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 (2772)6/28/2003 1:49:56 PM
From: PROLIFE  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
prove it,
BTW, why did Keery:

SENATOR KERRY CALLS CANDIDATE KERRY “IRRESPONSIBLE” ON WMD
John Forbes Kerry’s 72 Hour Flip-Flop

YESTERDAY CANDIDATE KERRY SAID PRESIDENT BUSH “MISLED” ON WMD

Kerry Attacked President Bush. “Kerry said Wednesday that President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq’s Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence. ‘He misled every one of us,’ Kerry said.” (Ron Fournier, “Kerry Says Bush Misled Americans On War,” The Associated Press, 6/19/03)

BUT JUST 72 HOURS EARLIER ON ABC’S “THIS WEEK,” SENATOR KERRY SAID IT WOULD BE “IRRESPONSIBLE” TO SAY THAT!

George Stephanopoulos: “People are really upset that they feel misled by President Bush on this issue weapons of mass destruction. I know you said you’re agnostic about whether or not he misled the public on weapons of mass destruction. But do you have a hunch on whether you think they hyped the intelligence?”

John Kerry: “George, again, I think it would be irresponsible of me at this point to draw conclusions prior to all the evidence being on the table. What I know is we have to get that evidence. We have to have an investigation to know to a certainty whether or not it was hype, whether we were misled …” (ABC’s “This Week,” 6/15/03)

TRUTH IS, FOR OVER A DECADE, KERRY HAS CITED EVIDENCE OF SADDAM’S WMD . . . EVEN AS RECENTLY AS 2003

2003

Kerry Said “If You Don’t Believe In The U.N. ... Or You Don’t Believe Saddam Hussein Is A Threat With Nuclear Weapons, Then You Shouldn’t Vote For Me.” (Ronald Brownstein, “On Iraq, Kerry Appears Either Torn Or Shrewd,” Los Angeles Times, 1/31/03)

Kerry Said Leaving Saddam Hussein “Unfettered With Nuclear Weapons Or Weapons Of Mass Destruction Is Unacceptable.” (Jill Lawrence, “War Issue Challenges Democratic Candidates,” USA Today, 2/12/03)

Kerry Defended Vote In Support Of Use Of Force In Iraq.” “I think Saddam Hussein’s weapons of mass destruction are a threat, and that’s why I voted to hold him accountable and to make certain that we disarm him. I think we need to, but it’s not September 11th, folks, and the fact is that what we’ve learned is that the war on terror is much more of an intelligence operation and a law enforcement operation.” (Sen. John Kerry As Quoted On NPR’s “All Things Considered,” 3/19/03)

2002

Kerry Said We Owe It To US Troops To Be Informed Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Arsenal. “We owe it to America’s parents and our country’s troops … to have our decision on going to war with Iraq informed by the latest threat assessment that cross-analyzes agency intelligence about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal of weapons of mass destruction.” (Faye Bowers, “Iraq’s Pursuit Of Nuclear Weapons Called ‘Unrelenting’,” Deseret News, 9/18/02)

Kerry Said Threat Of Saddam Hussein’s WMD Is Real. “The threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but as I said, it is not new. It has been with us since the end of that war, and particularly in the last 4 years we know after Operation Desert Fox failed to force him to reaccept them, that he has continued to build those weapons. He has had a free hand for 4 years to reconstitute these weapons, allowing the world, during the interval, to lose the focus we had on weapons of mass destruction and the issue of proliferation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10171)

Kerry Said Saddam’s Arsenal Of WMD Is Cause Of War. “As bad as he is, Saddam Hussein, the dictator, is not the cause of war. Saddam Hussein sitting in Baghdad with an arsenal of weapons of mass destruction is a different matter.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Wished For Resolution More Focused On The Removal Of Iraq’s WMD. “The President said: Saddam Hussein must disarm himself, or, for the sake of peace, we will lead a coalition to disarm him. This statement left no doubt that the casus belli for the United States will be Iraq’s failure to rid itself of weapons of mass destruction. I would have preferred that the President agree to the approach drafted by Senators Biden and Lugar because that resolution would authorize the use of force for the explicit purpose of disarming Iraq and countering the threat posed by Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10173)

Kerry Said U.S. Should Make Clear We Will Not Be Blackmailed By Iraq’s WMD. “I believe the Senate will make it clear, and the country will make it clear, that we will not be blackmailed or extorted by these weapons, and we will not permit the United Nations an institution we have worked hard to nurture and create to simply be ignored by this dictator.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/9/02, p. S10174)

Kerry Described Iraq’s WMD As A “Real And Grave Threat” To The United States. “Mr. Kerry, a Vietnam War veteran and potential 2004 presidential contender, said Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction posed ‘a real and grave threat’ to the United States.” (Dave Boyer, “Key Senators Of Both Parties Back Bush On Iraq War,” The Washington Times, 10/10/02)

