the claim anyway of at least three conservative commentators and several Republican congressman, but it turns out, those guys pretty much just made it up...

At the risk of doing a little too much reading, just to put it on the historical record, let me read the entire quote from which those quotes were pulled (portion of quote misused by Brit Hume and others is in italics):

"In the important field of security for our old people, it seems necessary to adopt three principles. First, non-contributory old age pensions for those who are now too old to build up their own insurance. It is of course clear that perhaps 30 years to come funds will have to be provided by the States and the Federal Government to meet these pensions. Second, compulsory contributory annuities which in time will establish a self-supporting system for those now young and for future generations. Third, voluntary contributory annuities by which individual initiative can increase the annual amount received in old age. It is proposed that the Federal Government assume one-half of the cost of the old-age pension plan, which ought ultimately to be supplanted by self-supported annuity plans."

This is from the February 3, 2005 program.

In this clip, Time magazine's Joe Klein talks about the State of the Union address and the truth behind the Shrub's Social Security overhaul: it's all about benefit cuts, not increased payments due to shrewd investment of private accounts.

Joe Klein On The Daily Show (Small - 12 MB)

Audio of Joe Klein On The Daily Show (MP3 - 8 MB)

Joe Klein:

Here's the cool thing about Social Security. Yesterday, before the speech, the White House explains it the "torters," the private investment accounts, and here's the way it works:

You put your money in your own private investment account. And then, when it's time for you to retire, you give a whole lot of it back to the government so that they can dribble out little benefits to you that are the equivalent of Social Security as it now stands.

Jon Stewart:

That's really what this plan is?

Joe Klein:

If you make more than a designated amount, you might get a little bit extra. Yes.

Jon Stewart:

That's it?

Joe Klein:

It's an annuity.

Jon Stewart:

But here's what I don't understand...

Joe Klein:

It's really remarkable.

Jon Stewart:

But how does that save Social Security? Because the government still has to dish out the same amount of money, no?

Joe Klein:

Well, they're going to lower our benefits it was they're gonna actually do, and the President said he would last night.

Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts
Farm subsidies and food stamps are among the targets in the 2006 budget plan, to be sent to Congress on Monday. Opposition is building.
By Joel Havemann and Mary Curtius For The LA Times.

President Bush will propose a 2006 budget Monday that, despite record spending of about $2.5 trillion, will call for billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing...

In addition to the cuts proposed in the 2006 budget, Bush is expected to ask Congress to approve in principle many billions of dollars in additional, unspecified cuts...

The lower-income Americans who benefit from food stamps and Medicaid do not typically provide the Republican Party with many votes or campaign contributions.

The proposed budget will give states less flexibility to include working poor families with children as beneficiaries, sources said.

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-cuts6feb06,0,5530657.story?coll=la-home-headlines

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/020605Y.shtml

Bush to Propose Billions in Cuts
By Joel Havemann and Mary Curtius
The Los Angeles Times

Sunday 06 February 2005

WASHINGTON - President Bush will propose a 2006 budget Monday that, despite record spending of about $2.5 trillion, will call for billions of dollars in cuts that will touch people on food stamps and farmers on price supports, children under Medicaid and adults in public housing.

Even before the budget is officially sent to Congress on Monday, resistance to Bush's proposals was welling up Saturday from interest groups that benefit from federal aid and from the members of Congress who represent them.

Powerful agricultural interests were among the first to label Bush's proposed budget cuts as unfair and shortsighted. Farmers receive about $15 billion annually in federal farm program payments to help produce major commodities, including corn, cotton, rice and wheat.

California farmers could end up bearing a disproportionate share of the burden if the cuts in crop subsidies were enacted, said economist Daniel Sumner. "Rice and cotton are very important to this state," said Sumner, who is director of the Agricultural Issues Center at UC Davis.

The cuts are being proposed as the president is striving to keep a campaign promise to rein in government spending and halve the federal deficit in five years. The deficit has soared since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks and the subsequent war on terrorism - and as revenue has fallen as the economy has slowed and tax cuts have taken effect.

In addition to the cuts proposed in the 2006 budget, Bush is expected to ask Congress to approve in principle many billions of dollars in additional, unspecified cuts.

Bush has seemed to challenge congressional Republicans and Democrats to make the tough choices necessary to achieve the deficit reductions that members on both sides of the aisle have called for recently.

"I welcome the bipartisan calls to control the spending appetite of the federal government," he said Saturday in his weekly radio address. "On Monday, my administration will submit a budget that holds the growth of discretionary spending below inflation."

Deficit hawks outside the government welcomed Bush's tone but warned that members of Congress would fight to maintain spending for programs popular with their voters.

"It's going to be a tight budget," said Robert Bixby, executive director of the Concord Coalition, a budget watchdog group that lobbies for smaller deficits. "That doesn't mean it's going to be a realistic budget."

Bush's budget will cut "where the money is," Bixby said Saturday, "but it's also where the resistance is."

The lower-income Americans who benefit from food stamps and Medicaid do not typically provide the Republican Party with many votes or campaign contributions.

The proposed budget will give states less flexibility to include working poor families with children as beneficiaries, sources said.

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman Saxby Chambliss (R-Ga.) said he was willing to trim farm subsidies if other programs suffered proportionately.

"But if they try to single out the farm bill," Chambliss told reporters on Capitol Hill last week, "then we are going to have one heck of a fight."

The administration will propose a 5% across-the-board cut in price supports for crops and a reduction from $360,000 to $250,000 in the annual cap on subsidies that farmers can receive.

Under the current system, some farmers evade the limit by dividing farms into several separate corporate entities, a practice that the budget also will seek to eliminate.

A Senate Agriculture Committee aide, saying evasion of the cap was extremely rare, argued that farmers needed the safety net of federal aid for the years when they could not sell their crops for the cost of producing them.

In a letter Thursday to Agriculture Secretary Mike Johanns, a coalition of more than 100 organizations led by the American Farm Bureau Federation, said that Congress, in the 2002 bill that authorized farm subsidies for seven more years, had already cut subsidies by $4 billion a year by imposing the $360,000 cap.

"A budget that requires further cuts or structural weakening in these important programs will put at risk the promising environmental benefits of the bill and the nutritional health of some of the poorest populations in our country," the letter said.

In California, 1.5 metric tons of rice is grown a year, second only to Arkansas, said Tim Johnson, chief executive of the California Rice Commission, which has about 1,500 farmer members. Approximately 600,000 acres of farmland in the state were planted in rice in 2004.

"It's not just farmers that benefit - rice plays an important role in the economy of California," Johnson said. "We are an important export crop - about 40% of what's produced in the state is exported to Japan, Korea, Taiwan and other countries."

Daren Coppock, chief executive of the National Assn. of Wheat Growers, said the budget must not be balanced on the backs of farmers. Referring to the $360,000 maximum payment, he said: "If they change it now, that's not terribly helpful to those who made purchasing decisions over a seven-year planning period.

"The other thing to remember: The president always proposes, but Congress writes it and puts it into law," Coppock said. "There is a lot of work to be done and a lot of people to be heard from before this gets finished."

Rumors of the proposed farm subsidy cuts had been widely circulating in Washington for days before officials at the Department of Agriculture confirmed them in a background briefing to reporters. But the food stamp cut, expected to be about $1 billion in a $32-billion program, received less notice.

States must provide food stamps to people on cash welfare. But this is a much smaller population since Congress overhauled welfare in 1976.

A larger number of people now receive federal job-related aid, such as child care for working women with small children. The budget, sources said, gives states less flexibility to provide food stamps to these working poor people.

The nation's governors can be expected to lead the opposition to this proposal, just as they fought a 2003 proposal to cut their federal Medicaid support in return for greater flexibility in administering the program.

Administration officials made public Friday their proposal for increasing access to health insurance, and critics said they expected the budget itself to make another try at giving more flexibility and fewer dollars.

As announced Friday, the administration said it could save $60 billion in Medicaid over 10 years without service cuts. About $40 billion would come from changes in the way Washington pays the states for Medicaid services. The administration says states are gaming the Medicaid program by unfairly inflating costs.

Amid the welter of spending cuts, a few domestic programs were singled out for increases. Among them: community health clinics and aid to schools in low-income neighborhoods - although those schools are slated for a smaller increase than Bush proposed last year.

The budget also will seek $3 billion for the Millennium Challenge Account, the president's signature effort to help poor countries boost their economic growth. That is $500 million more than was sought for 2005 - but $2 billion less than was promised last year for 2006.

And the budget would expand Pell grants, which help the lowest-income students attend college, at the expense of the Perkins loan program for low- and middle-income college students. The $6-billion loan program would be eliminated.

Eighteen housing and community development programs would be consolidated and cut by about 40% to a total of $3.7 billion.

The budget also proposes eliminating federal subsidies for Amtrak, the national passenger rail carrier. Subsidies totaled $1.2 billion this year.

This is from the January 20, 2005 program.

These guys are starting to cover real news in a timely manner.

Jon calls out the fact that, in his acceptance speech, the shrub uses the word "freedom" 27 times and "liberty" 15 times.

Daily Show On The Shrub's Inauguration Speech
(Small - 9 MB)

Daily Show On The Shrub's Inauguration Speech
(MP3 - 6 MB)

ROE V. WADE AT CROSSROADS: Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory
In Newsweek.

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?

Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.

It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.

But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.

Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course...

Replacing Rehnquist, a solid vote against abortion rights, isn't likely to alter the court balance. But that balance could tip decisively should any one of the abortion-rights supporters leave the bench. That includes Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as swing voters David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, whose positions on abortion are less black and white.

The nation may be approaching a legal sea change that could end or sharply curtail a woman's right to abortion. But change that profound should be approached through reasoned debate, not a political beat-down.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.newsday.com/news/opinion/ny-vproe134040507nov13,0,6398338.story?coll=ny-editorials-headlines

Abortion foes are just one Supreme Court justice away from victory

Email this story
Printer friendly format

November 13, 2004

Anyone who thinks abortion rights aren't in serious jeopardy should consider the plight of Sen. Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania.

Specter has been a Republican for 40 years. He's in line to become chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee in January. He has voted to confirm every single one of President George W. Bush's judicial nominees. Despite that record, angry conservatives are determined to block his rise to chairman. Why?

Because Specter supports abortion rights. And because he had the temerity to state the obvious: That Bush would have trouble winning Senate confirmation of any Supreme Court nominee who is notoriously anti-abortion rights. That's a simple mathematical fact.

It takes only 51 of 100 Senate votes to confirm a judicial nominee. But it takes 60 votes to cut off debate and move to a confirmation vote. Come January, there will be 55 Republicans in the Senate. Do the math. That's not enough to derail a determined Democratic filibuster. Specter said he was alluding to that numerical reality when he made the remark that has haunted him all week.

But conservative foes of abortion rights have been emboldened by the perception that they provided Bush's margin of victory Nov. 2. They aren't of a mind to tolerate even the barest hint of resistance to their agenda, which is reversal of Roe v. Wade. That would be a tragedy. It would strip women of the right to control their bodies and turn the clock back to the grisly days of back-alley abortions.

Bush has a choice to make. Option 1: He could opt for polarizing political warfare by nominating anti-abortion absolutists for the top court. He could push for a change in Senate filibuster rules to deprive Democrats of that time-honored tactic and rely on raw political power to beat back all opposition. Option 2: Do what he promised during the campaign - impose no abortion litmus test for judicial candidates, while nominating people who will strictly interpret the Constitution rather than legislating from the bench. That's the better course.

Partisan warfare over the abortion positions of Supreme Court nominees would inflame the country's political division and undermine public confidence in the independence of the judicial system.

Bush has the right to nominate people who share his political views. But he should engage Democrats in the process in search of nominees acceptable to both sides. Democrats have blocked 10 of his lower court picks, employing the filibuster as their weapon of choice. But Bush is in the driver's seat. The Senate confirmed more than 200 of his judicial nominees, many of whom share his anti-abortion convictions.

Anti-abortion forces won't like a less confrontational approach because they're just one justice away from achieving their objective. Roe v. Wade, which established a constitutional right to abortion, commanded a 7 to 2 majority in 1973. More recent abortion decisions have seen that majority slip to 5 to 4. There are no immediate Supreme Court vacancies. There haven't been any for a decade. But the court is aging and Chief Justice William Rehnquist was recently diagnosed with thyroid cancer. There will probably be one or more spots to fill in the next four years.

Replacing Rehnquist, a solid vote against abortion rights, isn't likely to alter the court balance. But that balance could tip decisively should any one of the abortion-rights supporters leave the bench. That includes Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, as well as swing voters David Souter, Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy, whose positions on abortion are less black and white.

The nation may be approaching a legal sea change that could end or sharply curtail a woman's right to abortion. But change that profound should be approached through reasoned debate, not a political beat-down.

This is from the November 7, 2004 program.

Karl Rove On Meet The Press (Parts 1-3) (19 MB, 18 MB, 9 MB)

I found the "Political Capital" Shrub speech I and others were looking for (Thanks Hetty).

There are Windows and Real clips available, but nothing you can download.

I'd still prefer a copy from one of you so keep looking everybody, ok?

There's also a transcription available ("More" below).

It's even more frightening to read it in print.

Apparently, he's enjoying himself madly. (Emphasis on madly.)

How can he laugh and crack jokes when he's going Roman on Fallujah, killing thousands of innocents, and sending 10,000 of our troops to their death in the process?

He's also decided that our "Free Press" only needs to have one question answered at a time now.

He also hasn't bothered to figure out how much the war will cost, or how many troops it's going to take to do the job.

Incredible that he hasn't felt the need to do President work while campaigning while we're casually at War on the other side of the globe. The War's like a back drop to him. Like "Made In America."

He's also lying about when he says that he hasn't heard from anyone in the army that they need more troops. They've been saying that since before we made our first attack. The estimates were 200-300,000 soldiers would be needed to do the jjob. (It's all in the Rumsfeld's War program on PBS's Frontline.

Q Would you like it? Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I'd like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you're trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the -- we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There will be 125,000 of them trained by election time. Secondly, I have yet to -- I have not sat down with our Secretary of Defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating in the press corps about the number of troops needed to protect elections. That has not been brought to my attention yet.

And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far. These elections are important, and we will respond, John, to requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops...

Q Do you feel more free, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror...

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I've got a question for you. How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand. (Laughter.)

Good. Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then. Thank you all.

Here is the full text of the webpage in case the administration decides to alter it in the future:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html

President Holds Press Conference

video screen capture
multimedia

President's Remarks
video image
video image
audio image listen

President George W. Bush holds a press conference in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004. White House photo by Tina Hager. 11:17 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Yesterday I pledged to reach out to the whole nation, and today I'm proving that I'm willing to reach out to everybody by including the White House press corps.

This week the voters of America set the direction of our nation for the next four years. I'm honored by the support of my fellow citizens, and I'm ready for the job.

We are fighting a continuing war on terror, and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country, and together we'll protect the American people. We will preserve -- we will persevere until the enemy is defeated. We will stay strong and resolute. We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will.

Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. And we have common duties: to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world. I'll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the EU and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.

I also look forward to working with the present Congress and the new Congress that will arrive in January. I congratulate the men and women who have just been elected to the House and the Senate. I will join with old friends and new friends to make progress for all Americans.

Congress will return later this month to finish this current session. I urge members to pass the appropriations bill that remain, showing spending discipline while focusing on our nation's priorities. Our government also needs the very best intelligence, especially in a time of war. So I urge the Congress to pass an effective intelligence reform bill that I can sign into law.

The new Congress that begins its work next year will have serious responsibilities and historic opportunities. To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs, we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small business owners. We must confront the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and hurting doctors and patients. We must continue the work of education reform, to bring high standards and accountability not just to our elementary and secondary schools, but to our high schools, as well.

We must reform our complicated and outdated tax code. We need to get rid of the needless paperwork that makes our economy -- that is a drag on our economy, to make sure our economy is the most competitive in the world.

We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved; it is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning something, from ownership.

In the election of 2004, large issues were set before our country. They were discussed every day on the campaign. With the campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. And I'm eager to start the work ahead. I'm looking forward to serving this country for four more years.

I want to thank you all for your hard work in the campaign. I told you that the other day, and you probably thought I was just seeking votes. (Laughter.) But now that you voted, I really meant it. I appreciate the hard work of the press corps. We all put in long hours, and you're away from your families for a long period of time. But the country is better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections. And thanks for your work. Without over-pandering, I'll answer a few questions. (Laughter.)

Hunt.

Q Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops, or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. (Laughter.)

I'll start with Tony Blair's comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I've been the President. I've laid down some -- a very hopeful strategy on -- in June of 2002, and my hope is that we will make good progress. I think it's very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it's very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That's why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.

What was the other part of your question?

Q Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Iraq, yes. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections, on the path to stability, and we'll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions.

And in terms of the cost, I -- we'll work with OMB and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your Cabinet?

THE PRESIDENT: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. But, first of all, there's no vacancy for the Supreme Court, and I will deal with a vacancy when there is one. And I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said. And if people are interested in knowing the kind of judges I'll pick, look at the record. I've sent up a lot of judges, well-qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench.

The second part of your two-part question?

Q Any Democrats to your Cabinet, by any chance?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't made any decisions on the Cabinet, yet.

Q How else will you bring people together?

THE PRESIDENT: We'll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda. Democrats want a free and peaceful world, and we'll -- and right away, right after September the 11th we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy. It's common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. It's not a Republican issue, it's a Republican and Democrat issue. So I'm -- plenty of places for us to work together.

All right, Gregory.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy, more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now, because of your efforts and response to the 9/11 attacks? And, as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you'll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand in certain capitals and certain countries, those decisions were not popular.

You know, you said -- you asked me to put that in the context of the response on September the 11th. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we've got great response around the world in order to do that. There's over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition, and we'll continue to strengthen it.

I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.

And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.

There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.

If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking. And that's why during the course of the campaign, I was -- I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy, when I talked about the free election in Afghanistan.

There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy. And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years.

But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

John, and then I'll get to Terry. No follow-ups today, Gregory.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I can see one -- yes.

Q Would you like it? Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I'd like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you're trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the -- we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There will be 125,000 of them trained by election time. Secondly, I have yet to -- I have not sat down with our Secretary of Defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating in the press corps about the number of troops needed to protect elections. That has not been brought to my attention yet.

And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far. These elections are important, and we will respond, John, to requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.

Terry.

Q Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular, Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

Jim.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, you talked once again this morning about private accounts in Social Security. During the campaign you were accused of planning to privatize the entire system. It has been something you've discussed for some time. You've lost some of the key Democratic proponents, such as Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey in the Congress. How will you proceed now with one of the key problems, which is the transition cost -- which some say is as much as $2 trillion -- how will you proceed on that? And how soon?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I made Social Security an issue -- for those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis; for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis -- you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American President to lead. And we have -- we must lead on Social Security because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren.

And so the answer to your second question is, we'll start on Social Security now. We'll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We've got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan. I had asked him prior to his -- to his passing, to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it's a good place for members of Congress to start.

The President must have the will to take on the issue -- not only in the campaign, but now that I'm elected. And this will -- reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration. Obviously, if it were easy it would have already been done. And this is going to be hard work to bring people together and to make -- to convince the Congress to move forward. And there are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is insignificant to -- is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today. That was the case I made on the campaign trail, and I was earnest about getting something done. And as a matter of fact, I talked to members of my staff today, as we're beginning to plan to -- the strategy to move agendas forward about how to do this and do it effectively.

Q If I could, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- no, no, you're violating the follow-up rule. It would hurt Gregory's feelings. King.

It's a new --

Q Mr. President, thank you.

Q That's always one of my concerns.

THE PRESIDENT: Hurting Gregory's feelings? He is a sensitive guy. Well centered, though. (Laughter.)

Q I'm not going there. Mr. President, you were disappointed, even angry 12 years ago when the voters denied your father a second term. I'm interested in your thoughts and the conversation with him yesterday as you were walking to the Oval Office, and also whether you feel more free to do any one thing in a second term that perhaps you were politically constrained from doing in a first.

THE PRESIDENT: At 3:30 a.m. in the morning on, I guess, it was the day after the election, he was sitting upstairs, and I finally said, go to bed. He was awaiting the outcome and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters, and it just didn't happen that way.

So I asked him the next morning when he got up, I said, come by the Oval Office and visit. And he came by and we had a good talk. He was heading down to Houston. And it was -- there was some uncertainty about that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn't clear at that point in time, so I never got to see him face-to-face to watch his, I guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term.

I did talk to him and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. I was worried about him staying up too late.

But -- so I haven't had a chance to really visit and embrace. And you're right, '92 was a disappointment. But he taught me a really good lesson, that life moves on. And it's very important for those of us in the political arena, win or lose, to recognize that life is bigger than just politics, and that's one of the really good lessons he taught me.

Q Do you feel more free, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.

We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve poverty and disease. We will continue to press forward on the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry. And I'm looking forward to it, I really am.

It's been a -- it's been a fantastic experience campaigning the country. You've seen it from one -- perspective, I've seen it from another. I saw you standing there at the last, final rally in Texas, to my right over there. I was observing you observe, and you saw the energy. And there was just something uplifting about people showing up at 11:00 p.m. at night, expressing their support and their prayers and their friendship. It's a marvelous experience to campaign across the country.

Mike.

Q Mr. President -- thank you, Mr. President. Do you plan to reshape your Cabinet for the second term, or will any changes come at the instigation of individuals? And as part of the same question, may I ask you what you've learned about Cabinet government, what works, what doesn't work? And do you mind also addressing the same question about the White House staff? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: The post-election euphoria did not last very long here at the press conference. (Laughter.)

Let me talk about the people that have worked with me. I had a Cabinet meeting today and I thanked them for their service to the country and reminded them we've got a job to do and I expected them to do the job.

I have made no decisions on my Cabinet and/or White House staff. I am mindful that working in the White House is really -- is exhausting work. The people who you try to get to leak to you spend hours away from their families, and it is -- the word "burnout" is oftentimes used in the -- in Washington, and it's used for a reason, because people do burn out.

And so obviously, in terms of those who are -- who want to stay on and who I want to stay on, I've got to make sure that it's right for their families and that they're comfortable, because when they come to work here in the White House, I expect them to work as hard as they possibly can on behalf of the American people.

In the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don't know who they will be. It's inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person, I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we're about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who's going to stay and who's not going to stay, and I assured them that -- today I warned them of the speculative period. I said, it's a great Washington sport to be talking about who's going to leave and who their replacements may be, and handicapping, you know, my way of thinking.

I'll just give you -- but let me just help you out with the speculation right now. I haven't thought about it. I'm going to start thinking about it. I'm going to Camp David this afternoon with Laura, and I'll begin the process of thinking about the Cabinet and the White House staff. And we'll let you know at the appropriate time when decisions have been made. And so, nice try, Mike.

Yes, Ed, and then --

Q What you learned --

THE PRESIDENT: Learned and not learned about the Cabinet?

Q What works, what doesn't.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, first I've learned that I put together a really good Cabinet. I'm very proud of the people that have served this government, and they -- to a man and a woman, worked their hearts out for the American people. And I've learned that you've got to continue to surround yourself with good people. This is a job that requires crisp decision-making, and therefore, in order for me to make decisions, I've got to have people who bring their point of view into the Oval Office and are willing to say it.

I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they're getting ready to come in and tell me what for, and they walk in and get overwhelmed in the atmosphere, and they say, man, you're looking pretty. And therefore, you need people to walk in on those days when you're not looking so good and saying, you're not looking so good, Mr. President. And I've got -- those are the kind of people that served our country.

We've had vigorous debates, which you all, during the last four years, took great delight in reporting, differences of opinion. But that's what you want if you're the Commander-in-Chief and a decision-maker. You want people to walk in and say, I don't agree with this, or I do agree with that, and here's what my recommendation is. But the President also has to learn to decide. You take, you know -- there's ample time for the debate to take place, and then decide and make up your mind and lead. That's what the job's all about.

And so I have learned how important it is to be -- to have a really fine group of people that think through issues, and that are not intimidated by the process, and who walk in and tell me what's on their mind.

Ed, and then Stevens.

Q Good morning. Sir, does it bother you that there's a perception out there that your administration has been one that favors big business and the wealthy individuals? And what can you do to overcome that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses. I understand that. And I have promoted during the course of the last four years one of the most aggressive, pro-entrepreneur, small business policies. Tax relief -- you might remember -- I don't know if you know this or not, but 90 percent of the businesses are sole proprietorships or subchapter-S corporations. (Laughter.)

Q We've heard it.

THE PRESIDENT: Tax relief helped them. This is an administration that fully understands that the job creators are the entrepreneurs. And so in a new term, we will make sure the tax relief continues to be robust for our small businesses. We'll push legal reform and regulatory reform because I understand the engine of growth is through the small business sector.

Stevenson.

Q Sir, given your commitment to reaching out across party lines and to all Americans, I wonder if you could expand on your definition of bipartisanship, and whether it means simply picking off a few Democrats on a case-by-case basis to pass the bills you want to pass, or whether you would commit to working regularly with the Democratic leadership on solutions that can win broad support across party lines?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Act? I think there the model I'd look at if I were you. It is a -- I laid out an agenda for reforming our public schools. I worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill passed. In a new term, we'll continue to make sure we do not weaken the accountability standards that are making a huge difference in people's lives, in these kids' lives.

But that's the model I'd look at, if I were you. And we'll -- there's a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is, when you get a bill moving it is important to get the votes, and if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, you know, that's just part of life here. But I'm also focused on results. I think of the Medicare bill -- you might remember that old, stale debate. We finally got a bill moving. I was hoping that we'd get strong bipartisan support -- unfortunately, it was an election year. But we got the votes necessary to get the bill passed. And so we will -- I will -- my goal is to work on the ideal and to reach out and to continue to work and find common ground on issues.

On the other hand, I've been wizened to the ways of Washington. I watched what can happen during certain parts of the cycle, where politics gets in the way of good policy. And at that point in time, I'll continue to -- you know, I'll try to get this done, I'll try to get our bills passed in a way, because results really do matter, as far as I'm concerned. I really didn't come here to hold the office just to say, gosh, it was fun to serve. I came here to get some things done, and we are doing it.

Yes, Big Stretch.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I know you haven't had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasser Arafat has passed away.

THE PRESIDENT: Really?

Q And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction? And also your thoughts on, perhaps, working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My first reaction is, God bless his soul. And my second reaction is, is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, as you look at your second term domestic priorities, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security -- tax reform, education. And if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal -- do you want it to be revenue neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question; that, what is the first thing you're going to do? When it comes it legislation, it just doesn't work that way, particularly when you've laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.

The -- first of all, a principle would be revenue neutral. If I'm going to -- if there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, let's have a tax bill that raises taxes, as opposed to let's simply the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to raise taxes. I've said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.

Now, secondly, that obviously, that it rewards risk and doesn't -- it doesn't have unnecessary penalties in it. But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn't be complicated, that there's a -- kind of that loopholes wouldn't be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country, as well.

One of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification, will there be incentives in the code: charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I -- some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built into the tax code, and that will be an interesting part of the debate.

Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session, and that depends upon whether or not those issues have been

debated. I think of, for example, the legal issue -- the legal reform issues, they have been -- medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill. And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I've been talking about. On an issue like tax reform it's going to -- tax simplification, it's going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that. And Social Security reform will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for what I think is a very good place to start the debate.

The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there has been a lot of discussion about education. It's an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing. And so I think -- all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been on those issues.

A couple more questions. Bob.

Q Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Fallujah over the next several days. I'm wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January?

THE PRESIDENT: In order for Iraq to be a free country those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated.

And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that. We will work closely with the government. It's their government, it's their country. We're there at their invitation. And -- but I think there's a recognition that some of these people have to -- must be defeated, and so that's what they're thinking about. That's what you're -- that's why you're hearing discussions about potential action in Fallujah.

Heidi.

Q Thank you, sir. Many within your own party are unhappy over the deficit, and they say keeping down discretional spending alone won't help you reach the goal of halving the deficit in five years. What else do you plan to do to cut costs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- I would suggest they look at our budget that we've submitted to Congress, which does, in fact, get the deficit down -- cut in half in five years, and is a specific line-by-line budget that we are required to submit and have done so.

The key to making sure that the deficit is reduced is for there to be, on the one hand, spending discipline, and I -- as you noticed in my opening remarks, I talked about these appropriations bills that are beginning to move, and I thought I was pretty clear about the need for those bills to be -- to be fiscally responsible, and I meant it. And I look forward to talking to the leadership about making sure that the budget agreements we had are still the budget agreements, that just because we had an election, that they shouldn't feel comfortable changing our agreement. And I think they understand that.

And secondly, the other way to make sure that the deficit is -- decreases, is to grow the economy. As the economy grows, there will be more revenues coming into the Treasury. That's what you have seen recently. If you notice, there's been some write-downs of the budget deficit. In other words, the deficit is less than we thought because the revenues is exceeding projections. And the reason why the revenues -- the revenues are exceeding projections -- sometimes I mangle the English language. I get that. (Laughter.)

Q Inside joke.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very inside. (Laughter.)

The revenues are exceeding projections. And as a result, the projected deficit is less. But my point there is, is that with good economic policy that encourages economic growth, the revenue streams begin to increase. And as the revenue streams increase, coupled with fiscal discipline, you'll see the deficit shrinking. And we're focused on that.

