SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : WHO IS RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT IN 2004 -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/10/2003 6:21:17 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 10965
 
Liveshot will be gone before then....see where the Big Ketchup money is out??

Wonder how long before Kerry finds a new dolly to play with?



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/12/2003 10:41:24 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
What's next? 'War is peace'?
____________________________________
By Molly Ivins
Columnist
The Star-Telegram

I rarely find fault with Washington journalist Josh Marshall and his thoughtful Weblog "Talking Points Memo," but I beg to differ on this occasion.

Writes Marshall: "[W]hen they say down the memory hole, they ain't kiddin'! There now seems to be a secret competition -- perhaps it was announced and I just didn't hear it -- for the Iraq-hawk who can come up with the most ingenious, Orwellian, up-is-down rewriting of the history of the year-long lead-up to the Iraq war."

Marshall goes on to discuss a few entrants in the secret contest but then votes -- prematurely, I believe -- to award the palm to Bill Safire of The New York Times. Safire's recent column about "hyping the 'hoax' charge" is the most elegant of its kind: Suddenly those who ask, "So where are these weapons of mass destruction we went to war to over?" are the problem.

In Safire's parallel universe, the problem is not that we're not finding weapons of mass destruction -- which means that either we were lied to by the Bush administration or there was a massive intelligence failure.

No, that's not the problem at all. The problem is, rather, that the people asking the question are "the crowd that bitterly resents America's mission to root out the sources of terror" and are "whipping up its intelligence hoax hype."

Got that? If you ask, "Where are the weapons of mass destruction?" -- a fairly obvious question at this point -- you are the problem.

That's good, but not as good as The Wall Street Journal's editorial board. This week's "Weapons of Mass Distortion" editorial is a masterpiece. In this version, those who ask the WMD question are attempting "to damage the credibility of Mr. Blair, President Bush and other war supporters."

"But who's trying to deceive whom here?" thunders the Journal. "That Saddam had biological or chemical weapons was a probability that everyone assumed to be true, even those who were against the war."

So there! And why did everyone assume it? Either because we were lied to or because there was a massive intelligence failure.

To get off Orwell and back to the facts here, we were told that we were going to war because Iraq had 5,000 gallons of anthrax, several tons of VX nerve gas, between 100 tons and 500 tons of other toxins (including botulinin, mustard gas, ricin and Sarin), 15 to 20 Scud missiles, drones fitted with poison sprays and mobile chemical laboratories.

The ex post facto development of tender concern on the part of hawks for human rights is delightful to see.

To repeat, there was always a good case to be made for taking out Saddam Hussein on humanitarian grounds alone -- those of us who work in the human rights movement were making that case back when the Reagan administration was arming Saddam. It was not, however, the case made by the Bush administration, in part because we are still supplying weapons to other monsters.

There's an old newspaper saw: "Error runs around the world before the truth can get its boots on."

The sad case of the distortions of the Jessica Lynch story (she did not receive multiple gunshot wounds; she was not stabbed; she was not fighting to the death; she was apparently injured in a car accident; the famous rescue at the hospital did not involve any firefights; in fact, there were no Iraqi troops in the area, and there was no one there but the Iraqi doctors, who had been taking very good care of Lynch) amounts to what the BBC -- not normally noted for overstatement -- called one of "the most stunning pieces of news management ever conceived."

OK, so truth is always the first casualty of war, but tax cuts aren't war. President Bush said: "My jobs and growth plan would reduce tax rates for everyone who pays income tax." Except, of course, for the 8.1 million low- and middle-income taxpayers who pay billions a year in income taxes.

After the new tax cut bill was signed, Fleischer said: "And, of course, for people in the 10 percent bracket, they benefit the most from it, and that's the lowest income workers in America. This certainly does deliver tax relief to people who pay income taxes."

