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 : GOPwinger Lies/Distortions/Omissions/Perversions of Truth -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: PartyTime who wrote (1)1/29/2004 1:02:24 PM
From: PartyTime  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
"We were all wrong!"--David Kay

Message 19747078



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)1/29/2004 3:08:36 PM
From: Skywatcher  Respond to of 173976
 
"The days of looking the other way while despotic regimes trample human
rights, rob their nation's wealth, and then excuse their failings by feeding
their people a diet of fear and hatred are over..."

Dick Cheney in Europe this week

(What's wrong with this picture?)EVERYTHING

CC



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/10/2004 7:02:40 AM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Did Bush sucker punch Rather?

bluelemur.com

10/3/2004
White House fueled CBS ‘memo-gate’ by withholding document; Was it all a set-up?

White House withheld critical proportionately spaced document until after CBS flap waned

By John Byrne | RAW STORY Editor

A newly released document from President George W. Bush’s military records lends credence to rumors that the recent flap over ‘forged memos’ was in fact engineered from within the White House, RAW STORY has learned.

At the very least, the timing of the release shows that the White House deliberately withheld a genuine document which contained the characteristics of the memos which are said to have been forged. From the beginning, Bush’s supporters have claimed that typewriters of the period could not produce the documents.

It’s also the fourth time the White House has released Bush documents since they said they had released all of Bush’s non-medical documents. White House communications director Dan Bartlett told the Washington Post that he had put out “absolutely everything” he had of Bush’s nonmedical military records in February.

The document in question was released to an independent researcher as part of a Freedom of Information Act request in 2000, but was not made available to the general media until the White House released it – under a federal court order after a lawsuit by the Associated Press – on Sept. 24.

The document is a memo written to Bush notifying him of his promotion to First Lieutenant. Dated Feb. 19, 1971, it was typed more than a year before the first of the CBS memos.

And, like the CBS memos, this document uses a proportionately spaced font and has the characteristics of a document produced on contemporary computers using Microsoft Word. Proportionately spaced fonts, in which characters had different widths, replaced older typewriter fonts in which all the characters were of the same width.

The discovery was made by Paul Lukasiak, a Philadelphia researcher who was the source of research proving that Bush did not complete his required Guard service, which RAW STORY reported Aug. 1, and was carried in September by the Boston Globe.

Bush’s Defense Department fought the AP lawsuit filed in July to have the original microfiche records examined to determine if documents were withheld by the White House.

And even though Defense released Bush’s flight records on Sept. 10, just when the memo controversy was gaining steam, and another 200 pages of records on Sept. 17th, it did not release the proportionately spaced memo at either point.

It was not until Sept. 24, under a federal court order, that the Pentagon finally released the proportionately spaced document, even though this document had been released in 2000.

The document was not made available to the general public on the department’s website until the following week.

Was Karl Rove involved?

James Moore, author of acclaimed best-seller Bush’s Brain, the acclaimed best seller about Bush and the relationship with his advisor Karl Rove, said the timing of the release was dubious.

“I find the timing of the release of this proportionally spaced document to be very curious,” Moore said. “The CBS documents were attacked for similar spacing because of an argument that typewriters did not have that capability more than 30 years ago. But this new document clearly proves that to be wrong.”

Moore said he suspects Rove was involved with the scandal.

“My suspicions about Rove’s involvement in the CBS document controversy arose after the well-coordinated attack on the memos,” he said. “Critics were ready with their analysis almost before CBS got off the air. And they knew precisely the forensic arguments to make.”

“This didn’t happen through simple due diligence,” he added. “They were tipped in advance. And that was only possible if Rove was involved in the creation and leaking of the documents or if he got
them in advance.”

“If anybody can pull those off, it’s Rove.”


Other studies of Bush’s Guard files

Another recent study appears to prove that the CBS memos were produced by a typewriter.

Director of the Interactive Media Research Laboratory Dr. David Hailey at Utah State University demonstrates that the CBS memos were produced on a typewriter, and not by a contemporary computer. Dr. Hailey is an expert on images, and has demonstrated that there are consistent flaws in certain letters that can only be attributed to a typewritten document.

Hailey’s study has received scant attention from mainstream media, despite the fact that it refutes the primary “evidence” that the Killian memos were forgeries.

He did, however, receive attention after a conservative blog, WizBang, started deriding his claims and research. Since then, he has been flooded with angry emails charging “academic fraud.”

This story comes on the tail of another story revealing that some of Bush’s genuine Guard files may have been tampered with. Physical anomalies in two documents suggest that changes were made to the documents after they were generated, perhaps to mask embarrassing information about the President’s service.

Fakes, or not fakes?

It has yet to be proven whether the CBS documents were actually fakes; CBS has said only that they can no longer be certain they are genuine. The alleged source of their documents was former Lt. Colonel Bill Burkett.

Some have suggested that the attacks were engineered to destroy Burkett’s credibility, who has been a thorn in the Bush’s side for many years. He was the source for USA Today’s 2001 series which proved the Texas National Guard (among other state Guards) was receiving federal funding for the training of Guardsmen who did not show up.

Burkett subsequently asserted he had observed Bush campaign officials in the act of purging Bush’s Texas Air National Guard files.

RAW STORY has followed the forgery claims from the beginning, noting Sept. 9 that the initial sources of the Matt Drudge’s forgery claim – CNS News and Powerline, are run by a conservative who chairs the Conservative Victory Committee and sits on the board of a conservative thinktank, respectively.

Salon followed with another story Sept. 10, stating that the same conservative operatives who attacked Kerry as Swift Boat Veterans for Truth pushed the forgery claims.

Another blogger, “Buckhead,” posted a highly technical explanation posted within hours of 6o Minutes citing proportional spacing and font styles, the New York Times reported.

“It was the work of Harry W. MacDougald, an Atlanta lawyer with strong ties to conservative Republican causes who helped draft the petition urging the Arkansas Supreme Court to disbar President Clinton after the Monica Lewinsky scandal,” the Times wrote.

“Reached by telephone,” the piece continued, “MacDougald confirmed that he is Buckhead, but declined to answer questions about his political background or how he knew so much about the CBS documents so fast.”



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/11/2004 4:27:23 PM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 


The CIA 'old guard' goes to war with Bush

telegraph.co.uk

By Phillip Sherwell in Washington
(Filed: 10/10/2004)

A powerful "old guard" faction in the Central Intelligence Agency has launched an unprecedented campaign to undermine the Bush administration with a battery of damaging leaks and briefings about Iraq.

The White House is incensed by the increasingly public sniping from some senior intelligence officers who, it believes, are conducting a partisan operation to swing the election on November 2 in favour of John Kerry, the Democratic candidate, and against George W Bush.

Jim Pavitt, a 31-year CIA veteran who retired as a departmental chief in August, said that he cannot recall a time of such "viciousness and vindictiveness" in a battle between the White House and the agency.

John Roberts, a conservative security analyst, commented bluntly: "When the President cannot trust his own CIA, the nation faces dire consequences."

Relations between the White House and the agency are widely regarded as being at their lowest ebb since the hopelessly botched Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba by CIA-sponsored exiles under President John F Kennedy in 1961.

There is anger within the CIA that it has taken all the blame for the failings of pre-war intelligence on Saddam Hussein's weapons programmes.

Former senior CIA officials argue that so-called "neo-conservative" hawks such as the vice president, Dick Cheney, the secretary of defence, Donald Rumsfeld, and his number three at the defence department, Douglas Feith, have prompted the ill-feeling by demanding "politically acceptable" results from the agency and rejecting conclusions they did not like. Yet Colin Powell, the less hardline secretary of state, has also been scathing in his criticism of pre-war intelligence briefings.

The leaks are also a shot across the bows of Porter Goss, the agency's new director and a former Republican congressman. He takes over with orders from the White House to end the in-fighting and revamp the troubled spy agency as part of a radical overhaul of the American intelligence world.

Bill Harlow, the former CIA spokesman who left with the former director George Tenet in July, acknowledged that there had been leaks from within the agency. "The intelligence community has been made the scapegoat for all the failings over Iraq," he said. "It deserves some of the blame, but not all of it. People are chafing at that, and that's the background to these leaks."

Fighting to defend their patch ahead of the future review, anti-Bush CIA operatives have ensured that Iraq remains high on the election campaign agenda long after Republican strategists such as Karl Rove, the President's closest adviser, had hoped that it would fade from the front pages.

In the latest clash, a senior former CIA agent revealed that Mr Cheney "blew up" when a report into links between the Saddam regime and Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the terrorist behind the kidnappings and beheadings of hostages in Iraq, including the Briton Kenneth Bigley, proved inconclusive.

Other recent leaks have included the contents of classified reports drawn up by CIA analysts before the invasion of Iraq, warning the White House about the dangers of post-war instability. Specifically, the reports said that rogue Ba'athist elements might team up with terrorist groups to wage a guerrilla war.

Critics of the White House include officials who have served in previous Republican administrations such as Vince Cannistraro, a former CIA head of counter-terrorism and member of the National Security Council under Ronald Reagan.