I do believe there ought to be budgetary reform in Washington, on the Hill, Capitol Hill. I think it's very important. I would like to see the President have a line-item veto again, one that passed constitutional muster. I think it would help the executive branch work with the legislative branch, to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline. I've talked to a lot of members of Congress who are wondering whether or not we'll have the will to confront entitlements, to make sure that there is entitlement reform that helps us maintain fiscal discipline. And the answer is, yes; that's why I took on the Social Security issue. I believe we have a duty to do so. I want to make sure that the Medicare reforms that we've put in place remain robust, to help us make sure Medicare is available for generations to come.

And so there is a -- I've got quite an active agenda to help work with Congress to bring not only fiscal discipline, but to make sure that our pro-growth policies are still in place.

Herman. I'm probably going to regret this. (Laughter.)

Q I don't know if you had a chance to check, but I can report you did eke out a victory in Texas the other day.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir.

Q Congratulations. I'm interested in getting back to Steven -- Stevenson's question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe the Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway, and do you think now there's more reason for them the do that in light of the election results?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that Democrats agree that we have an obligation to serve our country. I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together. I found that to be the case when I first arrived here in Washington, and working with the Democrats and fellow Republicans, we got a lot done. And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session, and I will meet with both Republican and Democrat leaders, and I am -- they'll see I'm genuine about working toward some of these important issues.

It's going to be -- it's not easy. These -- I readily concede I've laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with. Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult issue; otherwise, it would have already been done. But it is necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done. I'm not sure we can get it done without Democrat participation, because it is a big issue, and I will explain to them and I will show them Senator Moynihan's thinking as a way to begin the process. And I will remind everybody here that we have a duty to leave behind a better America, and when we see a problem, to deal with it. And I think the -- I think Democrats agree with that.

And so I'm optimistic. You covered me when I was the governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as a governor. There was probably skepticism in your beady eyes there. (Laughter.) But you might remember -- you might remember, we did -- we were able to accomplish a lot by -- and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington -- one of the disappointments of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive. I'm not blaming one party or the other. It's just the reality of Washington, D.C., sometimes exacerbated by you, because it's great sport. It's really -- it's entertaining for some. It also makes is difficult to govern at times.

But nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully -- now more seasoned to Washington, I've cut my political eye-teeth, at least the ones I've recently grown here in Washington. And so I'm aware of what can happen in this town. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I've got a question for you. How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand. (Laughter.)

Good. Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then. Thank you all.

END 11:57 A.M. EST

Update 11/08/04 - Turns out
it's on the White House site. There's also a transcription. But, of course, who knows if either one is accurate. I'd feel better if one of you had a copy. (Transcription included in "More" section.)

I didn't get it and many are asking for it.

I'll be happy to host it.

thanks,

lisa

Here is the full text in case the link goes bad or gets altered in the future when it suits the administration (or whatever):

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/11/20041104-5.html

President Holds Press Conference

video screen capture
multimedia

President's Remarks
video image
video image
audio image listen

President George W. Bush holds a press conference in the Dwight D. Eisenhower Executive Office Building Thursday, Nov. 4, 2004. White House photo by Tina Hager. 11:17 A.M. EST

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you all. Please be seated. Yesterday I pledged to reach out to the whole nation, and today I'm proving that I'm willing to reach out to everybody by including the White House press corps.

This week the voters of America set the direction of our nation for the next four years. I'm honored by the support of my fellow citizens, and I'm ready for the job.

We are fighting a continuing war on terror, and every American has a stake in the outcome of this war. Republicans, Democrats and independents all love our country, and together we'll protect the American people. We will preserve -- we will persevere until the enemy is defeated. We will stay strong and resolute. We have a duty, a solemn duty to protect the American people, and we will.

Every civilized country also has a stake in the outcome of this war. Whatever our past disagreements, we share a common enemy. And we have common duties: to protect our peoples, to confront disease and hunger and poverty in troubled regions of the world. I'll continue to reach out to our friends and allies, our partners in the EU and NATO, to promote development and progress, to defeat the terrorists and to encourage freedom and democracy as alternatives to tyranny and terror.

I also look forward to working with the present Congress and the new Congress that will arrive in January. I congratulate the men and women who have just been elected to the House and the Senate. I will join with old friends and new friends to make progress for all Americans.

Congress will return later this month to finish this current session. I urge members to pass the appropriations bill that remain, showing spending discipline while focusing on our nation's priorities. Our government also needs the very best intelligence, especially in a time of war. So I urge the Congress to pass an effective intelligence reform bill that I can sign into law.

The new Congress that begins its work next year will have serious responsibilities and historic opportunities. To accelerate the momentum of this economy and to keep creating jobs, we must take practical measures to help our job creators, the entrepreneurs and the small business owners. We must confront the frivolous lawsuits that are driving up the cost of health care and hurting doctors and patients. We must continue the work of education reform, to bring high standards and accountability not just to our elementary and secondary schools, but to our high schools, as well.

We must reform our complicated and outdated tax code. We need to get rid of the needless paperwork that makes our economy -- that is a drag on our economy, to make sure our economy is the most competitive in the world.

We must show our leadership by strengthening Social Security for our children and our grandchildren. This is more than a problem to be solved; it is an opportunity to help millions of our fellow citizens find security and independence that comes from owning something, from ownership.

In the election of 2004, large issues were set before our country. They were discussed every day on the campaign. With the campaign over, Americans are expecting a bipartisan effort and results. I'll reach out to everyone who shares our goals. And I'm eager to start the work ahead. I'm looking forward to serving this country for four more years.

I want to thank you all for your hard work in the campaign. I told you that the other day, and you probably thought I was just seeking votes. (Laughter.) But now that you voted, I really meant it. I appreciate the hard work of the press corps. We all put in long hours, and you're away from your families for a long period of time. But the country is better off when we have a vigorous and free press covering our elections. And thanks for your work. Without over-pandering, I'll answer a few questions. (Laughter.)

Hunt.

Q Mr. President -- thank you. As you look at your second term, how much is the war in Iraq going to cost? Do you intend to send more troops, or bring troops home? And in the Middle East, more broadly, do you agree with Tony Blair that revitalizing the Middle East peace process is the single most pressing political issue facing the world?

THE PRESIDENT: Now that I've got the will of the people at my back, I'm going to start enforcing the one-question rule. That was three questions. (Laughter.)

I'll start with Tony Blair's comments. I agree with him that the Middle East peace is a very important part of a peaceful world. I have been working on Middle Eastern peace ever since I've been the President. I've laid down some -- a very hopeful strategy on -- in June of 2002, and my hope is that we will make good progress. I think it's very important for our friends, the Israelis, to have a peaceful Palestinian state living on their border. And it's very important for the Palestinian people to have a peaceful, hopeful future. That's why I articulated a two-state vision in that Rose Garden speech. I meant it when I said it and I mean it now.

What was the other part of your question?

Q Iraq.

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, Iraq, yes. Listen, we will work with the Allawi government to achieve our objective, which is elections, on the path to stability, and we'll continue to train the troops. Our commanders will have that which they need to complete their missions.

And in terms of the cost, I -- we'll work with OMB and the Defense Department to bring forth to Congress a realistic assessment of what the cost will be.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. How will you go about bringing people together? Will you seek a consensus candidate for the Supreme Court if there's an opening? Will you bring some Democrats into your Cabinet?

THE PRESIDENT: Again, he violated the one-question rule right off the bat. Obviously, you didn't listen to the will of the people. But, first of all, there's no vacancy for the Supreme Court, and I will deal with a vacancy when there is one. And I told the people on the campaign trail that I'll pick somebody who knows the difference between personal opinion and the strict interpretation of the law. You might have heard that several times. I meant what I said. And if people are interested in knowing the kind of judges I'll pick, look at the record. I've sent up a lot of judges, well-qualified people who know the law, who represent a judicial temperament that I agree with and who are qualified to hold the bench.

The second part of your two-part question?

Q Any Democrats to your Cabinet, by any chance?

THE PRESIDENT: I haven't made any decisions on the Cabinet, yet.

Q How else will you bring people together?

THE PRESIDENT: We'll put out an agenda that everybody understands and work with people to achieve the agenda. Democrats want a free and peaceful world, and we'll -- and right away, right after September the 11th we worked very closely together to secure our country. There is a common ground to be had when it comes to a foreign policy that says the most important objective is to protect the American people and spread freedom and democracy. It's common ground when it comes to making sure the intelligence services are able to provide good, actionable intelligence to protect our people. It's not a Republican issue, it's a Republican and Democrat issue. So I'm -- plenty of places for us to work together.

All right, Gregory.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. On foreign policy, more broadly, do you believe that America has an image problem in the world right now, because of your efforts and response to the 9/11 attacks? And, as you talked down the stretch about building alliances, talk about what you'll do to build on those alliances and to deal with these image problems, particularly in the Islamic world.

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. Listen, I've made some very hard decisions: decisions to protect ourselves, decisions to spread peace and freedom. And I understand in certain capitals and certain countries, those decisions were not popular.

You know, you said -- you asked me to put that in the context of the response on September the 11th. The first response, of course, was chasing down the terror networks, which we will continue to do. And we've got great response around the world in order to do that. There's over 90 nations involved with sharing information, finding terrorists and bringing them to justice. That is a broad coalition, and we'll continue to strengthen it.

I laid out a doctrine, David, that said if you harbor terrorists, you're equally as guilty as the terrorists, and that doctrine was ignored by the Taliban, and we removed the Taliban. And I fully understand some people didn't agree with that decision. But I believe that when the American President speaks, he'd better mean what he says in order to keep the world peaceful. And I believe we have a solemn duty, whether or not people agree with it or not, to protect the American people. And the Taliban and their harboring of al Qaeda represented a direct threat to the American people.

And, of course, then the Iraq issue is one that people disagreed with. And there's no need to rehash my case, but I did so, I made the decision I made, in order to protect our country, first and foremost. I will continue to do that as the President. But as I do so, I will reach out to others and explain why I make the decisions I make.

There is a certain attitude in the world, by some, that says that it's a waste of time to try to promote free societies in parts of the world. I've heard that criticism. Remember, I went to London to talk about our vision of spreading freedom throughout the greater Middle East. And I fully understand that that might rankle some, and be viewed by some as folly. I just strongly disagree with those who do not see the wisdom of trying to promote free societies around the world.

If we are interested in protecting our country for the long-term, the best way to do so is to promote freedom and democracy. And I -- I simply do not agree with those who either say overtly or believe that certain societies cannot be free. It's just not a part of my thinking. And that's why during the course of the campaign, I was -- I believe I was able to connect, at least with those who were there, in explaining my policy, when I talked about the free election in Afghanistan.

There were -- there was doubt about whether or not those elections would go forward. I'm not suggesting any of you here expressed skepticism. But there was. There was deep skepticism, and -- because there is a attitude among some that certain people may never be free -- they just don't long to be free or incapable of running an election. And I disagree with that. And the Afghan people, by going to the polls in the millions, proved -- proved that this administration's faith in freedom to change peoples' habits is worthy. And that will be a central part of my foreign policy. And I've got work to do to explain to people about why that is a central part of our foreign policy. I've been doing that for four years.

But if you do not believe people can be free and can self-govern, then all of a sudden the two-state solution in the Middle East becomes a moot point, invalid. If you're willing to condemn a group of people to a system of government that hasn't worked, then you'll never be able to achieve the peace. You cannot lead this world and our country to a better tomorrow unless you see a better -- if you have a vision of a better tomorrow. And I've got one, based upon a great faith that people do want to be free and live in democracy.

John, and then I'll get to Terry. No follow-ups today, Gregory.

Q Thank you, sir.

THE PRESIDENT: I can see one -- yes.

Q Would you like it? Now that the political volatility is off the issue because the election is over, I'd like to ask you about troop levels in Iraq in the next couple of months leading up to elections. The Pentagon already has a plan to extend tours of duty for some 6,500 U.S. troops. How many more will be needed to provide security in Iraq for elections, seeing as how the Iraqi troops that you're trying to train up are pretty slow coming on line?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, first of all, the -- we are making good progress in training the Iraqi troops. There will be 125,000 of them trained by election time. Secondly, I have yet to -- I have not sat down with our Secretary of Defense talking about troop levels. I read some reports during the course of the campaign where some were speculating in the press corps about the number of troops needed to protect elections. That has not been brought to my attention yet.

And so I would caution you that what you have either read about or reported was pure speculation thus far. These elections are important, and we will respond, John, to requests of our commanders on the ground. And I have yet to hear from our commanders on the ground that they need more troops.

Terry.

Q Mr. President, your victory at the polls came about in part because of strong support from people of faith, in particular, Christian evangelicals and Pentecostals and others. And Senator Kerry drew some of his strongest support from those who do not attend religious services. What do you make of this religious divide, it seems, becoming a political divide in this country? And what do you say to those who are concerned about the role of a faith they do not share in public life and in your policies?

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, my answer to people is, I will be your President regardless of your faith, and I don't expect you to agree with me necessarily on religion. As a matter of fact, no President should ever try to impose religion on our society.

A great -- the great tradition of America is one where people can worship the way they want to worship. And if they choose not to worship, they're just as patriotic as your neighbor. That is an essential part of why we are a great nation. And I am glad people of faith voted in this election. I'm glad -- I appreciate all people who voted. I don't think you ought to read anything into the politics, the moment, about whether or not this nation will become a divided nation over religion. I think the great thing that unites is the fact you can worship freely if you choose, and if you -- you don't have to worship. And if you're a Jew or a Christian or a Muslim, you're equally American. That is -- that is such a wonderful aspect of our society; and it is strong today and it will be strong tomorrow.

Jim.

Q Thank you, sir. Mr. President, you talked once again this morning about private accounts in Social Security. During the campaign you were accused of planning to privatize the entire system. It has been something you've discussed for some time. You've lost some of the key Democratic proponents, such as Pat Moynihan and Bob Kerrey in the Congress. How will you proceed now with one of the key problems, which is the transition cost -- which some say is as much as $2 trillion -- how will you proceed on that? And how soon?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, first, I made Social Security an issue -- for those of you who had to suffer through my speeches on a daily basis; for those of you who actually listened to my speeches on a daily basis -- you might remember, every speech I talked about the duty of an American President to lead. And we have -- we must lead on Social Security because the system is not going to be whole for our children and our grandchildren.

And so the answer to your second question is, we'll start on Social Security now. We'll start bringing together those in Congress who agree with my assessment that we need to work together. We've got a good blueprint, a good go-by. You mentioned Senator Moynihan. I had asked him prior to his -- to his passing, to chair a committee of notable Americans to come up with some ideas on Social Security. And they did so. And it's a good place for members of Congress to start.

The President must have the will to take on the issue -- not only in the campaign, but now that I'm elected. And this will -- reforming Social Security will be a priority of my administration. Obviously, if it were easy it would have already been done. And this is going to be hard work to bring people together and to make -- to convince the Congress to move forward. And there are going to be costs. But the cost of doing nothing is insignificant to -- is much greater than the cost of reforming the system today. That was the case I made on the campaign trail, and I was earnest about getting something done. And as a matter of fact, I talked to members of my staff today, as we're beginning to plan to -- the strategy to move agendas forward about how to do this and do it effectively.

Q If I could, Mr. President --

THE PRESIDENT: Yes -- no, no, you're violating the follow-up rule. It would hurt Gregory's feelings. King.

It's a new --

Q Mr. President, thank you.

Q That's always one of my concerns.

THE PRESIDENT: Hurting Gregory's feelings? He is a sensitive guy. Well centered, though. (Laughter.)

Q I'm not going there. Mr. President, you were disappointed, even angry 12 years ago when the voters denied your father a second term. I'm interested in your thoughts and the conversation with him yesterday as you were walking to the Oval Office, and also whether you feel more free to do any one thing in a second term that perhaps you were politically constrained from doing in a first.

THE PRESIDENT: At 3:30 a.m. in the morning on, I guess, it was the day after the election, he was sitting upstairs, and I finally said, go to bed. He was awaiting the outcome and was hopeful that we would go over and be able to talk to our supporters, and it just didn't happen that way.

So I asked him the next morning when he got up, I said, come by the Oval Office and visit. And he came by and we had a good talk. He was heading down to Houston. And it was -- there was some uncertainty about that morning as to when the election would actually end. And it wasn't clear at that point in time, so I never got to see him face-to-face to watch his, I guess, pride in his tired eyes as his son got a second term.

I did talk to him and he was relieved. I told him to get a nap. I was worried about him staying up too late.

But -- so I haven't had a chance to really visit and embrace. And you're right, '92 was a disappointment. But he taught me a really good lesson, that life moves on. And it's very important for those of us in the political arena, win or lose, to recognize that life is bigger than just politics, and that's one of the really good lessons he taught me.

Q Do you feel more free, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Oh, in terms of feeling free, well, I don't think you'll let me be too free. There's accountability and there are constraints on the presidency, as there should be in any system. I feel -- I feel it is necessary to move an agenda that I told the American people I would move. Something refreshing about coming off an election, even more refreshing since we all got some sleep last night, but there's -- you go out and you make your case, and you tell the people this is what I intend to do. And after hundreds of speeches and three debates and interviews and the whole process, where you keep basically saying the same thing over and over again, that when you win, there is a feeling that the people have spoken and embraced your point of view, and that's what I intend to tell the Congress, that I made it clear what I intend to do as the President, now let's work to -- and the people made it clear what they wanted, now let's work together.

And it's one of the wonderful -- it's like earning capital. You asked, do I feel free. Let me put it to you this way: I earned capital in the campaign, political capital, and now I intend to spend it. It is my style. That's what happened in the -- after the 2000 election, I earned some capital. I've earned capital in this election -- and I'm going to spend it for what I told the people I'd spend it on, which is -- you've heard the agenda: Social Security and tax reform, moving this economy forward, education, fighting and winning the war on terror.

We have an obligation in this country to continue to work with nations to help alleve poverty and disease. We will continue to press forward on the HIV/AIDS initiative, the Millennium Challenge Account. We will continue to do our duty to help feed the hungry. And I'm looking forward to it, I really am.

It's been a -- it's been a fantastic experience campaigning the country. You've seen it from one -- perspective, I've seen it from another. I saw you standing there at the last, final rally in Texas, to my right over there. I was observing you observe, and you saw the energy. And there was just something uplifting about people showing up at 11:00 p.m. at night, expressing their support and their prayers and their friendship. It's a marvelous experience to campaign across the country.

Mike.

Q Mr. President -- thank you, Mr. President. Do you plan to reshape your Cabinet for the second term, or will any changes come at the instigation of individuals? And as part of the same question, may I ask you what you've learned about Cabinet government, what works, what doesn't work? And do you mind also addressing the same question about the White House staff? (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: The post-election euphoria did not last very long here at the press conference. (Laughter.)

Let me talk about the people that have worked with me. I had a Cabinet meeting today and I thanked them for their service to the country and reminded them we've got a job to do and I expected them to do the job.

I have made no decisions on my Cabinet and/or White House staff. I am mindful that working in the White House is really -- is exhausting work. The people who you try to get to leak to you spend hours away from their families, and it is -- the word "burnout" is oftentimes used in the -- in Washington, and it's used for a reason, because people do burn out.

And so obviously, in terms of those who are -- who want to stay on and who I want to stay on, I've got to make sure that it's right for their families and that they're comfortable, because when they come to work here in the White House, I expect them to work as hard as they possibly can on behalf of the American people.

In the Cabinet, there will be some changes. I don't know who they will be. It's inevitable there will be changes. It happens in every administration. To a person, I am proud of the work they have done. And I fully understand we're about to head into the period of intense speculation as to who's going to stay and who's not going to stay, and I assured them that -- today I warned them of the speculative period. I said, it's a great Washington sport to be talking about who's going to leave and who their replacements may be, and handicapping, you know, my way of thinking.

I'll just give you -- but let me just help you out with the speculation right now. I haven't thought about it. I'm going to start thinking about it. I'm going to Camp David this afternoon with Laura, and I'll begin the process of thinking about the Cabinet and the White House staff. And we'll let you know at the appropriate time when decisions have been made. And so, nice try, Mike.

Yes, Ed, and then --

Q What you learned --

THE PRESIDENT: Learned and not learned about the Cabinet?

Q What works, what doesn't.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, well, first I've learned that I put together a really good Cabinet. I'm very proud of the people that have served this government, and they -- to a man and a woman, worked their hearts out for the American people. And I've learned that you've got to continue to surround yourself with good people. This is a job that requires crisp decision-making, and therefore, in order for me to make decisions, I've got to have people who bring their point of view into the Oval Office and are willing to say it.

I always jest to people, the Oval Office is the kind of place where people stand outside, they're getting ready to come in and tell me what for, and they walk in and get overwhelmed in the atmosphere, and they say, man, you're looking pretty. And therefore, you need people to walk in on those days when you're not looking so good and saying, you're not looking so good, Mr. President. And I've got -- those are the kind of people that served our country.

We've had vigorous debates, which you all, during the last four years, took great delight in reporting, differences of opinion. But that's what you want if you're the Commander-in-Chief and a decision-maker. You want people to walk in and say, I don't agree with this, or I do agree with that, and here's what my recommendation is. But the President also has to learn to decide. You take, you know -- there's ample time for the debate to take place, and then decide and make up your mind and lead. That's what the job's all about.

And so I have learned how important it is to be -- to have a really fine group of people that think through issues, and that are not intimidated by the process, and who walk in and tell me what's on their mind.

Ed, and then Stevens.

Q Good morning. Sir, does it bother you that there's a perception out there that your administration has been one that favors big business and the wealthy individuals? And what can you do to overcome that, sir?

THE PRESIDENT: Ed, 70 percent of the new jobs in America are created by small businesses. I understand that. And I have promoted during the course of the last four years one of the most aggressive, pro-entrepreneur, small business policies. Tax relief -- you might remember -- I don't know if you know this or not, but 90 percent of the businesses are sole proprietorships or subchapter-S corporations. (Laughter.)

Q We've heard it.

THE PRESIDENT: Tax relief helped them. This is an administration that fully understands that the job creators are the entrepreneurs. And so in a new term, we will make sure the tax relief continues to be robust for our small businesses. We'll push legal reform and regulatory reform because I understand the engine of growth is through the small business sector.

Stevenson.

Q Sir, given your commitment to reaching out across party lines and to all Americans, I wonder if you could expand on your definition of bipartisanship, and whether it means simply picking off a few Democrats on a case-by-case basis to pass the bills you want to pass, or whether you would commit to working regularly with the Democratic leadership on solutions that can win broad support across party lines?

THE PRESIDENT: Do you remember the No Child Left Behind Act? I think there the model I'd look at if I were you. It is a -- I laid out an agenda for reforming our public schools. I worked with both Republicans and Democrats to get that bill passed. In a new term, we'll continue to make sure we do not weaken the accountability standards that are making a huge difference in people's lives, in these kids' lives.

But that's the model I'd look at, if I were you. And we'll -- there's a certain practicality to life here in Washington. And that is, when you get a bill moving it is important to get the votes, and if politics starts to get in the way of getting good legislation through, you know, that's just part of life here. But I'm also focused on results. I think of the Medicare bill -- you might remember that old, stale debate. We finally got a bill moving. I was hoping that we'd get strong bipartisan support -- unfortunately, it was an election year. But we got the votes necessary to get the bill passed. And so we will -- I will -- my goal is to work on the ideal and to reach out and to continue to work and find common ground on issues.

On the other hand, I've been wizened to the ways of Washington. I watched what can happen during certain parts of the cycle, where politics gets in the way of good policy. And at that point in time, I'll continue to -- you know, I'll try to get this done, I'll try to get our bills passed in a way, because results really do matter, as far as I'm concerned. I really didn't come here to hold the office just to say, gosh, it was fun to serve. I came here to get some things done, and we are doing it.

Yes, Big Stretch.

Q Thank you, Mr. President. I know you haven't had a chance to learn this, but it appears that Yasser Arafat has passed away.

THE PRESIDENT: Really?

Q And I was just wondering if I could get your initial reaction? And also your thoughts on, perhaps, working with a new generation of Palestinian leadership?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. My first reaction is, God bless his soul. And my second reaction is, is that we will continue to work for a free Palestinian state that's at peace with Israel.

Yes.

Q Mr. President, as you look at your second term domestic priorities, I wonder if you could talk a little bit about how you see the sequence of action on issues beyond Social Security -- tax reform, education. And if you could expand a little bit for us on the principles that you want to underpin your tax reform proposal -- do you want it to be revenue neutral? What kinds of things do you want to accomplish through that process?

THE PRESIDENT: I appreciate that. I was anticipating this question; that, what is the first thing you're going to do? When it comes it legislation, it just doesn't work that way, particularly when you've laid out a comprehensive agenda. And part of that comprehensive agenda is tax simplification.

The -- first of all, a principle would be revenue neutral. If I'm going to -- if there was a need to raise taxes, I'd say, let's have a tax bill that raises taxes, as opposed to let's simply the tax code and sneak a tax increase on the people. It's just not my style. I don't believe we need to raise taxes. I've said that to the American people. And so the simplification would be the goal.

Now, secondly, that obviously, that it rewards risk and doesn't -- it doesn't have unnecessary penalties in it. But the main thing is that it would be viewed as fair, that it would be a fair system, that it wouldn't be complicated, that there's a -- kind of that loopholes wouldn't be there for special interests, that the code itself be viewed and deemed as a very fair way to encourage people to invest and save and achieve certain fiscal objectives in our country, as well.

One of the interesting debates will be, of course, in the course of simplification, will there be incentives in the code: charitable giving, of course, and mortgage deductions are very important. As governor of Texas, when I -- some time I think I was asked about simplification, I always noted how important it was for certain incentives to be built into the tax code, and that will be an interesting part of the debate.

Certain issues come quicker than others in the course of a legislative session, and that depends upon whether or not those issues have been

debated. I think of, for example, the legal issue -- the legal reform issues, they have been -- medical liability reform had been debated and got thwarted a couple of times in one body in particular on Capitol Hill. And so the groundwork has been laid for some legislation that I've been talking about. On an issue like tax reform it's going to -- tax simplification, it's going to take a lot of legwork to get something ready for a legislative package. I fully understand that. And Social Security reform will require some additional legwork, although the Moynihan Commission has laid the groundwork for what I think is a very good place to start the debate.

The education issue is one that could move pretty quickly because there has been a lot of discussion about education. It's an issue that the members are used to debating and discussing. And so I think -- all issues are important. And the timing of issues as they reach it through committee and floor really depend upon whether or not some work has already been on those issues.

A couple more questions. Bob.

Q Mr. President, American forces are gearing up for what appears to be a major offensive in Fallujah over the next several days. I'm wondering if you could tell us what the objective is, what the stakes are there for the United States, for the Iraqi people, and the Iraqi elections coming up in January?

THE PRESIDENT: In order for Iraq to be a free country those who are trying to stop the elections and stop a free society from emerging must be defeated.

And so Prime Minister Allawi and his government, which fully understands that, are working with our generals on the ground to do just that. We will work closely with the government. It's their government, it's their country. We're there at their invitation. And -- but I think there's a recognition that some of these people have to -- must be defeated, and so that's what they're thinking about. That's what you're -- that's why you're hearing discussions about potential action in Fallujah.

Heidi.

Q Thank you, sir. Many within your own party are unhappy over the deficit, and they say keeping down discretional spending alone won't help you reach the goal of halving the deficit in five years. What else do you plan to do to cut costs?

THE PRESIDENT: Well, I -- I would suggest they look at our budget that we've submitted to Congress, which does, in fact, get the deficit down -- cut in half in five years, and is a specific line-by-line budget that we are required to submit and have done so.

The key to making sure that the deficit is reduced is for there to be, on the one hand, spending discipline, and I -- as you noticed in my opening remarks, I talked about these appropriations bills that are beginning to move, and I thought I was pretty clear about the need for those bills to be -- to be fiscally responsible, and I meant it. And I look forward to talking to the leadership about making sure that the budget agreements we had are still the budget agreements, that just because we had an election, that they shouldn't feel comfortable changing our agreement. And I think they understand that.

And secondly, the other way to make sure that the deficit is -- decreases, is to grow the economy. As the economy grows, there will be more revenues coming into the Treasury. That's what you have seen recently. If you notice, there's been some write-downs of the budget deficit. In other words, the deficit is less than we thought because the revenues is exceeding projections. And the reason why the revenues -- the revenues are exceeding projections -- sometimes I mangle the English language. I get that. (Laughter.)

Q Inside joke.

THE PRESIDENT: Yes, very inside. (Laughter.)

The revenues are exceeding projections. And as a result, the projected deficit is less. But my point there is, is that with good economic policy that encourages economic growth, the revenue streams begin to increase. And as the revenue streams increase, coupled with fiscal discipline, you'll see the deficit shrinking. And we're focused on that.

I do believe there ought to be budgetary reform in Washington, on the Hill, Capitol Hill. I think it's very important. I would like to see the President have a line-item veto again, one that passed constitutional muster. I think it would help the executive branch work with the legislative branch, to make sure that we're able to maintain budget discipline. I've talked to a lot of members of Congress who are wondering whether or not we'll have the will to confront entitlements, to make sure that there is entitlement reform that helps us maintain fiscal discipline. And the answer is, yes; that's why I took on the Social Security issue. I believe we have a duty to do so. I want to make sure that the Medicare reforms that we've put in place remain robust, to help us make sure Medicare is available for generations to come.

And so there is a -- I've got quite an active agenda to help work with Congress to bring not only fiscal discipline, but to make sure that our pro-growth policies are still in place.

Herman. I'm probably going to regret this. (Laughter.)

Q I don't know if you had a chance to check, but I can report you did eke out a victory in Texas the other day.

THE PRESIDENT: Thank you, sir.