Guess that makes 8.1 million of us chopped liver.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Molly Ivins writes for Creators Syndicate. 5777 W. Century Blvd., Suite 700, Los Angeles, CA 90045

dfw.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/12/2003 10:47:48 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
Tax cuts mean service cuts
______________________________

By THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN
SYNDICATED COLUMNIST
Thursday, June 12, 2003

Democrats have been groping for a way to counter George W. Bush's maniacal tax cuts, which are designed to shrink government and shift as many things as possible to the market.

May I make a suggestion? When you shrink government, what you do, over time, is shrink the services provided by federal, state and local governments to the vast U.S. middle class. I would suggest that, henceforth, Democrats simply ask voters to substitute the word "services" for the word "taxes" every time they hear President Bush speak.

That is, when the president says he wants yet another round of reckless "tax cuts," which will shift huge burdens to our children, Democrats should simply refer to them as "service cuts," because that is the only way these tax cuts will be paid for -- by cuts in services. Indeed, the Democrats' bumper sticker in 2004 should be: "Read my lips, no new services. Thank you, President Bush."

Say it with me now: "Read my lips, no new services -- or old ones."

Whenever Bush says "It's not the government's money, it's your money," Democrats should point out that what he is really saying is "It's not the government's services, it's your services" -- and thanks to the Bush tax cuts, soon you'll be paying for many of them yourself.

As former Nixon-era Commerce Secretary Peter Peterson just observed in The New York Times, when Bush took office, the 10-year budget projection showed a $5.6 trillion surplus -- something that would easily prefinance the cost of Social Security. The first Bush tax cut, coupled with continued spending growth and post-Sept. 11 costs, brought the projected surplus down to $1 trillion.

"Unfazed by this turnaround," Peterson noted, "the Bush administration proposed a second tax-cut package in 2003 in the face of huge new fiscal demands, including a war in Iraq and an urgent 'homeland security' agenda."

Result: Now the 10-year fiscal projection is for a $4 trillion deficit.

This in turn will shrink the federal government's ability to help already strapped states. Since most states have to run balanced budgets, that will mean less health care and kindergarten for children and the poor, higher state college tuition, smaller school budgets and fewer state service workers. And Lord knows how we'll finance Social Security.

Everyone wants taxes to be cut, but no one wants services to be cut, which is why Democrats have to reframe the debate and show Bush for what he really is: a man who is not putting money into your pocket, but who is removing government services and safety nets from your life.

Ditto on foreign policy. As we and our government continue to spend and invest more than we save, we will become even more dependent on the world to finance the gap. Foreigners will have to buy even more of our T-bills and other assets. And do you know on whom we'll be most dependent for that? China and Japan. Yes, that China -- the one the Bush team says is our biggest geopolitical rival.

"In the 1990s, Japan's and China's excess savings were financing our private sector investment, because the government was in surplus," says Robert Hormats, vice chairman of Goldman Sachs International. "Now, with these looming deficits, China and Japan are being asked to finance our government's actual operations."

That makes us very dependent on their willingness to continue sending us hundreds of billions of dollars of their savings. Should China and Japan not want to play along, your services very likely will be cut even sooner (unless you believe in "voodoo economics"). Which is why Democrats should rename this tax bill the China-Japan Economic Dependency Act.

I don't think Democrats can win the presidency with a single issue. You win the presidency by connecting with the American people's gut insecurities and aspirations. You win with a concept. The concept I'd argue for is "neoliberalism." More Americans today are natural neolibs than neocons. Neoliberals believe in a muscular foreign policy and a credible defense budget, but also a prudent fiscal policy that balances taxes, deficit reduction and government services.