2000

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said WMD Destabilize World. “I think all of us are deeply concerned about the degree to which certain countries seem to be contributing to the potential of instability in the world. Obviously, there is nothing more destabilizing or threatening than weapons of mass destruction. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy focused on Iraq, on Iran, on Russia, on loose nukes, on nuclear materials, and of course on China and on the issue of the transfer of technology to Pakistan.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 9/11/00, p. S8322)

1998

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Used WMD And Has Intent “To Continue To Do So.” “[T]here are set of principles here that are very large, larger in some measure than I think has been adequately conveyed, both internationally and certainly to the American people. Saddam Hussein has already used these weapons and has made it clear that he has the intent to continue to try, by virtue of his duplicity and secrecy, to continue to do so. That is a threat to the stability of the Middle East. It is a threat with respect to the potential of terrorist activities on a global basis. It is a threat even to regions near but not exactly in the Middle East.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said We Must Make Clear We Cannot Allow Saddam To Use WMD. “[I]t is imperative for us as a nation to stand our ground and for the western world to make clear that we cannot abide by any nation breaking out, so to speak, with respect to the capacity to possess and use those kinds of weapons. And so that principle is enormous. … But we cannot be pressured into a position that calls on us to give up what are the legitimate interests of our country and of the world with respect to the behavior of Saddam Hussein.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Stressed Need To Eliminate Saddam’s Weapon Capability. “Saddam Hussein has violated ... that standard [against using weapons of mass destruction] on several occasions previously and by most people’s expectation, no matter what agreement we come up with, may well do so again. The greater likelihood is that we will be called on to send our ships and our troops at one point in the future back to the Middle East to stand up to the next crisis.” (Sen. John Kerry, Press Conference, 2/23/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Decision Must Be Made Concerning Iraq’s WMD. “We’re going to have to make some fundamental decisions about whether to follow a policy of containment or deprive Iraq of its weapons of mass destruction.” (Eric Schmitt, “U.N. Arms Inspector Who Quit Is Told He Can’t Make Policy,” The New York Times, 9/4/98)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Saddam Has Used Hesitancy Of Other Countries To Hold Him Accountable To Influence International Community. “Russia, France and China have consistently been more sympathetic to Iraq’s call for sanctions relief than the United States and Britain. ... These differences over how to deal with Iraq reflect the fact that there is a superficial consensus, at best, among the Perm 5 on the degree to which Iraq poses a threat and the priority to be placed on dismantling Iraq’s weapons capability. ... France, on the other hand, has long established economic and political relationships within the Arab world, and has had a different approach. Russia also has a working relationship with Iraq, and China, whose commitment to nuclear nonproliferation has been less than stellar, has a very different calculus that comes into play. Iraq may be a threat and nonproliferation may be the obvious, most desirable goal, but whether any of these countries are legitimately prepared to sacrifice other interests to bring Iraq to heel remains questionable today, and is precisely part of the calculus that Saddam Hussein has used as he tweaks the Security Council and the international community simultaneously.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/10/98, p. S12287)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Defended President Clinton’s Decision To Bomb Iraq. “Sen. John Kerry, D-Mass., a decorated Vietnam veteran, said Wednesday that no one should question the ‘legitimacy’ of Clintons decision to bomb Iraq. ‘I am confident that every reasonable member of the United States Congress and reasonable people of this country will understand the legitimacy of this moment. And no one will question that once again, once too many times, it is Hussein who has precipitated this confrontation and no one else.’” (Eric Schmitt, “Many In GOP Voice Suspicion Of Attack Timing,” Topeka Capital-Journal, 12/17/98)

1997

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production. “[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do To Address “Grave Threat.” “[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam. “Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Warned Of Saddam’s WMD Capabilities. “It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

Senate Intelligence Committee Member Kerry Said Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD. “In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)

1991

Kerry Acknowledged Saddam Working Toward Development Of WMD “For Years.” “If we go to war in the next few days, it will not be because our immediate vital interests are so threatened and we have no other choice. It is not because of nuclear, chemical, biological weapons when, after all, Saddam Hussein had all those abilities or was working toward them for years ….” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record,1/12/91,p. S369)

1990

Kerry Said “Iraq Has Developed A Chemical Weapons Capability.” “Today, we are confronted by a regional power, Iraq, which has attacked a weaker state, Kuwait. … The crisis is even more threatening by virtue of the fact that Iraq has developed a chemical weapons capability, and is pursuing a nuclear weapons development program. And Saddam Hussein has demonstrated a willingness to use such weapons of mass destruction in the past, whether in his war against Iran or against his own Kurdish population.” (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 10/2/90, p. S14330)



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)6/28/2003 5:28:04 PM
From: Raymond Duray  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 10965
 
DEMS GET A SPINE: Sen. Levin to Investigate WMD lies

This is good news. Finally a little action on the Con-gressional front:

ap.tbo.com

Jun 27, 2003

Senate Armed Services Democrats Begin Inquiry Into Iraq WMD Intelligence
By Ken Guggenheim
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) - Democrats on the Senate Armed Services Committee announced Friday plans to stage their own inquiry on the credibility of prewar intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and its links to the al-Qaida terror network.
The announcement by Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, the panel's top Democrat, marked an unusual split with Chairman John Warner, R-Va., on an issue with strong political overtones ahead of next year's elections. Warner and Levin are longtime colleagues on the committee and repeatedly stress bipartisan cooperation.