Q Congratulations. I'm interested in getting back to Steven -- Stevenson's question about unity. Clearly, you believe you have reached out and will continue to reach out. Do you believe the Democrats have made a sincere and sufficient effort to meet you somewhere halfway, and do you think now there's more reason for them the do that in light of the election results?

THE PRESIDENT: I think that Democrats agree that we have an obligation to serve our country. I believe there will be goodwill, now that this election is over, to work together. I found that to be the case when I first arrived here in Washington, and working with the Democrats and fellow Republicans, we got a lot done. And it is with that spirit that I go into this coming session, and I will meet with both Republican and Democrat leaders, and I am -- they'll see I'm genuine about working toward some of these important issues.

It's going to be -- it's not easy. These -- I readily concede I've laid out some very difficult issues for people to deal with. Reforming the Social Security system for generations to come is a difficult issue; otherwise, it would have already been done. But it is necessary to confront it. And I would hope to be able to work with Democrats to get this done. I'm not sure we can get it done without Democrat participation, because it is a big issue, and I will explain to them and I will show them Senator Moynihan's thinking as a way to begin the process. And I will remind everybody here that we have a duty to leave behind a better America, and when we see a problem, to deal with it. And I think the -- I think Democrats agree with that.

And so I'm optimistic. You covered me when I was the governor of Texas. I told you that I was going to do that as a governor. There was probably skepticism in your beady eyes there. (Laughter.) But you might remember -- you might remember, we did -- we were able to accomplish a lot by -- and Washington is different from Austin, no question about it. Washington -- one of the disappointments of being here in Washington is how bitter this town can become and how divisive. I'm not blaming one party or the other. It's just the reality of Washington, D.C., sometimes exacerbated by you, because it's great sport. It's really -- it's entertaining for some. It also makes is difficult to govern at times.

But nevertheless, my commitment is there. I fully -- now more seasoned to Washington, I've cut my political eye-teeth, at least the ones I've recently grown here in Washington. And so I'm aware of what can happen in this town. But nevertheless, having said that, I am fully prepared to work with both Republican and Democrat leadership to advance an agenda that I think makes a big difference for the country.

Listen, thank you all. I look forward to working with you. I've got a question for you. How many of you are going to be here for a second term? Please raise your hand. (Laughter.)

Good. Gosh, we're going to have a lot of fun, then. Thank you all.

END 11:57 A.M. EST

This is from the October 19, 2004 program.

Daily Show Comedy Clips From October 19, 2004

Mirror of these clips
(Thanks to Internet Veterans For Truth)

Included in these (2) clips:

Lewis Black on how the Shrub Administration continually wastes our tax dollars on extravagant purchases in the name of Homeland Security and $500,000 parties for the TSA.

The opening bit from 10-19-04
Messopotamia
Iraqi tourism board
Soldiers who refused to go on "suicide mission"
Bush saying that we will "not have an all volunteer army" and then being corrected by someone in the crowd.

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from September 8, 2004 show of 60 minutes.

Ben Barnes claims he pulled strings to get the Shrub out of Vietnam.

Wish I had time for more details, but I'm just trying to get some posts up today before I finish moving and take off to europe again for a few weeks...

Ben Barnes on 60 Minutes

This is from the August 9, 2004 program.

Jon Stewart and his crew provide their usual excellent job of researching the facts before going to press. (Too bad the "real" press isn't as good at doing this.)

It turns out that not even one of the people in the anti-Kerry ad denouncing his purple hearts actually served with Kerry in Vietnam. They were in Vietnam at the time, but never knew Kerry. The doctor who appears in the ad also never actually treated Kerry -- or at least his name wasn't found on any of Kerry's medical records from Vietnam.

Nice try guys -- but you're no match for
The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Debunking the Debunking of Kerry's Purple Hearts 7 MB
(mirror)

(Thanks to
Sean Bonner for mirroring this clip!)

This is from the July 13, 2004 program.

2 Clips From The Daily Show You Really Need To Watch

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

I didn't think they'd try this until September, at least. But I guess it takes a while to set the wheels in motion.

Let this post serve as a red flag that they are preparing to set the wheels in motion.

Looks like we're going to have to fight for our right to even have an election.

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack (Reuters)

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
By Michael Isikoff for Newsweek.

Here's the
Freaked Out "Briefing" the Shrub folks are distributing. (Hey look, it's an xml file :-)

From the Newsweek story:

...sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously - along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.

Here is the full text of the articles in case the links go bad:

http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5637434

and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

U.S. Mulling How to Delay Nov. Vote in Case of Attack
Reuters

Sunday 11 July 2004

Washington - A senior House Democratic lawmaker was skeptical on Sunday of a Bush administration idea to obtain the authority to delay the November presidential election in case of an attack by al Qaeda,

U.S. counterterrorism officials are looking at an emergency proposal on the legal steps needed to postpone the presidential election in case of such an attack, Newsweek reported on Sunday.

"I think it's excessive based on what we know," said Rep. Jane Harman of California, the top Democrat on the House Intelligence Committee, in a interview on CNN's "Late Edition."

Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge warned last week that Osama bin Laden's al Qaeda network want to attack within the United States to try to disrupt the election.

Harman said Ridge's threat warning "was a bust" because it was based on old information.

Newsweek cited unnamed sources who told it that the Department of Homeland Security asked the Justice Department last week to review what legal steps would be needed to delay the vote if an attack occurred on the day before or on election day.

The department was asked to review a letter from DeForest Soaries, chairman of the new U.S. Election Assistance Commission, in which he asked Ridge to ask Congress for the power to put off the election in the event of an attack, Newsweek reported in its issue out on Monday.

The commission was created in 2002 to provide funds to states to replace punch card voting systems and provide other assistance in conducting federal elections.

In his letter, Soaries wrote that while New York's Board of Elections suspended primary elections in New York on the day of the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election."

Homeland Security Department spokesman Brian Rochrkasse told the magazine the agency is reviewing the matter "to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election."

Republican Rep. Christopher Cox of California, who chairs the House Homeland Security Committee, told CNN that the idea of legislation allowing the election to be postponed was similar to what had already been looked at in terms of how to respond to an attack on Congress.

"These are doomsday scenarios. Nobody expects that they're going to happen," he said. "But we're preparing for all these contingencies now."

*****

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5411741/site/newsweek/

Exclusive: Election Day Worries
By Michael Isikoff
Newsweek

July 19 issue

American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.

The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections - as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives - has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.

As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously - along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.

*****

http://www.dhs.gov/dhspublic/interapp/press_release/press_release_0458.xml

Background Briefing by Senior Intelligence Officials
For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
Contact 202-282-8010
Washington, D.C.

Thursday 08 July 2004

Senior Intelligence Official: If I could say a few words first. First of all, to address the question regarding TTIC Online, TTIC Online is a website, at the Top Secret, and now also at the Secret level. It is an information system to make available to different types of recipients information at different levels of classification. What the Department of Homeland Security is doing, with what you referred to as the JRIES -

(Gap)

As Secretary Ridge mentioned, we know, from a broad base of (inaudible) intelligence that al-Qaeda remains committed to carrying out a full-on attack, series of attacks, in the homeland. And recent and credible information indicates that al-Qaeda is determined to carry out these attacks to disrupt our democratic processes.

Al-Qaeda has not been reluctant to, in fact, articulate that intent and that threat. Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri have issued several public statements last fall, threatening to carry out those attacks. And numerous al-Qaeda spokespersons have, in fact, said that these plans are underway and are near completion.

We are very concerned that al-Qaeda, even though it has been a degraded organization as a result of counterterrorism successes and efforts over the past several years, remains a dangerous organization, because it is flexible and adaptable, as many international terrorist organizations are.

There are strong indications that al-Qaeda will continue to try to revisit past targets, those that they were able to attack, as well as those that they were unable to attack.

In addition, there is intelligence that indicates that they are looking at various transportations systems, as the Secretary alluded to, and Madrid, the attacks against the subway systems there that resulted in hundreds of deaths and injuries.

And looking at the current terrorist threat reporting and information that we have, we continue to look at past plots to gain a better understanding of the strategy and tactics that al-Qaeda may, in fact, try to employ here in the states. In particular, looking at some past al-Qaeda plans, as well as their capabilities and their attacks overseas, we're concerned about Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Devices -- VBIEDs, truck bombs - and similar types of vehicle borne explosives, given al-Qaeda's long history of successful attacks overseas. These types of means of attack can be used to go against different types of infrastructure targets, such as tunnels, bridges, other types of targets that would lend themselves to that type of targeting.

In addition, we know that al-Qaeda has carried out successful attacks overseas in various locations, in Asia and in Europe recently.

Also, al-Qaeda has remained very interested in aviation attacks. We know that it is a consistent focus of their efforts, as we saw in 9/11. But since 9/11, and despite the numerous security enhancements that have been made, al-Qaeda continues to pursue capabilities that can use aircraft, either as a weapon or to target.

What we know about this most recent information that is being directed from the senior-most levels of the al-Qaeda organization, which includes Osama bin Laden, Ayman Zawahiri and others, and we know that this leadership continues to operate along the border area between Afghanistan and Pakistan.

And we'll take your questions.

Question: Are you saying then, that bin Laden and Zawahiri are now actively directing their followers?

Senior Intelligence Official: When I mentioned the senior al-Qaeda leadership, and there's senior al-Qaeda leadership, which include Osama bin Laden and Ayman Zawahiri, also includes other senior operatives. So this type of plotting, this type of operational activity, is being done with the direction and authorization of that senior leadership.

Question: This intelligence that you have, are they specifically mentioning their intent to thwart the democratic process, the election? And if so, in what context?

Senior Intelligence Official: Al-Qaeda, for many years, has, in fact, tried to carry out attacks here or to design attacks that would create political, economic and psychological damage on the United States. Our various institutions, including the electoral process, democratic processes here, are part of those institutions that al-Qaeda is determined to try to disrupt.

So what we're doing is we're looking at this intelligence information recently in the context of what is it that is happening, for example, this year; and we know, with the election process here, this is one of the reasons why I think everybody has to be - remain vigilant.

Question: So this is actually carrying on from the Madrid. I mean, again, I just want to kind of follow-on on this question. Is it that you're looking at it and there's a gut reaction, that you're assuming that he must mean the political process, or you see information that's specifically talking about the successes of Madrid and wanting to replicate that here?

Senior Intelligence Official: We are seeing, in a number of areas, to include various websites that are used, as far as extremists organizations are concerned, different types of reporting, that they are focusing on what they perceive to have been successful attacks in Madrid, as far as the impact on the electoral process there and the outcome of that election.

And so the reporting and other things that we're seeing now is with the same type of expectation and anticipation that similar types of attacks could have, as I think the Secretary said, the mistaken belief that it would have an impact here on the electoral process. But the reporting that we are seeing, the information that we have, is tied to the different types of democratic processes here.

Question: Sir, in any of this intelligence, is there specific, credible intelligence about what they want to do, in terms of how they would carry this out, or is this basically intent only?

Senior Intelligence Official: It's an intent and preparation to carry out major attacks that would inflict major casualties, as well as to create economic damage, political damage, psychological damage to the United States. So it's the intent as well as the preparation and plans that are underway to, in fact, effect those attacks.

Question: When you're talking about political conventions, right, you're talking about physical sites that can be defended, protected. But how do you protect polling in thousands of places across the country? I'd like to hear your thoughts on that. And also, where do you think the threat is going to be highest? At the convention stage of our process, or as we get closer to the actual decision by the people?

Senior Intelligence Official: I'll just take the second part, and then I'll turn it over to [senior intelligence official] for the first part. As far as the - where the threat may be highest, al-Qaeda traditionally has tried to target venues, buildings, whatever, based on very meticulous and careful casing and surveillance, and a lot of pre-operational activity. They are a meticulous and patient organization that tries to optimize the chances for success. And therefore, I believe that their target selection here, as well as when they will carry out the attack, will be based on that type of careful preparation, the thoroughness that, in fact, has been a hallmark of al-Qaeda preparations.

So looking out over the next - the rest of the year, and even beyond, I think what we're doing, responsibly, collectively, is to look at the threat information, look at the reporting, look at those types of events, look at those types of venues and targets that might, in fact, lend themselves to that type of -

Question: So are you saying when we get closer to the actual voting? Or at the stage of the nominating conventions? What worries you the most?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think we're here today to say that we are concerned at this point, from this point on, and looking out over the next many months. The al-Qaeda threat is a real one, it's a continuing one, and I think we have to be vigilant from this point forward.

Question: Could you take the other part of my question, please? How do you protect the polling stations?

Senior Intelligence Official: Yes, I understand the question. And I think the answer now has to be that this issue has not escaped us. It's a very complex one, as you noted in your question.

We have begun a thought process and discussions about this issue. We have to form an approach to it that makes sense here in the United States, and that's what we'll be doing over the course of the next days and weeks.

It would be inappropriate for us to discuss the details of our planning or our effort to secure the election, but you can rest assured that we'll certainly do our best to do that.

Question: Would you postpone voting?

Senior Intelligence Official: That's a speculative question that I'm not prepared to answer, frankly. There are all kinds of issues here we have to deal with. It's premature for anyone here at the Department to give information on this topic.

And by the way, when you're talking about securing an event that occurs on one day, very inappropriate for us to talk about the detail of that.

Question: Is this the result of a break in the case or is it a result of ongoing collection of a large gestalt of information that you've pieced together from many sources?

Senior Intelligence Official: It's based on a very strong body of intelligence acquired by intelligence and law enforcement over the last two and a half years, and on top of that strategic intelligence about al-Qaeda's plans and intentions, additional information that has come in, not in terms of, you know, breaks in cases or whatever, but just because of the continued determined efforts as far as intelligence collection, law enforcement activities and others to acquire the information. And as I think the Secretary said, very credible sources of information are providing this.

Question: But is any of this intelligence different than it was last month when we heard this exact same warning? Is anything different in the past several weeks? Is there new intelligence? Is there a new threat? Or is this exactly what we heard last month?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think I was mentioning that there has been a growing body of intelligence over the past several years, and I think over the past several months I would say we continue to gain knowledge and understanding about what al-Qaeda is planning to do. So every day there are nuggets that come in to the broader intelligence community that we take a look at and start trying to connect those pieces. So it's a dynamic process that allows us to have a better understanding of exactly what we are facing as far as the al-Qaeda threat.

Question: You talked about wanting to revisit targets, both successful and unsuccessful. That would be Los Angeles Airport, New York City landmarks, bridges and tunnels. Is that what you're talking about? You're saying New York City remains a prime target?

Senior Intelligence Official: I said that al-Qaeda has this penchant to return to those targets; for example, the World Trade Center, you know, the bombings in the mid-'90s and then coming back to it. I think what we need to do from an intelligence/law enforcement/homeland security perspective is continue to look at all those previous targets. You mentioned, you know, LAX, Los Angeles Airport, New York City, different places there. So we are not taking any of those targets sort of off of our areas of concern. So there is just a broad array of potential targets that al-Qaeda could threaten.

Question: In the aftermath of Madrid there was a statement that al-Qaeda had lost a lot of control and command and that these were al-Qaeda inspired groups and that one of the biggest problems facing the intelligence community was that there was no solid structure of command. And the way you're talking here is I'm wondering if what you're implying is that this new information you have leads you to the conclusion that there is a solid structure of command and that the guys in the Pakistan-Afghan border are back in control again.

Senior Intelligence Official: I don't think I - I certainly didn't mean to imply that solid structure. I don't think I used that term at all. What I said is that there are senior levels of the al-Qaeda leadership that continue to oversee and direct many of the operations as far as pointing at the different types of targets and encouraging this type of activity to take place and directing it and sponsoring it.

But what you're referring to now is that there is an international constellation of different types of Islamic extremist networks. Some of them are very closely tied to what we refer to as the al-Qaeda organization. Others are loosely affiliated with it. So what we need to do from an intelligence perspective is to understand exactly whether cells that exist within Southeast Asia or within Africa or Europe or other places are, in fact, part of this central al-Qaeda organization or are they offshoots of it.

What we see is because of tremendous successes against the terrorist target that the command and control structure of al-Qaeda has broken down, it's very difficult in terms of communication or whatever. So there may be some greater autonomy being given to some of these operatives who are responsible for certain areas and certain sort of theaters or responsibility.

Question: (Inaudible) that there are sleeper cells in the United States, sleeper cells in the United States, that people are scouting locations for, you know, explosions and so forth, or border crossings to effect the same end?

Senior Intelligence Official: I think we have seen from reporting that al-Qaeda, as I mentioned, does this very careful, meticulous planning ahead of time to carry out attacks. A lot of this type of preparation and pre-operational surveillance and casing is carried out by what you may be referring to as sleeper cells: those individuals that may have been deployed to a target area in order to carry out the type of casing and surveillance that's necessary in order to do the facilitation, maybe to identify a logistics network or other types of things.

So I think, again, from an intelligence perspective, what we're looking at is what does al-Qaeda have in place, what are they doing, in order to be able to realize their terrorist objectives.

Question: One question I have deals with Ridge said that in Italy, Jordan and Great Britain that they had not only the people but the means to carry out the attacks. Has some of the intelligence that you've picked up in the last few months suggested that there are, in fact, people already in place in the U.S.?

Senior Intelligence Official: There is intelligence that al-Qaeda has individuals dispersed worldwide, and worldwide would include the United States, that are - they are using in order to facilitate the operational planning necessary to carry out attacks successfully. So one of the things that we have learned, and I think the reference to different types of networks that have been wrapped up that the Secretary's mentioning, plans in the United Kingdom to carry out attacks with VBIEDs as far as individuals, the materials, we know that that was done as a result not just of plans and directions but also those individuals who helped facilitate that type of operation who may be in place for many years and then become facilitators and then may also go into an operational mode. So I think that we have to think about what we see overseas and then apply that to our understanding here in the States.

Thank you.

Question: Can we hear something from the FBI? Can we hear just a comment from the FBI? There's been no voice from the Bureau at all.

Senior Intelligence Official: Yes, I think one thing that's really important is in regards to Homeland Security one of the things that's happening in the federal government is we're all coming together working to address issues that arise in the country, specifically with JTTF, the Joint Terrorism Task Forces. We've got representatives from most, if not all, federal law enforcement agencies, state agencies, local agencies, and we're working together.

I think what's really important and what I see from my position at headquarters is that when we get into these modes of having to operate, a lot of times you see the badges go off as far as the agency or department that the people are working for. I think that's what's really important. And I think what we have now is law enforcement sees a real mission in that we've got to safeguard the country and we're really working together to do it. And I think one of the keys is that it has been alluded to by Secretary Ridge and [senior intelligence official], is that we're working together as far as intelligence. There's a lot of intelligence sharing. There are constant meetings back here in D.C. as well as in cities and states around the country, and we're working together collectively and that's what really important. And we really think that's the way we're going to succeed and we do have a huge mission ahead of us.

Senior Intelligence Official: Thank you very much. Thank you.

This is from the June 14, 2004 program.

Colin Powell was on Meet the Press apologizing for this last weekend -- the Shrub Administration released a War On Terror update report that had 8 pages of errors and retractions and lots of other questionable material throughout.

(Colin said he wasn't a "happy camper" having to apologize for it.)

The Shrub's Bogus Terror Report (Small - 9 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Here's footage of the June 3rd eviction of "Bushville," an encampment of 30 homeless families on the outskirts of Jersey City, NJ, who wished to make a statement about the Shrub's policies and how they are slowly killing American families with the lack of affordable housing in this country. They feel that he is wasting billions of dollars on this senseless war in Iraq while millions of families across the country are wasting away.

The Fall Of Bushville (Quicktime - Small - 29 MB)

"The poor in this country are dying under the policies of George W. Bush, and frankly we can't afford to be invisible. Our lives are at stake here as poor and homeless families across this country and George W. is responsible for that and we can't allow it to continue because our very lives are at stake."

Also mirrored here in my own archive. (For safekeeping)
(Note: this won't be up for a few minutes)

The Fall Of Bushville (Newsbrief)

Update 6/5/04 - No, nobody got a clip, and, seemingly, nobody cares.
I also heard Clinton say a couple days ago during some publicity for his book that he "liked" daddy Shrub. So it could have all been in fun anyway.

Hey did anybody grab the clip of Clinton getting pushed by daddy shrub at the WWII Memorial last weekend? This is all I heard about it.

Thanks!!

lisa

Bush I pushes Clinton by kos Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Here is the complete thread of:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2004/5/29/162231/064

Bush I pushes Clinton
by kos
Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:22:31 EDT

Hmmm, I wasn't watching the WWII Memorial ceremony, but apparently there was a bit of jostling around. Reef the Dog reports in the Open Thread comments:
It was on CNN. Bush 41, 43, and Clinton were talking at the end of the ceremony. Clinton wagged his finger in Bush 43's face. Dunno what they were talking about but it seemed at least superficially cordial. Then Poppy suddenly shoved Clinton in the chest with both hands, enough to throw Clinton off balance. I don't know why, but it was completely inappropriate and almost seemed to me like 41 was trying to prove his manhood or something. I'm not even sure what happened after that, the camera quickly went somewhere else.
I wonder what happened...

Misc ::

Display:
Bush I pushes Clinton | 190 comments (190 topical, 0 editorial, 0 hidden)
That was crazy (none / 1)

I saw that as well. I wonder what that was all about.

by BryanRI on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:26:42 EDT

description (none / 1)

Can someone who saw it describe it in more detail? Did Bush I look angry? What was Clinton's expression when he wagged his finger? I hope someone tells us what he was saying. Maybe the mic was on.

Don't understand NY politics? Try The Nor'Easter
by jd in nyc on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I saw it (none / 0)

before it happened I was gawking at Clinton there chatting with W, didn't notice Bush I at first because his back was toward the camera a bit. Then they were laughing a bit about something, and Bush I shoved Clinton like you might shove a brother making a good natured joke about you. However, the little group broke up at that moment with W walking off in that "opportunity" sort of way one dodges out of a conversation at a party.

- pyrrho
by pyrrho on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:05:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think we're reaching a bit here (3.50 / 2)

I saw it also. I thought it looked like good natured banter between members of the Club of Presidents. Bush I has always appeared a bit awkward. I think he probably made a playful physical guy contact, but with a bit more force than he intended. End of story.

by rusrivman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:45:12 EDT
[ Parent ]

If Clinton wagged (none / 0)

his fucking finger in my face, I'd shove him, too. Both are very belligerant body language. But I wonder what Jr said to provoke Billy's finger wagging.

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:59 EDT
[ Parent ]

If I were standing face to face (4.00 / 2)

with Dubya, I'd wag more than my finger in his face. Good for Clinton! I hope he was threatening Dubya, something along the lines of, "I've got more CIA pull than you do as president, and when I'm through making phone calls you won't even have time to clean up the empty beer cans before you leave the WH!" After which, Poppy said, "yeah, we'll see who's got more CIA pull, asshole," and he pushed Clinton.

"And Orwell's hell, a terror era coming through. But this little brother's watching you too" -Zack de la Rocha, Voice Of The Voiceless
by Subterranean on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:55:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'll put my money... (3.50 / 2)

on the Clenis. Can we get the Bush twins to hold the "Round x" signs?

by Roastbeef on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:37 EDT

Hmmm (3.50 / 2)

Maybe you have the players wrong. Knowing Bill, he might have "gone a round" with the Bush twins, and Grandpappy found out. ;)

by ElitistJohn on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:00:26 EDT
[ Parent ]

ROFL! (none / 0)

Were there any threesomes?

by davybaby3 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 01:38:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I wonder if we'll ever know ... (none / 1)

or if we'll ever see the picture shown again on the news ...

If we do, I bet Olberman will be the one to show it ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:27:53 EDT

or... (none / 1)

or Jon Stewart

by runchadrun on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:28:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

well (none / 0)

I was thinking 'news' ... but since Stewart tells it like it is better than the 'not-fake' news programs ...

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:11 EDT
[ Parent ]

Daily Show (none / 0)

Anyone know when they're coming back? This is a HORRIBLE time to be in reruns.

Maryscott O'Connor -- Rage, rage, against the lying of the Right.
by Maryscott OConnor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:09:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Probably Monday or Tuesday (none / 0)

I can't remember them ever being gone for more than two weeks, except maybe after September 11, and that's how long it's been. Memorial Day may push it to Tuesday, but I doubt it'll be much longer.

It better not, anyway. I'm going through withdrawal pains over here.

It's not that I disagree with Bush's economic policy or his foreign policy, it's that I believed he was a child of Satan sent to destroy the planet Earth. -BH
by Ben Grimm on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:34:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

This is normal... (none / 0)

...they took a break this long at the same time last year. Look for them to be back Tuesday.

Do not adjust your mind, it's reality that is malfunctioning.
by Alumbrados on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:34:43 EDT
[ Parent ]

Faithful Tivo says... (none / 0)

June 1. Just started watching the reruns again and nearly fell off my couch when McCain came out and started looking under the cushions for that chart that Rummy forgot.

by sujal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ot, but most relevant (3.00 / 4)

In honor of this holiday I share with you Sir Karl Popper :

A few reasons why Karl Popper is obscure and unknown while the totalitarian philosophers he debunked (Karl Marx, Hegel, Plato, Aristotle, etc) are still widely known with easily available literature is that the people who would use us, much like hitler used the masses. is because we want to trust our leaders, however time and time again we are disillusioned.

"Most of all, those early Americans understood that liberty is fragile. To give any distant body of elites the power to tax and spend to stay in power promises corruption and a Leviathan government more interested in concentrating power for itself than in protecting the rights of its citizens."

Plato asks: "who should rule?"
Popper asks: "how can we minimize the damage a ruler can do?"

"Bertrand Russell described this study, with its companion volume on Plato, as ' a work of first-class importance which ought to be widely read for its masterly criticism of the enemies of democracy, ancient and modern. His (Popper's) attack on Plato, while unorthodox, is in my opinion thoroughly justified. His analysis of Hegel is deadly. Marx is dissected with equal acumen, and given his due share of responsibility for modern misfortunes. The book is a vigorous and profound defence of democracy, timely, very interesting, and very well written."

"The vital question is not 'Who should rule?' but 'How can we minimize misrule?"
-Sir Karl Popper "The Open Society and Its Enemies"

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:31:35 EDT

Popper (none / 0)

He surely should be added to the wiki.

by filchyboy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:36:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper Debunked Aristotle? (none / 0)

Where does Popper debunk Aristotle? I don't remember him doing this anywhere. If it's in "The Open Society" -- and I do not recall any attack on Aristotle in that work -- I'm not sure any attack on the perfectly sane political views of Aristotle could amount to a debunking.

by lysias on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:02:45 EDT
[ Parent ]

I think Popper's allergy... (none / 0)

...to historicism (as he uses the term) caused him to bristle at the mechanistic cycle from monarchy through aristocracy and democracy back to monarchy that can be got out of the Politics.

The necessity and inevitabilty of it would strike him as dangerous, and an entry point for totalitarianism.

He does go upside Plato's head, big time.

And as for what he did to Hegel -- when Sir Karl was done, you coulda sent what was left of the old Prussian fraud home in a manila envelope.

Patria est ubicumque bene. "Their 'Homeland' is wherever they can turn a buck." Cicero, Tusculan Disputations.
by Otis Noman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

aristotle (none / 0)

NFNB aristotle definitely errs on the side of the programmatic in his Poetics, too. Worthy of critique, though perhaps not in this forum.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:30:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Soros is a big admirer of Popper (4.00 / 2)

In his book, Open Society: Reforming Global Capitalism, Soros has quite a bit to say about Popper and his ideas. Apparently Popper is for him the pre-eminent 20th century philosopher.

Simuilarly, an obscure right-wing pholospher named Leo Strauss apparently inspired the neocons. See this month's Harpers. Both sides have their "modern" philosophers for intellectual propping-up.

Popper is as sound as Strauss is suspect. For a philospher, Popper is remarkably humble and pragmatic. He doesn't get taken in by messianic ideas, and his intentions are simple and noble. He is also very readable. Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

I think that's a basic distinction between liberal vs. reactionary behavior -- the willingness, or lack thereof, to come clean and say what you mean, openly -- and be judged by it. Do your ideas, clearly and brashly stated, stink? It should be a test every news pundit has to pass.

"The universe is a sphere whose center is wherever there is intelligence." -Thoreau
by samizdat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:16:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

as much as like Soros (none / 1)

I'd much rather Deleuze be the philosophical base of the next left. We'll I suppose their is room for more then 2...

American Dynamics || from the land of the free, politics by design
by Abe on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:04:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

wicked! (none / 1)

The terrorists are already deterritorialized, so we had better step up.

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:28:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Frightening stuff (none / 0)

20 years ago I read a critique of liberal arts departments by John Sawhill. His thesis was that in 1953 liberal arts departments and colleges (the source of rigorous and creative thinking)began the gutting of their first rate minds in an rush for corporate money in applied science departments.

Last night I was doing a survey of Straussian teachers throughout academia and found that much of the vacuum in those departments has been filled (I suspect, intentionally) by the Staussian movement. Those of us who are concerned about the education of our best young liberal minds need to attend to this and start to push for a new strain of genuinely rigorous intellectual persuit. On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians. The direction of their thinking and teaching is another matter entirely, and something to be very concerned about.

by tikkun on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:13:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Come again? (none / 0)

On their brilliance and rigor, no one can question the merits of the Straussians.

Actually, the merits of the Straussians can most certainly be questioned, and it frequently is criticized, at least in some (and hopefully most) quarters of the humanities.