To name something is to own it. And the Democrats, for too long, have allowed the Bush team to name its radical reduction in services, and the huge dependence it is creating on foreign capital, as an innocuous "tax cut." Balderdash. This new tax cut is a dangerous foray into wretched excess and it will ultimately make our government, ourselves and our children less secure.
___________________________________________

Thomas L. Friedman is foreign affairs columnist for The New York Times. Copyright 2003 New York Times News Service.

seattlepi.nwsource.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/12/2003 9:27:50 PM
From: PROLIFE  Respond to of 10965
 
TOUCH UP: Sen. John Kerry was at back Salon Christophe Thursday, sources tell DRUDGE, for an $80 trim. The Democratic presidential hopeful was speaking French to the 'stylist'...

drudgereport.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/13/2003 10:10:29 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (3) | Respond to of 10965
 
Bush Has Taken U.S. Into a Credibility Gap

by James Klurfeld

Published on Thursday, June 12, 2003 by Newsday

Here's a hot news tip: Intelligence sources both here and in Israel have told me in the last few days that they now believe Iran is 18 months to two years away from having a full-fledged nuclear weapons program. One of Israel's most respected military journalists, Zev Schiff, warns that the United States must take diplomatic steps now to deal with the threat, or soon it will be too late.

I passed this news on to a colleague yesterday morning and his immediate response was to giggle. As in: Where have I heard that before? Or, as another colleague reminded me, "Jim, we're still trying to find the weapons of mass destruction that Saddam Hussein had. What makes you any more certain about this intelligence information?"

Welcome to the Bush credibility gap. And if you believe that some of my colleagues are skeptical, you should try out this news overseas. By and large the American people don't seemed outraged that the administration seemed to play fast and loose with intelligence information leading up to the attack on Iraq. Overseas it is just another indication that the United States is a superpower out of control and that little if anything that comes from Washington can be trusted.

For a nation that sees itself as the leader of the world, this is a very dangerous position to be in. The United States, with its awesome military power and responsibilities, is on the verge of being treated as the boy who cried wolf by the rest of the world.

I believe the intelligence information coming out about Iran is basically accurate. Maybe 18 to 24 months should be 24 to 36 months. But I believe it's a valid conclusion that Iran is determined to develop nuclear weapons of its own.

And while the administration seems to have played fast and loose with the intelligence information about Iraq in order to build support for its war plans, I also believe, based on what the weapons inspectors discovered over the years, that Hussein was trying to develop weapons of mass destruction. However, I do not necessarily believe what the administration said: that Hussein was ready to use those weapons at any time against the United States.

But that's not the point. If the United States is going to organize an effective diplomatic effort to encourage Iran (or for that matter, North Korea) to stop its nuclear weapons program, it is going to take the cooperation of many different nations. If those nations don't believe there is a problem in the first place, if they do not trust Washington's information, the effort to stop the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction is doomed.

One longtime national security expert said recently that the administration appeared to be guilty, at the very least, of using raw intelligence to bolster its Iraq policy. That is a classic no-no in the intelligence world. We all learned in the opening days of the Iraq war that raw data can be incredibly confusing and misleading. Raw intelligence can have the same effect on policymakers, especially if they want to prove a point. Intelligence needs to be analyzed, vetted and put into context.

At the very least there must be congressional hearings to determine if the administration was exaggerating the Iraqi threat and misusing intelligence. This is a classic case of why the branches of government must act as a check on each other.

The hearings must be thorough and non-partisan. Neither of those requirements will be easy to meet. Partisanship is a Washington disease these days. Just recall how the Republicans handled the impeachment of Bill Clinton. And exposing intelligence sources and methods in the middle of the war on terrorism will be tricky, to put it mildly. But sources and methods cannot be used as an excuse. The nation's credibility is at stake.

Copyright (c) 2003, Newsday, Inc.

commondreams.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/14/2003 7:22:57 AM
From: Glenn Petersen  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Transition tough on candidate's wife

story.news.yahoo.com

Fri Jun 13, 7:27 AM ET

Jill Lawrence USA TODAY

WASHINGTON -- Teresa Heinz Kerry is small and soft-spoken and supportive of her husband as they sit in their Georgetown garden, sipping peach iced tea. She wants to help him. She is ready to campaign for him. But it's clear a presidential campaign is not her first choice of how to spend her time.