Democrats in both the House and Senate have been pushing for widened examinations of prewar intelligence beyond reviews already under way by both bodies' intelligence committees.

Levin said he has directed Democratic staff to examine the objectivity and credibility of the intelligence and its effect on Defense Department policy decisions, military planning and operations in Iraq.

He said Warner refused his request to begin such an inquiry.
In a letter released by Levin, Warner said the committee should wait until the Senate Intelligence Committee has completed its review, then decide how to move ahead. Both Levin and Warner are members of the intelligence panel.

The Armed Services Committee, meanwhile, will continue oversight hearings on military operations in Iraq, Warner said in the letter. Defense Secretary Donald H. Rumsfeld and Gen. Tommy Franks, head of U.S. Central Command, will appear before the panel the week of July 7.

He said Levin's review is "clearly your prerogative" and said his staff may work periodically with Levin's.

In a statement, Warner's press secretary, John Ullyot, said the committee has held four hearings on the weapons and intelligence issues and will hold more, in addition to the Intelligence Committee review.

"Sen. Levin is welcome to direct his own staff to look into these matters as well," he said.

Levin and Warner will be traveling together next week to Iraq and the Middle East, along with the leaders of the Intelligence Committee and other senators.

The prewar intelligence has been called into question both nationally and abroad because of the military's inability to find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Also, some evidence cited by the Bush administration has been discredited, including documents on supposed approaches to obtain uranium in Africa, which turned out to be forgeries.

At a news conference in Washington, Spanish Foreign Minister Ana Palacio said Friday the failure to find the weapons was a defeat for her government, which strongly supported the war.

"There is a pervasive concern when and how we will find them," Palacio said. But she said she was relaxed about the weapons search.

Republicans say there is little doubt the weapons existed and accuse Democrats of questioning the intelligence and its use for political reasons. They defeated three attempts by House Democrats this week to expand the weapons inquiries as part of an intelligence bill approved early Friday.

On Thursday, 24 House Democrats announced that would seek an independent commission to examine the Iraq intelligence. They say they want to know whether intelligence was inaccurate or whether the administration presented a distorted interpretation of the intelligence to make the case for war.

In addition to the intelligence issue, Democrats and some Republicans have criticized President Bush for not speaking publicly of the long-term costs and U.S. troop commitments that will be needed in Iraq.

Sen. Joseph Biden of Delaware, the top Democrat on the Foreign Relations Committee, urged Bush to ask for help policing Iraq from the NATO military alliance and its member states.

"I implore the president to kind of get over his feelings about the Europeans, and the French and the Germans in particular, and seek their assistance because I believe they are ready to assist. They need to be asked," Biden said.

In an interview with NPR's "All Things Considered," Secretary of State Colin Powell said "a large presence of troops" will be needed for months to stabilize the country, improve security and eliminate remnants of Saddam Hussein's regime and his Baathist Party.

"I can't be more precise than that, because we don't know," he said.



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)6/28/2003 8:42:21 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19070187



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)6/29/2003 2:22:17 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Labor Department Sues Enron on Pensions
__________________________________

By MARCY GORDON
AP Business Writer
Fri Jun 27, 2:47 AM ET
story.news.yahoo.com

WASHINGTON - The government is seeking to recover hundreds of millions of dollars in retirement money that Enron employees lost, bringing suit against the now-bankrupt company and former executives and directors.

The Labor Department filed a civil lawsuit Thursday alleging that the company and its officials, including President Bush's friend and contributor Kenneth Lay, mismanaged retirement plans full of overpriced company stock.

The energy trading company spiraled toward bankruptcy in late 2001 and the stock collapsed. Employees were not told about the deteriorating finances and were blocked for a time from selling the declining Enron stock in their retirement accounts.

It was the government's first legal action against Lay, who had been Enron's chairman, and former chief executive Jeffrey Skilling.

More than 20,700 participants in Enron's 401(k) plan had nearly two-thirds of their assets invested in company stock. Private suits filed on behalf of the employees allege that they lost more than $1 billion.

Lay disputed the government's allegations. His attorney, Michael Birrer, said the Labor Department was trying to create new law by requiring a company to apply a strict new standard for evaluating its own stock that is held in employee retirement plans.

While seeking to recover the retirement savings of Enron employees, Labor Secretary Elaine Chao said the action also is intended to send a message to pension plan officers.