"These have been an extraordinary four years for the CIA and the political pressure to come up with the right results has been enormous, particularly from Vice-President Cheney.

"I'm afraid that the agency is guilty of bending over backwards to please the administration. George Tenet was desperate to give them what they wanted and that was a complete disaster."

With the simmering rows breaking out in public, the Wall Street Journal declared in an editorial that the administration was now fighting two insurgencies: one in Iraq and one at the CIA.

In a difficult week for President Bush leading up to Friday's presidential debate, the CIA-led Iraqi Survey Group confirmed that Saddam had had no weapons of mass destruction, while Mr Rumsfeld distanced himself from the administration's long-held assertion of ties between Saddam and the al-Qaeda terror network.

Earlier, unguarded comments by Paul Bremer, the former American administrator of Iraq who said that America "never had enough troops on the ground", had given the row about post-war strategy on the ground fresh impetus.

With just 23 days before the country votes for its next president, both sides are braced for further bruising encounters.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/12/2004 5:23:35 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Checking the Facts, in Advance

nytimes.com

October 12, 2004
OP-ED COLUMNIST
Checking the Facts, in Advance
By PAUL KRUGMAN

t's not hard to predict what President Bush, who sounds increasingly desperate, will say tomorrow. Here are eight lies or distortions you'll hear, and the truth about each:

Jobs

Mr. Bush will talk about the 1.7 million jobs created since the summer of 2003, and will say that the economy is "strong and getting stronger." That's like boasting about getting a D on your final exam, when you flunked the midterm and needed at least a C to pass the course.

Mr. Bush is the first president since Herbert Hoover to preside over a decline in payroll employment. That's worse than it sounds because the economy needs around 1.6 million new jobs each year just to keep up with population growth. The past year's job gains, while better news than earlier job losses, barely met this requirement, and they did little to close the huge gap between the number of jobs the country needs and the number actually available.

Unemployment

Mr. Bush will boast about the decline in the unemployment rate from its June 2003 peak. But the employed fraction of the population didn't rise at all; unemployment declined only because some of those without jobs stopped actively looking for work, and therefore dropped out of the unemployment statistics. The labor force participation rate - the fraction of the population either working or actively looking for work - has fallen sharply under Mr. Bush; if it had stayed at its January 2001 level, the official unemployment rate would be 7.4 percent.

The deficit

Mr. Bush will claim that the recession and 9/11 caused record budget deficits. Congressional Budget Office estimates show that tax cuts caused about two-thirds of the 2004 deficit.

The tax cuts

Mr. Bush will claim that Senator John Kerry opposed "middle class" tax cuts. But budget office numbers show that most of Mr. Bush's tax cuts went to the best-off 10 percent of families, and more than a third went to the top 1 percent, whose average income is more than $1 million.

The Kerry tax plan

Mr. Bush will claim, once again, that Mr. Kerry plans to raise taxes on many small businesses. In fact, only a tiny percentage would be affected. Moreover, as Mr. Kerry correctly pointed out last week, the administration's definition of a small-business owner is so broad that in 2001 it included Mr. Bush, who does indeed have a stake in a timber company - a business he's so little involved with that he apparently forgot about it.

Fiscal responsibility

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry proposes $2 trillion in new spending. That's a partisan number and is much higher than independent estimates. Meanwhile, as The Washington Post pointed out after the Republican convention, the administration's own numbers show that the cost of the agenda Mr. Bush laid out "is likely to be well in excess of $3 trillion" and "far eclipses that of the Kerry plan."

Spending

On Friday, Mr. Bush claimed that he had increased nondefense discretionary spending by only 1 percent per year. The actual number is 8 percent, even after adjusting for inflation. Mr. Bush seems to have confused his budget promises - which he keeps on breaking - with reality.

Health care

Mr. Bush will claim that Mr. Kerry wants to take medical decisions away from individuals. The Kerry plan would expand Medicaid (which works like Medicare), ensuring that children, in particular, have health insurance. It would protect everyone against catastrophic medical expenses, a particular help to the chronically ill. It would do nothing to restrict patients' choices.

By singling out Mr. Bush's lies and misrepresentations, am I saying that Mr. Kerry isn't equally at fault? Yes.

Mr. Kerry sometimes uses verbal shorthand that offers nitpickers things to complain about. He talks of 1.6 million lost jobs; that's the private-sector loss, partly offset by increased government employment. But the job record is indeed awful. He talks of the $200 billion cost of the Iraq war; actual spending is only $120 billion so far. But nobody doubts that the war will cost at least another $80 billion. The point is that Mr. Kerry can, at most, be accused of using loose language; the thrust of his statements is correct.

Mr. Bush's statements, on the other hand, are fundamentally dishonest. He is insisting that black is white, and that failure is success. Journalists who play it safe by spending equal time exposing his lies and parsing Mr. Kerry's choice of words are betraying their readers.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/14/2004 4:41:34 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Bush administration takes emergency steps to avoid debt ceiling

story.news.yahoo.com

Bush administration takes emergency steps to avoid debt ceiling

WASHINGTON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush (news - web sites)'s administration weathered a pre-election mauling as it announced emergency measures to skirt a 7.38-trillion-dollar debt limit.

Treasury Secretary John Snow, who shortly afterwards also revealed a record budget deficit for 2004, said he would use pension money to keep the government running.

In a letter to Senate majority leader Bill Frist, Snow said he was immediately suspending payments to a federal employees' retirement scheme, the Government Securities Investment Fund (G-Fund).

The missing money would be repaid in full later, with no net effect on the fund or retirees, he promised.

The treasury secretary said he was forced to take the emergency accounting step because Congress had not acted on his August 2 request for the government's legal debt limit to be raised.

Any move by Congress to raise the debt limit could be politically embarrassing.

Democrats pounced on the news as evidence of fiscal mismanagement by the administration, less than three weeks before Bush faces Democratic challenger John Kerry (news - web sites) in the November 2 presidential election.

"George Bush continues to make history for all the wrong reasons: He's the first president to go without creating a new job since the Great Depression and now he's run up more debt in shorter period of time than all the presidents combined in the 200 years from Washington through Reagan," said Kerry campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

"On top of that, this is the third time he's broken his promise not to raise the debt ceiling. His fiscal mismanagement is taking its toll on America and it's time for a fresh start," he said in a statement.

House Democratic leader Nancy Pelosi described Snow's manoeuvre as "a shameful admission" that the administration's economic policies had failed the American people.

The overall US debt -- the total, accumulated financial liabilities of the country -- now amounted to 7.38 trillion dollars, she said.

"The Republican leadership knew that the debt limit would be reached this month but did not want an embarrassing vote on raising the debt ceiling until after next month's election so Republicans are now resorting to extraordinary accounting measures to avoid that vote."

Pelosi said the Bush tax cuts for "an elite few" were unaffordable, and corporate tax breaks for companies that exported jobs abroad had failed to create jobs.

"The president's disastrous economic policies are just creating record deficits, higher interest rates, a drag on the economy, and a legacy of debt for our children. It is time for a change," she said.

Snow called on lawmakers to raise the debt ceiling by mid-November, which would be well after the election.

"Given current projections, it is imperative that the Congress take action to increase the debt limit by mid-November, at which time all of our previously used prudent and legal actions to avoid breaching the statutory debt limit will be exhausted," Snow said.

"I know that you share the president's and my commitment to maintaining the full faith and credit of the US government."

In the fiscal year to 2004, the US budget exploded to a record 413 billion dollars, the Treasury Department (news - web sites) announced later Thursday.

Government spending for the year ended September 30 rose 6.2 percent to 2.29 trillion dollars, swamping income, which climbed 5.5 percent to 1.88 trillion dollars, it said.

The result: the deficit mushroomed 9.5 percent from the previous year to 413 billion dollars, equal to 3.6 percent of total economic output, or gross domestic product (GDP (news - web sites)).



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/15/2004 7:58:07 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Republican crooks work for Bush in Ohio!

argusleader.com

By TERRY WOSTER and DAVID KRANZ
Argus Leader
published: 10/15/2004
Larry Russell, 3 others move to Ohio campaign

South Dakota campaign official who resigned after questions arose over absentee-ballot applications will work in Ohio for the Bush-Cheney campaign, an internal Republican Party memo indicates.

Larry Russell, who was chairman of the South Dakota Republican Party's get-out-the-vote operation, resigned this week after questions were raised about the validity of some of the 1,400 absentee-ballot applications gathered, largely on college campuses, by the program Russell led.

Students on campuses in Brookings, Vermillion, Yankton and Spearfish have questioned the absentee-ballot application process, saying young men obtained their applications, but the notarization of the documents carried the signature of a woman.

The South Dakota Division of Criminal Investigation has been interviewing several people about the matter.

No charges have been filed as a result of the probe, which Attorney General Larry Long on Thursday would only say "is continuing."

When South Dakota Republican Party Chairman Randy Frederick announced the resignations of Russell and five others Monday evening, he said the state party has a "zero-tolerance policy."

But an internal Republican Party memo obtained by the Argus Leader said Russell would be going to Cleveland "to lead the ground operations" for President Bush and Vice President Cheney there.