Heinz Kerry's outspokenness is on display when she is asked whether she would prefer not to be involved in a campaign.

''It would be easier,'' she says after a pause. ''Basically I am a shy person. I like people, but I am very private.'' Then the proper political spouse kicks in. ''But I also am engaged in ideas and trying to solve problems. And this is an arena in which you can do that.''

Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., is one of the strongest entries in the crowded Democratic presidential field. Political observers and opponents are watching to see whether his unconventional wife emerges as a handicap or an unexpected source of strength.

The past year has given ammunition to those who see Heinz Kerry as a source of controversy. In interview after interview, with Vogue, Elle and The New Yorker, the Boston Globe and Herald, and The Washington Post, she has said things that won't go away.

She has talked about her serious work on education, pensions, the arts and the environment. But she has also discussed her prenuptial agreement, her Botox treatments and how she'd ''maim'' an unfaithful husband. She has said she'd be a ''ninny'' if she didn't have strong opinions at her age (64, five years older than Kerry).

In a Post profile that aides to Kerry denounce as distorted, she is described as bickering with her husband, appearing to mock his Vietnam War nightmares and referring to Republican Sen. John Heinz of Pennsylvania, who died in 1991, as ''my husband.''

It has been a rough initiation, even for a veteran of five Senate campaigns in two states. In a Senate race, Heinz Kerry says, ''not too many people pay attention'' to the wife. ''The stakes in a presidential campaign are obviously very different. Everything has a lot more meaning.''

Heinz Kerry made no secret of her disdain for politics even as she was married to one senator, then another. Her stock response to their presidential ambitions was ''over my dead body.'' But here she is on her patio, calling Kerry ''sweetie'' and clasping his hand, discussing her philanthropic work and what she'd bring to a Kerry administration.

The tranquil domestic tableau mirrors the adjustments she has made in the past year. In January, she switched her voter registration from Republican to Democrat. She used to say she wouldn't change her name, but this year she added ''Kerry'' to it.

''She will campaign, and she's terrific,'' Kerry says in earnest defense. ''She talks from her heart, from her gut, from a lot of experience. She understands all the ups and downs of life, the pain and the suffering that goes with it and the joys of it. People are going to find her a remarkably diverse, nurturing, thoughtful, sensitive human being.''

Heinz Kerry offers a long history of work and philanthropic giving on issues important to labor, women, senior citizens and environmentalists. All are key Democratic constituencies. And she has close ties to Pennsylvania, a pivotal state in presidential politics. The Pennsylvania AFL-CIO named her ''citizen of the year'' in 1998.

Born in Mozambique, daughter of a Portuguese doctor, she speaks Portuguese, English, French, Spanish and Italian. She was working as an interpreter in Geneva when she met John Heinz, heir to a family soup and ketchup company. They married in 1966 and had three sons. He became a senator, a centrist Republican. And then one day in 1991, he died in a helicopter-plane collision over Philadelphia.

The devastated widow began getting to know Kerry in 1992, four years after his divorce, at an environmental conference in Brazil. They married in 1995. They have three sons (hers), two daughters (his) and homes in Boston, Nantucket, Washington, suburban Pittsburgh and Ketchum, Idaho.

Heinz Kerry had not only campaigned for Heinz but also substituted for him at debates. When he died, she declined the Republican Party's entreaties to run for his seat. Instead, she took over his job as chairman of the Heinz Endowments and the Heinz Family Philanthropies and set about achieving social progress. She called political campaigns ''the graveyard of real ideas and the birthplace of empty promises.''

Has she changed her mind?

''I don't think politics is worthless,'' she says, but ''the general tone of campaigns has not gotten any better. One can try. John is trying to set a standard.''

The Kerrys have a policy partnership of sorts. She finances projects and reports back to him on what works. One of her projects, a prescription drug benefit plan for the elderly, is now law in Massachusetts. Another, a southwestern Pennsylvania program to ensure healthy child development and education, is the basis of a speech Kerry will give in the next few weeks.