"You have a solemn duty to safeguard your employees' pension assets. If you put those assets in jeopardy through neglect or malfeasance, we will hold you accountable," she said.

The department suit, filed in federal court in Houston, seeks to have the defendants barred from any future positions of responsibility as trustees of pensions funds and, in some instances, seeks financial damages from them.

It also names Enron's former directors, who include Wendy Gramm — former head of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and wife of ex-Sen. Phil Gramm, R-Texas.

The specific allegation against the company's outside directors is that they failed to appoint a trustee to manage the Enron stock held by the employee stock ownership plan, which was separate from the company's 401(k) plans.

The allegation was disputed by Neil Eggleston, the Washington lawyer representing the outside directors. The board did appoint Northern Trust Co. as trustee in August 1999, and it was later replaced by another bank, he said.

The government's complaint "that the Enron board breached its duty by failing to appoint a trustee of the employee stock ownership plan is wrong," Eggleston said.

Enron spokeswoman Karen Denne declined comment on the suit. Calls to a lawyer and a spokeswoman for Skilling were not immediately returned Thursday.

Chao noted that Lay "went so far as to tout the (Enron) stock as a good investment for his own employees — even after he had been warned that a wave of accounting scandals was about to engulf the corporation."

Birrer, Lay's attorney, said his client made those statements "based upon the opinion of external auditors, bankers, lawyers and advisers as well as internal finance, accounting and department heads. At the time, Mr. Lay, like countless Enron employees and pension advisers, did believe strongly that Enron was a sound investment," he said.

The highest-ranking Enron executive charged to date in the corporate scandal is former chief financial officer Andrew Fastow, who faces nearly 100 criminal charges including fraud, money laundering, conspiracy and obstruction of justice. Fastow has pleaded innocent and is free on $5 million bond as he awaits trial

___

On the Net:

Labor Department: dol.gov



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)6/30/2003 2:09:40 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19073482



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 12:12:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19074709



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 9:18:42 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
One Republican Against Bush
______________________

by Amelia Hansen

Published on Monday, June 30, 2003 by the San Mateo County Times (California)

SAN MATEO -- The keynote speaker at Sunday's 2003 Peninsula Symposium and Benefit for Peace, Justice and Human Rights railed against President Bush and left the audience with a straightforward message for the 2004 presidential election: "Remember the A-B-C's -- Anything but Bush and Cheney." The message was met with unsurprising enthusiasm from the crowd. But the speaker himself had a bit of a surprising background: Scott Ritter, former U.N. chief weapons inspector, is a self-professed conservative Republican who admitted to the audience he voted for Bush three years ago.

Since then, Ritter said, Bush has lied to the American public about the true situation in Iraq, particularly in regard to the weapons of mass destruction, which American forces, to date, have failed to locate.

"I leave the door open that they still may find something," Ritter said to the group of 100 or so people gathered in the darkened auditorium at the San Mateo Performing Arts Center on Sunday. "But even if anything is found, it won't be anywhere near what they said it was -- thousands of tons of biological weapons."

Ritter's new book, "Frontier Justice: Weapons of Mass Destruction and the Bushwhacking of America," published by Context Books, is due out next week.

A 12-year veteran of the U.S. Marine Corps and an intelligence officer who served as a central weapons inspector between 1991 and 1998, Ritter said if no weapons are found, Bush's decision to wage war on Iraq should be condemned -- whether he lied or made an honest mistake.

"If Iraq is in possession of weapons of mass destruction, they are in violation of international law," Ritter said. "If they aren't, then we are in violation of international law."

Ritter resigned from the U.N.'s special commission in charge of inspections -- UNSCOM -- in 1998, citing interference from the U.N. Security Council as well as members of the Clinton administration.

Ritter, who now lives in Albany, N.Y., flew out at the invitation of the Peninsula-based lobby "The 100 Year March" to speak on Iraq, as well as his beliefs on the importance of active citizenship and of fighting for constitutional rights.

At Sunday's event -- which featured speakers from other peace and human-rights groups, including the NAACP and Peace Action of San Mateo County -- Ritter urged members of the audience to use the upcoming Fourth of July celebration as an occasion to think about what it truly means to be an American citizen.

"Are you citizens or something else?" he asked, gesturing to the audience. "If you are consumers, you will wrap yourself in comfort, do what you can to not rock the boat. If you are citizens, you will interest yourselves in forming a community, preserving the Constitution."

After his speech, Ritter met activists and peace lobbyists, some wearing colorful hats and beaded jewelry, who waited to thank him for his words.

Ritter, wearing a gray suit, bright blue shirt, and yellow tie, sat near a table with John Kerry election posters. He acknowledged if someone had told him three years ago he would be speaking at a peace symposium attended largely by left-wing liberals, he wouldn't have believed it.

"In college I was a Reagan Republican," Ritter said. "I thought it was the government's responsibility to serve the people."