Ohio is a swing state considered vital to a successful presidential victory.

Attempts to contact Bush-Cheney campaign officials in Cleveland were unsuccessful.

The memo was e-mailed to Republican staffers and officials Sunday evening by the state

party's Executive Director Jason Glodt. Three other GOP workers who resigned over the application fracas also will be involved in the Ohio campaign, according to the memo.

"Todd Schleckeway, Nathan Mertz and Eric Fahrendorf have also been recruited to Ohio to work with Larry on the President's campaign," the e-mail stated.

Russell's work praised

The state Republican Party accepted the resignations of Russell, another GOP staffer and four contract workers after the questions were raised about absentee-ballot applications. Those who resigned were involved in Republican Victory campaign, a get-out-the-vote effort.

Glodt confirmed Thursday that the memo is authentic, but he said he'd prefer not to comment on an internal communication.

In the memo, Glodt praises Russell's work in South Dakota.

"Larry has done an excellent job building our organization in South Dakota and he is confident we can get the job done in the next 23 days," he wrote.

Fahrendorf was a party employee. Schleckeway and Mertz were independent contractors working on the get-out-the-vote operation. Independent contractors Joe Alick and Rachel M. Hoff, whose notary seal and signature are on some of the questioned applications, also resigned but were not mentioned in the memo.

'We didn't miss a beat'

Dick Wadhams, Republican Senate candidate John Thune's campaign manager, said the Victory operation is running strong even though the key players are absent.

Russell was replaced by Herb Jones, who ran Thune's 2002 Senate campaign.

"We didn't miss a beat. Herb Jones in on the job, and everything is running fine," Wadhams said.

Russell's new job puts him in an enviable situation, Wadhams said.

"Ohio is on everybody's short list as a battleground state, so it is the place to be," he said.

Alan Clem, retired University of South Dakota political science professor, said Cleveland probably isn't a bad place to land.

"He isn't going to have much of a future in South Dakota," he said. "My impression is, there were some young Republicans in the last few years who got a little cocky, upset some people. I suppose (Russell) is persona non grata in this state."

On Thursday, The Associated Press reported that Jesse Abbott, a student at Black Hills State University, said a man approached him in his dorm about applying for an absentee ballot, but a woman's name, Jennifer Giannonatti, was on the notarization portion of the document.

Glodt said Giannonatti had been a contract worker for the

party last spring, but "by the time this happened, she wasn't employed by the Republican Party. So she wasn't on our list.'

Glodt said Giannonatti was working for the state's College Republicans in the get-out-the-vote program this fall.

Collecting photo IDs

Any applications she may have processed are among the 1,400 the party already has identified in a direct-mail program to contact students who applied for ballots and to urge them to return a copy of a photo identification. The law requires a copy of the ID or a notary's signature on an absentee-ballot application.

The GOP decided earlier in the week to contact each of the 1,400 applicants by mail. If the voter returns an identification, the party will match the document with the original application in each auditor's office, Glodt said.

"We were doing this statewide already,' he said. "We're confident that the large majority of those (applications) are valid, that the large majority were done properly. ... Regardless, since there would be no way to differentiate which ones weren't done properly and the ones that were done properly, we're collecting photo IDs for all of them processed by the Victory campaign.'

He also noted that each of the applicants was a qualified voter who wanted an absentee ballot.

Lawrence County States Attorney John Fitzgerald, whose jurisdiction includes Spearfish, where Black Hills State University is located, said Thursday he hasn't received any complaints about ballot application problems.

Clay County States Attorney Tami Bern in Vermillion, home of the University of South Dakota, said she hasn't received complaints, either.

"None of the people who have made an application have made a complaint to us, and if they did, we would refer them to the DCI (Division of Criminal Investigation) investigation,' she said.

Earlier, Yankton County States Attorney Bob Chavis said his office had 18 questionable applications.

A DCI agent has been investigating complaints in Brookings County, where South Dakota State University is located. States Attorney Clyde Calhoon said he hasn't received the results of that investigation yet.

Brown County Auditor Maxine Taylor said she isn't aware of any complaints arising at Northern State University.

Secretary of State Chris Nelson said a county auditor's duty is to review the application only to make sure that all information required is included. The auditors aren't expected to go beyond that to such steps as verifying the identity of a notary, for example.

"The only thing we have told them as a group at this point is that if voters send copies of their identification, you should certainly accept those,' Nelson said. "And, at this point, that's the only special instruction we've given them as a group.'

He wouldn't speculate on future directions of the investigation.

"I don't know where it's going, either," Nelson said, "other than I know they're working hard."

*************************************************************

Bush is so desperate to win he will try to round up votes any way he can. Even by hiring shady characters. Pathetic.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/19/2004 10:21:50 PM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
Bush Receives Endorsement From Iran

news.yahoo.com

Tue Oct 19, 6:33 PM ET


By ALI AKBAR DAREINI, Associated Press Writer

TEHRAN, Iran - The head of Iran's security council said Tuesday that the re-election of President Bush (news - web sites) was in Tehran's best interests, despite the administration's axis of evil label, accusations that Iran harbors al-Qaida terrorists and threats of sanctions over the country's nuclear ambitions.

Historically, Democrats have harmed Iran more than Republicans, said Hasan Rowhani, head of the Supreme National Security Council, Iran's top security decision-making body.

"We haven't seen anything good from Democrats," Rowhani told state-run television in remarks that, for the first time in recent decades, saw Iran openly supporting one U.S. presidential candidate over another.

Though Iran generally does not publicly wade into U.S. presidential politics, it has a history of preferring Republicans over Democrats, who tend to press human rights issues.

"We do not desire to see Democrats take over," Rowhani said when asked if Iran was supporting Democratic Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) against Bush.

The Bush campaign said no thanks.

"It's not an endorsement we'll be accepting anytime soon," Bush campaign spokesman Scott Stanzel said. "Iran should stop its pursuit of nuclear weapons and if they continue in the direction they are going, then we will have to look at what additional action may need to be taken including looking to the U.N. Security Council."

Kerry, who says halting nuclear proliferation will be a priority if he becomes president, believes Bush should have done more diplomatically to curb Iran's alleged nuclear weapons ambitions. He says Iran should be offered nuclear fuel for peaceful purposes, but spent fuel should be taken back so it cannot be used to develop nuclear weapons.

"It is telling that this president has received the endorsement of member of the axis of evil," Kerry campaign spokeswoman Allison Dobson said. "But Americans deserve a president who will have a comprehensive strategy to address the potential threat of Iran's growing nuclear program."

The United States severed diplomatic relations with Iran after militants stormed the U.S. Embassy in Tehran in 1979 and held 52 Americans hostage for 444 days. Iranian clerics were crucial in determining the fate of the 1980 U.S. election when Republican Ronald Reagan (news - web sites) won in part because Democratic incumbent Jimmy Carter was unable to secure the hostages' release.

The hostages were freed as Reagan was inaugurated.

The United States supported Iraq (news - web sites) in the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq war, but by the late 1990s, U.S.-Iranian relations were somewhat better. They plummeted again after Bush accused Iran of being part of the "axis of evil" with North Korea (news - web sites) and prewar Iraq.

The Bush administration also accuses Iran of pursuing nuclear weapons and sheltering operatives of Osama bin Laden (news - web sites)'s al-Qaida terror network. Still, Iran was happy to see Bush destroy two big regional enemies — the Taliban in Afghanistan (news - web sites) and Saddam Hussein (news - web sites) in Iraq.

Iranian political analyst Mohsen Mofidi said ousting the Taliban and Saddam was the "biggest service any administration could have done for Iran."

And Bush, he said, has learned from his mistakes.

"The experience of two wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and the responsibility Bush had, will make it a very remote possibility for him to risk attacking a much bigger and more powerful country like Iran," he said.

Mofidi added that "Democrats usually insist on human rights and they will have more excuses to pressure Iran."



Republican and Democratic presidents have issued executive orders against Iran, with Reagan in 1987 barring Iranian crude oil and other imports, and Bill Clinton (news - web sites) in 1995 banning U.S. trade and investment in Iran.

"We should not forget that most sanctions and economic pressures were imposed on Iran during the time of Clinton," Rowhani said. "And we should not forget that during Bush's era — despite his hard-line and baseless rhetoric against Iran — he didn't take, in practical terms, any dangerous action against Iran."

Bush has been reluctant to offer Iran any incentives for better U.S.-Iranian relations, but in recent days there have been signs Washington will back European economic incentives if Iran stops uranium enrichment activities.

Gholamreza Aghazadeh, head of the Atomic Energy Organization of Iran, was quoted by state-run television Tuesday as saying Iran is interested in buying nuclear fuel from the West, but will not concede its right to the technology.

The nuclear issue has been most sensitive, and the Bush administration is threatening to press for sanctions against Iran over it. Tehran says its nuclear ambitions are peaceful, for energy purposes.

Kavoos Emami, another Iranian political analyst, praised Kerry for mentioning the need for dialogue with Iran, and said the Democrat would be better for Iran.