Lest anyone get the idea that Heinz Kerry would hole up in the White House writing grandiose policy prescriptions like Hillary Rodham Clinton (news - web sites), Kerry says Americans ''know what they don't want'' in a first lady: ''They don't want somebody who's trying to have a job, who's trying to force themselves into public policy. And Teresa has neither desire nor intention of doing that. We're not running around offering people a twofer.''

One of the buzzworthy things Heinz Kerry did in the past year was to discuss prostate cancer (news - web sites) at a Boston fundraiser in March, a few weeks after her husband had prostate cancer surgery. Word was that aides would have preferred to divert attention from the senator's illness, not focus on it. But she offered graphic details and a caution to men: Get checked out. ''I might not have done it the best way possible, but I think it was an important thing to do,'' Heinz Kerry says.

Heinz Kerry's registration switch will enable her to vote for her husband in the Pennsylvania primary next spring. However, she says the impetus behind the change was anger at the way Republicans conducted the elections in 2002. She says she feels ''alien'' from the conservative tilt of the party. She was upset about attacks on Max Cleland, then a senator from Georgia, a Vietnam War veteran who lost three limbs in battle. The upsetting tactic? ''You know, that he was unpatriotic,'' she says. She does not add, as she did in January to the Boston Herald, ''Does he have to lose a fourth limb to be patriotic?''

She is trying to say nothing interesting enough for gossip columns.

''I like boring. I'll take boring,'' she says, and looks at her famously studious, long-winded husband. ''I'll talk the boring, and he can talk the fluff.''



To: American Spirit who wrote (2354)6/17/2003 1:51:05 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Former Aide Takes Aim at War on Terror
_____________________________________

By Laura Blumenfeld
The Washington Post
Monday 16 June 2003
truthout.org

Five days before the war began in Iraq, as President Bush prepared to raise the terrorism threat level to orange, a top White House counterterrorism adviser unlocked the steel door to his office, an intelligence vault secured by an electronic keypad, a combination lock and an alarm. He sat down and turned to his inbox.

"Things were dicey," said Rand Beers, recalling the stack of classified reports about plots to shoot, bomb, burn and poison Americans. He stared at the color-coded threats for five minutes. Then he called his wife: I'm quitting.

Beers's resignation surprised Washington, but what he did next was even more astounding. Eight weeks after leaving the Bush White House, he volunteered as national security adviser for Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), a Democratic candidate for president, in a campaign to oust his former boss. All of which points to a question: What does this intelligence insider know?

"The administration wasn't matching its deeds to its words in the war on terrorism. They're making us less secure, not more secure," said Beers, who until now has remained largely silent about leaving his National Security Council job as special assistant to the president for combating terrorism. "As an insider, I saw the things that weren't being done. And the longer I sat and watched, the more concerned I became, until I got up and walked out."

No single issue has defined the Bush presidency more than fighting terrorism. And no issue has both animated and intimidated Democrats. Into this tricky intersection of terrorism, policy and politics steps Beers, a lifelong bureaucrat, unassuming and tight-lipped until now. He is an unlikely insurgent. He served on the NSC under Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and the current Bush. The oath of office hangs on the wall by his bed; he tears up when he watches "The West Wing." Yet Beers decided that he wanted out, and he is offering a rare glimpse in.

"Counterterrorism is like a team sport. The game is deadly. There has to be offense and defense," Beers said. "The Bush administration is primarily offense, and not into teamwork."

In a series of interviews, Beers, 60, critiqued Bush's war on terrorism. He is a man in transition, alternately reluctant about and empowered by his criticism of the government. After 35 years of issuing measured statements from inside intelligence circles, he speaks more like a public servant than a public figure. Much of what he knows is classified and cannot be discussed. Nevertheless, Beers will say that the administration is "underestimating the enemy." It has failed to address the root causes of terror, he said. "The difficult, long-term issues both at home and abroad have been avoided, neglected or shortchanged and generally underfunded."