"You can't talk to the ignorant about lies, since they have no criteria." --Ezra Pound
by machopicasso on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:56:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

cf, "Wittgenstein's Poker" (none / 0)

Popper sets up two-dimensional "straw" philosophers throughout the history of philosophy, and knocks them over with a one-dimensional argument. He shuddah stuck with falsification theory and science.

by Mekiah on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Popper's Not The Best (none / 1)

Popper's an interesting case, but far from the best that modern philosophy can offer. He & his students did a real hatchet job on Thomas Kuhn, after The Structure of Scientific Revolutions came out, and they pretty pretty much knocked the wind out of his sails. So, while the idea of a paradigm shift went on to become one of the major memes of our time, the hard work of making his insight rigorous and useful has never really been done.

What makes Popper really culpable here is that he claimed to be a defender of science, and a severe critic of the Platonic idealist strain in philosophy. But when Kuhn came along with a scientific approach to understanding how science works (history of science as an empirical study), Popper and his circle lambasted him, saying that science couldn't possibly work that way--arguing from how they thought it had to work. They really took a fundamentalist-style approach to defending science, rather than using science self-critically to understand science.

What really ticked them off, for example, was the idea that not just history, but sociology (horror of horrors) might have something significant to say about how science works. How dare a still-underdeveloped "soft" science presume to tell us something about how a crowning "hard" science like physics is or should be done? Better by far to simply rely on their armchair speculations.

In short, Popper's much better within the narrow bounds of Big-P philosophy than he is in integrating it into the rest of the world.

A far better approach (to politics as well as philosophy of science), IMHO, derives from William James, whose work in psychology and philosophy influenced each other profoundly. He is much more consistent than Popper in opposing totalitarian tendencies. This includes being much less cartoon-like in characterizing those he disagrees with.

Let's put the information back in the information age.
by Paul Rosenberg on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:15:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Kuhn is not a scientist (none / 1)

He is a historian of science and a sociologist. And much of his Structure of Scientific Revolutions just passed Sir Karl Popper by, which is unfortunate because I believe Popper is, after Wittgenstein, the most important of 20th century philosophers.

Kuhn was describing science as it happens at the average graduate school or industrial lab. For the most part in those places you are not acting in the classical inductive model - gathering evidence and then drawing conclusions. Instead you are working through an assigned problem governed by the conventional assumptions of your field. In Kuhn's terms, now sadly debased, you are working within a paradigm, solving problems in that paradigm's own terms. Results that don't fit are generally dismissed as failures of technique, it is not your job to push back at the frontiers of science, it is your job to find a more efficient catalyst to do something or other.

In Popper's world every scientist is Einstein. In reality there have been tens of thousands of MS theses that were the result of some Professor assigning some hapless Grad Student to study the effects of adding C to B as compared to the old method of adding A to B. Most science is cookbook science, and only rarely, and by rare people, does the recipe book get torn up and re-written. Resulting in the consequent Paradigm Shift.

There are reference books that actually track how many references to a particular book or article are made in peer reviewed journals. Back when I was running the BAKER Document Delivery Service at UC Berkeley (about 87-90) Kuhn was the number one cited source in the SSCI (Social Sciences Citation Index), but I suspected then and I suspect now that most of those people actually never read the book but instead lifted the incredibly cool term "paradigm shift" and cited Kuhn as cover.

But enough rambling. Read Karl Popper's "The Open Society and its Enemies" (and note it does not attack Aristotle openly) and Thomas Kuhn's "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions". They are among the most important books of the 20th century.

by Bruce Webb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:53:21 EDT
[ Parent ]

FIGHT FIGHT FIGHT (3.00 / 2)

Now that's what I'm talking about! That's an image I want to see. Daddy physically protecting Junior! Prove's whose the man. I'd bet GW was praying for God to smite Clenis just after that.

Link Anyone?

$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:35:03 EDT

Staged? (none / 1)

Is this some attempt by Poppy and Poopy to cause some kind of mini-Wellstone memorial to make the Democrats look bad?

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:37:00 EDT

Who looks bad? (none / 0)

How come you think Clinton looks bad when Bush 41 loses his temper and pushes him?

Maybe daddy was taking credit for building the memorial that Clinton approved?

"I don't do quagmires, and my boss doesn't do nuance."
by SteinL on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:41:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Media will make Bushies look good. (none / 0)

by JamesB3 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

No f'n way they can, (none / 0)

a single-handed shove is jesting. Two-handed is a challenge, and a threat. This is Poppy losing it.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Ummm (none / 0)

The "liberal" media will find a way.

by jfern on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:22:16 EDT
[ Parent ]

Wouldn't surprise me if... (3.66 / 6)

Clinton said something like "you're gonna get beat worse than your Daddy did" to George WPE.

How do you define security?
by PSoTD on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:42:33 EDT

We've got to get a copy of this! (none / 1)

Someone must have a recording of this thing on TIVO or something. I'm dying to see it!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:43:25 EDT

C-SPAN will re-air (none / 0)

the dedication ceremony circa 8 o'clock p.m. Eastern time, according to its schedule.

-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Republican? (none / 0)

Again with that sig! You do know there's a Democrat running against Musgrave, don't you? Or is this some subtle form of trolling I'm not familiar with?

http://www.stan2004.com/

¡Viva Democracy for America!
by ubikkibu on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:52:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

So what there's a democrat? (3.50 / 2)

OK, so there's a democrat running. Big deal.

Faust is more progressive than Matsunaka, and, because of the low turnout in the primaries, could potentially have a better shot at unseating Musgrave than Matsunaka. The GOP is not going to give that seat up without a huge fight.

I'm not a partisan; I'm looking to see the best person in office, regardless of what party they're in.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:12:37 EDT
[ Parent ]

I don't consider myself a partisan per se (none / 0)

BUT, there is an urgent need to get dem majority in congress (doable but challenging). If for nothing else than to have a damage control contingency in the inprobable event that bush somehow gets (re)elected.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

I agree with that in general ... (3.50 / 2)

... but why are y'all bothering to take shots at this guy for his sig line? Leave the poor guy alone - he supports a moderate republican. So what? It wasn't even the content of any his posts.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:05 EDT
[ Parent ]

I understand... (none / 0)

what you're getting at, and I'm hoping for the Dems to take control of the Senate. That's possible.

The dems are not going to get control of the House this year; I don't think there's any possibility of it.

Furthermore, what's the worst case here? Faust loses, but beats up on Musgrave, while ignoring Matsunaka. OK, well that's good for the Dems, isn't it, because now Matsunaka has a better chance at winning.

Or, Faust beats Musgrave. Well that's good too, isn't it? (1) Faust is a progressive (2) Matsunaka probably has better chances against Faust, a novice, than he does against Musgrave, who's got the entire GOP party establishment all the way up to Bush behind her.

This is a win-win for progressives.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

I will agree with you on that (none / 0)

if faust beats musgrave in primary than the race is a far site better for it. so why not support BOTH of them? And I'm not beatin you up or anything but it'd be sweet victory to reclaim the district from a rabid conservative.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:08 EDT
[ Parent ]

limited resources (none / 0)

I've got limited resources.

If Faust loses, I'll support Matsunaka. In the meantime, I'm not letting Musgrave take even her primary for granted.

Most of the politically active people in CO that I've talked to (or got info from indirectly), even some high profile Dems, think that booting her in the primary is the best bet. No one turns out to vote in these things, you don't have to motivate very many people to vote for you to win.

Furthermore, if we get rid of Musgrave in the primary, we can concentrate on getting rid of worse people like Tancredo.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

House Taken by Democrats? (none / 0)

It's too soon to say whether the Democrats can take the House. But even Republicans are seriously concerned in the under-the-radar shift accompanying Bushit's screwups and his public lying against the mounting evidence that he's serail war criminal.

Roublicans in Congress do have to worry about an electorate is looking also at those who helped Bushit lie the US into Iraq.

It's also those huge tax cuts and the threats to social programs (other than corporate welfare) and jobs.

Too soon to unequivocally assert that the Democarts can't take the House this year. Sorta along the lines that the Democarts would retain control as result of the 1994 mid-terms.

A lie is halfway around the world before the truth can get its shoes on. -- Mark Twain
by jnagarya on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 06:25:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

You beat me to it. (none / 0)

At first I thought maybe another dem was running against musgrave but nay. Unless he wants musgrave outted in primary? Or maybe he's one of those DispairDems that think no Dem will ever win in CO CD4 so better to support a non-rabid Republican.

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:13:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

or maybe ... (none / 0)

... he's not a democrat, and just is choosing the person he sees best fit for the job. I know it's really hard to believe there may be independents who come to DailyKos, but try to imagine it.

by AdamW on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:29:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

you've got a point (none / 0)

yes he might not be a Dem and that's okay. But I do feel there is a group within the democratic party I like to call DispairDems and I haven't had a chance to use that term in a sentence and couldn't pass it up. :)

by DawnG on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Or maybe... (4.00 / 5)

... I want Musgrave out and the best person in.

Being a democrat doesn't automatically make you the best candidate.

I also give Faust credit for having some balls. The Dems had to beg and plead with a dozen different people for six months before they could find someone who was willing to run. All of the people they approached before Matsunaka were afraid of Musgrave.

Faust was willing to go out on a limb on his own. That's admirable.

All of this lame Demo-partisanship is no better than the lame GOP-partisanship. Party partisans are the downfall of this country. Start voting for the right people, not people who have the "right" party name. (rolling eyes)

Or, maybe you can explain why I should be a Democrat-partisan in this race. Because so far all you guys have said is "there's a democrat running..." as if that means anything. Zell Miller is a democrat too.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:31:54 EDT
[ Parent ]

Look at Faust's website-- (none / 0)

From Bob Faust's website, he supports re-introducing an Equal Rights Amendment which includes sexual orientation. And he supports a national universal healthcare program. On these positions, Faust appears to be to the left of Kerry. In the unlikely event Faust gets elected, he appears likely to vote with the Democrats on many issues. Maybe it's about time some Republicans emerge to challenge their party's extreme social conservatism.

by bernalman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:31:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

A vote for ANY Repub is a vote for Tom Delay (none / 0)

Thats why any Dem is better than any Repub.

Its because our system is NOT one of proportional representation. ALL of the power in the House goes to whichever party has the majority and elects the Speaker. Moderate republican? Only when their vote doesnt really count. If it comes down to a party line vote they will go with their leader every time and that guy happens to be Tom Delay.

SO, sure, in a best of all possible worlds I might agree that some Repubs are better than some Dems. But that isnt the system we are faced with here and to pretend otherwise is to give one more vote to Tom Delay.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:30:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Then get rid of Delay (none / 0)

Then work on getting rid of Tom Delay, don't become a blind partisan.

If you don't care about the issues or voting for the best person, then why bother to follow politics at all? Just put your blinders on and tick the box next to every democrat's name on election day, then go back to watching your sitcoms on TV.

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 15:17:18 EDT
[ Parent ]

How patronizing (none / 0)

So if someone disagrees with you on tactics then they watch sitcoms? Puhleez.

And I AM working to get rid of Delay - That is exactly my point. I just think that there are more ways to do that than just one.

It is because I DO care about the issues that I would do anything, absolutely anything, to get rid of him. And if this year that means going into the booth and blindly voting the straight Democratic line, then sign me up. No apologies for that from me. Three and a half years of Bush have made me reconsider the idea of voting against Dems because I dont quite like everything they say.

Steven Kyle
by sck5 on Mon May 31st, 2004 at 04:30:52 EDT
[ Parent ]

But clearly... (none / 0)

you are not concerned about the issues if you are ignoring the candidates and just concentrating on party lines.

Zell Miller for President!

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 11:30:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

What makes us better than repubs (none / 0)

.... if we vote strictly on party lines.
I would vote for an Arlen Specter type in heartbeat, over a Zell Miller type.
And as much as it would be great to control the Senate / H of Rep. I would much rather prefer a number of moderates (irrespective of their party)
than a bunch of blind partisans. Look at the repubs now that they control everything,
they have turned into yes men for this administration and the repub leaders. They only care about the R or D attached to someone's name.
They vote for the party, no matter if they really agree with the policy.
And lets be honest, there are plenty of Democrats who have crossed party lines.
Just being a Democrat is not enough. What we need is to have a majority of moderates in the House / Senate.
This way no matter who the controlling party is, we have level headed people who care about the public good ABOVE towing the party line

by avagias on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:35:25 EDT
[ Parent ]

Thank you (none / 0)

This is exactly what I'm getting at. We need to elect people who share our values, not simply worry about what letter is after a politician's name.

I still don't understand why I get shouted down for supporting someone who shares my values, is electable (and in a better position than the Democrat), is going against one of the worst people in Congress, BUT has an "R" after his name...??

Stop the Musgrave hate machine and the federal marriage amendment! Support Bob Faust for Congress
by Doppy on Tue Jun 1st, 2004 at 12:39:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Pictures: (4.00 / 5)

Is this it? They look pretty playful, though Clenis' finger is a bit intimate in the second one :)

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12505292029.world_war_ii_memorial_jwe125. jpg

http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/capt.jwe12605292028.bush_world_war_ii_memorial_jw e126.jpg

Santa Kerry: http://us.news2.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20040529/lthumb.dcn10305291915.kerry_dcn103.jpg

$7 Trillion in Debt, 2.6 Million out of work, and they're worried about a few thousand gay marriage Licenses?
by Steven R on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:46:55 EDT

During's Bush 43's speech ... (none / 0)

Bush 41 leaned over the Clinton and said something but Clinton didn't look to amused and didn't reply.

Maybe Clinton was joking with Bush 41 about their "Jennifer's" ...

by politizine on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:50:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

Is Clinton (none / 0)

giving him the finger?

George's classmates on his performance at Harvard, "...completely out of his depth." (and two decades of drug and alcohol abuse haven't helped any.)
by NorCalJim on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:52:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

I looks like Sr. had Cataract surgery (none / 0)

From the pictures, those thick, black shades indicates Sr. had recent Cataract surgery. not uncommon at his at - now 80 yrs old.

When recovering, people have depth perception problems, as the one eye (they do it one at a time) is going through an adjustment period.

I've seen people do funny things with that problem.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:57:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

41 auditioning for the Matrix?? (none / 1)

Those shades!! Hang a trenchcoat on him and he'd be trying to spin through the air to kick Bill!

Visualize Whirled Peas
by Hoya90 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:03:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

Clearly (none / 0)

The second photo is obviously taken when Clinton told HW to pull his finger. It's a timeless gag.

CONSERVATIVE, n. A statesman who is enamored of existing evils, as distinguished from the Liberal, who wishes to replace them with others.--Ambrose Bierce
by Manix on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:20:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

WTF is there to laugh about? (none / 0)

The photos of all them laughing together gave me the creeps and reminded me of something I read in an authentic conservative's column (Charley Reese) just yesterday:

"And I'm perfectly willing to concede that virtually all heads of state are evil, differing only in degree. It's so tempting for heads of state to play the great game as if the human beings far below them were merely chess pieces on a board."

http://reese.king-online.com/Reese_20040524/index.php

by rodean on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 08:34:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

It could have been worse (3.88 / 17)

Daddy could have thrown up in Bill's lap ....

The world is on its elbows and knees, It's forgotten the message and worships the creeds. Armageddon days are here again Matt Johnson
by Madman in the marketplace on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:47:44 EDT

my guess (none / 1)

W probably said something to Clinton about not being a veteran, Clinton probably said at least I, having not served, was never AWOL from the Air National Guard. Pure speculation it makes sense given the nature of the event.

by abe ferlman on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:48:44 EDT

The "Wimp" Factor (none / 0)

Anyone got a scan of the Newsweek cover from the late 80s featuring Bush Sr?

Here's MoDo from 2002:

"When Newsweek published its 'Fighting the "Wimp Factor"' cover about Bush senior when he was running for president in 1987, he was so angry he refused to talk to the magazine again until he had a meeting with the editors and the publisher, Katharine Graham. Mr. Bush even knew the precise number of times the word 'wimp' appeared in the article.

"In his memoir, Bush Junior wrote: 'My blood pressure still goes up when I remember the cover.'"

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:49:33 EDT

Well (none / 0)

He kinda had a right to do it. Its what cost Dukakis the presidency. And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero. And a fighter pilot at that (quickest way to die in that era with hte possible exception of bomber crewman).

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 04:39:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

Bush Sr abandoned his crew to their deaths (none / 1)

And dislike Sr as much as you want he really was a legit war hero.

No. He really wasn't.

http://www.usvetdsp.com/story46.htm

[...] there were two men who knew Bush very well and could have spoken about his loyalty to the men and women in uniform.

Unfortunately, very few people have ever heard of them and neither Radioman 2nd Class John Delaney or Gunner Lt. Junior Grade William White are able to speak. They are on the bottom of the Pacific off the coast of a tiny island where their pilot, Navy Lt. George Bush, sent them when he made his first parachute jump.

http://www.rense.com/general47/hero.htm

What really happened? It was the pilot's job to hold the plane level and slow it down so the crew could get out. Most certainly, the radioman was helping the gunner with his chute when Bush panicked and left the plane. Then the plane rolled into a dive giving the crew no chance. This story went through the fleet and all the Avenger pilots I knew were shocked at what they heard. I heard speculation of a Courts-Martial.

Bush was very young. By his own admission, he reacted under stress. It is terrifying to have the cockpit fill with smoke. Possibly, he can be excused for reacting to fear and accepting it as another war time tragedy - but he has been glorified on the History channel, a book is being published, and worst of all, an aircraft carrier is to be named for him. This is unbelievable!! Bush performed badly and was certainly no hero.

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

by Raven on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 05:49:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm a pretty partisan democrat (none / 1)

And actually get a little gleeful at attacking repub hypocrasy. But those two links contradict themselves and each other repeatedly. You have to have one standard for everybody and its wrong to lower the standards because you 'want' the other guy to look bad. This strikes of freeper "clinton/mena/drug dealin/vince foster" trash frankly.

My other Drunken ravings| Friends dont let idiots run countries
by cdreid on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 07:03:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

Not Quite True (none / 0)

At least no-one was killed by Bush Jr's skipping drills for a year.

Except maybe a few young men without congressional daddy's who were sent to war in his place.

"If you aren't completely appalled, then you haven't been paying attention."
by Savage on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 10:26:49 EDT
[ Parent ]

Lets get some basic facts straight (none / 0)

Bush was not a fighter pilot, he was flying an Avenger, a torpedo bomber TBF/TBM Avenger: Grumman Torpedo Bomber

From that site, a basic history of the Avenger, we get this:

"George Bush
Undoubtedly, the most famous man to fly an Avenger was George H.W. Bush, later the 41st President of the United States. He joined the Navy in 1942, and became the youngest naval aviator ever in June, 1943. He flew Avengers with VT-51, from USS San Jacinto. On September 2, 1944 he was shot down over Chichi Jima. While Bush parachuted safely and was rescued, neither of his crewmen survived. Bush earned a DFC for delivering his bombload after his TBF had been hit. "

There are some unanswered questions about the crew not making it out of the plane. But a DFC (Distinguished Flying Cross) is a big deal. On the other hand there is a great deal of difference between flying fighters and flying torpedo bombers.

by Bruce Webb on Sun May 30th, 2004 at 11:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

well, the Bush's... (none / 0)

...are pretty well known for staging "candid moments" when they know there's alot of press around. Pushing President Clinton has to be good for shoring up a few points among the didiots, and I honestly cannot believe that Bush I would be that physcial with a near-stranger unless provoked or instructed to do it.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:55:01 EDT

"Near Stranger?" (none / 0)

Meeting at three Presidential debates, in the transition briefings, and probably several more times? Clinton beat Bush I, and that isn't something the old man would forget.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:00:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

bit of an over-reaction there (none / 0)

but yeah: "near stranger." It's not like they go hit the pizza buffet at Friendly's together or anything. There are people I've met any number of times for business and yet don't know a thing about. Merely discussing non-personal matters at length really doesnt convey any sense of fraternity... and I certainly cant think of a valid reason to slug any of those business associates at a veterans memorial service in front of TV cameras.

by zoweee on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:07:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

Transcript of event... (3.95 / 20)

Just copied from a secret source...

[BUSH 41, BUSH 43 and CLINTON standing in a cricle]

BUSH 43: (to Clinton) Well, look who's here. Hey, I'm still trying to get the stains out of the carpeting in the Oval Office.

CLINTON: (wagging finger, playfuly, in 43's face) Now, now, lil' Georgie, don't go gettin' all mouthy without your puppeteer present.

BUSH 41: (upset) I'm not his puppeteer!

CLINTON: (laughing) You? Of course you're not his puppeteer! You're invisible! Has 43 even said hello to you today?

BUSH 41: (shoving Clinton in anger) Why you...

BUSH 43: Has anyone seen Dick Cheney? I haven't seen him in more than a week and, frankly, all of this is making me nervous...

CLINTON: (regaining footing, laughing) Was that a gust of wind?

BUSH 41: You just wait until Babs gets ahold of you...

BARBARA: (walking up) Georgie, have you seen your father?

BUSH 43: No, mom, I haven't. Have you seen Cheney? I'm nervous.

BUSH 41: Babs, I'm right here!

BARBARA: No, I haven't seen Dick. If you see your father please tell him I want to go. Being around all of these old people in wheelchairs pollutes my beautiful mind.

BUSH 43: Will do, mom.

BARBARA: (turning to Clinton) And if you make one more derogatory comment about my boy, I'll whup your ass.

CLINTON: (laughing) You can try, but remember, I'm married to Hillary.

BARBARA: (laughing) Good point. Bye-bye, Georgie. (walking away) Now where did your father go?

BUSH 41: (shrinking until he only eight inches tall, in a aqueaky voice) I'm right here!

[END TRANSCRIPT]

by Bob Johnson on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:56:52 EDT

gave ya a 4... (none / 0)

Pretty funny. Poppy calls her "Bar," though, not "Babs."

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:25:03 EDT
[ Parent ]

When Did Poppy Have a Stroke? (none / 0)

Marching Towards A Landslide
by BrooklynBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 16:57:24 EDT

My guess is he has (3.75 / 4)

had a few small ones. The forgetfulness, lost in the instant at hand tho it deals with issues absolutely central to his core reality... Bar had to remind him a few months ago in interview iwth Zahn what years he ran (as the candidate) for pretzeldent.
My take was, when she delivered the years '88 and '92 (ever the governess), he still was a tad clueless, but fakes well after a lifetime of, what else? faking it. That was a big clue.

The weepiness he has evidenced... I'm guessing he also is losing the suppression ability. Little stress factors cause bigger responses. They will keep him closer to home between now and election, evoked often as pretzelfather, trading on his service (of course there are three stories as to the WW2 incident with his plane and all come from him) etc., I remain convinced not all people even knew which Bush they voted for in '00 and others jsut voted for the name.

What else, oh, FOX a little while a go called the incident: "playful shoving".

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:19:57 EDT
[ Parent ]

They were probably just kidding each other... (4.00 / 3)

...on the square!

by Charles V on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:14:46 EDT

Are you really . . . (none / 0)

on the level about that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:24:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm ... (none / 0)

plumb sure he is.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:27:22 EDT
[ Parent ]

C'mon... (none / 0)

...be straight with us now!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:34:48 EDT
[ Parent ]

Isn't there . . . (none / 0)

a rule about this?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

Precisely the (none / 0)

right angle to take.

"Never mind the trick, what the hell's the point?" Joseph Heller, Catch-22
by wozzle on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:53:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Whoah! Whoah! (none / 0)

No need to be so obtuse about this!

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:56:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now there's (none / 0)

an acute observation!

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:37:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Let's be (none / 0)

a little complementary.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:16:47 EDT
[ Parent ]

Well, it's (none / 0)

the plane truth.

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:45:10 EDT
[ Parent ]

Good point (none / 0)

but we have to draw the line somewhere. Otherwise things get two dimensional.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:03:14 EDT
[ Parent ]

Now... (none / 0)

...you've broken my sphere of thought.

by monkey knife fight on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:41:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

There's a parallel argument here.. (none / 0)

The emperor has no brains.
by daria g on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:43:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

unit values (none / 0)

if only there were a measured response from the GOP.

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

the very fact (none / 0)

that you're having this conversation shows that you've all lost your moral compass.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:18:32 EDT
[ Parent ]

Does this have to (none / 0)

be so protracted?

-- Bush is such an Adam Clymer!
by rhubarb on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:41:40 EDT
[ Parent ]

No but I've decided (none / 0)

to let it slide. Rules can be so restrictive.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:45:06 EDT
[ Parent ]

aoeu (none / 0)

You're going off on a tangent now.

Freedom from discrimination based on sexual orientation is...a fundamental human right in any great democracy, as much as freedom from racial...discrimination.
by TealVeal on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:57:15 EDT
[ Parent ]

yes (none / 0)

I saw the sines a while ago.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:12:56 EDT
[ Parent ]

Oh no ... (none / 0)

... It's axiomatic that we must have this discussion.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:49:55 EDT
[ Parent ]

theoretically, yes (none / 0)

but let's not all run like lemmas off the cliff, now.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:13:29 EDT
[ Parent ]

When talking to people (none / 0)

Who have had strokes or cataracts, you have to watch for the sines

Try a better browser www.mozilla.org
by doug r on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:16:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

I'm wracking my brain ... (none / 0)

... to field a rejoinder for the group to appreciate. It's not ringing true though.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:07 EDT
[ Parent ]

YOU LOOSE! (none / 0)

the topic is secret Masonic keywords.

by MonkeyBoy on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:18:20 EDT
[ Parent ]

no, you lose (none / 0)

how're we supposed to keep them secret if you go shouting about it, huh?

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:23:30 EDT
[ Parent ]

I beg your pardon (none / 0)

I am most certainly not loose . . .

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:33:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

was there (none / 0)

a point to that?

Unthinking respect for authority is the greatest enemy of truth. - Albert Einstein
by Leslie in CA on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:39:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

don't question (none / 0)

just get in line.

Doesn't everyone have a blog now?
by cyclopatra on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:48:23 EDT
[ Parent ]

This has gone (none / 0)

flat.

Rolfyboy6
by Rolfyboy6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 21:09:34 EDT
[ Parent ]

when... (none / 0)

you're in this yard, stick to the subject

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

sorry ;-) (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:02:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

The long and the (none / 0)

short of it............;-)

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:18:39 EDT
[ Parent ]

I just saw it on FOX News... (none / 0)

Gotta hand it to FOX, 24 hours a day they are doing real news (I don't want to get into an argument about their slant, whenever a story is breaking, I go to FOX News). The announcer described it as a "playful shove," but the image didn't look very playful. He shoved Clinton pretty damn hard.

by teenagedallasdeaniac on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:47 EDT

Isn't it the truth.... (none / 0)

wrt FOX News. They ahve covered the Saudi siege and hostage taking fully today. I jsut strip out the demogoguery and take in the bones of the news.
Works for me.

I guess we have Gen. Boykin Rules of Engagement: our god is bigger.
by Marisacat on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:25:33 EDT
[ Parent ]

wow, me too (none / 0)

I was just thinking today how pathetic CNN and MSNBC are on weekends with their People in the News and Headliners and Legends crap. Since when have Tom Hanks or Billy Graham been in the news, anyway?

Then today, sure enough, there's this Saudi incident, and only Fox is on with the story.

Do any US satellite providers offer BBC news channels (not BBC america)? I'm sick of U.S. networks and Time Warner cable.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:33:09 EDT
[ Parent ]

I spoke too soon (none / 0)

I should have known not to post compliments of Fox News... they're now doing a story about some missing college girl.

by dirtgirl on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:37:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Weekend before Iowa Caucus (none / 0)

cnn and msGOP were dark, on one of the biggest news events, that only comes every 4 years.

On sunday afternoon, I was looking for viedo of HoHo and Carter in Plains, so I broke down and turned on Fascist News, and all they were doing was attacking Judy, in the sickest ways.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:50:19 EDT
[ Parent ]

Some PBS (none / 0)

Channel 54 in San Jose.

If you're going in the wrong direction and you stay the course, where, exactly, do you wind up?
by Mimikatz on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:42:01 EDT
[ Parent ]

Holy shit (none / 0)

That's the first I heard of that today. Haven't had the TV on, and from your mention finally went to msnbc.com.

Every time I turn around things just get worse over in the middle east.

Nice guy or not, if we're at war and I get to choose the guy in the foxhole next to me, I'll pick Kerry. At least I know he's gonna watch my back.
by Steve4Clark on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:46 EDT
[ Parent ]

Losing money + Money Laundering (none / 0)

I saw a clown for the Watimes on C-span and he confessed how they still are subsidies by the Moonies, and that in 20 yrs of operation, they've never turned a profit.

If was reported in the diaries, within the last 10 days, how Fox's ad rate is still lower then cnn, due to demos, and how overall, cnn still has a bigger bottom line.

cnn goes, largely dark on the weekends, as does msGOP, because the data shows it's a money loser.

But murdoch is willing spends his money, takes the lose, in order to get his wingnut message out.

That's why I laugh when apologists say corporations are amoral and they would do liberal radio or libeal tv if it was profitable, that corps aren't griding an axe, they're only motivation is profit.

But It is kinda weird. I love the Simpson, X-Files and various shows over the years (Ally, 70s Show, party of five) on Fox and that money now goes to financing Murdoch's and O'Lielly's Terrorits Organization.

by Al Rodgers on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:45:35 EDT
[ Parent ]

Agreed.... (none / 0)

I generally call CNNs public comments line once or twice a week to complain about their repetitive weekend programming.

And it would be another thing if the programming was good...