"Bush has insulted Iran more than any other U.S. administration. If Kerry is elected, a U.S. military attack against Iran will never happen or will be a very remote possibility," he said.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/21/2004 4:24:10 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
"Elections belong to the people. It is their decision. If they decide to turn their back on the fire and burn their behinds, then they will just have to sit on their blisters." - Abraham Lincoln



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/26/2004 3:20:12 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Young people getting involved on the grassroots level.

indyvoter.org



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/26/2004 3:22:28 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
TAKIN' MY COUNTRY BACK
Check this out. Who says all the Country Music scene is pro Bush?
takinmycountryback.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/26/2004 3:49:27 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Vote for a Man, Not a Puppet
by Charley Reese
lewrockwell.com

Americans should realize that if they vote for President Bush's re-election, they are really voting for the architects of war – Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz and the rest of that cabal of neoconservative ideologues and their corporate backers.

I have sadly come to the conclusion that President Bush is merely a frontman, an empty suit, who is manipulated by the people in his administration. Bush has the most dangerously simplistic view of the world of any president in my memory.

It's no wonder the president avoids press conferences like the plague. Take away his cue cards and he can barely talk. Americans should be embarrassed that an Arab king (Abdullah of Jordan) spoke more fluently and articulately in English than our own president at their joint press conference recently.

John Kerry is at least an educated man, well-read, who knows how to think and who knows that the world is a great deal more complex than Bush's comic-book world of American heroes and foreign evildoers. It's unfortunate that in our poorly educated country, Kerry's very intelligence and refusal to adopt simplistic slogans might doom his presidential election efforts.

But Thomas Jefferson said it well, as he did so often, when he observed that people who expect to be ignorant and free expect what never was and never will be.

People who think of themselves as conservatives will really display their stupidity, as I did in the last election, by voting for Bush. Bush is as far from being a conservative as you can get. Well, he fooled me once, but he won't fool me twice.

It is not at all conservative to balloon government spending, to vastly increase the power of government, to show contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, or to tell people that foreign outsourcing of American jobs is good for them, that giant fiscal and trade deficits don't matter, and that people should not know what their government is doing. Bush is the most prone-to-classify, the most secretive president in the 20th century. His administration leans dangerously toward the authoritarian.

It's no wonder that the Justice Department has convicted a few Arab-Americans of supporting terrorism. What would you do if you found yourself arrested and a federal prosecutor whispers in your ear that either you can plea-bargain this or the president will designate you an enemy combatant and you'll be held incommunicado for the duration?

This election really is important, not only for domestic reasons, but because Bush's foreign policy has been a dangerous disaster. He's almost restarted the Cold War with Russia and the nuclear arms race. America is not only hated in the Middle East, but it has few friends anywhere in the world thanks to the arrogance and ineptness of the Bush administration. Don't forget, a scientific poll of Europeans found us, Israel, North Korea and Iran as the greatest threats to world peace.

I will swallow a lot of petty policy differences with Kerry to get a man in the White House with brains enough not to blow up the world and us with it. Go to Kerry's Web site and read some of the magazine profiles on him. You'll find that there is a great deal more to Kerry than the GOP attack dogs would have you believe.

Besides, it would be fun to have a president who plays hockey, windsurfs, ride motorcycles, plays the guitar, writes poetry and speaks French. It would be good to have a man in the White House who has killed people face to face. Killing people has a sobering effect on a man and dispels all illusions about war.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/26/2004 7:08:43 PM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
Campaign event security spurs arrests, removals

dmregister.com

Protesters near Bush rallies have been arrested; those with items supporting John Kerry had to leave.

By LYNN CAMPBELL
REGISTER STAFF WRITER
October 16, 2004

Tight security and screening at President Bush's campaign events in Iowa has led to at least five arrests, frightened one teenager, and caused several other people to be turned away when they failed to voice support for the president.

While some were protesters, others were escorted out of events or told to leave because they were wearing buttons or T-shirts for Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry.

"It appears that the people wanting to control the visual images and the whole tone of these events have become so overwhelming," said Ben Stone, executive director of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union. "As a result of this obsession with control, there's been this increased use of screening and eliminating people."

The Kerry campaign has also held Iowa events that have been closed to the public. However, reports in Iowa and across the nation indicate that security at Kerry events is less strict. The Des Moines Register could not find any examples of detractors being arrested or kept out of Kerry events, and Republicans declined to provide any examples.

Bush campaign spokesman Dan Ronayne explained that because there's only so much space at each event, volunteers helping to re-elect Bush are given priority at Bush campaign events over those intending to disrupt.

"If someone were to be coming up wearing a 'John Kerry for President' T-shirt, that is probably someone who has left the undecided column," Ronayne said.

One of the latest incidents came when John Sachs, 18, a Johnston High School senior and Democrat, went to see Bush in Clive last week. Sachs got a ticket to the event from school and wanted to ask the president about whether there would be a draft, about the war in Iraq, Social Security and Medicare.

But when he got there, a campaign staffer pulled him aside and made him remove his button that said, "Bush-Cheney '04: Leave No Billionaire Behind." The staffer quizzed him about whether he was a Bush supporter, asked him why he was there and what questions he would be asking the president.

"Then he came back and said, 'If you protest, it won't be me taking you out. It will be a sniper,' " Sachs said. "He said it in such a serious tone it scared the crap out of me."


Sachs stayed at the event, but he was escorted to a section of the 7 Flags Events Center where he was surrounded by Secret Service and told he couldn't ask questions. "I was just in a state of fear," he said. "I was looking at the ceiling and I didn't know what to expect, I was so scared."

Ronayne said he wasn't aware of what happened to Sachs and declined to comment further. "To the best of my knowledge, no one's lives have been threatened at an event," he said.

Sachs' situation is the latest in a string of stories in which Iowans attending Bush campaign events said they've been made to feel unwelcome.

Other incidents include five protesters arrested outside an event in Cedar Rapids; black and Hispanic students frisked in Davenport; and two people denied admission in Dubuque because they either didn't support Bush or were affiliated with someone who didn't.

Iowa's stories are similar to those being told around the country. According to media reports, Missouri students were in tears after they were removed from a Bush rally because they were wearing Kerry buttons. Others in Minnesota and Wisconsin were asked to leave Bush rallies because they had Kerry T-shirts or stickers.

Thursday night, police wearing riot gear fired pepperballs at protesters gathered at a hotel in Jacksonville, Ore., where Bush was scheduled to eat and sleep after a campaign speech. No one was injured, but two were arrested on charges of failure to disperse. Participants questioned the police intervention because they said they weren't violent or disrupting traffic.

"If either campaign keeps people from attending who want to attend, if they're not the right party or whatever, then it's questionable about how democratic the whole process is," said Pat Jensen of Iowa City, president of the Iowa League of Women Voters. "It's hard to encourage people to take part in the process if the campaigns make it difficult to do so."

Stone, of the Iowa Civil Liberties Union, said people don't have a right to disrupt campaign events and can be removed if they start heckling. However, he said peacefully holding a sign or wearing a button is different. "Disruption is one thing, expression is another, and I think that line is being crossed," he said.

Those attending an August campaign event for Vice President Dick Cheney in New Mexico were asked to sign a loyalty oath, pledging their endorsement for Bush's re-election, before they received tickets to the event.

That spurred Kerry to joke regularly about the situation at campaign stops in Iowa and across America. "I want to just make certain that nobody here had to sign a loyalty oath to get in, right?" Kerry asked during a stop in Tipton last week. "This is a genuine open audience of Iowans, right?"

Ronayne said no such loyalty oaths are required by those attending Bush events in Iowa. "The only paper that is distributed at these events for people to sign entirely at their own discretion is a volunteer form," he said.

Kerry campaign spokesman Colin Van Ostern said the Kerry campaign encourages people from all political parties to attend events, especially undecided voters. No loyalty oaths are required. Because Kerry has been visiting Iowa since before the January caucuses, "he is very comfortable in an environment that is more unpredictable," Van Ostern said.

Thursday's rally at the Iowa State Fairgrounds featuring Kerry, Edwards and their wives was free and open to the public, as was Edwards' visit to Newton on Monday. Those wishing to attend had to acquire tickets from the campaign. People said they only had to provide their name, address and phone number to get tickets, which also were available over the Internet.

The Bush campaign was asked to cite any instances where Republicans or others were denied access to Kerry events in Iowa, but declined to provide any examples. The Secret Service media office did not return a call seeking an explanation of policies on security at presidential campaign events.

Lynn Karwoski, 50, a Davenport Republican who has actively volunteered for President Bush's re-election campaign, said she hasn't had any problems getting access to Bush's campaign events this year.

In August, she personally greeted Bush in a visit to Davenport. She was then given 10 tickets to a town hall meeting with Cheney, and was even allowed to ask him a question about gay marriage without anyone screening her question.

"Access to the inner circle is available to those who have worked hard in and for the party," Karwoski said. "For me, I've been honored with the ability to go because of my involvement."



