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 : Don't Blame Me, I Voted For Kerry -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (65035)8/6/2005 11:57:24 AM
From: ChinuSFORead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
Don't blame me, I did not vote for Bush.

Bush receives lowest marks yet on Iraq
Associated Press

WASHINGTON - Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half of those polled now think he's honest.

Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent.

Continuing worries about Iraq may do more than drag down Bush's standing with the public.

They could become a major issue in the 2006 midterm congressional races, and if the war is still going in 2008, they could be a factor in the presidential race.

chron.com



To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (65035)8/6/2005 4:45:35 PM
From: SkywatcherRespond to of 81568
 
WOW...more incredible openness from this group of crooks.....
RIGHT!....the more SECRET the BETTER....too bad they are in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and not the USSR
Officials Deny a Request for Roberts Documents
By Carl Hulse and Neil A. Lewis
The New York Times

Saturday 06 August 2005

Washington - The Bush administration on Friday formally rejected a Democratic request for documents from the years Judge John G. Roberts Jr. served as deputy solicitor general, setting up a potential confrontation over material Democrats say is essential to a thorough examination of Mr. Roberts's Supreme Court nomination.

In a letter to Senator Patrick J. Leahy of Vermont, the ranking Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, the Justice Department said it would withhold information sought by Democrats related to the legal advice Mr. Roberts gave under the first President Bush, as he helped develop the government's legal position on a variety of cases from 1989 to 1993.

"It is simply contrary to the public interest for these documents to be released," said the letter signed by Rebecca Seidel, a deputy assistant attorney general, on behalf of William E. Moschella, assistant attorney general for legislative affairs.

The Justice Department letter said that such material had been protected in the past under attorney-client privilege and that releasing it would set a dangerous precedent and inhibit the agency's lawyers from frank discussions of pending cases.

"The office simply could not function effectively if its lawyers were asked to provide full and candid advice in spite of the expectation that their work product would be fair game in any subsequent Senate confirmation process," the letter said.

The decision had been foreshadowed by the administration late last month, but Democrats immediately expressed strong disappointment.

"These records are important because they are a window on Judge Roberts's approach to the constitutional rights that are the birthright of every American - rights that touch all our lives in so many ways every day," Mr. Leahy said in a statement.

He and other Democrats said the stance was typical of an administration they criticize as failing to be open with Congress. Under Mr. Bush, the refusal of the White House to hand over documents requested by Senate Democrats has prompted the Democrats to block Senate approval of some nominees, including Miguel Estrada to a judgeship on a federal appeals court and John R. Bolton as United Nations ambassador.

Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts and a senior member of the Judiciary Committee, said that he regarded the Justice Department letter as "the opening salvo" in negotiations over the documents and that its position was wrong because similar papers had been released in the past.

"The fact that the letter is from a third-level official in the Justice Department gives me some hope that the attorney general is reserving his options, as all attorneys general before him have done," he said.

Earlier Friday, Mr. Kennedy released a letter he had written to Judge Roberts, noting that his recent responses to a committee background questionnaire played down his work in the solicitor general's office while it was highlighted on a résumé that Mr. Roberts submitted in 1991, when he was first up for a federal judgeship.

Mr. Kennedy asked that Judge Roberts "submit as promptly as possible" a supplement to his earlier responses to the committee, by providing "a full description of your activities" as a deputy solicitor general.

In a separate letter to President Bush, Mr. Kennedy complained that the administration has apparently leaked other documents to the news media in an effort to influence the public portrayal of the nominee while failing to meet Democratic requests for the same information.

The complaint about selective disclosure was prompted by the White House's release to The Washington Post on Thursday of two memorandums written by Judge Roberts when he worked as an associate White House counsel under President Ronald Reagan. The release was a partial response to a Freedom of Information Act request.

In the first memorandum, written March 1, 1985, Mr. Roberts is asked by a White House official how to respond to a request for President Reagan's help on a bill in the Kentucky Legislature that would require each public school to display a plaque saying both "In God We Trust" and another slogan giving thanks to God for the liberties Kentuckians enjoy.

Mr. Roberts told the White House official that the person making the request should be told that the proposal raises "concerns" about the Constitution's prohibition against entangling the government with religion and that "the president should not gratuitously opine on the constitutionality of this specific question."

The second memorandum, written by Mr. Roberts on Feb. 10, 1986, is a proposed reply to Representative Roman Mazzoli, then a Kentucky Democrat. Mr. Mazzoli, a staunch opponent of abortion, asked about the president's views on pardons for people convicted of bombing abortion clinics. Mr. Roberts wrote that the White House should reply over the signature of a more senior lawyer that "the president has no intention of granting special treatment in the pardon process to those convicted of violence against abortion clinics."

Dana M. Perino, a White House spokeswoman, did not respond directly to Mr. Kennedy's complaint, but said: "Judge Roberts is someone confirmed to the US Court of Appeals without a single objection on the Senate floor in 2003. He is known by many members of the Senate, and they will make their decision about his nomination to the Supreme Court based on his record, experience, qualifications, and his judgment."

With a potential showdown looming over the documents, Democratic members of the committee sought to reassure their colleagues on Friday that their push for greater disclosure of information related to Judge Roberts's tenure as a deputy solicitor general was driven by a legitimate need for information rather than an effort to pick a political fight.