The focus on Iraq has robbed domestic security of manpower, brainpower and money, he said. The Iraq war created fissures in the United States' counterterrorism alliances, he said, and could breed a new generation of al Qaeda recruits. Many of his government colleagues, he said, thought Iraq was an "ill-conceived and poorly executed strategy."

"I continue to be puzzled by it," said Beers, who did not oppose the war but thought it should have been fought with a broader coalition. "Why was it such a policy priority?" The official rationale was the search for weapons of mass destruction, he said, "although the evidence was pretty qualified, if you listened carefully."

He thinks the war in Afghanistan was a job begun, then abandoned. Rather than destroying al Qaeda terrorists, the fighting only dispersed them. The flow of aid has been slow and the U.S. military presence is too small, he said. "Terrorists move around the country with ease. We don't even know what's going on. Osama bin Laden could be almost anywhere in Afghanistan," he said.

As for the Saudis, he said, the administration has not pushed them hard enough to address their own problem with terrorism. Even last September, he said, "attacks in Saudi Arabia sounded like they were going to happen imminently."

Within U.S. borders, homeland security is suffering from "policy constipation. Nothing gets done," Beers said. "Fixing an agency management problem doesn't make headlines or produce voter support. So if you're looking at things from a political perspective, it's easier to go to war."

The Immigration and Naturalization Service, he said, needs further reorganization. The Homeland Security Department is underfunded. There has been little, if any, follow-through on cybersecurity, port security, infrastructure protection and immigration management. Authorities don't know where the sleeper cells are, he said. Vulnerable segments of the economy, such as the chemical industry, "cry out for protection."

"We are asking our firemen, policemen, Customs and Coast Guard to do far more with far less than we ever ask of our military," he said. Abroad, the CIA has done a good job in targeting the al Qaeda leadership. But domestically, the antiterrorism effort is one of talk, not action: "a rhetorical policy. What else can you say -- 'We don't care about 3,000 people dying in New York City and Washington?' "

When asked about Beers, Sean McCormack, an NSC spokesman, said, "At the time he submitted his resignation, he said he had decided to leave government. We thanked him for his three decades of government service." McCormack declined to comment further.

However it was viewed inside the administration, onlookers saw it as a rare Washington event. "I can't think of a single example in the last 30 years of a person who has done something so extreme," said Paul C. Light, a scholar with the Brookings Institution. "He's not just declaring that he's a Democrat. He's declaring that he's a Kerry Democrat, and the way he wants to make a difference in the world is to get his former boss out of office."

Although Beers has worked in three Republican administrations, he is a registered Democrat. He wanted to leave the NSC quietly, so when he resigned, he said it was for "personal reasons." His friends called, worried: "Are you sick?"

When Beers joined the White House counterterrorism team last August, the unit had suffered several abrupt departures. People had warned him the job was impossible, but Beers was upbeat. On Reagan's NSC staff, he had replaced Oliver North as director for counterterrorism and counternarcotics, known as the "office of drugs and thugs."

"Randy's your model government worker," said Wendy Chamberlin, a U.S. Agency for International Development administrator for Iraq, who worked with Beers on counterterrorism on the NSC of the first Bush administration. "He works for the common good of the American people. He's fair, balanced, honest. No one ever gets hurt feelings hearing the truth from Randy."

The first thing Beers noticed when he walked into his new office was the pile of intelligence reports. The "threat stuff," as Beers calls it, was 10 times thicker than it had been before the 1998 U.S. embassy bombings.

He was in a job that would grind down anyone. Every day, 500 to 1,000 pieces of threat information crossed his desk. The typical mix included suspicious surveillance at a U.S. embassy; surveillance of a nuclear power plant or a bridge; a person caught by airport security with a weapon, or an airplane flying too close to the CIA; a tanker truck, which might contain a bomb, crossing the border and heading for a city; an intercepted phone call between suspected terrorists. Most of the top-secret reports -- pumped into his office from the White House Situation Room -- didn't pan out. Often they came from a disgruntled employee or a spouse.