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/30/2004 7:57:05 AM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Letting Down the Troops

By BOB HERBERT

Published: October 29, 2004

Not long ago I interviewed a soldier who was paralyzed from injuries he had suffered in a roadside bombing in Iraq. Like so many other wounded soldiers I've talked to, he expressed no anger and no bitterness about the difficult hand he's been dealt as a result of the war.

But when I asked this soldier, Eugene Simpson Jr., a 27-year-old staff sergeant from Dale City, Va., whom he had been fighting in Iraq - who, exactly, the enemy was - he looked up from his wheelchair and stared at me for a long moment. Then, in a voice much softer than he had been using for most of the interview, and with what seemed like a mixture of sorrow, regret and frustration, he said: "I don't know. That would be my answer. I don't know."

We have not done right by the troops we've sent to Iraq to fight this crazy, awful war. We haven't given them a clear mission, and we haven't protected them well. I'm reminded of the famous scene in "On the Waterfront" when Terry Malloy, the character played by Marlon Brando, tells his brother: "You shoulda looked out for me a little bit. You shoulda taken care of me just a little bit."

The thing to always keep in mind about our troops in Iraq is that they were sent to fight the wrong war. America's clearly defined and unmistakable enemy, Osama bin Laden's Al Qaeda, was in Afghanistan. So the men and women fighting and dying in Iraq were thrown into a pointless, wholly unnecessary conflict.

That tragic move was made worse by the failure of the U.S. to send enough troops to effectively wage the war that we started in Iraq. And we never fully equipped the troops we did send. The people who ordered up this war had no idea what they were doing. They were wildly overconfident, blinded by hubris and a dangerous, overarching ideology. They thought it would be a cakewalk.

In May of 2003, President Bush thought the war was over. It had barely begun. Many thousands have died in the long and bloody months since then. Even now, Dick Cheney, with a straight face, is calling Iraq "a remarkable success story."

One of the worst things about the management of this war is the way we've treated our men and women in uniform. The equipment shortages experienced by troops shoved into combat have been unconscionable. Soldiers and marines, in many cases, have been forced to face enemy fire with flak jackets from the Vietnam era that were all but useless, and sometimes without any body armor at all. Relatives back home have had to send the troops such items as radios and goggles, and even graphite to keep their weapons from jamming.

One of the most ominous signs about the war is the growing disenchantment of the troops. They've spent too much time on the most dangerous roads in the world without the proper training, without up-to-date equipment, without the proper armor for their vehicles and without the support they feel they should be getting from their Iraqi allies.

The Times's Edward Wong, after a series of interviews with marines in the Sunni-dominated city of Ramadi, wrote:

"They said the Iraqi police and National Guard are unhelpful at best and enemy agents at worst, raising doubts about President Bush's assertion that local forces would soon help relieve the policing duties of the 138,000 American troops in Iraq. The marines said they could use better equipment from the Pentagon, and they feared that the American people were ignorant of the hardships they faced in this dessicated land."

Several members of an Army Reserve unit refused a direct order to deliver fuel along a dangerous route in Iraq a couple of weeks ago. They said their trucks were not armored and were prone to breaking down. An example of the kind of catastrophe they were seeking to avoid came just a week later, when 49 unarmed and otherwise unprotected Iraqi soldiers were attacked and killed in cold blood in a remote region of eastern Iraq.

This has been a war run by amateurs and incompetents. Whatever anyone has felt about the merits of the war, there is no excuse for preparing so poorly and for failing to see, at a minimum, that the troops were properly trained and equipped.

The United States has the most powerful military in history, yet it is bogged down in a humiliating quagmire in a country that was barely functional to begin with. We've dealt ourselves the cruelest of hands in Iraq. We can't win this war and, tragically, we don't know how to end it.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/30/2004 8:17:05 AM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
White House of Horrors

nytimes.com

White House of Horrors
By MAUREEN DOWD

Published: October 28, 2004

Dick Cheney peaked too soon. We've still got a few days left until Halloween.

It was scary enough when we thought the vice president had created his own reality for spin purposes. But if he actually believes that Iraq is "a remarkable success story,'' it's downright spooky. He's already got his persona for Sunday: he's the mad scientist in the haunted mansion, fiddling with test tubes to force the world to conform to his twisted vision.

After 9/11, Mr. Cheney swirled his big black cape and hunkered down in his undisclosed dungeon, reading books about smallpox and plague and worst-case terrorist scenarios. His ghoulish imagination ran wild, and he dragged the untested president and jittery country into his house of horrors, painting a gory picture of how Iraq could let fearsome munitions fall into the hands of evildoers.

He yanked America into war to preclude that chilling bloodbath. But in a spine-tingling switch, the administration's misbegotten invasion of Iraq has let fearsome munitions fall into the hands of evildoers. It's also forged the links between Al Qaeda and the Sunni Baathists that Mr. Cheney and his crazy-eyed Igors at the Pentagon had fantasized about to justify their hunger to remake the Middle East.

It's often seen in scary movies: you play God to create something in your own image, and the monster you make ends up coming after you.

Determined to throw a good scare into the Arab world, the vice president ended up scaring up the swarm of jihadist evil spirits he had conjured, like the overreaching sorcerer in "Fantasia." The Pentagon bungled the occupation so badly, it caused the insurgency to grow like the Blob.

Just as Catherine Deneuve had bizarre hallucinations in the horror classic "Repulsion,'' Mr. Cheney and the neocons were in a deranged ideological psychosis, obsessing about imaginary weapons while allowing enemies to spirit the real ones away.

The officials charged with protecting us set off so many false alarms that they ignored all the real ones.

President Bush is like one of the blissfully ignorant teenagers in "Friday the 13th'' movies, spouting slogans like "Freedom is on the march'' while Freddy Krueger is in the closet, ready to claw his skin off.

Mr. Bush ignored his own experts' warnings that Osama bin Laden planned to attack inside the U.S., that an invasion of Iraq could create a toxic partnership between outside terrorists and Baathists and create sympathy for them across the Islamic world, that Donald Rumsfeld was planning a war and occupation without enough troops, that Saddam's aluminum tubes were not for nuclear purposes, that U.S. troops should safeguard 380 tons of sealed explosives that could bring down planes and buildings, and that, after the invasion, Iraq could erupt into civil war.

And, of course, the president ignored Colin Powell's Pottery Barn warning: if you break it, you own it.

Their Iraqi puppet, Ayad Allawi, turned on Mr. Cheney and Mr. Bush this week, in a scene right out of "Chucky.'' Mr. Allawi accused coalition forces of "major negligence'' for not protecting the unarmed Iraqi National Guard trainees who were slaughtered by insurgents wearing Iraqi police uniforms. Iraqi recruits are getting killed so fast we can't even pretend that we're going to turn the country over to them.

If you really want to be chilled to the bone this Halloween, listen to what Peter W. Galbraith, a former diplomat who helped advance the case for an Iraq invasion at the request of Paul Wolfowitz, said in a column yesterday in The Boston Globe.

He said he'd told Mr. Wolfowitz about "the catastrophic aftermath of the invasion, the unchecked looting of every public institution in Baghdad, the devastation of Iraq's cultural heritage, the anger of ordinary Iraqis who couldn't understand why the world's only superpower was letting this happen.'' He told Mr. Wolfowitz that mobs were looting Iraqi labs of live H.I.V. and black fever viruses and making off with barrels of yellowcake.

"Even after my briefing, the Pentagon leaders did nothing to safeguard Iraq's nuclear sites,'' he said.

In his column, Mr. Galbraith said weapons looted from the arms site called Al Qaqaa might have wound up in Iran, which could obviously use them to pursue nuclear weapons.

In April 2003 in Baghdad, he said, he told a young U.S. lieutenant stationed across the street that H.I.V. and black fever viruses had just been looted. The soldier had been devastated and said, "I hope I'm not responsible for Armageddon.''

Too bad that never occurred to Dr. Cheneystein.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/30/2004 8:45:57 AM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Sitting on both sides of the fence

nytimes.com
Personal and Political, Bush's Faith Blurs Lines
By LAURIE GOODSTEIN

Published: October 26, 2004

On Sundays when President Bush goes to church in Washington, he chooses the 8 a.m. service at St. John's Episcopal Church Lafayette Square. A short stroll from the White House, St. John's has been the parish for many presidents, but it is still a surprising choice for Mr. Bush.

A president who has been typecast as the champion of Christian conservatives, who has proposed a constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage, finds fellowship in a church where the priest and many congregants openly support the blessing of same-sex unions.

Advertisement

When it comes to understanding the president's religious convictions and the role they have played in his presidency, there appears to be a disconnect between Mr. Bush's personal beliefs and his public policy.

On his personal faith, the president appears to be far from doctrinally dogmatic, and even theologically moderate. It is not hard to find evidence that he is out of sync with the conservative evangelical Christians who make up his political base.

Besides worshiping in an Episcopal church that welcomes gay couples (and in Texas, in a Methodist church where many congregants support abortion rights), Mr. Bush has prayed with Jews and Sikhs and volunteered that Muslims worship the same God as Christians - a comment that stunned evangelicals. Mr. Bush uses evangelical terms to convey his devotion to God and to prayer, but he is not the Bible-thumping fundamentalist that some of his opponents have made him out to be.