Ritter stated he's still a conservative Republican, but in his estimation, the current government has stopped serving the people.

"I may even vote for that guy," Ritter said smiling and pointing to the John Kerry signs.

###

commondreams.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 10:55:11 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
<<...It must be emphasized that while lies are immoral, bad judgment at the senior level of government--being so utterly wrong--is intolerable and dangerous in a nuclear world...>>
_________________________________

Bush was just plain wrong on Iraq
BY ANDREW GREELEY*
Columnist
The Chicago Sun-Times
June 27, 2003

suntimes.com

Humans tend to see what they want to see. If facts seem to challenge our preconceptions, we reject them. Thus, practically everyone in Chicago believes Sammy Sosa's explanation of the corked bat. I personally think White Sox fans put the bat in the wrong place, where Sammy picked it up by mistake. Sox fans would do anything to ruin the Cubs' season and to divert attention from their own miserable showing. Right?

Moreover, our attitude on the Martha Stewart case is shaped by our opinions about women who muscle their way to the top in the corporate world. My suspicions about her indictment are also based on the propensity of federal attorneys to promote their own careers by going after ''big fish'' with technical indictments. (Stewart ''obstructed justice'' by denying she had engaged in insider trading. Failure to confess guilt immediately is apparently a crime in itself.)

Thus, I think it is unfair to say that the Bush administration deliberately deceived the American people about Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. The deception was not deliberate because the president, the vice president and the secretary of defense believed with their heart and soul that Saddam Hussein was a serious threat to the United States. Indeed, the ''intellectuals'' around Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld advocated ''taking out'' Saddam even before the Supreme Court selected Bush to be president. The World Trade Center attack provided the rage among the American people to sell such an invasion.

The intelligence reports, like all such reports, were uncertain, problematic, ambiguous. The hawks in the administration saw what they wanted to see and concluded that they were right: Saddam had weapons of mass destruction, which he was ready to use; he was cooperating with al-Qaida, he had or would soon have a nuclear bomb. The hawks knew all these things were true, and had known it for some time. There were plenty of hints in the intelligence data to support what they already knew.

Remember me and the White Sox? Didn't they send a thug to torment Sammy at Camden Yards?

So the hawks ignored the weakness of the data and argued that we had to get Saddam before he got us. Preemptive war was all right because Saddam was ready, willing and able to work mass destruction on the United States. Now that most of the intelligence that confirmed their faith seems questionable, they are unable to back down and say that maybe they were wrong.

Similarly, they are unable for reasons of faith to admit that they were wrong about Iraqi reaction to our invasion. The Iraqis would dance in the streets and throw flowers at our tanks. Instead, they loot, they shoot at us, and they riot against us. The hawks can't admit that they were wrong on this subject, either.

So I do not believe that the deception was deliberate. They did not intend to lie to the American people. Rather, they wanted to prove to the American people that they were right, with little respect for the poor quality of their data.

The point is that, however sincere they were, they did deceive. They were just plain wrong. The president was just plain wrong. People who make such terrible mistakes should not be retained in office. In large corporations, officials who make similar errors in judgment are discarded (usually with a fat purse in their pocket). The whole chicken-hawk cabal should be swept out of office. In American politics, this is usually accomplished by congressional investigation. However, given the Bush administration's propensity to stonewall and cover up and the pro-administration bias of much of the media, full-scale investigation is unlikely. Despite token movements in that direction, the mantra ''national security'' will be invoked to prevent investigation. Just now the federal government can do almost anything it wants.

It must be emphasized that while lies are immoral, bad judgment at the senior level of government--being so utterly wrong--is intolerable and dangerous in a nuclear world.

________________________________

*Andrew M. Greeley is a Roman Catholic priest, author, and sociologist. He teaches at the University of Arizona and the University of Chicago.



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 6:47:28 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19077471



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 7:17:36 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19077628



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 8:24:17 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Welcome to the Machine
______________________________

How the GOP disciplined K Street and made Bush supreme.
By Nicholas Confessore
Editor
The Washinton Monthly
July/August 2003

washingtonmonthly.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/1/2003 10:21:20 PM
From: Victor Lazlo  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
HOWARD DEAN in 2004 !!!

DEAN IS THE BIG MONEY MAN. OUT-RAISING KERRY WITH LESS EFFORT THAN KERRY.

HOWARD DEAN IN 04 !!!!!

YEAH BABY !!!!!!!!!!!!!

KERRY IS DEAD IN THE WATER. OUT OF THE PUBLIC EYE. DEAN STAYS IN THE EYE YET STILL OUT RAISES $$$ KERRY.

KERRY HAS BEEN DUPED. THE STOOGE.

YEAH HOWARD !!

HE'S THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE !!!!!!!!

YEAH BABY !!!

C'MON HOWARD !!!!



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/2/2003 1:11:56 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Bush and the economy...