When the chemical agent ricin surfaced in the London subway, "we were worried it might manifest here," he said. The challenge was: "Who do we alert? How do you tell them to organize?"

Every time the government raises an alarm, it costs time and money. "There's less filtering now because people don't want to make the mistake of not warning," he said. Before Sept. 11, 2001, the office met three times a week to discuss intelligence. Now, twice a day, at 7 a.m. and 3 p.m., it holds "threat matrix meetings," tracking the threats on CIA spreadsheets.

It was Beers's task to evaluate the warnings and to act on them. "It's a monstrous responsibility," said William Wechsler, director for transnational threats on Clinton's NSC staff. "You sit around every day, thinking about how people want to kill thousands of Americans."

Steven Simon, director for counterterrorism in the Clinton White House, said, "When we read a piece of intelligence, we'd apply the old how-straight-does-your-hair-stand-up-on-your-head test."

The government's first counterterrorism czar, Richard Clarke, who left his White House job in February after more than 10 years, said officials judged the human intelligence based on two factors: Would the source have access to the information? How reliable was his previous reporting? They scored access to information, 12345; previous reporting, abcd. "A score of D5, you don't believe. A1 -- you do," Clarke said. "It's like a jolt of espresso, and you feel like -- whoop -- it pumps you up, and wakes you up."

It's easier to raise the threat level -- from code yellow to code orange, for example -- than to lower it, Beers said: "It's easier to see the increase in intelligence suggesting something's going to happen. What do you say when we're coming back down? Does nothing happening mean it's not going to happen? It's still out there."

After spending all day wrestling with global jihad, Beers would go home to his Adams Morgan townhouse. "You knew not to get the phone in the middle of the night, because it was for Dad," said his son Benjamin, 28. When the Situation Room called, Beers would switch to a black, secure phone that scrambled the signal, after fishing the key out of his sock drawer. There were times he would throw on sweats over his pajamas and drive downtown.

"The first day, I came in fresh and eager," he said. "On the last day, I came home tired and burned out. And it only took seven months."

Part of that stemmed from his frustration with the culture of the White House. He was loath to discuss it. His wife, Bonnie, a school administrator, was not: "It's a very closed, small, controlled group. This is an administration that determines what it thinks and then sets about to prove it. There's almost a religious kind of certainty. There's no curiosity about opposing points of view. It's very scary. There's kind of a ghost agenda."

In the end, Beers was arriving at work each day with knots in his stomach. He did not want to abandon his colleagues at such a critical, dangerous time. When he finally decided to quit, he drove to a friend's house in Arlington. Clarke, his old counterterrorism pal, took one look at the haggard man on his stoop and opened a bottle of Russian River Pinot Noir. Then he opened another bottle. Clarke toasted Beers, saying: You can still fight the fight.

Shortly after that, Beers joined the Kerry campaign. He had briefly considered a think tank or an academic job but realized that he "never felt so strongly about something in my life" than he did about changing current U.S. policies. Of the Democratic candidates, Kerry offered the greatest expertise in foreign affairs and security issues, he decided. Like Beers, Kerry had served in Vietnam. As a civil servant, Beers liked Kerry's emphasis on national service.

On a recent hot night, at 10 o'clock, Beers sat by an open bedroom window, wearing a T-shirt, his bare feet propped on a table.

Beers was on a three-hour conference call, the weekly Monday night foreign policy briefing for the campaign. The black, secure phone by his bedside was gone. Instead, there was a red, white and blue bumper sticker: "John Kerry -- President." The buzz of helicopters blew through the window. Since Sept. 11, 2001, it seemed, there were more helicopters circling the city.

"And we need to return to that kind of diplomatic effort . . . ," Beers was saying, over the droning sound. His war goes on.