When it comes to policy, however, his opponents and supporters agree that he has done more than any president in recent history to advance the agenda of Christian social conservatives. On domestic issues, he has opposed same-sex marriage, favored restrictions on abortion and imposed limits on embryonic stem cell research. He has promoted vouchers for religious schools and shifted money for sex education and reproductive health programs to those that instead promote abstinence.

Mr. Bush also sought to redress a complaint common among religious conservatives that government discriminates against religion. What he calls his faith-based initiative lifted regulations that barred government money from flowing to overtly religious charities, challenging advocates of the church-state separation.

In foreign policy, Mr. Bush responded to appeals from evangelicals like the Rev. Franklin Graham to promote causes they cared about, like the civil war in Sudan, AIDS in Africa and the international trafficking in female sex workers.

When he took the nation to war in Iraq, he refused to meet with delegations of religious leaders who opposed a pre-emptive war. To their dismay, he has repeatedly justified the war in theological terms, repeating a favorite axiom, as he did at a rally in Colorado this month: "Freedom is not America's gift to the world; freedom is the Almighty God's gift to each man and woman in this world."

But on the causes most sacred to many Christian conservatives, the president has gone only as far as he needed to pacify his base, and sometimes only after sustained prodding by vocal religious leaders. His stem cell decision was a compromise. On abortion, he has signed what was put in front of him. On gay marriage, it took him months to speak publicly in support of a constitutional amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, and when he did he explicitly supported a moderate version that would allow states to recognize civil unions.

Nevertheless, in recent interviews, dozens of conservative religious leaders, including evangelical Christians, Catholics and Jews, exulted at the unprecedented access they had had to this White House and the ways in which Mr. Bush had found common cause with them. Christian conservatives have won White House appointments - among them Attorney General John Ashcroft, who brought more conservative evangelicals on board at the Justice Department, and Kay Coles James, who did the same as director of the United States Office of Personnel Management. Ms. James is a former dean of the school of government at Regent University, founded by Pat Robertson, and served in less powerful positions in the Reagan and first Bush administrations.

"By and large evangelicals are very pleased, more pleased than they expected to be with this president," said Richard Land, president of the Southern Baptist Convention. "I'm not, because I knew him. And I knew he was the real deal."

Studying Politics of Religion

Last May, the president sat down in the Roosevelt Room of the White House with a group of journalists and editors from the Christian media for the kind of lengthy, wide-ranging interview he has not granted reporters with the secular media.

"The job of president," he told them, "is to help cultures change."

Twice during the interview, he praised one of the men interviewing him, the Rev. Richard John Neuhaus, a Catholic priest who edits First Things, a conservative journal on religion and public policy. "Father Richard helped me craft what is still the integral part of my position on abortion, which is: every child welcomed to life and protected by law," the president said.

In an interview, Father Neuhaus said that in the summer of 1999, before Mr. Bush declared he was running for president, he was invited to visit Mr. Bush in Texas at the governor's mansion for what turned out to be a breakfast tutorial in Catholic teaching on the "culture of life." The concepts were somewhat unfamiliar to Mr. Bush then, but he was eager to learn how the church connected opposition to abortion, euthanasia, family planning, stem cell research and cloning, Father Neuhaus said.

On his first working day in office, President Bush issued an executive order reinstating a Reagan-era policy that anti-abortion groups call the Mexico City policy but family planning groups refer to as the gag rule. It prohibits any organization that receives American aid from promoting, referring to or educating about abortion as an option in family planning overseas even if they do not use American money to do it.

The stem cell decision, now getting so much attention in the campaign, speaks volumes about Mr. Bush because he was so deeply, personally engaged in it. He consulted scientists, ethicists and theologians, summoning some to his ranch in Crawford, people who know him said. He used his first address to the nation to explain it, on Aug. 9, 2001, before terrorism set his agenda.

He made a Solomonic choice, permitting federal financing for research on a limited number of embryonic stem cell lines, but only those that already existed. Initially, some conservative Christian leaders were outraged. If the embryo is a human being, stem cell research is murder, they said.

But within 24 hours, most conservative evangelical leaders were praising the decision as a victory for the "pro-life" cause.

On abortion, too, Mr. Bush has done enough to keep the base committed, without going out on a limb. He has not promoted a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion, as a Republican Party platform plank calls for. Instead he has backed measures that chip away at abortion rights, or that reinforce the argument that life begins at conception.

"He is keenly and rightly aware that there's only so much that can be done through politics," Father Neuhaus said. However, he said, "On every issue of concern to the pro-life community, and every issue touching on the protection of unborn life that has come to his desk, he has consistently been supportive."

At a celebratory ceremony attended by anti-abortion leaders in November 2003, he signed a ban on a procedure that opponents call partial-birth abortion, which restricted a type of abortion performed in the second or third trimester. It was the first ban on an abortion procedure since 1973, when Roe v. Wade institutionalized the right to abortion, but even many Democrats had supported the ban and it cost the president little to sign it. The president also signed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, which means, as he explained in the second presidential debate, "If you're a mom and you're pregnant and you get killed, the murderer gets tried for two cases, not just one."

Many anti-abortion leaders said in interviews that they were content with his record and the expectation that in a second term, Mr. Bush would appoint at least one Supreme Court justice committed to overturning Roe v. Wade. In the third presidential debate, Mr. Bush said he had no "litmus test" issue for judicial appointees. But none of the appointees in his first term have been outspoken in favor of abortion rights, and some are vocal opponents.

Despite Mr. Bush's professed reverence for the "culture of life," he has not used the bully pulpit afforded a president to change the American culture on abortion, said Clyde Wilcox, a professor of government at Georgetown University.

"Think about his enthusiasms - the Iraq war or tax cuts," Professor Wilcox said. "He's not out on the stump like he is on those issues, pushing for more laws to limit abortion, saying now that we've got 'partial birth' behind us, let's do something else.

"Maybe he does it in narrowly communicated messages that the evangelicals understand, like when he talks about the dignity of life. But when he does that he's not persuading the culture, he's just wooing his voters."

The 'Faith-Based Initiative'

In interviews with more than two dozen religious leaders who have met with the president, the startling thing that emerges is that Mr. Bush has managed to convince the most traditionalist believers of almost every stripe - Christian fundamentalists and evangelicals, Catholics, Jews, Muslims and even Sikhs - that his beliefs are just like theirs. He charmed a group of Muslims when he said he could understand their concern about shutdowns of Islamic charities, because Christians are also required to tithe. He gave a bear hug to a visiting rabbi who had told the president in a meeting earlier that day that Israel was the Holy Land given to the Jews by God.

"The only Jews he doesn't seem to like," said another rabbi, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, "are the ones who aren't religious, because he can't understand them." Above all, Mr. Bush appears to have faith in faith.

"Prayer and religion sustain me," he said in the third presidential debate. "I receive calmness in the storms of the presidency."

He has often recounted how his genuine religious awakening came after he hit bottom at age 40. In unscripted moments, Mr. Bush speaks in Alcoholics Anonymous vernacular of a "higher power."

"I had a drinking problem," the president told a group of clergy members visiting the White House, according to a book by a former White House aide, David Frum. "There is only one reason I am in the Oval Office and not in a bar. I found faith. I found God."

Asked in the final presidential debate how his faith had affected his public policy Mr. Bush singled out only one concrete domestic policy: the religion-based initiative.

The personal and the political for Mr. Bush come together most clearly in that effort. The idea is to encourage overtly religious groups, previously excluded from government contracts, to apply for government financing to serve people who are jobless or mentally ill or are drug or alcohol addicts. His passion for the initiative is grounded in his personal experience that people in trouble need faith to recover. He began the initiative the first month of his administration with great fanfare, establishing the first White House Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives.

When the initiative ran into interference in Congress, the president used a series of executive orders to create a network of offices inside eight federal departments (education, agriculture, justice, labor, health and human services, housing and urban development, veterans affairs and commerce) and two federal agencies (the United States Agency for International Development and the Small Business Administration) to award grants and contracts to religious charities. Agency representatives have traveled around the country in the last few years, holding sessions for local congregations and religious groups to train them in how to apply for and administer government grants. All together, the White House says that $1.1 billion in discretionary funds has been awarded to religion-based social service organizations.

But the president's grand vision has fallen short. A report being released today by the Rockefeller Institute of Government at the State University of New York says that during the Bush administration, the funds most accessible to religion-based organizations "tend to be small and have shown little real growth in recent years."

A Private Matter

Mr. Bush often says his faith is a private matter. The White House refused any interviews for this article, and it is impossible to understand a person's spiritual beliefs without his willingness to discuss it. Even then it can be impossible.

Mr. Bush was born an Episcopalian, attended a Presbyterian church as a youngster and joined a Methodist church when he married - a denomination-hopping that is common among many Americans.

