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 (3279)7/12/2003 11:23:50 AM
From: stockman_scott  Respond to of 10965
 
decline of the dollar

amconmag.com



To: American Spirit who wrote (3279)7/12/2003 11:30:38 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
REAL Leaders take responsibility but Bush loves to blame...

Bush Team Split as CIA Becomes the Fall Guy
by Tim Reid in Washington
Published on Saturday, July 12, 2003 by the Times/UK

ONE BY ONE, all the President’s men rounded on George Tenet yesterday, forcing the CIA Director to issue a resounding mea culpa that is likely to bring his career to an abrupt end.

The first salvo in what degenerated into open warfare within the Bush Administration was fired by the President himself, blaming the CIA for the inclusion of a false claim about Iraq’s nuclear weapons program in his State of the Union address last January.

The extraordinary public blame Mr Bush heaped upon the agency was underscored by Condoleezza Rice, his National Security Adviser, who summoned reporters covering Mr Bush’s Africa tour to tell them that the CIA had “cleared the speech in its entirety”.

Their finger-pointing exposed the bitter blame game raging within the Administration as the issue of Saddam Hussein’s alleged weapons of mass destruction finally caught fire in Washington.

It capped one of the worst weeks Mr Bush has endured since the September 11 attacks and put the normally sure-footed White House on the defensive as it struggled to protect the President from allegations that he he may have knowingly lied to the American public.The Oval Office’s attack on the CIA caused a sensation on Capitol Hill, and brought calls from Democrats for a congressional investigation. The internal warfare was triggered by last week’s White House admission that Mr Bush was wrong to have claimed in his State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from Africa. That claim was based on intelligence reports that Saddam sought nuclear material from Niger.

After it emerged that the CIA and State Department were told 11 months before the speech that the claim was bogus, congressmen demanded to know why Mr Bush repeated the allegation.

In anonymous briefings to the US media on Thursday CIA officials insisted that the agency explicitly told the White House that the claim was false before the speech. They also said they had tried unsuccessfully to persuade the British Government on this.

That triggered yesterday’s furious White House counter-attack, with Mr Bush saying: “I gave a speech to the nation that was cleared by the intelligence services.”

Dr Rice also insisted that the CIA cleared the speech in its entirety. “If the CIA — the Director of Central Intelligence — had said ‘Take this out of the speech’, it would have been gone.” She added that Mr Tenet was a “terrific” Director, but in Washington her words were seen as devastating.

Pat Roberts, Chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, also weighed in. Mr Roberts, a Republican, said that ten days before the speech the CIA was still standing behind the Niger claim. “If the CIA had changed its position, it was incumbent on the Director of Central Intelligence to correct the record and bring it to the immediate attention of the President. It appears that he failed,” Mr Roberts said. Colin Powell, the Secretary of State, fueled the row by saying that he had not included the uranium-from-Africa claim in his presentation to the United Nations a week after Mr Bush’s speech because he doubted its veracity. John McCain, a Republican senator, said that there should be an investigation to determine how the bogus information made its way into the address. Dick Durbin, a senior Democrat on the Senate Intelligence Committee, said: “Somebody in the White House knew. This really calls into question the leadership in the White House and our intelligence agencies.”

Howard Dean, a Democratic presidential contender, raised Watergate’s famous refrain: “We need to know what the President knew and when he knew it.” He demanded the resignation of any official who failed to tell Mr Bush the information was false.

“The only other possibility, which is unthinkable, is that the President of the United States knew himself that this was a false fact and he put it in the State of the Union anyhow. I hope for the sake of this country that did not happen,” he said. Democrats had begun taking the offensive even before yesterday’s developments, exploiting growing disquiet over mounting casualties in Iraq and over rising unemployment at home.

Mr Bush will arrive back from Africa today facing, for the first time since he took office, questions about his honesty, and looking vulnerable on foreign policy and national security — issues that until now he has successfully used to divide Democrats and unite the public behind him.

The President continues to enjoy an enviable 60 per cent approval rating — at this stage in their presidencies Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were 42 per cent and 47 per cent respectively — but a Gallup poll showed that public approval for Mr Bush’s stewardship of Iraq has fallen from almost 90 per cent in May to 58 per cent now.

Donald Rumsfeld, the Defense Secretary, admitted this week that the monthly cost of the occupation is $3.9 billion (£2.75 billion), nearly double the Pentagon’s previous estimate.

Public and congressional disquiet also mounted after General Tommy Franks, the recently retired coalition commander, said US troops may have to remain in Iraq for up to four years.

Copyright 2003 Times Newspapers Ltd

commondreams.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (3279)7/12/2003 11:41:53 AM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
Candidates like Kerry could get some mileage out of this...

commondreams.org



To: American Spirit who wrote (3279)7/12/2003 12:12:57 PM
From: stockman_scott  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 10965
 
On the front page of The Washington Post this morning...