Then I call another time to complain about the complete unimportance of the majority of Larry King's guests, and how he is unable to conduct a meaningful interview any more. And the fact that they should just go to CNN International overnight, instead of all the replays.

Tim

Don't waive your rights with your flags.
by ttagaris on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:41:17 EDT
[ Parent ]

Seriously... (none / 0)

Why don't they just go to CNN International? Why just replay canned news? CNN sucks.

In Britain they admit to having royalty. In the United States we pretend we don't have any, and then we elect them president.
by Asak on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:43:27 EDT
[ Parent ]

alt.news (none / 0)

When are we going to get The Economist Channel?

...the bowsprit got mixed with the rudder sometimes.
by it was a boojum on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 23:50:58 EDT
[ Parent ]

C-SPAN ? (none / 0)

This sounds like the sort of thing C-SPAN would have taped, as well. Any chance they'll be reairing the event later tonight? Their schedule page isn't opening right now.

If anyone hears or reads when/if C-SPAN is replaying the event, please post a message here. Unless this clip becomes something the news starts showing over and over again, of course. Cool?

I'm &y and I approved this message.
by abw on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:15:52 EDT

Sir Karl... (none / 1)

Strauss, like so many ideologues whose thinking is really quite reprehensible once you understand it, goes to great lengths in his writing to obfuscate what he's actually saying so only his true disciples will be able to figure it out.

Correct, and much like Samual P.Huntington of "Clash Of civilizations" fame from which the pnac crowd (and we know who they are) are pushing their Bushco agenda on the sly. Circle of elites w/in elites. Closed society of wealthy power freaks, whom want more power, and will use* America to get it.

use of the term use* here is in the neg sense as in using someone for your selfish gain.

Revolution is not an AOL Keyword*
by thor on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:35:23 EDT

John L Lewis story (none / 0)

These kinds of things can have a deadly serious political effect. Reminds me of one of the signal events at the formation of the CIO, originally a committee inside the AFL. At the 1935 AFL Convention (I think it was) John L Lewis punched out "Big Bill" Hutchinson, President of the Carpenters and avowed foe of industrial unionism. When upbraided by AFL official, Lewis said "He called me a foul name." It sent a signal that Lewis and the CIO were serious and electrified workers throughout the land. I know it's not his way perhaps inadvisable with an older guy, but it would've been bracing to see Clinton punch his lights out.

by MikeB on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:44:33 EDT

would the secret service (4.00 / 2)

break it up, or let them go at it ??

you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him think.
by sunzoo on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 17:46:24 EDT
[ Parent ]

Reservoir Dogs (none / 0)

41, 43, and Harlem Bill each have their own Secret Service. 41 is taken out by Bill's Secret Service. Then 43's Secret Service takes out Bill and his Secret Service. A dying 41 grabs a gun from a fallen agent and empties it into 43.

by Maynard G Krebs on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:08:44 EDT
[ Parent ]

43 = Mr. Pink (none / 0)

n/t

by snookybeh on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:16:13 EDT
[ Parent ]

No! (none / 0)

Mr. Pink is the only one that lives!!

I've got no patience now. So sick of complacence now. Time has come to pass. Know your enemy! -Rage Against the Machine
by Aventinus on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 18:52:53 EDT
[ Parent ]

besides ... (none / 0)

given the slow political death the last few months have given us, wouldn't Mr Orange be more apropos?

"Do not offend the Chair Leg of Truth! It is wise and terrible."
by section29 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 19:20:04 EDT
[ Parent ]

No way! (none / 0)

Steve Buscemi is very cool. 43 is, well, not very cool.

Mr. Pink is smart. 43 is, you get the idea...

Also one of the best things about Reservoir Dogs is that you find yourself rooting for Mr. Pink to a large degree. At least I did. Maybe I am psycho.

by destiny6 on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 22:16:41 EDT
[ Parent ]

That would leave Cheney in nominal control as (none / 1)

well as actual control. Halliburton would be the first corporation with a cabinet post: Secretary of Looting the Treasury

by PrometheusSpeaks on Sat May 29th, 2004 at 20:40:38 EDT
[ Parent ]

SECRET SERVICE (none / 1)

The SS would have grabbed 41 by the scruff of the neck and placed him out of harms way.

Then the SS would have beat the crap out of dubya while back-slapp

This post goes with this footage from Bill Moyers Now

Double Standards?
A Justice Department memo proposes that the United States hold others accountable for international laws on detainees—but that Washington did not have to follow them itself
By
Michael Isikoff for Newsweek.

In a crucial memo written four months after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism. It was that conclusion, say some critics, that laid the groundwork for aggressive interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The draft memo, which drew sharp protest from the State Department, argued that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to any Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters being flown to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because Afghanistan was a “failed state” whose militia did not have any status under international treaties.

But the Jan. 9, 2002 memo, written by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, went far beyond that conclusion, explicitly arguing that no international laws—including the normally observed laws of war—applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law.

Here is the complete article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5032094/site/newsweek/

WEB EXCLUSIVE
By Michael Isikoff
Investigative Correspondent
Newsweek
Updated: 1:42 p.m. ET May 22, 2004

May 21 - In a crucial memo written four months after the September 11, 2001, terror attacks, Justice Department lawyers advised that President George W. Bush and the U.S. military did not have to comply with any international laws in the handling of detainees in the war on terrorism. It was that conclusion, say some critics, that laid the groundwork for aggressive interrogation techniques that led to the abuses at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq.

The draft memo, which drew sharp protest from the State Department, argued that the Geneva Conventions on the treatment of prisoners of war did not apply to any Taliban or Al Qaeda fighters being flown to the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, because Afghanistan was a “failed state” whose militia did not have any status under international treaties.

But the Jan. 9, 2002 memo, written by Justice lawyers John Yoo and Robert J. Delahunty, went far beyond that conclusion, explicitly arguing that no international laws—including the normally observed laws of war—applied to the United States at all because they did not have any status under federal law.

“As a result, any customary international law of armed conflict in no way binds, as a legal matter, the President or the U.S. Armed Forces concerning the detention or trial of members of Al Qaeda and the Taliban,” according to a copy of the memo obtained by NEWSWEEK. A copy of the memo is being posted today on NEWSWEEK’s Web site.

More War Crimes Memos
• Read the complete Yoo-Delahunty memo:
Part 1
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
• Read the memo on habeas jurisdiction
At the same time, and even more striking, according to critics, the memo explicitly proposed a de facto double standard in the war on terror in which the United States would hold others accountable for international laws it said it was not itself obligated to follow.

After concluding that the laws of war did not apply to the conduct of the U.S. military, the memo argued that President Bush could still put Al Qaeda and Taliban fighters on trial as war criminals for violating those same laws. While acknowledging that this may seem “at first glance, counter-intuitive,” the memo states this is a product of the president’s constitutional authority “to prosecute the war effectively.”

The two lawyers who drafted the memo, entitled “Application of Treaties and Laws to Al Qaeda and Taliban Detainees,” were key members of the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel, a unit that provides legal advice to the White House and other executive-branch agencies. The lead author, John Yoo, a conservative law professor and expert on international law who was at the time deputy assistant attorney general in the office, also crafted a series of related memos—including one putting a highly restrictive interpretation on an international torture convention—that became the legal framework for many of the Bush administration’s post-9/11 policies. Yoo also coauthored another OLC memo entitled “Possible Habeas Jurisdiction Over Aliens Held in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba,” that concluded that U.S. courts could not review the treatment of prisoners at the base.

Critics say the memos’ disregard for the United States’ treaty obligations and international law paved the way for the Pentagon to use increasingly aggressive interrogation techniques at Guantanamo Bay—including sleep deprivation, use of forced stress positions and environmental manipulation—that eventually were applied to detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The customary laws of war, as articulated in multiple international treaties and conventions dating back centuries, also prohibit a wide range of conduct such as attacks on civilians or the murder of captured prisoners.

Kenneth Roth, the executive director of Human Rights Watch, who has examined the memo, described it as a “maliciously ideological or deceptive” document that simply ignored U.S. obligations under multiple international agreements. “You can’t pick or choose what laws you’re going to follow,” said Roth. “These political lawyers set the nation on a course that permitted the abusive interrogation techniques” that have been recently disclosed.

When you read the memo, “the first thing that comes to mind is that this is not a lofty statement of policy on behalf of the United States,” said Scott Horton, president of the International League for Human Rights, in an interview scheduled to be aired tonight on PBS’s “Now with Bill Moyers” show. “You get the impression very quickly that it is some very clever criminal defense lawyers trying to figure out how to weave and bob around the law and avoid its applications.”

More From Michael Isikoff
• Memos Reveal War Crimes Warnings
• Prison Scandal: Brooklyn's Version of Abu Ghraib?
At the time it was written, the memo also prompted a strong rebuttal from the State Department’s Legal Advisor’s office headed by William Howard Taft IV. In its own Jan. 11, 2002, response to the Justice draft, Taft’s office warned that any presidential actions that violated international law would “constitute a breach of an international legal obligation of the United States” and “subject the United States to adverse international consequences in political and legal fora and potentially in the domestic courts of foreign countries.”

“The United States has long accepted that customary international law imposes binding obligations as a matter of international law,” reads the State Department memo, which was also obtained by NEWSWEEK. “In domestic as well as international fora, we often invoke customary international law in articulating the rights and obligations of States, including the United States. We frequently appeal to customary international law.” The memo then cites numerous examples, ranging from the U.S. Army Field Manual on the Law of Land Warfare (“The unwritten or customary law of war is binding upon all nations,” it reads) to U.S. positions in international issues such as the Law of the Sea.

But the memo also singled out the potential problems the Justice Department position would have for the military tribunals that President Bush had recently authorized to try Al Qaeda members and suspected terrorists. Noting that White House counsel Alberto Gonzales had publicly declared that the persons tried in such commissions would be charged with “offenses against the international laws of war,” the State Department argued that the Justice position would undercut the basis for the trials.

“We are concerned that arguments by the United States to the effect that customary international law is not binding will be used by defendants before military commissions (or in proceedings in federal court) to argue that the commissions cannot properly try them for crimes under international law,” the State memo reads. “Although we can imagine distinctions that might be offered, our attempts to gain convictions before military commissions may be undermined by arguments which call into question the very corpus of law under which offenses are prosecuted.”

The Yoo-Delahunty memo was addressed to William J. Hanes, then general counsel to the Defense Department. But administration officials say it was the primary basis for a Jan. 25, 2002, memo by White House counsel Gonzales—which has also been posted on NEWSWEEK’s Web site—that urged the president to stick to his decision not to apply prisoner-of-war status under the Geneva Conventions to captured Al Qaeda or Taliban fighters. The president’s decision not to apply such status to the detainees was announced the following month, but the White House never publicly referred to the Justice conclusion that no international laws—including the usual laws of war—applied to the conflict.

FREE VIDEO
Launch
• Inside Abu Ghraib Prison
This video, provided by The Washington Post, shows U.S. soldiers with Abu Ghraib prisoners. The undated footage was said to have been shot last fall.

NEWSWEEK
One international legal scholar, Peter Spiro of Hofstra University, said that the conclusions in the memo related to international law “may be defensible” because most international laws are not binding in U.S. courts. But Spiro said that “technical” and “legalistic” argument does not change the effect that the United States still has obligations in international courts and under international treaties. “The United States is still bound by customary international law,” he said.

One former official involved in formulating Bush administration policy on the detainees acknowledged that there was a double standard built into the Justice Department position, which the official said was embraced, if not publicly endorsed, by the White House counsel’s office. The essence of the argument was, the official said, “it applies to them, but it doesn’t apply to us.”

But the official said this was an eminently defensible position because there were many categories of international law, some of which clearly could not be interpreted to be binding on the president. In any case, the general administration position of not applying any international standards to the treatment of detainees was driven by the paramount needs of preventing another terrorist attack. “The Department of Justice, the Department of Defense and the CIA were all in alignment that we had to have the flexibility to handle the detainees—and yes, interrogate them—in ways that would be effective,” the official said.

This is from the April 25, 2004 program of
Meet the Press.

Bob Woodward and Prince Bandar On Meet The Press.

Each interview is available in two parts. (About 35 MB each)

This ties in with the Bob Woodward On 60 Minutes footage from a few weeks ago.

Check out Bob Woodward's new book,
Plan of Attack.

This just in from a friend of mine:

As the September 11th Commission grills President Bush and Vice President Cheney about their contradictory statements today, we wanted to alert you to a powerful new tool to help journalists, activists and the public compare the Bush administration's claims against well-documented facts.

The Center for American Progress today launched a comprehensive

Claim vs. Fact database that documents statements from conservatives like President Bush, Vice President Cheney, Members of Congress and Fox News personalities, and compares those statements to the facts.

Each fact is sourced, and in many cases includes a web link directly to that source.

This is from the April 6, 2004 program.

Jon brings up the brilliant point that the Shrub hasn't seemed to figure out yet who the country will be handed over to. But "the date remains firm" that it's being handed over to somebody.

Daily Show On The Shrub's Iraq Transition Strategy (Small - 13 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

...very politely, of course.

This is from the March 25, 2004 program of Bill Moyers NOW.

Wish I had more time to comment, but I think this one speaks for itself. (Like most stuff from Bill.)

Bill Moyers:

Mr. Bush clearly believes what he said: The War On Terror is an in escapable calling of the generation now in charge. Like many of you, I want to support him in that work. I want to do my part. But the President makes it hard. He confused us by going after Sadaam Hussein when villian behind the mass murder of 911 was Osama Bin Ladin. He seems not to realize how his credibility has been shredded by all the false and misleading reasons to put forth to justify invading Iraq.

Lyndon Johnson never recovered from using the dubious events at the Gulf of Tonkin as an excuse to go to war in Vietnam, and even if Mr. Bush wins reelection this November, he too will eventually be dragged down by the powerful undertow that inevitably accompanies public deception.

The public will grow intolerant of partisan predators and cronie capitalists indulging in a frenzy of feeding at the troughs in Baghdad and Washington, and there will come a time when the President will have no one to rely on except his most rabid allies in the right wing media. He will discover too late that you cannot win the hearts and minds of the public at large in a nation polarized and pulvarized by endless propaganda in defiance of reality.

Bill Moyers: What Now? (Small - 11 MB)

This is from the March 21, 2004 program of 60 Minutes.

Richard Clarke, former top advisor on Counterterrorism for the Shrub, Clinton Terrorism Czar, and an appointed expert for both Daddy Shrub and Reagan, has written a book Against All Enemies that exposes a number of different things going on over at the old White House during the days after 911.

I've made the files available in one and four parts.

911 Before and After
(Richard Clarke on 60 Minutes - March 21, 2004)

This is from the January 11, 2003 program of 60 Minutes.

Former Shrub Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill was the major source for the book The Price Of Loyalty.

I've made the files available as a single download or in three smaller parts.

Inside The Bush White House

Leslie Stahl does it again. Go Leslie Go!

True Majority (Requires Flash)

This is from the December 12, 2003 program of NOW With Bill Moyers.

Bill Moyers:

Everywhere you look today, or try to look, our right to know is under assault. In the name of fighting terrorists, the government is pulling a veil of secrecy around itself. Information that used to be readily accessible is now kept out of sight.

To cover this story, NOW is collaborating with U.S. News and World Report. Their five month investigation finds that, although the government regularly cites 911 as the basis for secrecy, the true reasons, in many cases, have nothing to do with the War On Terror.

INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: The untold story of the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy
How the public's business gets done out of the public eye

Here's the t r u t h o u t archive of the complete U.S. News and World Report article: Keeping Secrets, written by Christopher H. Schmitt and Edward T. Pound.

This segment was produced by David Brancaccio and Peter Meryash.

Veil of Secrecy - Complete (Small - 40 MB)

Veil of Secrecy - Part 1 of 3 (Small - 11 MB)
Veil of Secrecy - Part 2 of 3 (Small - 16 MB)
Veil of Secrecy - Part 3 of 3 (Small - 13 MB)

Here's some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
(link and text of other article is directly below it)

http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/press/secrecy.htm

Breaking News 12/12/03
INVESTIGATIVE REPORT: The untold story of the Bush administration's penchant for secrecy
How the public's business gets done out of the public eye

Friday, Dec. 12, the PBS television program NOW with Bill Moyers will air a report on Bush administration secrecy produced in collaboration with U.S. News. Please visit pbs.org for stations and airtimes in your area. The U.S. News article, "Keeping Secrets," will be publshed in Monday's edition. Full text will be available on USNews.com Saturday, Dec. 13, at 6 p.m.

The Bush administration has removed from the public domain millions of pages of information on health, safety, and environmental matters, lowering a shroud of secrecy over many critical operations of the federal government.

The administration's efforts to shield the actions of, and the information held by, the executive branch are far more extensive than has been previously documented. And they reach well beyond security issues.

A five-month investigation by U.S. News details a series of initiatives by administration officials to effectively place large amounts of information out of the reach of ordinary citizens, including data on such issues as drinking-water quality and automotive tire safety. The magazine's inquiry is based on a detailed review of government reports and regulations, of federal agency Web sites, and of legislation pressed by the White House.

U.S. News also analyzed information from public interest groups and others that monitor the administration's activities, and interviewed more than 100 people, including many familiar with the new secrecy initiatives. That information was supplemented by a review of materials provided in response to more than 200 Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the magazine seeking details of federal agencies' practices in providing public access to government information.

Among the findings of the investigation:

Important business and consumer information is increasingly being withheld from the public. The Bush administration is denying access to auto and tire safety information, for instance, that manufacturers are required to provide under a new "early-warning system" created following the Ford-Firestone tire scandal four years ago. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, meanwhile, is more frequently withholding information that would allow the public to scrutinize its product safety findings and product recall actions.

New administrative initiatives have effectively placed off limits critical health and safety information potentially affecting millions of Americans. The information includes data on quality and vulnerability of drinking-water supplies, potential chemical hazards in communities, and safety of airline travel and others forms of transportation.

Beyond the well-publicized cases involving terrorism suspects, the administration is aggressively pursuing secrecy claims in the federal courts in ways little understood--even by some in the legal system. The administration is increasingly invoking a "state secrets" privilege that allows government lawyers to request that civil and criminal cases be effectively closed by asserting that national security would be compromised if they proceed.

New administration policies have thwarted the ability of Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to monitor the executive branch and, in some cases, even to obtain basic information about its actions.

There are no precise statistics on how much government information is rendered secret. One measure, though, can be seen in a tally of how many times officials classify records. In the first two years of Bush's term, his administration classified records some 44.5 million times, or about the same number as in President Clinton's last four years, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, an arm of the National Archives and Records Administration.

MEDIA CONTACT: Rchard Folkers, Director of Media Relations(rfolkers@usnews.com or 202-955-2219)

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.truthout.org/docs_03/121403A.shtml

Keeping Secrets
By Christopher H. Schmitt and Edward T. Pound
U.S. News & World Report

Friday 12 December 2003

The Bush administration is doing the public's business out of the public eye. Here's how--and why

"Democracies die behind closed doors."
--U.S. Appeals Court Judge Damon J. Keith

At 12:01 p.m. on Jan. 20, 2001, as a bone-chilling rain fell on Washington, George W. Bush took the oath of office as the nation's 43rd president. Later that afternoon, the business of governance officially began. Like other chief executives before him, Bush moved to unravel the efforts of his predecessor. Bush's chief of staff, Andrew Card, directed federal agencies to freeze more than 300 pending regulations issued by the administration of President Bill Clinton. The regulations affected areas ranging from health and safety to the environment and industry. The delay, Card said, would "ensure that the president's appointees have the opportunity to review any new or pending regulations." The process, as it turned out, expressly precluded input from average citizens. Inviting such comments, agency officials concluded, would be "contrary to the public interest."

Ten months later, a former U.S. Army Ranger named Joseph McCormick found out just how hard it was to get information from the new administration. A resident of Floyd County, Va., in the heart of the Blue Ridge Mountains, McCormick discovered that two big energy companies planned to run a high-volume natural gas pipeline through the center of his community. He wanted to help organize citizens by identifying residents through whose property the 30-inch pipeline would run. McCormick turned to Washington, seeking a project map from federal regulators. The answer? A pointed "no." Although such information was "previously public," officials of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission told McCormick, disclosing the route of the new pipeline could provide a road map for terrorists. McCormick was nonplused. Once construction began, he says, the pipeline's location would be obvious to anyone. "I understand about security," the rangy, soft-spoken former business executive says. "But there certainly is a balance--it's about people's right to use the information of an open society to protect their rights."

For the past three years, the Bush administration has quietly but efficiently dropped a shroud of secrecy across many critical operations of the federal government--cloaking its own affairs from scrutiny and removing from the public domain important information on health, safety, and environmental matters. The result has been a reversal of a decades-long trend of openness in government while making increasing amounts of information unavailable to the taxpayers who pay for its collection and analysis. Bush administration officials often cite the September 11 attacks as the reason for the enhanced secrecy. But as the Inauguration Day directive from Card indicates, the initiative to wall off records and information previously in the public domain began from Day 1. Steven Garfinkel, a retired government lawyer and expert on classified information, puts it this way: "I think they have an overreliance on the utility of secrecy. They don't seem to realize secrecy is a two-edge sword that cuts you as well as protects you." Even supporters of the administration, many of whom agree that security needed to be bolstered after the attacks, say Bush and his inner circle have been unusually assertive in their commitment to increased government secrecy. "Tightly controlling information, from the White House on down, has been the hallmark of this administration," says Roger Pilon, vice president of legal affairs for the Cato Institute.

Air and water
Some of the Bush administration's initiatives have been well chronicled. Its secret deportation of immigrants suspected as terrorists, its refusal to name detainees at the U.S. base at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and the new surveillance powers granted under the post-9/11 U.S.A. Patriot Act have all been debated at length by the administration and its critics. The clandestine workings of an energy task force headed by Vice President Dick Cheney have also been the subject of litigation, now before the Supreme Court.

But the administration's efforts to shield the actions of, and the information obtained by, the executive branch are far more extensive than has been previously documented. A five-month investigation by U.S. News detailed a series of initiatives by administration officials to effectively place large amounts of information out of the reach of ordinary citizens. The magazine's inquiry is based on a detailed review of government reports and regulations, federal agency Web sites, and legislation pressed by the White House. U.S. News also analyzed information from public interest groups and others that monitor the administration's activities, and interviewed more than 100 people, including many familiar with the new secrecy initiatives. That information was supplemented by a review of materials provided in response to more than 200 Freedom of Information Act requests filed by the magazine seeking details of federal agencies' practices in providing public access to government information.

The principal findings:
Important business and consumer information is increasingly being withheld from the public. The Bush administration is denying access to auto and tire safety information, for instance, that manufacturers are required to provide under a new "early-warning" system created following the Ford-Firestone tire scandal four years ago. The U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission, meanwhile, is more frequently withholding information that would allow the public to scrutinize its product safety findings and product recall actions.

New administration initiatives have effectively placed off limits critical health and safety information potentially affecting millions of Americans. The information includes data on quality and vulnerability of drinking-water supplies, potential chemical hazards in communities, and safety of airline travel and other forms of transportation. In Aberdeen, Md., families who live near an Army weapons base are suing the Army for details of toxic pollution fouling the town's drinking-water supplies. Citing security, the Army has refused to provide information that could help residents locate and track the pollution.

Beyond the well-publicized cases involving terrorism suspects, the administration is aggressively pursuing secrecy claims in the federal courts in ways little understood--even by some in the legal system. The administration is increasingly invoking a "state secrets" privilege (box, Page 24) that allows government lawyers to request that civil and criminal cases be effectively closed by asserting that national security would be compromised if they proceed. It is impossible to say how often government lawyers have invoked the privilege. But William Weaver, a professor at the University of Texas-El Paso, who recently completed a study of the historical use of the privilege, says the Bush administration is asserting it "with offhanded abandon." In one case, Weaver says, the government invoked the privilege 245 times. In another, involving allegations of racial discrimination, the Central Intelligence Agency demanded, and won, return of information it had provided to a former employee's attorneys--only to later disclose the very information that it claimed would jeopardize national security.

New administration policies have thwarted the ability of Congress to exercise its constitutional authority to monitor the executive branch and, in some cases, even to obtain basic information about its actions. One Republican lawmaker, Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana, became so frustrated with the White House's refusal to cooperate in an investigation that he exclaimed, during a hearing: "This is not a monarchy!" Some see a fundamental transformation in the past three years. "What has stunned us so much," says Gary Bass, executive director of OMB Watch, a public interest group in Washington that monitors government activities, "is how rapidly we've moved from a principle of `right to know' to one edging up to `need to know.' "

The White House declined repeated requests by U.S. News to discuss the new secrecy initiatives with the administration's top policy and legal officials. Two Bush officials who did comment defended the administration and rejected criticism of what many call its "penchant for secrecy." Dan Bartlett, the White House communications director, says that besides the extraordinary steps the president has taken to protect the nation, Bush and other senior officials must keep private advice given in areas such as intelligence and policymaking, if that advice is to remain candid. Overall, Bartlett says, "the administration is open, and the process in which this administration conducts its business is as transparent as possible." There is, he says, "great respect for the law, and great respect for the American people knowing how their government is operating."

Bartlett says that some administration critics "such as environmentalists . . . want to use [secrecy] as a bogeyman." He adds: "For every series of examples you could find where you could make the claim of a `penchant for secrecy,' I could probably come up with several that demonstrate the transparency of our process." Asked for examples, the communications director offered none.

There are no precise statistics on how much government information is rendered secret. One measure, though, can be seen in a tally of how many times officials classify records. In the first two years of Bush's term, his administration classified records some 44.5 million times, or about the same number as in President Clinton's last four years, according to the Information Security Oversight Office, an arm of the National Archives and Records Administration. But the picture is more complicated than that. In an executive order issued last March, Bush made it easier to reclassify information that had previously been declassified--allowing executive-branch agencies to drop a cloak of secrecy over reams of information, some of which had been made available to the public.

Bait and switch
In addition, under three other little-noticed executive orders, Bush increased the number of officials who can classify records to include the secretary of agriculture, the secretary of health and human services, and the administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency. Now, all three can label information at the "secret" level, rendering it unavailable for public review. Traditionally, classification authority has resided in federal agencies engaged in national security work. "We don't know yet how frequently the authority is being exercised," says Steven Aftergood, who publishes an authoritative newsletter in Washington on government secrecy. "But it is a sign of the times that these purely domestic agencies have been given national security classification authority. It is another indication of how our government is being transformed under pressure of the perceived terrorist threat." J. William Leonard, director of the information oversight office, estimates that up to half of what the government now classifies needn't be. "You can't have an effective secrecy process," he cautions, "unless you're discerning in how you use it."

From the start, the Bush White House has resisted efforts to disclose information about executive-branch activities and decision making. The energy task force headed by Cheney is just one example. In May 2001, the task force produced a report calling for increased oil and gas drilling, including on public land. The Sierra Club and another activist group, Judicial Watch, sued to get access to task-force records, saying that energy lobbyists unduly influenced the group. Citing the Constitution's separation of powers clause, the administration is arguing that the courts can't compel Cheney to disclose information about his advice to the president. A federal judge ordered the administration to produce the records, prompting an appeal to the Supreme Court.

Energy interests aren't alone in winning a friendly hearing from the Bush administration. Auto and tire manufacturers prevailed in persuading the administration to limit disclosure requirements stemming from one of the highest-profile corporate scandals of recent years. Four years ago, after news broke that failing Firestone tires on Ford SUVs had caused hundreds of deaths and many more accidents, Congress enacted a new auto and tire safety law. A cornerstone was a requirement that manufacturers submit safety data to a government early-warning system, which would provide clues to help prevent another scandal. Lawmakers backing the system wanted the data made available to the public. After the legislation passed, officials at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration said they didn't expect to create any new categories of secrecy for the information; they indicated that key data would automatically be made public. That sparked protests from automakers, tire manufacturers, and others. After months of pressure, transportation officials decided to make vital information such as warranty claims, field reports from dealers, and consumer complaints--all potentially valuable sources of safety information--secret. "It was more or less a bait and switch," says Laura MacCleery, auto-safety counsel for Public Citizen, a nonprofit consumer group. "You're talking about information that will empower consumers. The manufacturers are not going to give that up easily."

Get out of jail free
Government officials, unsurprisingly, don't see it that way. Lloyd Guerci, a Transportation Department attorney involved in writing the new regulations, declined to comment. But Ray Tyson, a spokesman for the traffic safety administration, denies the agency caved to industry pressure: "We've listened to all who have opinions and reached a compromise that probably isn't satisfactory to anybody."

Some of the strongest opposition to making the warning-system data public came from the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers. The organization, whose membership comprises U.S. and international carmakers, argued that releasing the information would harm them competitively. The Bush administration has close ties to the carmakers. Bush Chief of Staff Card has been General Motors' top lobbyist and head of a trade group of major domestic automakers. Jacqueline Glassman, NHTSA's chief counsel, is a former top lawyer for DaimlerChrysler Corp. In the months before the new regulations were released, industry officials met several times with officials from the White House's Office of Management and Budget.

The administration's commitment to increased secrecy measures extends to the area of "critical infrastructure information," or CII. In layman's terms, this refers to transportation, communications, energy, and other systems that make modern society run. The Homeland Security Act allows companies to make voluntary submissions of information about critical infrastructure to the Department of Homeland Security. The idea is to encourage firms to share information crucial to running and protecting those facilities. But under the terms of the law, when a company does this, the information is exempted from public disclosure and cannot be used without the submitting party's permission in any civil proceeding, even a government enforcement action. Some critics see this as a get-out-of-jail-free card, allowing companies worried about potential litigation or regulatory actions to place troublesome information in a convenient "homeland security" vault. "The sweep of it is amazing," says Beryl Howell, former general counsel to the Senate Judiciary Committee. "Savvy businesses will be able to mark every document handed over [to] government officials as `CII' to ensure their confidentiality." Companies "wanted liability exemption long before 9/11," adds Patrice McDermott, a lobbyist for the American Library Association, which has a tradition of advocacy on right-to-know issues. "Now, they've got it."