Message 19077925

some more good comments...

Message 19078279



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/2/2003 12:57:59 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Message 19077836



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/2/2003 1:27:19 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
Blame Bush in State Fiscal Crisis
________________________

By Robert Scheer
AlterNet
July 1, 2003
alternet.org

The other day a woman asked me to sign a petition calling for the recall of California Gov. Gray Davis. Why, I asked. Because he bankrupted the state, she said. When I begged to differ that it was the Bush administration and its buddies at companies like Enron that had put the state into an economic tailspin, she said she was being paid according to the number of petitions signed and didn't really care. But voters should care because Davis is being used as a fall guy for problems that are beyond his control.

Remember Enron and those other scandals that cost folks their jobs and their 401(k) savings? They were a result of deregulation, the mantra of the Republicans. Deregulation was most disastrous for California's energy market, in which a crisis cost jobs and threw the world's fifth-largest economy into long-term disruption. This was not the normal workings of the market but the result of market manipulation by officials of Enron and other energy companies, some of whom are on their way to trial.

Still out cruising the boulevards is our president's once close friend, Kenneth "Kenny Boy" Lay. A major contributor to Bush family political campaigns and former Enron chief executive, Lay invented the energy trading game. It was made possible by his successful lobbying for the 1992 Energy Policy Act, signed into law by the elder Bush. That law allowed a minor Texas company to mushroom into the world's largest energy titan before it went poof.

Daddy Bush also tended to Enron's rise by appointing Wendy L. Gramm to head the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, which promptly exempted electricity trading from the regulatory oversight covering other commodities. Gramm went on to serve on Enron's board of directors and its so-called auditing committee. Her husband, Phil Gramm, then a GOP senator from Texas, later pushed through legislation further deregulating the industry.

When the younger Bush ran for president, he turned to Lay, who became the single biggest contributor to his campaign. George W. returned the favor big-time by appointing to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission members who looked the other way when Enron and its fellow swindler companies were fleecing California. These appointees insisted that California's problems were of its own making and would have to be solved without the imposition of the wholesale energy price caps that would have saved taxpayers from a crushing burden.

Vice President Dick Cheney emerged from secret meetings with Enron executives and stated that the administration considered wholesale price caps a "mistake" because "there isn't anything that can be done short-term to produce more kilowatts this summer." Either Cheney was lying or his Enron buddies were lying to him because, at the time, Enron was routing electricity from California to sell at a higher price in Oregon. Federal price controls would have prevented Enron and the other companies from playing one state against another.

It is disingenuous for California Republicans to now blame Davis rather than their man Bush for the state's economic problems. Only last week, the Republican-dominated FERC banned Enron from selling electricity as punishment for having severely distorted Western energy markets. Enron and 60 other companies were ordered to show why they should not be forced to return their illegally gained profits.

FERC at the same time said California must honor $12 billion in long-term contracts written under duress with the same companies that were gaming the market. The contradiction was acknowledged by commission Chairman Patrick H. Wood III: "I guess people could go, 'Gosh, these are the same parties that show up in those other [market-gaming] cases.' "

Duh! No kidding. They are being rewarded for scamming the state, which contributed to the budget crisis, and schoolchildren will have to pay the price.

Californians provide much more to the federal government in taxes than they get back in services. The feds should bail out the states, which cannot indulge in the red-ink financing that has become a specialty of the Bush administration.

It is absurd to blame current difficulties on any state's governor, Republican or Democrat. It is the Bush administration that has mismanaged a successful economy inherited from Bill Clinton. It is the Bush administration that should bear responsibility for the difficulties being experienced by state governments – and it should at least help California as much as it is helping our newest state, Iraq.



To: American Spirit who wrote (2772)7/2/2003 1:38:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
All The President's Lies
______________________________

Drake Bennett is an American Prospect writing fellow. Heidi Pauken is an editorial assistant at the Prospect.

[Editor's Note: This article was published in the May 1, 2003 issue of The American Prospect, and is reprinted with permission.]

Other presidents have had problems with truth-telling. Lyndon Johnson was said, politely, to have suffered a "credibility gap" when it came to Vietnam. Richard Nixon, during Watergate, was reduced to protesting, "I am not a crook." Bill Clinton was relentlessly accused by both adversaries and allies of reversing solemn commitments, not to mention his sexual dissembling. But George W. Bush is in a class by himself when it comes to prevarication. It is no exaggeration to say that lying has become Bush's signature as president.

The pattern is now well established. Soothing rhetoric -- about compassionate conservatism, about how much money the "average" American worker will get through the White House tax program, about prescription-drug benefits -- is simply at odds with what Bush's policies actually do. Last month Bush promised to enhance Medicaid; his actual policy would effectively end it as a federal entitlement program.