Support for Bush Declines As Casualties Mount in Iraq
By Richard Morin and Claudia Deane
Washington Post Staff Writers
Saturday, July 12, 2003; Page A01

Public support for President Bush has dropped sharply amid growing concerns about U.S. military casualties and doubts whether the war with Iraq was worth fighting, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll.

Bush's overall job approval rating dropped to 59 percent, down nine points in the past 18 days. That decline exactly mirrored the slide in public support for Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq, which now stands at 58 percent.

And for the first time, slightly more than half the country -- 52 percent -- believes there has been an "unacceptable" level of U.S. casualties in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

Still, only 26 percent said there had been more casualties than they had expected. Three in four say they expect "significantly more" American dead and wounded.

The poll found that seven in 10 Americans believe the United States should continue to keep troops in Iraq, even if it means additional casualties. That view was shared by majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

A majority of the country -- 57 percent -- still consider the war with Iraq to have been worth the sacrifice. That's down 7 percentage points from a Post-ABC News poll in late June, and 13 points since the war ended 10 weeks ago.

Taken together, the latest survey findings suggest that the mix of euphoria and relief that followed the quick U.S. victory in Iraq continues to dissipate, creating an uncertain and volatile political environment. The risks are perhaps most obvious for Bush, whose continued high standing with the American people has been fueled largely by his handling of the war on terrorism and, more recently, the war in Iraq.

On the domestic front, meanwhile, fewer than half the nation approves of Bush's handling of the economy.

The poll found that the failure to locate weapons of mass destruction in Iraq has sharply divided the country. Fifty percent said Bush intentionally exaggerated evidence suggesting Iraq had such weapons, while nearly as many -- 46 percent -- disagreed.

"If we have the capability of finding out that Joe Blow No-Name has dodged his taxes for the past 10 years, why don't we have the capability of . . . finding a foolproof method of finding out whether the intelligence we gather is accurate and making it rock-solid before we jump into another situation?" said James Pike, 41, an auto mechanic from Ogdensburg, N.Y.

Earlier this week, Bush administration officials acknowledged that the president should not have claimed in the State of the Union speech that Iraq had tried to buy uranium from African countries in a bid to build nuclear weapons.

The survey also found that Americans are divided over whether the United States should send troops to Liberia to help enforce a cease-fire in that West African nation's civil war, a move the Bush administration is considering. Fifty-one percent opposed sending troops to Liberia as part of a broader peacekeeping operation, while 41 percent favored the idea.

"I don't really know that we have any business there," said Penny Tarbert, 50, who is disabled and lives in Bucyrus, Ohio. "They've been fighting this [civil war] for a long time. I think we've got ourselves in enough right now that we don't need to be spreading ourselves any thinner."

An overwhelming majority of Americans -- 80 percent -- said they fear the United States will become bogged down in a long and costly peacekeeping mission in Iraq, up eight points in less than three weeks.

"I'm worried about how long we're going to be there," said Betty Stillwell, 71, a writer from central California. "We were supposed to be in there and out. By now I thought they would have set up a government, and they haven't done that yet. . . . I think the whole thing was poorly planned, no thought to the aftermath."

Despite broad doubts and growing concerns, few Americans say it's time for the troops to come home. Three in four support the current U.S. presence in Iraq -- a view shared by large majorities of Republicans (89 percent), Democrats (60 percent) and political independents (75 percent).

The number of U.S. casualties, while troubling to many, has not outstripped most people's expectations. One in four said there had been more casualties than they had anticipated, while 36 percent said there had been fewer and 37 percent said it was about what they had expected.

"I don't think any [casualties] are acceptable, but they're necessary," said Chris Eldridge, 29, an electronics technician from Louisville. "They're a lot lower than I expected. I expected there would be more during the initial fighting. I expected a lot more killed. Fortunately there hasn't been."

Danny Buckner, 53, a Navy retiree who lives in Brownwood, Tex., had a somewhat different view. "Considering we are having a cease-fire we sure are losing a lot of lives," he said. "They're killing us right and left. I don't know what the deal is."

The poll suggests growing public belief that the United States must kill or capture Saddam Hussein for the war to be successful. A 61 percent majority now believe Hussein must be found, up 11 points since April. That view was shared by roughly similar majorities of Republicans, Democrats and political independents.

"It would be nice if we could find Saddam Hussein and get it over with," said Susan Leidich, 39, a homemaker from Birch Run, Mich. "It seems like if the military leaves, it could be like Desert Storm [the 1991 Persian Gulf War], and then Saddam Hussein would take right back over."

The survey suggests that most Americans believe the recent war produced mixed results. Six in 10 said it damaged the image of the United States abroad, and half said the conflict caused permanent damage to U.S. relations with France, Germany and other allies who opposed the war. The public was equally divided whether the war contributed to long-term peace and stability in the Middle East.

But seven in 10 said the war helped improve the lives of the Iraqi people. And six in 10 said it contributed to the long-term security of the United States.

A total of 1,006 randomly selected adults were interviewed July 9 and 10. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points.

© 2003 The Washington Post Company