Under the administration's plan to implement the Homeland Security Act, some businesses may get even more protection. When Congress passed the law, it said the antidisclosure provision would apply only to information submitted to the Department of Homeland Security. The department recently proposed extending the provision to cover information submitted to any federal agency. A department spokesman did not respond to requests for comment. Business objections were also pivotal when the Environmental Protection Agency recently backed off a plan that would have required some companies to disclose more about chemical stockpiles in communities.

If the administration's secrecy policies have helped business, they have done little for individuals worried about health and safety issues. The residents of the small town of Aberdeen, Md., can attest to that. On a chilly fall evening, some 100 people gathered at the Aberdeen firehouse to hear the latest about a toxic substance called perchlorate. An ingredient in rocket fuel, perchlorate has entered the aquifer that feeds the town's drinking-water wells. The culprit is the nearby U.S. Army's Aberdeen Proving Ground, where since World War I, all manner of weapons have been tested.

Trigger finger
After word of the perchlorate contamination broke, a coalition of citizens began working with the Army to try to attack the unseen plume of pollution moving through the ground. But earlier this year, the Army delivered Aberdeen residents a sharp blow. It began censoring maps to eliminate features like street names and building locations--information critical to understanding and tracking where contamination might have occurred or where environmental testing was being done.

The reason? The information, the Army says, could provide clues helpful to terrorists. Arlen Crabb, the head of a citizens' group, doesn't buy it. "It's an abuse of power," says Crabb, a 20-year Army veteran, whose well lies just a mile and a half from the base. His coalition is suing the Army, citing health and safety concerns. "We're not a bunch of radicals. We've got to have the proof. The government has to be transparent."

Aberdeen is but one example of the way enhanced security measures increasingly conflict with the health and safety concerns of ordinary Americans. Two basics--drinking water and airline travel--help illustrate the trend. A public health and bioterrorism law enacted last year requires, among other things, that operators of local water systems study vulnerabilities to attack or other disruptions and draw up plans to address any weaknesses. Republicans and Democrats praised the measure, pushed by the Bush administration, as a prudent response to potential terrorist attacks. But there's a catch. Residents are precluded from obtaining most information about any vulnerabilities.

This wasn't always the case. In 1996, Congress passed several amendments to the Clean Water Act calling for "source water assessments" to be made of water supply systems. The idea was that the assessments, covering such things as sources of contamination, would arm the public with information necessary to push for improvements. Today, the water assessments are still being done, but some citizens' groups say that because of Bush administration policy, the release of information has been so restricted that there is too little specific information to act upon. They blame the Environmental Protection Agency for urging states to limit information provided to the public from the assessments. As a result, the program has been fundamentally reshaped from one that has made information widely available to one that now forces citizens to essentially operate on a need-to-know basis, says Stephen Gasteyer, a Washington specialist on water-quality issues. "People [are] being overly zealous in their enforcement of safety and security, and perhaps a little paranoid," he says. "So you're getting releases of information so ambiguous that it's not terribly useful." Cynthia Dougherty, director of EPA's groundwater and drinking-water office, described her agency's policy as laying out "minimal standards," so that states that had been intending to more fully disclose information "had the opportunity to decide to make a change."

The Federal Aviation Administration has its own security concerns, and supporters say it has addressed them vigorously. In doing so, however, the agency has also made it harder for Americans to obtain the kind of safety information once considered routine. The FAA has eliminated online access to records on enforcement actions taken against airlines, pilots, mechanics, and others. That came shortly after the 9/11 attacks, when it was discovered that information was available on things like breaches of airport security, says Rebecca Trexler, an FAA spokeswoman. Balancing such concerns isn't easy. But rather than cut off access to just that information, the agency pulled back all enforcement records. The FAA has also backed away from providing access to safety information voluntarily submitted by airlines.

As worrisome as the specter of terrorism is for many Americans, many still grumble about being kept in the dark unnecessarily. Under rules the Transportation Security Administration adopted last year--with no public notice or comment--the traveling public no longer has access to key government information on the safety and security of all modes of transportation. The sweeping restrictions go beyond protecting details about security or screening systems to include information on enforcement actions or effectiveness of security measures. The new TSA rules also establish a new, looser standard for denying access to information: Material can be withheld from the public, the rules say, simply if it's "impractical" to release it. The agency did not respond to requests for comment.

This same pattern can be seen in one federal agency after another. As Joseph McCormick, the former Army Ranger trying to learn more about the pipeline planned for Virginia's Shenandoah Valley, learned, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission now restricts even the most basic information about such projects. The agency says its approach is "balanced," adding that security concerns amply justify the changes.

The Bush administration is pressing the courts to impose more secrecy, too. Jeffrey Sterling, 36, a former CIA operations officer, can testify to that. Sterling, who is black, is suing the CIA for discrimination. In September, with his attorneys in the midst of preparing important filings, a CIA security officer paid them a visit, demanding return of documents the agency had previously provided. A mistake had been made, the officer explained, and the records contained information that if disclosed would gravely damage national security. The officer warned that failure to comply could lead to prison or loss of a security clearance, according to the lawyers. Although vital to Sterling's case, the lawyers reluctantly gave up the records.

What was so important? In a federal courtroom in Alexandria, Va., a Justice Department attorney recently explained that the records included a pseudonym given to Sterling for an internal CIA proceeding on his discrimination complaint. In fact, the pseudonym, which Sterling never used in an operation, had already been disclosed through a clerical error. Mark Zaid, one of Sterling's attorneys, says the pseudonym is just a misdirection play by the CIA. The real reason the agency demanded the files back, he says, is that they included information supporting Sterling's discrimination complaint. Zaid says he has never encountered such heavy-handed treatment from the CIA. "When they have an administration that is willing to cater [to secrecy], they go for it," he says, "because they know they can get away with it." A CIA spokesman declined comment.

In this case, which is still pending, the administration is invoking the "state secrets" privilege, in which it asserts that a case can't proceed normally without disclosing information harmful to national security. The Justice Department says it can't provide statistics on how often it invokes the privilege. But Jonathan Turley, a George Washington University law professor active in national security matters, says: "In the past, it was an unusual thing. The Bush administration is faster on the trigger."

Surveillance
At the same time, the government is opening up a related front. Last spring, the TSA effectively shut down the case of Mohammed Ali Ahmed, an Indian Muslim and naturalized citizen. In September 2001, Ahmed and three of his children were removed from an American Airlines flight. Last year, Ahmed filed a civil rights suit against the airline. But TSA head James Loy intervened, saying that giving Ahmed information about his family's removal would compromise airline security. The government, in other words, was asserting a claim to withhold the very information Ahmed needed to pursue his case, says his attorney, Wayne Krause, of the Texas Civil Rights Project. "You're looking at an almost unprecedented vehicle to suppress information that is vital to the public and the people who want to vindicate their rights," Krause says.

Secret evidence of a different kind comes into play through a little-noticed effect of the U.S.A. Patriot Act. A key provision allows information from surveillance approved for intelligence gathering to be used to convict a defendant in criminal court. But the government's application--which states the case for the snooping--isn't available for defendants to see, as in traditional law enforcement surveillance cases. With government agencies now hoarding all manner of secret information, the growing stockpile represents an opportunity for abusive leaks, critics say. The new law takes note of that, by allowing suits against the federal government. But there's an important catch--in order to seek redress, one must forfeit the right to a jury trial. Instead, the action must be held before a judge; judges, typically, are much more conservative in awarding damages than are juries.

Most Americans appreciate the need for increased security. But with conflicts between safety and civil rights increasing, the need for an arbiter is acute--which is perhaps the key reason why the vast new security powers of many executive-branch agencies are so alarming to citizens' groups and others. A diminished role of congressional oversight is just one area of fallout, but there are others. Some examples:

It took the threat of a subpoena from the independent commission investigating the 9/11 attacks to force the White House to turn over intelligence reports. Even at that, family members of victims complain, there were too many restrictions on release of the information. In Congress, the administration has rebuffed members on a range of issues often unrelated to security concerns.

In a huge military spending bill last year, Congress directed President Bush to give it 30 days' notice before initiating certain sensitive defense programs. Bush signed the bill into law but rejected the restraint and said he would ignore the provision if he deemed it necessary.

Initial contracts to rebuild Iraq, worth billions of dollars, were awarded in secret. Bids were limited to companies invited to participate, and many had close ties to the White House. Members of Congress later pressed for an open bidding process.

Many public interest groups report that government agencies are more readily denying Freedom of Information Act requests--while also increasing fees, something small-budget groups say they can ill afford. The Sierra Club, for example, has been thwarted in getting information on problems at huge "factory farms" that pollute rivers and groundwater. Says David Bookbinder, senior attorney for the group: "What's different about this administration is their willingness to say, `We're going to keep everything secret until we're forced to disclose it--no matter what it is.' "

The administration is undeterred by such complaints. "I think what you've seen is a White House that has valued openness," says Daniel Bryant, assistant attorney general for legal policy, and "that knows that openness with the public facilitates confidence in government."

That's not the way Jim Kerrigan sees it. He operates a small market-research firm in Sterling, Va., outside Washington. For more than a decade, he has forecast federal spending on information technology. Three months after Bush took office, the Office of Management and Budget issued a memo telling government officials to no longer make available such information so as to "preserve the confidentiality of the deliberations that led to the president's budget decisions."

As a result, Kerrigan says, information began to dry up. Requests were ignored. And the data he did get came with so much information censored out that they were barely usable. The fees Kerrigan paid for a request, which once topped out at $300, jumped to as much as $6,500. "I can't afford that," he says. "This administration's policy is to withhold information as much as possible."

Key Dates: Secrecy and the Bush Administration:

Inauguration Day (1/20/01) Administration freezes Clinton-era regulations, without allowing for public comment.
10/12/01 Attorney General John Ashcroft, reversing Clinton policy, encourages agencies to deny Freedom of Information Act requests if a "sound legal basis" exists.
10/26/01 President Bush signs U.S.A. Patriot Act, expanding law enforcement powers and government surveillance.
2/22/02 Congress's General Accounting Office sues Vice President Dick Cheney for refusing to disclose records of his energy task force; the GAO eventually loses its case. A separate private case is pending.
3/19/02 White House Chief of Staff Andrew Card directs federal agencies to protect sensitive security information.
11/25/02 Bush signs Homeland Security Act. Its provisions restrict public access to information filed by companies about "critical infrastructure," among other matters.
01/3/03 Administration asks, in papers filed before the Supreme Court, for significant narrowing of the Freedom of Information Act.
3/25/03 Bush issues standards on classified material, favoring secrecy and reversing provisions on openness.

The Shrub's own experts are telling us we're all hosed. (Over the next 3-20 years).

What do you think guys? Is this for real? Or are they just trying to freak us out?

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us
By Mark Townsend and Paul Harris for the Observer.

and

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report
By AFP.

Here's a clip from the AFP story:

The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life."

Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA (news - web sites) consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.

It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.

Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:

-- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.

-- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California

-- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.

-- "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.

Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.

"We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper.

Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".

Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.

"It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad (other article follows):

http://observer.guardian.co.uk/international/story/0,6903,1153513,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters..

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

***

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=1521&e=2&u=/afp/britain_us_environment

Leaked Pentagon report warns climate change may bring famine, war: report

Sun Feb 22, 5:17 PM ET

Add Politics - AFP to My Yahoo!

LONDON (AFP) - A secret report prepared by the Pentagon (news - web sites) warns that climate change may lead to global catastrophe costing millions of lives and is a far greater threat than terrorism.

Pentagon Photo

The report was ordered by an influential US Pentagon advisor but was covered up by "US defense chiefs" for four months, until it was "obtained" by the British weekly The Observer.

The leak promises to draw angry attention to US environmental and military policies, following Washington's rejection of the Kyoto Protocol (news - web sites) on climate change and President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s skepticism about global warning -- a stance that has stunned scientists worldwide.

The Pentagon report, commissioned by Andrew Marshall, predicts that "abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies," The Observer reported.

The report, quoted in the paper, concluded: "Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life.... Once again, warfare would define human life."

Its authors -- Peter Schwartz, a CIA (news - web sites) consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of Global Business Network based in California -- said climate change should be considered "immediately" as a top political and military issue.

It "should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern", they were quoted as saying.

Some examples given of probable scenarios in the dramatic report include:

-- Britain will have winters similar to those in current-day Siberia as European temperatures drop off radically by 2020.

-- by 2007 violent storms will make large parts of the Netherlands uninhabitable and lead to a breach in the acqueduct system in California that supplies all water to densely populated southern California

-- Europe and the United States become "virtual fortresses" trying to keep out millions of migrants whose homelands have been wiped out by rising sea levels or made unfarmable by drought.

-- "catastrophic" shortages of potable water and energy will lead to widespread war by 2020.

Randall, one of the authors, called his findings "depressing stuff" and warned that it might even be too late to prevent future disasters.

"We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years," he told the paper.

Experts familiar with the report told the newspaper that the threat to global stability "vastly eclipses that of terrorism".

Taking environmental pollution and climate change into account in political and military strategy is a new, complicated and necessary challenge for leaders, Randall said.

"It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat," he said.

Coming from the Pentagon, normally a bastion of conservative politics, the report is expected to bring environmental issues to the fore in the US presidential race.

Last week the Union of Concerned Scientists, an influential and non-partisan group that includes 20 Nobel laureates, accused the Bush administration of having deliberately distorted scientific fact to serve its policy agenda and having "misled the public".

Its 38-page report, which it said took over a year to prepare and was not time to coincide with the campaign season, details how Washington "systematically" skewed government scientific studies, suppressed others, stacked panels with political and unqualified appointees and often refused to seek independent expertise on issues.

Critics of the report quoted by the New York Times denied there was deliberate misrepresentation and called it politically motivated.

The person behind the leaked Pentagon report, Andrew Marsall, cannot be accused of the same partisan politicking.

Marsall, 82, has been an advisor for the defense department for decades, and was described by The Observer as the author of Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld's plans for a major transformation of the US military.

This is from the February 8, 2004 program of
Meet the Press.

Okay, I've got this split up into two parts and 4 parts -- in quicktime movies and MP3s.

The Parts 1 and 2s go together (The movies and audio). The 4 parters are split up more at random.

Okay this stuff should be uploaded now. Sorry for being a bonehead last night ;-)

Quicktimes In Two Parts:

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 1 of 2 (Small - 69 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 2 of 2 (Small - 35 MB)

MP3s in Two Parts:

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 1 of 2 (MP3 - 44 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 2 of 2 (MP3 - 23 MB)

Quicktimes In Four Parts:

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 1 of 4 (Small - 25 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 2 of 4 (Small - 32 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 3 of 4 (Small - 25 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 4 of 4 (Small - 24 MB)

MP3s in Four Parts:

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 1 of 4 (MP3 - 20 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 2 of 4 (MP3 - 32 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 3 of 4 (MP3 - 25 MB)

Shrub On Meet The Press - Part 4 of 4 (MP3 - 17 MB)

This is from the February 10, 2004 program.

So the press are finally waking up to the fact that there are facts to support that the Shrub never reported for duty, and seemed to have gotten an honorable discharge anyway, but there are no facts to support otherwise.

These guys are finally asking questions like: "Why isn't there one person who can say he served with George W. Bush?"

Says Jon to the Press:
"What I want to know is: Where the f**k have you guys been?"

Daily Show On Shrub's Meet The Press Appearance
(Small - 4 MB)

Daily Show On Shrub's Meet The Press Appearance
(Med - 7 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This is from the February 9, 2004 program. (Commenting on the February 8, 2004 Meet the Press.)

The Shrub was on message, as usual. Jon created a drinking game: a shot of tequila every time the Shrub says "Terror," "Danger," or "Madman."

Here's complete
video of the Shrub's February 8, 2004 Meet The Press Interview.

Daily Show On Shrub's Meet The Press Appearance
(Small - 10 MB)
Daily Show On Shrub's Meet The Press Appearance
(Med - 18 MB)

The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

Weaker Clean Air Rules Blocked
By the Associate Press for Wired.

A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued the changes would harm the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of routine maintenance without installing additional pollution controls.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

The court's decision stops, at least temporarily, one of the Bush administration's major environmental decisions. The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

The EPA proposed the rule a year ago December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August, and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,61744,00.html?tw=newsletter_topstories_html

Associated Press Page 1 of 1

11:48 AM Dec. 24, 2003 PT

WASHINGTON -- A federal appeals court on Wednesday blocked new Bush administration changes to the Clean Air Act from going into effect, in a challenge from state attorneys general and cities that argued the changes would harm the environment and public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency rule would have made it easier for utilities, refineries and other industrial facilities to make repairs in the name of routine maintenance without installing additional pollution controls.

A three-judge panel of the U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an order that blocks the rules from going into effect until the legal challenge from the states and cities is heard, a process likely to last months.

The court's decision stops, at least temporarily, one of the Bush administration's major environmental decisions. The court's justices said the challengers "demonstrated the irreparable harm and likelihood of success" of their case, which are required to stop the rule from taking effect.

The EPA proposed the rule a year ago December, the then-acting administrator signed it in August, and it was made final in October. It was due to have gone into effect this week.

Bringing suit were attorneys general for 12 states -- Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Mexico, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin -- and legal officers for New York City, Washington, San Francisco, New Haven and a host of other cities in Connecticut.

Cynthia Bergman, a spokeswoman for the EPA, declined to provide any initial comment, saying the agency had not yet had a chance to review the ruling.

The EPA has maintained that it does not believe the rule will result in significant changes in emissions, and that it will preserve the public health protections required under law.

Scott Segal, director of the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, a group of power companies, called the ruling "a setback for energy efficiency and environmental protection," but expressed confidence the rule would eventually be upheld.

"The rule was based upon a substantial agency record with analysis, public hearings and thousands of rule-making comments," he said. "We expect the rule will soon be back on course."

Environmental and health groups, including the Natural Resources Defense Council and the American Lung Association, also challenged the rule in the appeals court.

They argued the EPA's maintenance rule violates the Clean Air Act by letting power plants and other industries increase pollution significantly without adopting control measures, and public harm would result.

"This is a great gift to the American people and a lump of coal to the Bush administration and its polluter friends," John Walke, NRDC's clean air director. "The court agreed this rule would cause great harm to the public that could not be undone, and it's likely the rule will be struck down for running afoul of the Clean Air Act."

Tom Reilly, the Massachusetts attorney general, also spoke in terms of holiday gifts, saying the court had "forced EPA to take back its early Christmas present to the coal-fired power plants in the Midwest."

Eliot Spitzer, New York's attorney general, called it "a major decision."

"When it comes to environmental policy, this court decision is as big a success as we've had in stopping the Bush administration from undercutting the Clean Air Act," he said.

But the judges also said they found no reason to revisit an earlier decision not to block other of the EPA's changes to the Clean Air Act that were made final in December 2002.

Those new rules had already begun to go into effect in some states earlier this year, giving coal-fired power plants and other industrial facilities more flexibility in calculating their pollution levels.

The Shrub is trying to cover his tracks by deleting hundreds of damning documents from the Internet. Nice try shrubby, but the built-in redundancy of the Web will hopefully save the day on this one.

White House Covers Tracks by Removing Information

In a high-tech cover-up, the Washington Post this morning reports the White House is actively scrubbing government websites clean of any of its own previous statements that have now proven to be untrue.1 Specifically, on April 23, 2003, the president sent his top international aid official on national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. USAID Director Andrew Natsios, echoing other Administration officials, told Nightline that, "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

The president has requested more than $166 billion in funding for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. But instead of admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president has allowed the State Department "to purge the comments by Natsios from the State Department's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished." (The link where the transcript existed until it caused embarrassment was http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.misleader.org/daily_mislead/Read.asp?fn=df12182003.html

December 18, 2003 | Print Now

White House Covers Tracks by Removing Information

In a high-tech cover-up, the Washington Post this morning reports the White House is actively scrubbing government websites clean of any of its own previous statements that have now proven to be untrue.1 Specifically, on April 23, 2003, the president sent his top international aid official on national television to reassure the public that the cost of war and reconstruction in Iraq would be modest. USAID Director Andrew Natsios, echoing other Administration officials, told Nightline that, "In terms of the American taxpayers contribution, [$1.7 billion] is it for the US. The American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

The president has requested more than $166 billion in funding for the war and reconstruction efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan this year. But instead of admitting that he misled the nation about the cost of war, the president has allowed the State Department "to purge the comments by Natsios from the State Department's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished." (The link where the transcript existed until it caused embarrassment was http://www.usaid.gov/iraq/nightline_042403_t.html).

When confronted with the dishonest whitewash, the administration decided to lie. A Bush spokesman said the administration was forced to remove the statements because, "there was going to be a cost" charged by ABC for keeping the transcript on the government's site. But as the Post notes, "other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from 'Nightline,'" and according to ABC News, "there is no cost."

This story is not the first time the President has tried to hide critical information from the American public. For instance, the president opposed the creation of the independent 9/11 investigative commission2, and has refused to provide the commission with critical information4, even under threat of subpoena5. Similarly, after making substantial budget cuts, the president ordered the government to stop publishing its regular report detailing those cuts to states6. And when confronted with a continuing unemployment crisis, the president ordered the Department of Labor to stop publishing its regular mass layoff report.

It is also not the first time the administration has sought to revise history and public records when those records become incriminating. As the Post reports "After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word 'Major' before combat." And the "Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site."

Sources:

1. "
White House Web Scrubbing", Washington Post, 12/18/2003
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9821-2003Dec17.html).
2. "
Rice opposes public panel to probe 9/11", CNN, 05/22/2002
(http://www.cnn.com/2002/ALLPOLITICS/05/19/911probe.rice/).
3. "
9/11 Families Criticize Slow Response to Commission Requests", FindLaw, 10/14/2003
(http://news.findlaw.com/prnewswire/20031014/14oct2003125830.html).
4. "
9/11 Commission Could Subpoena Oval Office Files", New York Times, 10/26/2003
(http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/1026-02.htm).
5. "Seek and Ye Shall Not Find", Washington Post, 03/11/2003.
6. "
Shooting the messenger: Report on layoffs killed", Freedom of Information Center,
01/03/2003 (http://foi.missouri.edu/bushinfopolicies/lazarusatlg.html).

White House Web Scrubbing
Offending Comments on Iraq Disappear From Site
By Dana Milbank for the Washington Post.

White House officials were steamed when Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said earlier this year that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq -- which turned out to be a gross understatement of the tens of billions of dollars the government now expects to spend.

Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.

This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A9821-2003Dec17.html

White House Web Scrubbing
Offending Comments on Iraq Disappear From Site

By Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, December 18, 2003; Page A05

It's not quite Soviet-style airbrushing, but the Bush administration has been using cyberspace to make some of its own cosmetic touch-ups to history.

White House officials were steamed when Andrew S. Natsios, the administrator of the U.S. Agency for International Development, said earlier this year that U.S. taxpayers would not have to pay more than $1.7 billion to reconstruct Iraq -- which turned out to be a gross understatement of the tens of billions of dollars the government now expects to spend.

Recently, however, the government has purged the offending comments by Natsios from the agency's Web site. The transcript, and links to it, have vanished.

This is not the first time the administration has done some creative editing of government Web sites. After the insurrection in Iraq proved more stubborn than expected, the White House edited the original headline on its Web site of President Bush's May 1 speech, "President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended," to insert the word "Major" before combat.

Since the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, administration Web sites have been scrubbed for anything vaguely sensitive, and passwords are now required to access even much unclassified information. Though it is not clear whether the White House is directing the changes, several agencies have been following a similar pattern. The federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and USAID have removed or revised fact sheets on condoms, excising information about their effectiveness in disease prevention, and promoting abstinence instead. The National Cancer Institute, meanwhile, scrapped claims on its Web site that there was no association between abortion and breast cancer. And the Justice Department recently redacted criticism of the department in a consultant's report that had been posted on its Web site.

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Project on Government Secrecy at the Federation of American Scientists, said the Natsios case is particularly pernicious. "This smells like an attempt to revise the record, not just to withhold information but to alter the historical record in a self-interested way, and that is sleazier than usual," he said. "If they simply said, 'We made an error; we underestimated,' people could understand it and deal with it."

For months after the April 23 Natsios interview on ABC's "Nightline," USAID.gov displayed the transcript. "You're not suggesting that the rebuilding of Iraq is going to be done for $1.7 billion?" an incredulous Ted Koppel asked Natsios.

"Well, in terms of the American taxpayers contribution, I do," Natsios said. "This is it for the U.S. The rest of the rebuilding of Iraq will be done by other countries who have already made pledges, Britain, Germany, Norway, Japan, Canada and Iraqi oil revenues. . . . But the American part of this will be $1.7 billion. We have no plans for any further-on funding for this."

A White House spokesman, asked later about these remarks, responded vaguely that he had not seen the statement in question. Then, sometime this fall, USAID made it easier for the administration to maintain its veil of ignorance on the subject by taking the transcript off its Web site.

For a while, the agency left telltale evidence by keeping the link to the transcript on its "What's New" page -- but yesterday the liberal Center for American Progress discovered that this link had disappeared, too, as well as the Google "cached" copies of the original page.

USAID spokeswoman Lejaune Hall, asked about this curious situation, searched the Web site herself for the missing document. "That is strange," she said. After a brief investigation, she reported back: "They were taken down off the Web site. There was going to be a cost. That's why they're not there."

But other government Web sites, including the State and Defense departments, routinely post interview transcripts, even from "Nightline." And, it turns out, there is no cost. "We would not charge for that," said ABC News spokesman Jeffrey Schneider. "We would have no trouble with a government agency linking to one of our interviews, and we are unaware of anybody from [ABC] making any request that anything be removed."

Knitwitology has just posted a great page with all the information on it I was just about to take the time to create links for:

Of Spiderholes and Spiderwebs

Thanks, Morgan for letting me off the hook!

Remember to not let any of this stuff get you down people! Things just keep getting stranger and stranger. But we're all in this together, and we're gonna get out of it together!

Happy Holidays and Remember to Be Careful About Driving Tired, Wasted or in Bad Weather. When in doubt - chill out and wait till later.

Peace and Love Ya'll!

(I'm probably out for the next few days...connectivity uncertain.)

Saddam 'captured weeks ago'

An intelligence website has reported that former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, might have been a prisoner at the time of his arrest.

According to Debkafiles there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in the underground pit by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the US$25m reward.

The website, edited by former Israeli intelligence agents reports that this is the only answer to questions on why Saddam looked dishevelled and disorientated when captured.

The website reported that it was clear Saddam had not shaved for weeks nor had he washed his hair. He was also starved and looked neglected.

The opening of the underground pit was camouflaged with rocks and mud and it was accessible for above ground only. As a result it was impossible for Saddam to leave his underground cell.

No information has been released on the two men captured at the site except for the fact that they tried to escape during the American operation.

The other question asked is where did the US$750 000 found at the scene come from. It is possible that the new notes were a down payment of a ransom.

The possibility that Saddam was drugged has also emerged. This could have been why he appeared so disorientated, read the report. This would also explain why Saddam did not use the firearm found in the pit.

Kurds claim Saddam capture

SADDAM Hussein was found by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British newspaper reported yesterday.

Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.

The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".

A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until the leader negotiated a deal.

The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence".

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:
http://www.news24.com/News24/World/Iraq/0,,2-10-1460_1460345,00.html

Saddam 'captured weeks ago'
17/12/2003 07:19 - (SA)
Erika Gibson

Pretoria - An intelligence website has reported that former Iraqi president, Saddam Hussein, might have been a prisoner at the time of his arrest.

According to Debkafiles there is a possibility that Saddam was held for up to three weeks in the underground pit by a Kurdish splinter group while they negotiated a handover to the Americans in return for the US$25m reward.

The website, edited by former Israeli intelligence agents reports that this is the only answer to questions on why Saddam looked dishevelled and disorientated when captured.

The website reported that it was clear Saddam had not shaved for weeks nor had he washed his hair. He was also starved and looked neglected.

The opening of the underground pit was camouflaged with rocks and mud and it was accessible for above ground only. As a result it was impossible for Saddam to leave his underground cell.

No information has been released on the two men captured at the site except for the fact that they tried to escape during the American operation.

The other question asked is where did the US$750 000 found at the scene come from. It is possible that the new notes were a down payment of a ransom.

The possibility that Saddam was drugged has also emerged. This could have been why he appeared so disorientated, read the report. This would also explain why Saddam did not use the firearm found in the pit.

Here is the full text of the entire story in case the link goes bad:

http://www.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,4057,8233746%255E2,00.html

Kurds claim Saddam capture
December 22, 2003

SADDAM Hussein was found by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British newspaper reported yesterday.

Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.

The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq, "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".

A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until the leader negotiated a deal.

The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence".

"We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."

However US military intelligence said in Baghdad yesterday the man who led US troops to Saddam was one of his top aides.

"He was someone I would call his right arm," said Major Stan Murphy, head of intelligence for the 4th Infantry Division's First Brigade in Tikrit.

Meanwhile, Spanish Prime Minister Jose Maria Aznar yesterday paid an unannounced visit to Iraq.