More distressing even than the president's lies, though, is the public's apparent passivity. Bush just seems to get away with it. The post-9/11 effect and the Iraq war distract attention, but there's more to it. Are we finally paying the price for three decades of steadily eroding democracy? Is Bush benefiting from the echo chamber of a right-wing press that repeats the White House line until it starts sounding like the truth? Or does the complicity of the press help to lull the public and reinforce the president's lies?

One thing is clear: If a Democrat, say, Bill Clinton, engaged in Bush-scale dishonesty, the press would be all over him. In the spirit of rekindling public outrage, here are just some of the president's lies.

The Education President

"Every single child in America must be educated, I mean every child.... There's nothing more prejudiced than not educating a child." -- George W. Bush, presidential debate versus Vice President Al Gore, Oct. 11, 2000
Along with tax cuts, education was Bush's top priority when he entered the White House. He charmed lawmakers on both sides of the aisle in an effort to get his bill passed, a bill that combined greater accountability and testing with increased funding. Then, in what has become a trademark, he pulled the plug on the funding.

Members of Congress had good reason to believe Bush was being sincere. As governor of Texas, he had raised state education spending by 55 percent, tightened curriculum requirements and pushed for more accountability from the schools themselves. Even state test scores shot up -- although that was likely the result of the tendency to "teach to the test" rather than an actual increase in learning or knowledge. (The increase wasn't reflected in national standardized test scores.) Still, Bush was able to persuade the top two education Democrats in Congress, Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) and Rep. George Miller (D-Calif.), to work with him on the No Child Left Behind Act. And when the lawmakers objected to voucher provisions, Bush dropped the vouchers -- and toned down the testing measures to win Congress' approval.

But in his 2003 budget, Bush proposed funding levels far below what the legislation called for, requesting only $22.1 billion of the $29.2 billion that Congress authorized. For the largest program, Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, which provides support to students in impoverished school districts, Bush asked for $11.35 billion out of the $18.5 billion authorized. His 2004 budget was more than $6 billion short of what Congress authorized. Furious, Kennedy called Bush's proposal a "tin cup budget" that "may provide the resources to test our children, but not enough to teach them."

The result: States already strapped by record deficits are being held responsible for the extra testing and administration mandated by law -- but aren't getting nearly enough money to pay for it. So the number of public schools likely to be labeled "failing" by the law is estimated to be as high as 85 percent. Failing triggers sanctions, from technical assistance to requiring public-school choice to "reconstitution" -- that is, firing the entire school's staff and hiring a new one. And Bush isn't doing much to help. The New Hampshire School Administrators Association calculated that Bush's plan imposed at least $575 per student in new obligations. His budget, however, provides just $77 per student. It's a revolution in education policy, all right, but No Child Left Behind was simply a lie.

Healthy Skepticism

"Our goal is a system in which all Americans have got a good insurance policy, in which all Americans can choose their own doctor, in which seniors and low-income citizens receive the help they need. ... Our Medicare system is a binding commitment of a caring society. We must renew that commitment by providing the seniors of today and tomorrow with preventive care and the new medicines that are transforming health care in our country." -- George W. Bush, Medicare address, March 4, 2003
The man simply has no shame. His program does none of this. What it does is to make dramatic cuts in the benefits for both the poor and the elderly.

Under the current Medicaid program, the federal government matches, on a sliding scale, the money that states put up. The state is required to cover some beneficiaries and services, although others are "optional." But "optional" services include many essential and life-saving treatments. And "optional" beneficiaries are seldom able to pay for private insurance. Bush's plan, in effect, would turn Medicaid into a block grant, capping the federal contribution. Because states are already hard-pressed to keep up with Medicaid costs, services to the poor will simply dwindle. As Leighton Ku, a health-policy analyst at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, notes, if under the current plan "you wanted to save that much money, you would have to specify which cuts to make, how to make the cuts. But it's much easier to cut the block grant because it's invisible; someone else has to make the decisions."

Bush claims to bring flexibility to Medicaid, and, in a sense, he's right. Under his plan states would have, as Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson put it, "carte blanche" in dealing with optional benefits and optional recipients. In other words, a mother making more than $9,000 a year would be fair game, as would an 8-year-old child who lives in a family with an income just above the poverty line, or a senior citizen or disabled person living on $7,200 a year.

And there's a whiff of coercion to the way in which the states are offered the option of switching to the Medicaid block grant. The states, which have already started cutting Medicaid on their own, are literally begging for federal fiscal assistance, and none is forthcoming. But if they consent to Bush's Medicaid plan, they'll get not only $3 billion in new federal money next year (a loan they would have to repay) but the ability to save money by trimming their Medicaid rolls. In other words, the president is making them an offer they can't refuse.

Bush relentlessly invokes a rhetoric of choice on Medicare. But the Republican proposal pushes seniors toward heavily managed private plans that offer partial drug benefits but limit choice of treatment and doctor. If you stayed with traditional Medicare (which does offer free choice of doctor and hospital), you'd only get minimal prescription-drug benefits. The plan would spend some $400 billion over 10 years, a sum that provides coverage worth 40 percent less than that enjoyed by members of Congress under the Federal Employees Health Benefit Program, which Bush repeatedly invokes as a model.