Evangelicals claim Mr. Bush is one of their own, but he has intentionally been vague about whether he actually shares their beliefs. In his last presidential run, Mr. Bush granted a brief telephone interview with this reporter on his faith. Asked whether he regarded the Bible as the literal and inerrant word of God, Mr. Bush said: "From Scripture you can gain a lot of strength and solace and learn life's lessons. That's what I believe, and I don't necessarily believe every single word is literally true."



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)10/31/2004 3:27:19 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Tune in tonight to CNN Presents. Also

The Nashville-based, Honky Tonkers for Truth, are talking about Takin' My Country Back on the following radio and television programs...all take place TODAY, October 31st, 2004:



1) 7:00 p.m. Central - CNN television network - The Honky Tonkers for Truth perform Takin' My Country Back on CNN Presents. Members of Honky Tonkers for Truth are also interviewed in this edition of CNN Presents which places its focus on politics and music.

2) Tonight on SWR1 Radio in Europe, host Walter Fuchs will play Takin' My Country Back in its entirety followed by an interview with the Honky Tonkers for Truth. For details go to: www.swr.de and search for SWR1 Baden-Baden, Germany and/or Walter Fuchs. SWR1 broadcasts across central Euorpe including most of Germany, France, Austria and Holland.

The Takin' My Country Back music video can be viewed for free at our website: www.TakinMyCountryBack.com



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/7/2004 10:25:30 AM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
The Pope is visiting Washington, D.C., and Senator John F. Kerry takes him out for an afternoon on the Potomac, sailing on the Heinz family yacht. They're admiring the sights when, all of a sudden, the Pope's zucchetto (hat) blows off his head and out into the water. Secret Service guys start to launch a boat, but Sen. Kerry waves them off, saying, "Wait, wait--I'll take care of this, don't worry." Kerry then steps off the yacht onto the surface of the water, and walks out to the Holy Father's hat, bends over and picks it up, then walks back to the yacht and climbs aboard. He hands the hat to the Pope amid stunned silence.

The next morning, the headlines in the "Wall Street Journal", Washington "Times", the "National review", Orange County "Register" and the Fox News Network proclaim: "KERRY CAN'T SWIM".



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/9/2004 4:08:27 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
"As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."

H.L. Mencken (1880 - 1956)



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/16/2004 4:19:05 PM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
CIA plans to purge its agency

newsday.com

CIA plans to purge its agency
Sources say White House has ordered new chief to eliminate officers who were disloyal to Bush

BY KNUT ROYCE
WASHINGTON BUREAU

November 14, 2004

WASHINGTON -- The White House has ordered the new CIA director, Porter Goss, to purge the agency of officers believed to have been disloyal to President George W. Bush or of leaking damaging information to the media about the conduct of the Iraq war and the hunt for Osama bin Laden, according to knowledgeable sources.

"The agency is being purged on instructions from the White House," said a former senior CIA official who maintains close ties to both the agency and to the White House. "Goss was given instructions ... to get rid of those soft leakers and liberal Democrats. The CIA is looked on by the White House as a hotbed of liberals and people who have been obstructing the president's agenda."

One of the first casualties appears to be Stephen R. Kappes, deputy director of clandestine services, the CIA's most powerful division. The Washington Post reported yesterday that Kappes had tendered his resignation after a confrontation with Goss' chief of staff, Patrick Murray, but at the behest of the White House had agreed to delay his decision till tomorrow.

But the former senior CIA official said that the White House "doesn't want Steve Kappes to reconsider his resignation. That might be the spin they put on it, but they want him out." He said the job had already been offered to the former chief of the European Division who retired after a spat with then-CIA Director George Tenet.

Another recently retired top CIA official said he was unsure Kappes had "officially resigned, but I do know he was unhappy."

Without confirming or denying that the job offer had been made, a CIA spokesman asked Newsday to withhold naming the former officer because of his undercover role over the years. He said he had no comment about Goss' personnel plans, but he added that changes at the top are not unusual when new directors come in.

On Friday John E. McLaughlin, a 32-year veteran of the intelligence division who served as acting CIA director before Goss took over, announced that he was retiring. The spokesman said that the retirement had been planned and was unrelated to the Kappes resignation or to other morale problems inside the CIA.

It could not be learned yesterday if the White House had identified Kappes, a respected operations officer, as one of the officials "disloyal" to Bush.

"The president understands and appreciates the sacrifices made by the members of the intelligence community in the war against terrorism," said a White House official of the report that he was purging the CIA of "disloyal" officials. " . . . The suggestion [that he ordered a purge] is inaccurate."

But another former CIA official who retains good contacts within the agency said that Goss and his top aides, who served on his staff when Goss was chairman of the House intelligence committee, believe the agency had relied too much over the years on liaison work with foreign intelligence agencies and had not done enough to develop its own intelligence collection system.

"Goss is not a believer in liaison work," said this retired official. But, he said, the CIA's "best intelligence really comes from liaison work. The CIA is simply not going to develop the assets [agents and case officers] that would meet the intelligence requirements."

Tensions between the White House and the CIA have been the talk of the town for at least a year, especially as leaks about the mishandling of the Iraq war have dominated front pages.

Some of the most damaging leaks came from Michael Scheuer, former head of the CIA's Bin Laden unit, who wrote a book anonymously called "Imperial Hubris" that criticized what he said was the administration's lack of resolve in tracking down the al-Qaida chieftain and the reallocation of intelligence and military manpower from the war on terrorism to the war in Iraq. Scheuer announced Thursday that he was resigning from the agency.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/16/2004 4:31:53 PM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 173976
 
Bush is anti-woman

zmag.org

Bush and Sex Education
by Molly Ivins; November 16, 2004

The latest in a long line of anti-woman decisions by the Bush administration is, for once, getting some attention -- in part because of the sheer cheapness of the move.

President Bush has decided not to send the $34 million approved by both houses of Congress for the United Nations Fund for Population Activities (UNFPA).

The fund provides contraception, family planning and safe births, and works against the spread of HIV and against female genital mutilation in the poorest countries of the world. Thirty-four million dollars goes a long way in the parts of the world where more than 600,000 women die every year from pregnancy and childbirth, many of them children themselves.

Of course, our poor government is so broke that it can't afford to waste $34 million on women in poor countries. It has more important things to do, like spending $100 million on "promoting marriage."

Two women -- Jane Roberts, a retired teacher in California, and Lois Abraham, a lawyer in New Mexico -- have started a splendid symbolic protest, and it is spreading by e-mail, fax, newsletters and all kinds of women's groups. The organizers are looking for "34 million Friends of UNFPA" to send $1 each to the United Nations (FPA) at 220 E. 42nd St., New York, NY 10017.

Thoraya Ahmed Obaid, director of the UNFPA, said the $34 million U.S. contribution would have helped prevent 2 million unwanted pregnancies, 800,000 induced abortions, 4,700 maternal deaths and 77,000 infant and child deaths.

We don't have $34 million to save the lives of poor women, but Bush wants to spend $135 million on abstinence education, which doesn't work. According to that fountain of misinformation, the Rev. Jerry Falwell: "This announcement angered school sex educators, who concentrate on teaching our nation's students that they should explore their sexuality and ignore the consequences. But Mr. Bush said government can teach children how to exhibit sexual control."

Actually, sex education is entirely about the consequences of "exploring sexuality," and it works. The Guttmacher Institute published a report last week showing that the abortion rate is down by 11 percent precisely because young people are getting more education about sex. One would think the anti-abortion forces would be grateful.

Instead, there is every indication that in addition to taking away a woman's right to choose whether to have an abortion, the Bush administration is going after contraception.

Bush now wants to make W. David Hager chairman of the Food and Drug Administration's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Hager is an ob-gyn from Kentucky who wants the FDA to reverse its approval of RU-486, the "abortion pill."

Although Hager is the editor of a book that includes the essay "Using the Birth Control Pill is Ethically Unacceptable," he told Maureen Dowd of The New York Times that he does not agree with the essay. Then why include it? He does not prescribe contraceptives for single women, does not do abortions, will not prescribe RU-486 and will not insert IUDs. Hager believes that headaches, PMS and eating disorders can be cured by reading Scripture. I do not want this man in charge of my health policy.


It took almost all of human history for the population of the globe to reach 1 billion people in 1800. It took only from 1987 to 1999 for world population to grow from 5 billion to 6 billion. At current rates, we will reach 13 billion by the middle of the 21st century. Ninety-five percent of this growth will be in Africa, Latin America and Asia. Studies estimate that by 2025, two out of every three people on Earth will live in water-stressed conditions. The stress on global resources is already apparent.

While we spend trillions of dollars on weapons, the military and homeland security, the real threats -- water scarcity, climate change and population growth -- advance unchecked.

fda.gov



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/18/2004 7:32:23 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Read em and weep.

defenselink.mil



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/18/2004 7:36:08 PM
From: sat2000  Respond to of 173976
 
Report: A.G. Nominee Worked to Keep Info From Press

editorandpublisher.com

By Joe Strupp

Published: November 16, 2004 12:20 PM ET

NEW YORK A new report from the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press paints a picture of White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales -- who has been nominated to replace U.S. Attorney General John Ashcroft -- as someone who has worked tirelessly to keep information from the press and public if he believes it could hurt the president, and does not appear ready to change.