Aznar flew by helicopter from Kuwait and spent about five hours at a base in Diwaniya, south of the capital, where he had lunch with the mostly Spanish troops stationed there.

"The visit had to be a surprise for security reasons. Very few people knew about it," said Major Carlos Herradon, spokesman for the Spanish troops based in Iraq.

Mr Aznar said he wanted to support the Spanish soldiers and their allies in "their struggle for a just cause, one of liberty, democracy and respect for international law".

Later, a senior US officer said four Iraqis died and an unspecified number of US troops were wounded during a Baghdad demonstration in support of Saddam five days ago. Three more Iraqi policemen were gunned down by mistake by American soldiers about 90km south of Kirkuk in northern Iraq, local police said, adding that they were mistaken for rebels.

The Courier-Mail

Can't the Shrub Administration tell the truth about anything?

Would it have really been so bad to just tell the truth on this one? We still have him in custody and all. The Kurds could have gotten their proper credit -- we could have bonded with a persecuted people, and then we all could have held hands and hated Saddam together. (These are the Kurds, remember? The ones that were gassed ten years ago that the Administration likes to bring up all the time as justification for the Shrub War's unfound WMD!)

But no.

Instead we have to find out a week later that we were lied to yet again.

I hope this is getting as old for you as it is for me. I want a President that can tell the truth at least part of the time. How about once. I'd like to go a day or two, or maybe a week even, without hearing a lie from my President. I don't think it's too much to ask.

Well, at least now we know what the new terror alert level is all about. It's all about diversion: "Pay no attention to the information coming in from the rest of the world. Just be afraid and keep watching the box for further instructions."

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops

Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.

Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.

The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq (news - web sites), "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".

A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until he negotiated a deal.

The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/afp/20031221/wl_mideast_afp/iraq_saddam_britain&cid=1514&ncid=1480

Saddam was held by Kurdish forces, drugged and left for US troops

Sat Dec 20,11:00 PM ET

LONDON, (AFP) - Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) was captured by US troops only after he had been taken prisoner by Kurdish forces, drugged and abandoned ready for American soldiers to recover him, a British Sunday newspaper said.

Saddam came into the hands of the Kurdish Patriotic Front after being betrayed to the group by a member of the al-Jabour tribe, whose daughter had been raped by Saddam's son Uday, leading to a blood feud, reported the Sunday Express, which quoted an unnamed senior British military intelligence officer.

The newspaper said the full story of events leading up to the ousted Iraqi president's capture on December 13 near his hometown of Tikrit in northern Iraq (news - web sites), "exposes the version peddled by American spin doctors as incomplete".

A former Iraqi intelligence officer, whom the Express did not name, told the paper that Saddam was held prisoner by a leader of the Kurdish Patriotic Front, which fought alongside US forces during the Iraq war, until he negotiated a deal.

The deal apparently involved the group gaining political advantage in the region.

An unnamed Western intelligence source in the Middle East told the Express: "Saddam was not captured as a result of any American or British intelligence. We knew that someone would eventually take their revenge, it was just a matter of time."

So they won't say exactly why, and they won't say exactly what they're doing as a result of it, but the terror alert level has been raised to "high."

Tom Ridge, chief Dept of Homeland Security dude, was on the tube saying absolutely nothing, over and over again.

It was all very surreal. Like a chapter in a book... (called 1984).'

Peace everybody!

Here's a 30 second movie submitted to the Bush in 30 seconds contest.

Bush Sucks And We Can Prove It

(Thanks, Peter!)

Why is this "Shrub Watch?" Because Tommy Franks works for the Shrub and embodies many Shrub Administration ideals. With that in mind, the contents of his interview for Cigar Aficionado are quite disturbing indeed.

Hey predicts that, after a WMD attack on us or one of our allies, our Constitution will be discarded.

Ha! As if our Constitution has even survived 911 to begin with...

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack
By John O. Edwards for NewsMax.com.

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/articles/2003/11/20/185048.shtml

Gen. Franks Doubts Constitution Will Survive WMD Attack

John O. Edwards, NewsMax.com
Friday, Nov. 21, 2003

Gen. Tommy Franks says that if the United States is hit with a weapon of mass destruction that inflicts large casualties, the Constitution will likely be discarded in favor of a military form of government.

Franks, who successfully led the U.S. military operation to liberate Iraq, expressed his worries in an extensive interview he gave to the men’s lifestyle magazine Cigar Aficionado.

In the magazine’s December edition, the former commander of the military’s Central Command warned that if terrorists succeeded in using a weapon of mass destruction (WMD) against the U.S. or one of our allies, it would likely have catastrophic consequences for our cherished republican form of government.

Discussing the hypothetical dangers posed to the U.S. in the wake of Sept. 11, Franks said that “the worst thing that could happen” is if terrorists acquire and then use a biological, chemical or nuclear weapon that inflicts heavy casualties.

If that happens, Franks said, “... the Western world, the free world, loses what it cherishes most, and that is freedom and liberty we’ve seen for a couple of hundred years in this grand experiment that we call democracy.”

Franks then offered “in a practical sense” what he thinks would happen in the aftermath of such an attack.

“It means the potential of a weapon of mass destruction and a terrorist, massive, casualty-producing event somewhere in the Western world – it may be in the United States of America – that causes our population to question our own Constitution and to begin to militarize our country in order to avoid a repeat of another mass, casualty-producing event. Which in fact, then begins to unravel the fabric of our Constitution. Two steps, very, very important.”

Franks didn’t speculate about how soon such an event might take place.

Already, critics of the U.S. Patriot Act, rushed through Congress in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks, have argued that the law aims to curtail civil liberties and sets a dangerous precedent.

But Franks’ scenario goes much further. He is the first high-ranking official to openly speculate that the Constitution could be scrapped in favor of a military form of government.

The usually camera-shy Franks retired from U.S. Central Command, known in Pentagon lingo as CentCom, in August 2003, after serving nearly four decades in the Army.

Franks earned three Purple Hearts for combat wounds and three Bronze Stars for valor. Known as a “soldier’s general,” Franks made his mark as a top commander during the U.S.’s successful Operation Desert Storm, which liberated Kuwait in 1991. He was in charge of CentCom when Osama bin Laden’s al-Qaeda attacked the United States on Sept. 11.

Franks said that within hours of the attacks, he was given orders to prepare to root out the Taliban in Afghanistan and to capture bin Laden.

Franks offered his assessment on a number of topics to Cigar Aficionado, including:

President Bush: “As I look at President Bush, I think he will ultimately be judged as a man of extremely high character. A very thoughtful man, not having been appraised properly by those who would say he’s not very smart. I find the contrary. I think he’s very, very bright. And I suspect that he’ll be judged as a man who led this country through a crease in history effectively. Probably we’ll think of him in years to come as an American hero.”

On the motivation for the Iraq war: Contrary to claims that top Pentagon brass opposed the invasion of Iraq, Franks said he wholeheartedly agreed with the president’s decision to invade Iraq and oust Saddam Hussein.

“I, for one, begin with intent. ... There is no question that Saddam Hussein had intent to do harm to the Western alliance and to the United States of America. That intent is confirmed in a great many of his speeches, his commentary, the words that have come out of the Iraqi regime over the last dozen or so years. So we have intent.

“If we know for sure ... that a regime has intent to do harm to this country, and if we have something beyond a reasonable doubt that this particular regime may have the wherewithal with which to execute the intent, what are our actions and orders as leaders in this country?”

The Pentagon’s deck of cards: Asked how the Pentagon decided to put its most-wanted Iraqis on a set of playing cards, Franks explained its genesis. He recalled that when his staff identified the most notorious Iraqis the U.S. wanted to capture, “it just turned out that the number happened to be about the same as a deck of cards. And so somebody said, ‘Aha, this will be the ace of spades.’”

Capturing Saddam: Franks said he was not surprised that Saddam has not been captured or killed. But he says he will eventually be found, perhaps sooner than Osama bin laden.

“The capture or killing of Saddam Hussein will be a near term thing. And I won’t say that’ll be within 19 or 43 days. ... I believe it is inevitable.”

Franks ended his interview with a less-than-optimistic note. “It’s not in the history of civilization for peace ever to reign. Never has in the history of man. ... I doubt that we’ll ever have a time when the world will actually be at peace.”

From the "what the hell are you talking about?" file, this news is just in from the Shrub Administration: Bin Laden's No Longer Enemy #1.

That means that this "War On Terror" now officially has nothing to do with 911 (as if it ever was).

All you have to do is "take yourself out of the picture," and our Army will stop chasing you!
What a great deal!

U.S. General Says Bin Laden 'Out of the Picture'
By Yousuf Azimy for Reuters.

A senior U.S. general said on Friday that al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) had "taken himself out of the picture" and that his capture was not essential to winning the "war on terror."

General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at U.S. military headquarters just north of Kabul that the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force hunting al Qaeda and Taliban militants was not focusing on individuals.

"He (bin Laden) has taken himself out of the picture," Pace told reporters after visiting U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

"It is not an individual that is as important as is the ongoing campaign of the coalition against terrorists," he said.

America's new ambassador to Kabul Zalmay Khalilzad said earlier this week that the U.S. military would "redouble" its efforts to find bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

While appearing to contradict this, Pace, added: "That is not to say that we would not be glad to capture Osama bin Laden today or tomorrow."

Here is the full text of the entire article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story2&cid=564&u=/nm/20031121/ts_nm/afghan_laden_dc_1&printer=1

U.S. General Says Bin Laden 'Out of the Picture'

By Yousuf Azimy

BAGRAM, Afghanistan (Reuters) - A senior U.S. general said on Friday that al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden (news - web sites) had "taken himself out of the picture" and that his capture was not essential to winning the "war on terror."

General Peter Pace, vice chairman of the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff, said at U.S. military headquarters just north of Kabul that the 11,500-strong U.S.-led force hunting al Qaeda and Taliban militants was not focusing on individuals.

"He (bin Laden) has taken himself out of the picture," Pace told reporters after visiting U.S. troops serving in Afghanistan (news - web sites).

"It is not an individual that is as important as is the ongoing campaign of the coalition against terrorists," he said.

America's new ambassador to Kabul Zalmay Khalilzad said earlier this week that the U.S. military would "redouble" its efforts to find bin Laden and other al Qaeda and Taliban leaders.

While appearing to contradict this, Pace, added: "That is not to say that we would not be glad to capture Osama bin Laden today or tomorrow."

He said U.S.-led forces were winning their war against "terrorists" in Afghanistan, despite nearly 400 people being killed in just over three months in the bloodiest period since the Taliban's ouster two years ago.

"The fact that the enemy is not pooling up in waves that can be attacked in large numbers to me means that in fact the coalition is being effective," Pace said.

There have been very few major clashes between U.S. forces and Islamic militants in the past two years.

In the most recent case, hundreds of Taliban were hunted down by U.S. forces and Afghan troops in the troubled provinces of Uruzgan and Zabul in August and early September, leading to the death of over a hundred rebels.

But generally U.S. operations, including the latest launched in the northeast earlier this month, kill few militants due to their apparent ability to blend into local populations or flee into the hills, often crossing into neighboring Pakistan.

"We will continue to pursue them to make sure that they don't re-establish any kind of a stronghold," said Pace.

He added that civilian-military teams already in some cities were the ideal way for the international community to contribute to Afghan stability, and that Pakistan and Afghanistan should work together to fight militants active on their common frontier.

Afghanistan suspects Pakistan is turning a blind eye to Taliban and al Qaeda remnants, but Islamabad says it is doing all it can to support the U.S. "war on terror."

Also believed to be at large in Afghanistan or Pakistan are Taliban supreme leader Mullah Mohammad Omar and bin Laden's deputy Ayman al-Zawahri.

This one's a little late getting up, but better late than never.

Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman for Newsweek.

It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave...

But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.

Here is the text of the full article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.msnbc.com/news/977064.asp

Recall Lessons for the President
By Howard Fineman Newsweek

Tuesday 07 October 2003

Voter alienation will not stop at voting booths in California

It would be nice to think that the ending of Election Day here will bring peace to the politics of California, and to the country. It would be nice, but wrong. Don't expect an end to partisan rancor, voter anger and alienation, here or elsewhere. This state's political warfare will resume long before Governor-elect Arnold Schwarzenegger actually takes office. And the same forces that are shaking Sacramento could materialize on the doorstep of the house at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

There are a lot of reasons. Starting with the winning candidate, here are some:

Arnold Schwarzenegger's "Grope-a-Dope" strategy-the modern version of what they used to call in the Nixon days a "modified limited hangout"-will cause him nothing but problems. Swamped by allegations of sexual misconduct, his fateful answer was to promise a full accounting after Election Day. Now that he's won, his first task won't be to put together his administration but to spell out of the rest of his story. I assumed that he was winging it when he told Tom Brokaw on NBC that he would do that. Turns out, this was a deliberate and considered response. His team, its leaders say, simply did not have the time and resources to go into the details during the campaign. He'll have to do so in Sacramento. This at the same time he will have to put together a new administration with none of the usual "transition" time.

The Budget California's economy is a mess, and the state's budget is, on an annual basis, at least $10 billion in the red. No matter who takes charge in Sacramento, the same gridlock will remain: The Republicans in the legislature are dead-set against raising taxes; the Democrats, who control the place, won't vote for any. If Arnold won, I was told before the vote, the Democrats would gladly accept Schwarzenegger's likely offer to enter into sweeping negotiations. Why? Because they hope to lure Gov. Terminator into agreeing to a tax hike - thus busting up the highly fragile GOP coalition that got him elected.

Recalls Forever Once having started down the recall road, this state can't turn back. The Democratic recall campaign against Schwarzenegger could begin immediately. Choose your excuse. If he fails to give the full accounting he promised of his sexual conduct, that could be one reason. If he fails to craft a budget deal, or he advocates massive cuts in social programs (which he would have to do if there is no tax increase) would be another. "The rules of politics and government here have changed, probably forever," Democratic strategist Bill Carrick told me. "This is the way it's going to be."'

California GOP Division One of Schwarzenegger's toughest tasks will be to make peace with is own party. Social conservatives, in California and elsewhere, were disgusted by the litany of stories about Schwarzenegger's personal behavior. If he moves his lips on taxes, they will be his mortal enemy.

Democratic Second-Guessing The anger of Democrats at Davis is real. They are furious with him for having underestimated voter dismay at the state of the local economy; at the severity of the energy crisis; at the potency of the recall movement. Schwarzenegger's win means the bloodletting will be ugly. "If we lose, there will be three reasons," one prominent Democratic contributor told me here before the vote. "Davis, Davis and Davis." Beyond that, Democrats were expressing their anger at Davis and his allies (notably Sen. Dianne Feinstein and San Francisco Mayor Willie Brown). In their view, they should have engineered another, stronger, Democratic alternative on the ballot to Davis and Bustamante. Their view (and it may be wishful thinking) is that someone like Feinstein could have saved the day.

National Republican Division The big parlor game here before Election Day was arguing about whether George Bush's GOP would welcome a victorious Schwarzenegger into the heart of the party. The quick-response answer is yes: The Republicans haven't controlled (if that's the word) the governorship of the largest state since 1998. But depending on what Arnold has to say- in detail-about his past, the Bible Belt conservatives who form the heart of the modern GOP might balk at embracing the Terminator at the New York convention.

Protest Politics The Schwarzenegger win would seem to be a blessing to the GOP, and to Bush. If nothing else, it would spread the Democratic defense in the Electoral College, forcing them next year to spend time and money defending a state-California-that they have come to take for granted in recent presidential elections.

But in an odd but important way, the Arnold victory could be an ominous message for President Bush. There is a straight line of voter protest running from Ross Perot through John McCain and on to the Internet-based campaigns of Wesley Clark and even Howard Dean. To some extent, all were or are powered by a sense of voter alienation from the centers of authority in government politics-whether those center are in Sacramento or Washington, D.C. The bigger and more remote the government, the more ignored and misunderstood the voters feel.

Davis was under assault because he seemed oblivious to the concerns of Californians. Given his poll ratings on the economy and, now Iraq, Bush runs the increasing risk of being viewed by the American people as just another deaf politico. Until recently, the president's greatest asset was the sense that he was a decent guy, with good values, who wanted to do the right thing. But the questions that have been raised about the rationale for going to war in Iraq have had a corrosive effect on the sense of trust he evoked in most voters.

I know Bush (and Davis). Bush is no Davis. He is as personable as Davis is colorless. But the same rule applies: If voters think you aren't listening to them, they have a way of getting your attention at the next available election.

Bush Aides Will Review Leak Notes
By David Jackson for the The Dallas Morning News.

White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.

The disclosure inspired new Democratic calls for an independent inquiry.

"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."

Here is the complete text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dallas/washington/topstory/stories/100703dnnatcialeak.11b0f.html

Bush Aides Will Review Leak Notes
By David Jackson The Dallas Morning News

Tuesday 07 October 2003

White House's decision to give first look to its lawyers riles Democrats

White House lawyers will review phone logs and other records supplied by presidential aides before turning the documents over to the Justice Department officials conducting the investigation into who leaked a CIA undercover operative's identity, officials said Monday.

The disclosure inspired new Democratic calls for an independent inquiry.

"To allow the White House counsel to review records before the prosecutors would see them is just about unheard of in the way cases are always prosecuted," said Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., speaking on NBC's Today show. "And the possibility of mischief, or worse than mischief, is very, very large."

Administration officials said the White House counsel's office may need up to two weeks to organize documents that some 2,000 employees are required to submit by 5 p.m. Tuesday.

The documents must also be reviewed for national security or executive privilege concerns and to ensure the filings are responsive to Justice Department requests for information, White House aides said. The department is investigating whether Bush administration officials exposed a CIA operative's identity to reporters and a columnist, Robert Novak.

Bush: 'Criminal action' President Bush underscored his concern about the leak Monday, telling reporters: "We're talking about a criminal action."

The president said information would be submitted to the Justice Department "on a timely basis," calling the investigation "a very serious matter, and our administration takes it seriously."

"I'd like to know who leaked," Mr. Bush added. "And if anybody has got any information, inside our government or outside our government, who leaked, they ought to take it to the Justice Department so we can find out the leaker."

White House officials are required to turn in any documents they may have related to the principals in the matter, including former Ambassador Joseph Wilson, his wife, Valerie Plame, and any reporters who were contacted about the couple.

White House spokeswoman Ashley Snee said she could not put a timeline on when the documents might be turned over to the Justice Department but said the review would be expeditious.

"It's going to be done with the intent of getting to the bottom of this," Ms. Snee said. "This is almost 2,000 people."

Mr. Schumer and other Democrats have called for an outside special counsel, questioning whether Attorney General John Ashcroft can fairly investigate his patrons at the White House.

Mr. Bush defended his Justice Department, saying, "These are ... professional prosecutors who are leading this investigation."

Mark Rozell, a Catholic University politics professor who specializes in executive privilege, said it was reasonable for White House lawyers to take time to review the materials before sharing them with investigators. The length, he said, is up to the White House and its opponents.

"There can be an argument over whether two weeks is the appropriate amount of time," he said.

Charges of revenge Investigators want to find out who told reporters about Ms. Plame's identity. Mr. Wilson, who disputed the White House assertion that Iraq sought enriched uranium from Niger, says administration officials sought revenge by exposing his wife.

Mr. Bush cited the uranium allegation during his 2003 State of the Union address, using it to argue that Saddam Hussein was trying to restart a nuclear program.

Mr. Wilson, who believed his report from a 2002 trip to Niger had been ignored, went public with his skepticism in a July 6 op-ed piece for The New York Times. The next day, the White House retracted the uranium claim, saying Mr. Bush should not have used it in his speech.

A week later, Mr. Novak wrote a column questioning why Mr. Wilson drew the assignment to check out the Niger allegations that began with intelligence officials in Italy.

"Wilson never worked for the CIA," Mr. Novak wrote, "but his wife, Valerie Plame, is an agency operative on weapons of mass destruction. Two senior administration officials told me Wilson's wife suggested sending him to Niger to investigate the Italian report. The CIA says its counter-proliferation officials selected Wilson and asked his wife to contact him."

Mr. Wilson, who previously was posted in Niger, denied his wife played a role in his assignment to check out the uranium claim. Publication of her name has ruined her career as an undercover operative, he said. Exposure of a company she was associated with, Brewster-Jennings & Associates, also may have jeopardized a CIA front.

Appearing Sunday on NBC's Meet the Press, Mr. Wilson said: "I believe it was done to discourage others from coming forward."

Mr. Wilson has specifically accused White House political adviser Karl Rove of some involvement, though aides to Mr. Rove said he had nothing to do with the exposure of Ms. Plame.

The Justice Department opened the leak investigation at the behest of the CIA. White House Counsel Al Gonzales responded with memos to some 2,000 administration officials, ordering them to retain any Wilson-related records from Feb. 1, 2002, through Sept. 30, 2003. Those include computer files, telephone records, notes and memoranda.

Specifically, between Douglas Feith, the Undersecretary of Defense and several companies (many related to his "former" business associate Marc Zell), including: Zell, Goldberg and Company, Diligence, New Bridge Strategies, Barber, Griffith and Rogers, SAIC (courtesy of current Shrub Administration Official and former SAIC Senior Vice President Ryan Henry), and The Iraqi International Law Group.




This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 14, 2003.

This story, "Cash and Carry," was Produced by Katie Pitra, features correspondent Roberta Baskin, and was Edited by Alison Amron.

This incredible segment documents the direct connections between the Shrub Administration and the main two or three companies that are profiting directly from the Iraqi reconstruction.

Join them as they connect the dots and talk to several of these people first hand. (Many would not return their phone calls, but others were very up front and matter-of-fact about it.)

I've taken screen grabs of many of the diagrams and things and transcribed information straight from the program for your convenience.

Here's some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.

Bill Moyers - Cash and Carry - Complete (Small - 36 MB)
Bill Moyers - Cash and Carry - Part 1 of 3 (Small - 12 MB)
Bill Moyers - Cash and Carry - Part 2 of 3 (Small - 14 MB)
Bill Moyers - Cash and Carry - Part 3 of 3 (Small - 11 MB)

Below: Roberta Baskin

Here's Bill Moyers' Introduction:

"Welcome to NOW. The news from Iraq just keeps coming. A secret CIA report this week warns that 'more and more Iraqis believe the U.S. could actually lose the war.' American troops have started using Vietnam-like tactics, hitting back at suspected enclaves without proof that they're harboring insurgents. And American authorities are now limiting press access to both troops and independent contractors in Iraq...

As you know, there's a big debate over those billion dollar contracts being handed out to rebuild Iraq. Some Democratic Presidential candidates say the government is playing favorites. Defenders of the process, however, say "nonsense."...

..it's not easy to sort out the facts because the whole process in shrouded in buracracy and secrecy. One thing is certain, a lot of people in Washington and Baghdad look upon what's happening as a modern equivalent of a gold rush. They're not shy about promoting their political connections to get to the front of the line."

Here's Roberta Baskin's opening:

"Here beneath Iraq's landscape lies a vast ocean of oil. The second largest oil reserve in the world with over 100 billion barrels of crude ready to be tapped. When America invaded Iraq last March, troops raced first to secure the rich fields of Kier Cook (sp). So with vast reserves just waiting, why is the U.S. Government paying the Halliburton Corporation $2.65 per gallon to ship gasoline into Iraq from Kuwait, when one investigation discovered it could be done for less than a dollar a gallon.

The price difference alone is costing tax payers as much as a 100 million dollars. When we asked Halliburton about this discrepancy, they wouldn't tell us. And even a United States Congressman (Henry Waxman D-CA) can't find out why.

'Why are we paying $1.65 a gallon more? Is it because Halliburton is gouging the public? Is it because the Kuwaitis are overcharging Halliburton? Is it because there's a culture where they don't care what they pay because the tax payers are going to pay the bill so there's no reason for them to want to hold down the costs?' (Waxman) ...

'If the evidence of what Halliburton has been charging for gasoline to be brought into Iraq is emblematic of anything, it's emblematic of no oversight, no transparency, and fleecing of the tax payers.' (Waxman)...

Just as the war started, Halliburton was awarded a no bid 7 billion dollar contract to repair Iraq's oil industry...Halliburton proved itself after the first Gulf war, putting out the fires in the oil fields. The Pentagon has said it didn't want to waste time finding someone new if Saddam burned the oil fields again, but Waxman says it's a prime example of what's wrong with the secrecy surrounding the government's contracts, because in the initial 87 billion dollar Iraq aid package there was another 2 billion dollars for Halliburton. And when Waxman started asking, he says neither the goverment nor the company seemed to know whay the 2 billion dollars was there or what it was for.

'We've got billions here, billions there. As one senator once said "A billion here, a billion there, it starts adding up into real money." ' (Waxman)...

Who is Mark Zell?

Mark Zell is the principal of "Zell, Goldberg and Company," which assists American companies in connection with Iraqi reconstruction projects.

From Roberta Baskin:

"And just who at the firm can connect you to the American Government? None other than Marc Zell. A former law partner of Douglas Feith. Who's Douglas Feith? Undersecretary of Defense. One of the handful of advisors who, long before September 11, championed the campaign to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Now Douglas Feith is the man in charge of the Pentagon's reconstruction of Iraq.

To sum up, Marc Zell is one well connected middleman standing right between the people to give the contracts and the people who want them. We asked to interview him about all this, but our calls were not returned."

More from Roberta Baskin:

"But even at the war's front lines, middlemen are busy making their deals. Marc Zell also works with a different firm called "The Iraqi International Law Group," which very much wants to be "your professional gateway to the new Iraq." Who's in charge of that gateway? A man named Salem Chalabi.

He has a famous uncle, Ahmed Chalabi. You see him there in Iraq, but before the war, this exile was hand picked by the planners in the Pentagon to shape the new government. When the war started, they air lifted Chalabi into the country with his own 700 man militia. At the center of all that planning, Undersecretary of Defense Douglas Feith. Whose old law partner, Marc Zell, now works with Ahmed Chalabi's nephew, providing that gateway to the new Iraq."

More from Roberta Baskin:

"And Chalabi isn't the only member of the Iraqi leadership with close relatives lining up for those rebuilding contracts. The son of one Chalabi aid runs a phone company that is part of the group that won the contract to provide cell service to southern Iraq. Chalabi's aid told the Los Angeles Times that he doesn't understand what all the fuss over his son's inside connections. Comparing his son to the Americans, he said "It didn't stop Cheney from becoming the Vice President."

More from Roberta Baskin:

"But these aren't the only friends of government promoting their inside influence in what's being called The Iraq Gold Rush. One firm was established just for that purpose: New Bridge Strategies...If you can't find your way around Baghdad, Mike Baker will lend you a hand. He's a former CIA officer and part of the management team [its CEO] for New Bridge Strategies Strategies and its sister company Diligence, a security firm. Both are staffed by old Washington hands and both are headquartered in the offices of Barber, Griffith and Rogers. The "Barber" in that title is Haley Barber, a former chairman of the Republican party and one of the highest paid lobbyists in Washington. He's now the Governer-elect of Missippi."

'Newbridge Strategies is staffed by people that have a great deal of experience in Washington. Everyone from Joe Albot to Ed Rogers. They understand how the administration thinks.' (Mark Baker)

"They should understand how the administration thinks. They used to be in it. Joe Albot ran George W. Bush's campaign for President, and was then put in charge of the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). Mike Baker's other collegue is this man, Ed Rogers. He served as a deputy assistant to the first President Bush. Here he is in Iraq with Mike Baker, posing in front of a tank outfitted in flak jackets and sporting a semi-automatic rifle."

The Center For The Public Integrity has been trying to find out information about the nature of the work specified in some of these contracts, and is getting a lot of resistance.

More from Roberta Baskin:

"No one has tried harder to get at those details [of the deals] than the watchdog group the Center For The Public Integrity. In a six month investigation, the Center found that cozy insider relationships have become an accepted way of doing business in the fight against terrorism."...

But skeptics might be more easily persuaded if the government didn't shroud all this in so much secrecy. That secrecy makes it practically impossible to find out if those close to the administration are profiting off their inside information. And it makes it equally hard to find out if tax payers are getting their money's worth...

For example, in the name of secrecy, the Pentagon redacted almost every page of this contract. They have made it impossible to answer questions about fees being charged, or the work being done, or even the total cost of the job. Just look at the blacked out sections of this deal with the defense contractor SAIC...

All we know for certain about the contractor SAIC is that the top people of this privately held Fortune 500 company are wired into the Pentagon. On the board are a retired general and a former Assistant Secretary of Defense. And then there's Ryan Henry, he was SAIC's Senior Vice President. Until, that is, he went through that revolving door into the Pentagon. Into the very office that now supervises his former company's contract."

Below: The blacked out numbers of the SAIC contract.

Below: Some Members Of Congress Are Trying To Get To The Bottom Of This

Below: Some Iraqi Native Businessmen Are Complaining They Can't Compete With American Companies

This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 7, 2003.

This clip is exerpted from the complete feature, "Coming Home," which was Produced by Dan Klein, features correspondent David Brancaccio, and was Edited by Amanda Zindman.

Jason Stiffler was manning a watch tower in Afghanistan when it fell out from under him. It's still unclear whether it was an engineering failure, an attack, or friendly fire. Whatever the cause, he fell 25 feet and suffered seizures at the scene and eventually went into a coma. He suffered serious spinal cord injuries and other injuries. He was quadraplegic for some time after the accident, eventually regained limited use of his legs after months of physical therapy, although it still causes him great pain to move.