And while the plan allows House Republicans to avoid making politically unpopular cuts to Medicare, it requires Congress to cut $169 billion over 10 years from programs they oversee. So in the end, Medicare cuts may end up paying for prescription-drug benefits.

Despite rhetoric promising to increase other health spending, a close reading of the House Republican budget proposal shows $2.4 billion in cuts for programs -- such as the National Institutes of Health, Community Health Centers and the Ryan White AIDS program -- that Bush has pledged to support. Even though Bush vowed in his State of the Union address to spend $15 billion over the next five years to provide AIDS relief to Africa, much of that money won't be available until at least 2006. [See Garance Franke-Ruta, "The Fakeout," TAP, April 2003.]

A Paler Shade of Green

"Clear Skies legislation, when passed by Congress, will significantly reduce smog and mercury emissions, as well as stop acid rain. It will put more money directly into programs to reduce pollution, so as to meet firm national air-quality goals. ..." -- George W. Bush, Earth Day speech, April 22, 2002
Actually, the Clear Skies law doesn't do any of this. The act, in fact, delays required emission cuts by as much as 10 years, usurps the states' power to address interstate pollution problems and allows outdated industrial facilities to skirt costly pollution-control upgrades. The Environmental Protection Agency ensured that few people would notice this last regulation by announcing the change on the Friday before Thanksgiving and publishing it in the Federal Register on New Year's Eve. Still, nine northeastern states immediately filed suit against the administration; their case is pending. Meanwhile, Bush's commitment to clean water is just as murky. Despite saying last October that he wanted to "renew our commitment" to building on the Clean Water Act, he's instead decided to "update" it by removing protections for "isolated" waters and weakening sewage-overflow rules, which could significantly increase the potential for waterborne illnesses.

It's hardly surprising to learn that big business is behind a lot of these changes. The Washington Post recounted a meeting between Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) Administrator John Graham and industry lobbyists during which the latter were encouraged to identify particularly onerous rules -- and ultimately created a regulatory "hit list." "There is a stealth campaign that's going on behind closed doors to twist the anti-regulatory process into a pretzel so that the public will be unaware that they are bottling up these protections," says Wesley Warren, the National Resources Defense Council's senior fellow for environmental economics. A good chunk of the 57-item list fell under the EPA's jurisdiction. One by one these rules have been submitted to OIRA under the Paperwork Reduction Act for cost-benefit analysis, a regulatory accounting technique that often ends up justifying watered-down rules.

Even as EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman announced that global warming is a "real phenomenon," Bush refused to sign the Kyoto Protocol to reduce carbon-dioxide emissions. His decision weakened the treaty's effectiveness because the United States produces 25 percent of all greenhouse-gas emissions.

The former Texas oilman, who made one environmental promise after another on the campaign trail, has slashed the EPA's budget by half a billion dollars over two years, cut 100 employees and rolled back regulations on a near-weekly basis. "There has never been anything to compare this to," says Greg Wetstone, director of advocacy at the National Resources Defense Council. "Even in the days of Reagan, there was never an administration so willfully and almost obsessively concerned with finding ways to really undermine the environmental infrastructure."

Whitman, the administration's supposed environmental champion, is also contributing to the weakening of protections. Although she said the administration was working to put in place a standard to "dramatically reduce" levels of arsenic in drinking water, she later tried to lower the existing regulation, saying that even the 10-part-per-billion federal benchmark was too tough. The EPA rolled back the standard until a report warning of health risks (and public outcry) forced the agency to reinstate the old limit.

Here's another classic Bush whopper: In his State of the Union address, the president proposed $1.2 billion in research funding to develop hydrogen-powered cars, in part to make the United States less reliant on foreign oil. What he didn't say is that the technology and infrastructure needed to mass produce such cars won't be available until at least 2020. If Bush truly cared about immediate relief, he might start by acknowledging existing hybrid vehicles or supporting more stringent Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards for light trucks and SUVs. Neither is likely to be part of a Republican energy package this year.

Democrats in the Senate dealt Bush a rare blow when they voted down his proposal to drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in March, although House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Texas) plans to bring the issue back. Still, many lawmakers, especially in the House, feel they can do little except try to fend off the administration's attacks on the environment. "There is an absolute hostility toward any positive strengthening of environmental law," says Rep. Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. "It is a wholesale turning over to corporate America the governing of this country."

Hypocrisy has been defined as the tribute that vice pays to virtue. George W. Bush lied about all these policies because the programs he pretends to favor are far more popular than the ones he puts into effect. But unless the voters and the press start paying attention, all the president's lies will have little political consequence -- except to certify that we have become something less than a democracy.

Published: Jun 24 2003

tompaine.com