"Every attorney general has a significant impact on the media's ability to gather and report news, as well as the public's right to know what its government is doing," the report states. With that in mind, the Reporters Committee staff researched Gonzales' performance both in Texas, where he was a top adviser to then-Gov. Bush before serving on the state's Supreme Court, and as White House counsel since January 2001.

"Based on what I've seen, I don't think concerns about the media enter into his thinking," said Lucy Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee. "I think he is going to be even more aggressive than Ashcroft in making sure the executive right to keep secrets is protected."

One interesting item the reprot found from Gonzales' time in Texas: "Gonzales was instrumental in getting Bush excused from jury duty in 1996 -- a move that allowed the governor to avoid having to disclose that he had been arrested for drunken driving in Maine in 1976, the Houston Chronicle reported. Bush was able to keep it a secret until the final days of his 2000 presidential campaign."

Gonzales appears to have offered support for press rights during his service as a Texas Supreme Court justice, from Jan. 14, 1999 to Dec. 22, 2000, the reports say: "Gonzales joined the majority in upholding the rights of the media -- while in some cases also declining to adopt increased protections recognized in other jurisdictions -- in all four Texas Supreme Court decisions involving free press or freedom of information issues that were published during his tenure."

At the White House, however, the report points out Gonzales' interpretation of executive privilege, which he has sought to broaden under the Bush Administration, as potentially the most troubling of his actions as White House counsel: "Alberto Gonzales has been an active defender of what is best described as a quasi-executive privilege, invoked repeatedly by the Bush administration in attempts to keep government information from public scrutiny."

The Reporters Committee points to several instances of Gonzales defending executive privilege, including Gonzales supporting its invocation against requests for official testimony and government documents by the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, which was appointed to study the circumstances surrounding 9/11 and the United States' preparedness for and response to those attacks.

Those included blocking efforts to have national security adviser Condoleezza Rice testify, withholding 360 of the President's Daily Briefing (PDB) reports after Rice indicated a specific reference to potential terrorist attacks in one of them, and preventing the House Government Reform Committee from seeing documents pertaining to three criminals pardoned by President Clinton.

"Gonzales recommended that Congress not be allowed to see [pardon] documents related to the prosecutor's decision-making process," the report states. "He further recommended Bush claim executive privilege if House Government Reform Committee subpoenaed memos or tried to question Attorney General John Ashcroft about the pardons."

On Gonzales's involvement in the grand jury investigation into apparent White House leaks of the identity of CIA undercover operative Valerie Plame, the report says "not much is known." But, it mentions that Gonzales did not seek to limit information, distributing memos to all White House staff telling them to preserve anything they had concerning Plame or contacts with several journalists, including newspaper columnist Robert Novak, who had identified Plame in a column.

Gonzales has "played a key role in keeping presidential records out of the public eye and asked for several extensions to deadlines for turning over papers of past presidents," the report says. "Earlier this year, Gonzales also pressured the nation's archivist, John Carlin, to resign, according to Sen. Carl Levin (D-Mich.). Carlin's departure -- he resigned without giving a reason -- sparked speculation that he was forced out in order to protect the records of the first President Bush."

The report also cited Bush's efforts to protect his advisors from being forced to testify, saying, "Gonzales picked one battle in particular to doggedly fight: that the president and those working closely with him must be able to receive counsel from advisers without public inquiry. Gonzales argued throughout the summer of 2002 that Vice President Cheney and the records of his energy policy task force should not be subject to open-government laws."

The report also cited Gonzales' comments following the release in June 2002 of memos and documents detailing the administration's decisions on the use of torture. In "a rare appearance at a news conference later, Gonzales hinted that secrecy would remain the norm for related documents. 'The government is releasing an extraordinary set of documents today, and this should not be viewed as setting any kind of precedent,' Gonzales said. 'But we felt it important to set the record straight. Additional documents may be withheld in the future for national security and other reasons.'"

In a related action, after President Bush signed a military order in 2001 allowing suspected terrorists to be tried in military tribunals rather than regular courts, The New York Times published an op-ed piece by Gonzales defending the use of the tribunals. "They spare American jurors, judges and courts the grave risks associated with terrorist trials," the report quotes from the column. "They allow the government to use classified information as evidence without compromising intelligence or military efforts. They can dispense justice swiftly, close to where our forces may be fighting, without years of pretrial proceedings or post-trial appeals."



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/20/2004 5:49:33 AM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Iraq War Topping $5.8 Billion A Month

military.com

United Press International
November 18, 2004

WASHINGTON - The Pentagon is spending more than $5.8 billion a month on the war in Iraq, according to the military's top generals.

That is nearly a 50 percent increase above the $4 billion-a-month benchmark the Pentagon has used to estimate the cost of the war so far.

The Army alone is spending $4.7 million a month while the Air Force is spending $800 million a month transporting soldiers and flying combat missions. The Marine Corps is spending $300 million a month, the four service chiefs told the House Armed Services Committee Wednesday.

Since 2003, the Pentagon has received some $160 billion for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan in supplemental funding -- that is, in addition to its annual budget. It will be requesting another multibillion-dollar supplement early next year to cover the continuing cost of the war.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)11/20/2004 6:21:27 AM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Police scoff at Ashcroft speech

news.yahoo.com

Wed Nov 17, 6:49 AM ET

By Kevin Johnson, USA TODAY

A day after Attorney General John Ashcroft (news - web sites) told the nation's largest association of law enforcement executives that the Bush administration had made the nation more secure from terrorist attacks and violent criminals, the group lashed back at the White House on Tuesday.

The International Association of Chiefs of Police (IACP) said that cuts by the administration in federal aid to local police agencies have left the nation more vulnerable than ever to public safety threats. The 20,000-member group also said in a statement that new anti-terrorism duties for local cops - which have come as state and local budgets have declined and historically low crime rates have crept upward - have pushed police agencies to "the breaking point."

The statement reflected the ongoing tension between the administration and many local police chiefs, who believe the White House has saddled them with anti-terrorism tasks without much regard to the cost.

Among other things, members of the chiefs' group have long complained about localities having to pay millions of dollars in overtime costs when the U.S. government issued terrorism alerts. The group also is annoyed that President Bush (news - web sites) is phasing out a $10 billion program begun by the Clinton administration in 1996 to help local departments hire tens of thousands more cops.

IACP President Joseph Polisar, the police chief in Garden Grove, Calif., said hundreds of police officer jobs have been lost across the nation during the past four years. And proposed cuts in federal aid in the 2005 budget could reach almost $1 billion, threatening hundreds more, the chief said.

Ashcroft, who spoke to the group Monday in Los Angeles, listed a range of accomplishments during his tenure at the Justice Department (news - web sites) and got a polite reception from delegates to the group's national convention.

The chiefs' group is particularly concerned about how anti-terrorism efforts have changed how police departments get federal aid. Tens of millions of dollars that in the past was sent to local departments each year by the Justice Department now are directed to the Department of Homeland Security. DHS uses the money to help train and equip agencies that would respond to terrorist attacks.

Police departments still get some of the aid, but now they must share it with fire departments and public health agencies. The money also must be spent on anti-terrorism efforts, rather than to beef up law enforcement programs or to hire more cops.



To: PartyTime who wrote (1)1/2/2005 6:06:52 AM
From: sat2000  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 173976
 
Not One Damn Dime Day -Jan 20, 2005

Since our religious leaders will not speak out against the war in Iraq, since our political leaders don't have the moral courage to oppose it, Inauguration Day, Thursday, January 20th, 2005 is "Not One Damn Dime Day" in America.

On "Not One Damn Dime Day" those who oppose what is happening in our name in Iraq can speak up with a 24-hour national boycott of all forms of consumer spending. During "Not One Damn Dime Day" please don't spend money. Not one damn dime for gasoline. Not one damn dime for necessities or for impulse purchases. Not one damn dime for nothing for 24 hours. On "Not One Damn Dime Day," please boycott Wal-Mart, Kmart, and Target... Please don't go to the mall or the local convenience store. Please don't buy any fast food (or any groceries at all for that matter). For 24 hours, please do what you can to shut the retail economy down.

The object is simple. Remind the people in power that the war in Iraq is immoral and illegal; that they are responsible for starting it and that it is their responsibility to stop it. "Not One Damn Dime Day" is to remind them, too, that they work for the people of the United States of America, not for the international corporations and K Street lobbyists who represent the corporations and funnel cash into American politics.

"Not One Damn Dime Day" is about supporting the troops. The politicians put the troops in harm's way. Now 1,200 brave young Americans and (some estimate) 100,000 Iraqis have died. The politicians owe our troops a plan, a way to come home.

There's no rally to attend. No marching to do. No left or right wing agenda to rant about. On "Not One Damn Dime Day" you take action by doing nothing. You open your mouth by keeping your wallet closed. For 24 hours, nothing gets spent, not one damn dime, to remind our religious leaders and our politicians of their moral responsibility to end the war in Iraq and give America back to the people.

Please share this with as many people as possible.