A year ago October, he was released from the hospital and placed on the Army's temporary duty list, which meant he was now eligible for medical care and payments from the Department of Veterans Affairs. The Stifflers say they waited for promised phone call from the VA that never came. With his physical and mental condition deteriorating, Jason visited the regional VA hospital in Ft. Wayne, which had no record of him and was only able to offer limited assistance and care.

As David Brancaccio puts it: "Jason Stiffler, badly wounded veteran of America's War On Terror, was on his own."

Background on the complete video of the segment:
This story focuses on several families whose fathers put their lives on the line to go fight in Iraq, and were injured in combat. Upon returning home, they were given little or no medical or financial support whatsoever, and were told to seek handouts to get by.

Excerpt from David Brancaccio's introduction:

..another young vet from the 101st airborne came home to a different kind of reception, one that was to leave him and his family nearly destitute.

Jason Stiffler followed a boyhood dream into the army at the age of 18. He was eager to defend his country. In return, he assumed it would take care of him.

"It was part of the agreement that we made on March 23, 01, when I signed up. I specifically remember that day because it was the first thing I asked. 'If anything happens to me, will I be taken care of?' Oh yeah, yeah, just sign right here."...

"There was a timeframe when I wasn't getting paid nothing." (Stiffler)

"How did you make ends meet during that time?" (Brancaccio)

"You know what they told us? 'Churches,' 'family,' 'friends,' 'welfare.'" (Stiffler)

Here's some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.

The Story Of The Stiffler Family (Small - 10 MB)

This story aired on NOW With Bill Moyers on November 7, 2003.

This story, "Coming Home," was Produced by Dan Klein and features correspondent David Brancaccio. It was Edited by Amanda Zindman.

This story focuses on several families whose fathers put their lives on the line to go fight in Iraq, and were injured in combat. Upon returning home, they were given little or no medical or financial support whatsoever, and were told to seek handouts to get by.

This is available in one big 38 MB clip and in three smaller clips for easier downloading off small connections. I've also transcribed portions and am including some info with the pictures.

I've also put up some clips of one of the families, the Stifflers, that was featured in this segment.

Here's some technical information about getting quicktime going to watch these movies.

Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets - Complete (Small - 38 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets - Part 1 of 3 (Small - 12 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets - Part 2 of 3 (Small - 16 MB)
Bill Moyers On Mistreated Vets - Part 3 of 3 (Small - 11 MB)

Excerpt from Bill Moyers' introduction:

"In Iraq, for every soldier killed, 7 are wounded. 1,300 since May 1st. That's twice as many as were wounded during the war itself. The New Republic reports that nearly every night, under the cover of darkness, ambulences meet C-17 and C-141 transport planes flying into Andrews airforce base to ferry the wounded to military facilities. The government hasn't wanted us to see them, but that's beginning to change as the numbers mount and as journalists keep insisting on knowing who are these wounded and what's happening to them."

Secret 9/11 Case Before High Court
By Warren Richey for The Christian Science Monitor.

It's the case that doesn't exist. Even though two different federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it. Period.

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist - and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Secrecy has been a key Bush administration weapon in the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft warns that mere tidbits of information that seem innocuous about the massive Sept. 11 investigation could help Al Qaeda carry out new attacks.

Yet this highly unusual petition to the high court arising from a Miami case brings into sharp focus the tension between America's long tradition of open courts and the need for security in times of national peril. At issue is whether certain cases may be conducted entirely behind closed doors under a secret arrangement among prosecutors, judges, and docket clerks.

While secret trial tactics have reportedly been used by federal prosecutors to shield cooperating drug dealers, it's unclear whether the high court has ever directly confronted the issue. But that may change if they take up MKB v. Warden (No. 03-6747).

This is among the first of the post-Sept. 11 terrorism cases to wend its way to the nation's highest tribunal. There was no public record of its existence, however, until the appeal was filed with the clerk of the US Supreme Court.

A federal judge and a three-judge federal appeals-court panel have conducted hearings and issued rulings. Yet lawyers and court personnel have been ordered to remain silent.

"The entire dockets for this case and appeal, every entry on them, are maintained privately, under seal, unavailable to the public," says a partially censored 27-page petition asking the high court to hear the case. "In the court of appeals, not just the filed documents and docket sheet are sealed from public view, but also hidden is the essential fact that a legal proceeding exists."...

The case is significant because it could force a close examination of secret tactics that are apparently becoming increasingly common under Attorney General Ashcroft. In September 2001, he ordered that all deportation hearings with links to the Sept. 11 investigation be conducted secretly. In addition, the Justice Department has acknowledged that at least nine criminal cases related to the Sept. 11 investigation were being cloaked in total secrecy.

MKB v. Warden is the first indication that the Justice Department is extending its total secrecy policy to proceedings in federal courts dealing with habeas corpus - that is, an individual's right to force the government to justify his or her detention.

The case offers the Supreme Court an opportunity for the first time to spell out whether such secret judicial proceedings violate constitutional protections. It may also offer the first insight into how much deference a majority of justices is willing to grant the government in areas where the war on terrorism may tread upon fundamental American freedoms...

Federal judges have the authority to order sensitive documents or even entire hearings sealed from public view when disclosure might harm national security. Such rulings are usually issued after the judge has explained the need for secrecy in a decision available to the public.

In addition, judges can order that an individual be identified in public court filings only by a pseudonym or by initials, as happened when the MKB case arrived at the US Supreme Court.

What is highly unusual in MKB v. Warden is that lower court judges ordered the entire case sealed from the start - preventing any mention of it to the public.

In her petition to the court, Miami federal public defender Kathleen Williams says the judges' actions authorizing the secrecy without any public notice, public hearings, or public findings amount to "an abuse of discretion" that requires corrective action by the justices.

"This habeas corpus case has been heard, appealed, and decided in complete secrecy," Ms. Williams says in her petition.

A government response to the petition is due Nov. 5. It will mark the first time the Justice Department has publicly acknowledged the existence of the habeas corpus action. The justices are set to consider the case during their Nov. 7 conference.

Justice Department officials have defended the blanket secrecy policy, saying that public hearings and public dockets would undermine efforts to recruit detainees as undercover operatives to infiltrate Al Qaeda cells in the US. According to press reports, similar secret trial tactics have been used by federal prosecutors to shield cooperating drug dealers from mention in public court documents that might blow their cover and end their use as operatives in ongoing undercover narcotics sting operations.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2003/1030/p01s02-usju.html

Secret 9/11 Case Before High Court
By Warren Richey
The Christian Science Monitor

Thursday 30 October 2003

MIAMI - It's the case that doesn't exist. Even though two different federal courts have conducted hearings and issued rulings, there has been no public record of any action. No documents are available. No files. No lawyer is allowed to speak about it. Period.

Yet this seemingly phantom case does exist - and is now headed to the US Supreme Court in what could produce a significant test of a question as old as the Star Chamber, abolished in 17th-century England: How far should a policy of total secrecy extend into a system of justice?

Secrecy has been a key Bush administration weapon in the war on terrorism. Attorney General John Ashcroft warns that mere tidbits of information that seem innocuous about the massive Sept. 11 investigation could help Al Qaeda carry out new attacks.

Yet this highly unusual petition to the high court arising from a Miami case brings into sharp focus the tension between America's long tradition of open courts and the need for security in times of national peril. At issue is whether certain cases may be conducted entirely behind closed doors under a secret arrangement among prosecutors, judges, and docket clerks.

While secret trial tactics have reportedly been used by federal prosecutors to shield cooperating drug dealers, it's unclear whether the high court has ever directly confronted the issue. But that may change if they take up MKB v. Warden (No. 03-6747).

What's known about the case

This is among the first of the post-Sept. 11 terrorism cases to wend its way to the nation's highest tribunal. There was no public record of its existence, however, until the appeal was filed with the clerk of the US Supreme Court.

A federal judge and a three-judge federal appeals-court panel have conducted hearings and issued rulings. Yet lawyers and court personnel have been ordered to remain silent.

"The entire dockets for this case and appeal, every entry on them, are maintained privately, under seal, unavailable to the public," says a partially censored 27-page petition asking the high court to hear the case. "In the court of appeals, not just the filed documents and docket sheet are sealed from public view, but also hidden is the essential fact that a legal proceeding exists."

Despite the heavy secrecy, a brief docketing error led to a newspaper report identifying MKB by name in March. The report said MKB is an Algerian waiter in south Florida who was detained by immigration authorities and questioned by the FBI.

MKB's legal status remains unclear, but it appears unlikely from court documents that he is connected in any way to terrorism. He has been free since March 2002 on a $10,000 bond.

The case is significant because it could force a close examination of secret tactics that are apparently becoming increasingly common under Attorney General Ashcroft. In September 2001, he ordered that all deportation hearings with links to the Sept. 11 investigation be conducted secretly. In addition, the Justice Department has acknowledged that at least nine criminal cases related to the Sept. 11 investigation were being cloaked in total secrecy.

MKB v. Warden is the first indication that the Justice Department is extending its total secrecy policy to proceedings in federal courts dealing with habeas corpus - that is, an individual's right to force the government to justify his or her detention.

The case offers the Supreme Court an opportunity for the first time to spell out whether such secret judicial proceedings violate constitutional protections. It may also offer the first insight into how much deference a majority of justices is willing to grant the government in areas where the war on terrorism may tread upon fundamental American freedoms.

From the perspective of news reporters and government watchdogs, the case marks a potential turning point away from a long-held presumption that judicial proceedings in the US are open to public scrutiny.

The case is one of several currently on petition to the high court dealing with some aspect of the war on terror. Two cases relate to detainees at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, and one challenges Yasser Hamdi's open-ended detention as an enemy combatant. A fourth case seeks to force the Justice Department to disclose the names of detainees caught up in antiterror investigations - an issue closely related to the Miami habeas case.

Federal judges have the authority to order sensitive documents or even entire hearings sealed from public view when disclosure might harm national security. Such rulings are usually issued after the judge has explained the need for secrecy in a decision available to the public.

In addition, judges can order that an individual be identified in public court filings only by a pseudonym or by initials, as happened when the MKB case arrived at the US Supreme Court.

What is highly unusual in MKB v. Warden is that lower court judges ordered the entire case sealed from the start - preventing any mention of it to the public.

'Abuse of discretion'?

In her petition to the court, Miami federal public defender Kathleen Williams says the judges' actions authorizing the secrecy without any public notice, public hearings, or public findings amount to "an abuse of discretion" that requires corrective action by the justices.

"This habeas corpus case has been heard, appealed, and decided in complete secrecy," Ms. Williams says in her petition.

A government response to the petition is due Nov. 5. It will mark the first time the Justice Department has publicly acknowledged the existence of the habeas corpus action. The justices are set to consider the case during their Nov. 7 conference.

Justice Department officials have defended the blanket secrecy policy, saying that public hearings and public dockets would undermine efforts to recruit detainees as undercover operatives to infiltrate Al Qaeda cells in the US. According to press reports, similar secret trial tactics have been used by federal prosecutors to shield cooperating drug dealers from mention in public court documents that might blow their cover and end their use as operatives in ongoing undercover narcotics sting operations.

A nice accomplishment indeed, courtesy of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

Federal judge blocks late-term abortion ban
By the Associated Press.

A federal judge blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the measure into law.

"Congress and the president ignored the Supreme Court and women's health in enacting this law," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit to block the law.

"The Nebraska court's order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order, citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception to the ban for preserving the health of a woman seeking the abortion.

"While ... Congress found that a health exception is not needed, it is, at the very least, problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise," Kopf said.

The judge stopped short of prohibiting the new law from being enforced nationwide...

Kopf did not immediately schedule the next hearing in the case, at which time he could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction against implementation of the law.

The judge's ruling followed a three-hour hearing in a lawsuit brought by abortion supporters trying to block the ban. The four doctors sought to block the ban of the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

In making his ruling, Kopf referred to a legal challenge from Carhart that led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the Nebraska law and others like it were an "undue burden" on women's rights.

"The Supreme Court, citing factual findings of eight different trial judges, appointed by four different presidents, and the considered opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has found a very similar law unconstitutional because it banned `partial-birth abortions' with the requisite exception from the preservation of the health of the woman," Kopf said...

Judge Kopf voiced his concerns at the start of the hearing. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said...

Kopf said he could find no record of a doctor who performs abortions in the second and third trimesters testifying before Congress on late-term abortions. "Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?" Kopf said.

The law also appears to have a "serious vagueness problem," Kopf said.

Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that if the law is allowed to take effect "physicians across the country will risk imprisonment for providing abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment."

Here is the full text of the article, in case the link goes bad:

http://www.siouxcityjournal.com/articles/2003/11/06/news/national_world/e73bbeca8c05196f86256dd6001965f6.txt

Thursday, November 06, 2003
Sioux City, Iowa

Federal judge blocks late-term abortion ban

LINCOLN, Neb. (AP) -- A federal judge blocked implementation of a federal ban on certain late-term abortions Wednesday, less than an hour after President Bush signed the measure into law.

"Congress and the president ignored the Supreme Court and women's health in enacting this law," said Nancy Northup, president of the Center for Reproductive Rights, which filed the lawsuit to block the law.

"The Nebraska court's order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care."

U.S. District Judge Richard Kopf issued a temporary restraining order, citing concerns that the law did not contain an exception to the ban for preserving the health of a woman seeking the abortion.

"While ... Congress found that a health exception is not needed, it is, at the very least, problematic whether I should defer to such a conclusion when the Supreme Court has found otherwise," Kopf said.

The judge stopped short of prohibiting the new law from being enforced nationwide.

He said his order would apply only to the four doctors who filed the lawsuit in Nebraska and their "colleagues, employees and entities ... with whom plaintiffs work, teach, supervise or refer" patients.

The four are: Dr. LeRoy Carhart, who practices in Bellevue, Neb. and is also licensed in Iowa, Indiana, Kansas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Wisconsin; Dr. William Fitzhugh, who is licensed to practice in Virginia; Dr. William Knorr, medical director and co-owner of the Savannah Women's Medical Clinic in Savannah, Ga., and also licensed in Alabama, South Carolina and New York; and Dr. Jill Vibhakar, who practices medicine at Emma Goldman Clinic for Women and at the University of Iowa College of Medicine Hospital in Iowa City, Iowa.

"This will prevent the (U.S.) Attorney General and his staff from using this act against me, my patients, all physicians that I refer to and all physicians that refer to me," Carhart said.

Kopf did not immediately schedule the next hearing in the case, at which time he could decide whether to issue a preliminary injunction against implementation of the law.

The judge's ruling followed a three-hour hearing in a lawsuit brought by abortion supporters trying to block the ban. The four doctors sought to block the ban of the procedure opponents call partial-birth abortion.

In making his ruling, Kopf referred to a legal challenge from Carhart that led to the U.S. Supreme Court overturning Nebraska's partial-birth abortion ban in 2000. The high court said the Nebraska law and others like it were an "undue burden" on women's rights.

"The Supreme Court, citing factual findings of eight different trial judges, appointed by four different presidents, and the considered opinion of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, has found a very similar law unconstitutional because it banned `partial-birth abortions' with the requisite exception from the preservation of the health of the woman," Kopf said.

Meanwhile, federal judges in New York and San Francisco are scheduled to soon hear arguments in similar challenges to the ban by Planned Parenthood and the American Civil Liberties Union.

At the White House, Bush spokesman Scott McClellan said the president believes the new law will be upheld.

"We believe it is constitutional and you could expect that we would vigorously defend this law in the courts," McClellan said.

Judge Kopf voiced his concerns at the start of the hearing. "It seems to me the law is highly suspect, if not a per se violation of the Constitution," he said.

U.S. Justice Department attorney Anthony Coppolino told Kopf that he should show deference to Congress' findings that the abortion procedure has not been studied enough to prove it's necessary.

"We ask that you give consideration to the deep concerns that were expressed by Congress," Coppolino said. "It is an abhorrent and useless procedure."

Kopf said he could find no record of a doctor who performs abortions in the second and third trimesters testifying before Congress on late-term abortions. "Isn't that important if Congress was really interested in knowing about this procedure?" Kopf said.

The law also appears to have a "serious vagueness problem," Kopf said.

Priscilla Smith, an attorney for the Center for Reproductive Rights, said that if the law is allowed to take effect "physicians across the country will risk imprisonment for providing abortion care in accordance with their best medical judgment."

The ban defines so-called partial-birth abortion as delivery of a fetus "until, in the case of a headfirst presentation, the entire fetal head is outside the body of the mother, or, in the case of the breech presentation, any part of the fetal trunk past the navel is outside the body of the mother for the purpose of performing an overt act that the person knows will kill the partially delivered living fetus."

Carhart said the method is one of the safest abortion procedures because it reduces the risk of leaving parts of the fetus inside the woman.

The procedure is used most often in cases where the woman has developed heart disease, diabetes or other life-threatening ailments.

Here is the full text of the announcement, in case the link goes bad:

http://www.crlp.org/pr_03_1105pba.html

Federal Abortion Ban Blocked by Nebraska Judge Minutes After President Bush Signs it into Law

Judge Issue Restraining Order Protecting Plaintiffs in Nebraska

November 5, 2003 |Lincoln, NE | Learn More

Today, a Nebraska federal judge issued a temporary restraining order preventing the first-ever federal abortion ban from being enforced against the plaintiffs in the Nebraska lawsuit challenging the ban. Judge Richard G. Kopf’s order allows the plaintiffs and the people with whom they "work, teach, supervise, or refer" to continue to perform safe abortion procedures without fear of prosecution. The order was issued minutes after President Bush signed the ban into law.

"Congress and the President ignored the Supreme Court and women’s health in enacting this law. The Nebraska court’s order will protect doctors from facing prison for providing their patients with the best medical care," said Nancy Northup, President of the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed the case in Nebraska federal court last Friday in order to prevent the law from taking effect. The challenge was filed on behalf of Dr. LeRoy Carhart, the lead plaintiff in the Supreme Court case striking down Nebraska’s ban, and three other doctors in Iowa, New York and Virginia. The ban, which contains no health exception and outlaws the safest abortion procedures used as early as 12 weeks, is almost identical to a Nebraska ban struck down by the U.S. Supreme Court just three years ago in Stenberg v. Carhart – a case argued by the Center for Reproductive Rights.

The Center for Reproductive Rights filed its case in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska. Lawyers on the case include Priscilla J. Smith of the Center for Reproductive Rights and Nebraska attorneys Jerry M. Hug and Alan G. Stoler.

This includes footage of Australian Green Party member Bob Brown heckling the Shrub during his speech to the Australian senate (to which the Shrub replied "I love free speech") and the First Lady waiting obediently for her Manchurian Candidate trigger word.

This is from the October 23, 2003 program.

Daily Show - More On The Shrub's Trip To Asia (Small - 11 MB)
(Below) A lovely parade float of the Australian Prime Minister nosing up to the Shrub.









The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

This clip from the October 29, 2003 show has the Shrub answering questions at his latest press conference (Oct 28-29, 2003 or so), where he talks rather vaguely about "terrorists" who are responsible for the latest round of suicide bombings in Iraq.

(This clip goes with this clip.)

What the Shrub says, and what his press secretary clarifies later, is that it's the Navy's fault for misrepresenting that the war was over with the "Mission Accomplished" sign. (Despite the fact that all the Navy did was put up the sign that the White House printed up and brought to the event.)

Jon Stewart:

"The White House is basically saying they can't be held responsible for what the Navy does with a sign that they made and brought to the ship."

Here's the little clip about "the sign":
The Shrub Blaming the Navy for "The Sign" (Small - 4 MB)

Here's the complete clip of this bit:

Jon Stewart On The President's Latest Press Conference (Small - 11 MB)







The Daily Show (The best news on television.)

As if the "Mission Accomplished" banner was the only thing that implied "Mission Accomplished," during the Shrub's memorable flight suit May 1 extravaganza.

Oh you thought I meant the mission was accomplished. I just meant a mission was accomplished: The mission of the USS Abraham Lincoln, of course... Sorry to give the wrong impression.

Gee, you don't think anyone got that wrong impression because the White House sent out a press release that said President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended or anything, do you?

Bush Disavows 'Mission Accomplished' Link
In The Guardian UK.

When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff - they weren't that ingenious, by the way."

That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission in Iraq successful while violence continued.

After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

Full text of press release below.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uslatest/story/0,1282,-3321684,00.html

Bush Disavows 'Mission Accomplished' Link
The Guardian UK

Wednesday 29 October 2003

WASHINGTON (AP) - Six months after he spoke on an aircraft carrier deck under a banner proclaiming "Mission Accomplished," President Bush disavowed any connection with the war message. Later, the White House changed its story and said there was a link.

The "Mission Accomplished" boast has been mocked many times since Bush's carrier speech as criticism has mounted over the failed search for weapons of mass destruction and the continuing violence in Iraq.

When it was brought up again Tuesday at a news conference, Bush said, "The 'Mission Accomplished' sign, of course, was put up by the members of the USS Abraham Lincoln, saying that their mission was accomplished."

"I know it was attributed somehow to some ingenious advance man from my staff - they weren't that ingenious, by the way."

That explanation hadn't surfaced during months of questions to White House officials about proclaiming the mission in Iraq successful while violence continued.

After the news conference, a White House spokeswoman said the Lincoln's crew asked the White House to have the sign made. The White House asked a private vendor to produce the sign, and the crew put it up, said the spokeswoman. She said she did not know who paid for the sign.

Later, a Pentagon spokesman called The Associated Press to reiterate that the banner was the crew's idea.

"It truly did signify a mission accomplished for the crew," Navy Cmdr. Conrad Chun said, adding the president's visit marked the end of the ship's 10-month international deployment.

The president's appearance on the Abraham Lincoln, which was returning home after service in the Persian Gulf, included his dramatic and much-publicized landing on the ship's deck.

Bush's disavowal Tuesday brought new criticism from at least three of the Democrats seeking their party's nomination to run against the president - John Kerry, Wesley Clark and Joe Lieberman.

"Today was another banner day in George Bushs quest to bring honor and integrity to the White House," Lieberman said. "If he wanted to prove he has trouble leveling with the American people, mission accomplished."

Here is the full text of the press release in case the link goes bad:

http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030501-6.html

For Immediate Release
Office of the Press Secretary
May 1, 2003

President Bush Announces Combat Operations in Iraq Have Ended
Event Backgrounder
The President Visits the USS Abraham Lincoln

BACKGROUND

USS Abraham Lincoln set the record for the longest naval deployment by a nuclear powered aircraft carrier in history, deploying for almost 10 months, and steaming over 100,000 miles. For a Carrier Strike Group, this is the longest deployment in the last 30 years. The USS Lincoln Strike Group was involved in combat in support of three major operations: Operation Southern Watch, Operation Enduring Freedom, and Operation Iraqi Freedom.

Click here for a USS Abraham Lincoln photo essay.
The Air Wing will depart the USS Lincoln while off the coast of San Diego on May 1. The ship will then pull into Naval Air Station North Island (San Diego) on May 2 to off load the rest of the Air Wing equipment. The Lincoln will return to her homeport of Everett, Washington on May 6.

The Lincoln supported one of the largest media embed operations on any ship in naval history by embarking 31 media organizations that included CNN, MSNBC, the BBC, Los Angeles Times, and the New York Times.

States Rebel Against Bush over Pollution Measures
By David Usborne for the Independent UK.

A group of 12 American states has rebelled against President George Bush and his environmental policies by suing to block changes in the Clean Air Act that will make it easier for industrial plants to upgrade their equipment without paying for anti-pollution devices.

The coalition of states, most in the east of the country, downwind of generating plants and refineries in the Midwest, filed the lawsuit in a Washington DC court this week. They were joined by several large cities, including New York, Washington DC and San Francisco. A separate suit was filed by the state of Illinois, and a collection of environmental pressure groups, including the Sierra Club, was expected to file its own legal challenge yesterday.

At issue is a relaxation in regulations put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December and published on Monday. The plaintiffs claim that the amendments will lead to an increase in harmful emissions. "It amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for some of the nation's biggest polluters," said Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust.

Critics insist that the changes are the most significant made to the 33-year-old Clean Air Act since it was strengthened by Congress in 1990. At the core of the Act were emission ceilings for all big industrial plants. But a "grandfather" clause gave exemptions to facilities built before the Act was introduced. However, even those older plants were to be fitted with scrubbers and other controls if they were modernised or expanded.

It is this stipulation that the EPA wants to relax. During the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, the EPA strictly enforced the rules. But there was a change of thinking with the arrival of President Bush in Washington. Vice-President Dick Cheney pressed for an easing of the rules to save costs for the energy industry, with which he is closely linked.

The move by Mr Cheney was resisted by the former environment secretary, Christie Whitman. In a memo, which has recently been circulated by environmental lobby groups, she warned that the administration would "pay a terrible political price" if it undercut the rules.

There are more than 500 plants across the US that benefited from the pre-1970 exemptions. Most are power plants, generating about 51 per cent of national electricity.

"We are not going to sit by quietly and allow the energy interests in this country to receive special treatment while so many of our children and elderly are needlessly suffering from respiratory problems," said Tom Reilly, the Massa-chusetts attorney general.

Here is the full text of the article in case the link goes bad:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=458271

States Rebel Against Bush over Pollution Measures
By David Usborne
Independent UK

Wednesday 29 October 2003

A group of 12 American states has rebelled against President George Bush and his environmental policies by suing to block changes in the Clean Air Act that will make it easier for industrial plants to upgrade their equipment without paying for anti-pollution devices.

The coalition of states, most in the east of the country, downwind of generating plants and refineries in the Midwest, filed the lawsuit in a Washington DC court this week. They were joined by several large cities, including New York, Washington DC and San Francisco. A separate suit was filed by the state of Illinois, and a collection of environmental pressure groups, including the Sierra Club, was expected to file its own legal challenge yesterday.

At issue is a relaxation in regulations put forward by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in December and published on Monday. The plaintiffs claim that the amendments will lead to an increase in harmful emissions. "It amounts to a get-out-of-jail-free card for some of the nation's biggest polluters," said Frank O'Donnell of the Clean Air Trust.

Critics insist that the changes are the most significant made to the 33-year-old Clean Air Act since it was strengthened by Congress in 1990. At the core of the Act were emission ceilings for all big industrial plants. But a "grandfather" clause gave exemptions to facilities built before the Act was introduced. However, even those older plants were to be fitted with scrubbers and other controls if they were modernised or expanded.

It is this stipulation that the EPA wants to relax. During the 1990s, under President Bill Clinton, the EPA strictly enforced the rules. But there was a change of thinking with the arrival of President Bush in Washington. Vice-President Dick Cheney pressed for an easing of the rules to save costs for the energy industry, with which he is closely linked.

The move by Mr Cheney was resisted by the former environment secretary, Christie Whitman. In a memo, which has recently been circulated by environmental lobby groups, she warned that the administration would "pay a terrible political price" if it undercut the rules.

There are more than 500 plants across the US that benefited from the pre-1970 exemptions. Most are power plants, generating about 51 per cent of national electricity.

"We are not going to sit by quietly and allow the energy interests in this country to receive special treatment while so many of our children and elderly are needlessly suffering from respiratory problems," said Tom Reilly, the Massa-chusetts attorney general.

The industry has welcomed the new exemptions. Scott Segal, a spokesman for the Electric Reliability Coordinating Council, an industry group, said the amendments would make it more cost-efficient for owners to modernise plants to make them more efficient and reduce emissions.

The 12 states involved in the suitare Pennsylvania, New York, Connecticut, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, Rhode Island, Vermont and Wisconsin.

I'm not saying it has anything specific to hide, other than the intelligence incompetence that has already been exposed. But what else is the public supposed to think when it hears about this Administration witholding information?

Administration Faces Subpoenas From 9/11 Panel
By Philip Shenon for the New York Times.

The chairman of the federal commission investigating the Sept. 11, 2001, terror attacks said that the White House was continuing to withhold several highly classified intelligence documents from the panel and that he was prepared to subpoena the documents if they were not turned over within weeks.

The chairman, Thomas H. Kean, the former Republican governor of New Jersey, also said in an interview that he believed the bipartisan 10-member commission would soon be forced to issue subpoenas to other executive branch agencies because of continuing delays by the Bush administration in providing documents and other evidence needed by the panel.

"Any document that has to do with this investigation cannot be beyond our reach," Mr. Kean said on Friday in his first explicit public warning to the White House that it risked a subpoena and a politically damaging courtroom showdown with the commission over access to the documents, including Oval Office intelligence reports that reached President Bush's desk in the weeks before the Sept. 11 attacks.

"I will not stand for it," Mr. Kean said in the interview in his offices here at Drew University, where he has been president since 1990.

"That means that we will use every tool at our command to get hold of every document."...

Last year, the White House confirmed news reports that President Bush received a written intelligence report in August 2001, the month before the attacks, that Al Qaeda might try to hijack American passenger planes.

Ms. Snee, the White House spokeswoman, said, "The president has stated a clear policy of support for the commission's work and, at the direction of the president, the executive branch has dedicated tremendous resources to support the commission, including providing over two million pages of documents."

After months of stating that it believed subpoenas to the executive branch would not be necessary, the commission voted unanimously this month to issue its first subpoena to the Federal Aviation Administration after determining that the F.A.A. had withheld dozens of boxes of documents involving the Sept. 11 attacks.

The subpoena appeared to be a turning point for the commission and for Mr. Kean, a moderate Republican known for his independence. In a statement on Oct. 15, the commission said it was re-examining "its general policy of relying on document requests rather than subpoenas" as a result of the issues with the F.A.A...

Mr. Kean's comments on Friday came as another member of the commission