"The hearings before the Judiciary Committee will be the best opportunity for the Senate - and the American people - to learn about Judge Roberts," committee Democrats said in a letter sent to all senators. "It is too important a decision to rush through without careful consideration and the necessary information."

-------



To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (65035)8/6/2005 5:03:09 PM
From: SkywatcherRead Replies (1) | Respond to of 81568
 
"What Have We Done?"
By Dahr Jamail
Iraq Dispatches

Friday 05 August 2005

As the blood of US soldiers continues to drain into the hot sands of Iraq over the last several days with at least 27 US soldiers killed and the approval rating for his handling of the debacle in Iraq dropping to an all-time low of 38%, Mr. Bush commented from the comforts of his ranch in Crawford, Texas today, "We will stay the course, we will complete the job in Iraq."

Just a two hour drive away in Dallas, at the Veterans for Peace National Convention in Dallas, I'm sitting with a roomful of veterans from the current quagmire.

When asked what he would say to Mr. Bush if he had the chance to speak to him, Abdul Henderson, a corporal in the Marines who served in Iraq from March until May, 2003, took a deep breath and said, "It would be two hits-me hitting him and him hitting the floor. I see this guy in the most prestigious office in the world, and this guy says 'bring it on.' A guy who ain't never been shot at, never seen anyone suffering, saying 'bring it on?' He gets to act like a cowboy in a western movie...it's sickening to me."

The other vets with him nod in agreement as he speaks somberly...his anger seething.

One of them, Alex Ryabov, a corporal in an artillery unit which was in Iraq the first three months of the invasion, asked for some time to formulate his response to the same question.

"I don't think Bush will ever realize how many millions of lives he and his lackeys have ruined on their quest for money, greed and power," he says, "To take the patriotism of the American people for granted...the fact that people (his administration) are willing to lie and make excuses for you while you continue to kill and maim the youth of America and ruin countless families...and still manage to do so with a smile on your face."

Taking a deep breath to steady himself he continues as if addressing Bush first-hand; "You needs to resign, take the billions of dollars you've made off the blood and sweat of US service members....all the suffering you've caused us, and put those billions of dollars into the VA to take care of the men and women you sent to be slaughtered. Yet all those billions aren't enough to even try to compensate all the people who have been affected by this."

These new additions to Veterans for Peace are actively living the statement of purpose of the organization, having pledged to work with others towards increasing public awareness of the costs of war, to work to restrain their government from intervening, overtly and covertly, in the internal affairs of other nations and to see justice for veterans and victims of war, among other goals.

I type furiously for three hours, trying to keep up with the stories each of the men shared....about the atrocities of what they saw, and committed, while in Iraq.

Camilo Mejia, an army staff sergeant who was sentenced to a year in military prison in May, 2004 for refusing to return to Iraq after being home on leave, talks openly about what he did there:

"What it all comes down to is redemption for what was done there. I was turning ambulances away from going to hospitals, I killed civilians, I tortured guys...and I'm ashamed of that. Once you are there, it has nothing to do with politics...it has to do with you as an individual being there and killing people for no reason. There is no purpose, and now I'm sick at myself for doing these things. I kept telling myself I was there for my buddies. It was a weak reasoning...because I still shut my mouth and did my job."

Mejia then spoke candidly about why he refused to return:

"It wasn't until I came home that I felt it-how wrong it all was and that I was a coward for pushing my principles aside. I'm trying to buy my way back into heaven...and it's not so much what I did, but what I didn't do to stop it when I was there. So now it's a way of trying to undo the evil that we did over there. This is why I'm speaking out, and not going back. This is a painful process and we're going through it."

Camilo Mejia was then quick to point towards the success of his organization and his colleagues. "When I went back to Iraq in October of 2003, the Pentagon said there were 22 AWOL's. Five months later it was 500, and when I got out of jail that number was 5,000. These are the Pentagons' numbers for the military. Two things are significant here-the number went from 500-5,000 in 11 months, and these are the numbers from the Pentagon."

While the military is falling short of its recruitment goals across the board and the disaster in Iraq spiraling deeper into chaos with each passing day, these are little consolation for these men who have paid the price they've had to pay to be at this convention. They continue to pay, but at the same time stand firm in their resolve to bring an end to the occupation of Iraq and to help their fellow soldiers.

Ryabov then begins to tell of his unit firing the wrong artillery rounds which hit 5-10 km from their intended target.

"We have no idea where those rounds fell, or what they hit," he says quietly while two of the men hold their heads in their hands, "Now we've come to these realizations and we're trying to educate people to save them from going through the same thing."

After talking of the use of uranium munitions, of which Ryabov stated 300 tons of which were used in the '91 Gulf War, and 2,200 tons and counting having been used thus far in the current war, he adds, "We were put in a foreign country and fire artillery and kill people...and it shouldn't have even happened in the first place. It's hard to put into words the full tragedy of it-the death and suffering on both sides. I feel a grave injustice has been done and I'm trying to correct it. You do all these things and come back and think, 'what have we done?' We just rolled right by an Iraqi man with a gunshot in his thigh and two guys near him waving white flags....he probably bled to death."

Harvey Tharp sitting with us served in Kirkuk. His position of being in charge of some reconstruction projects in northern Iraq allowed him to form many close friendships with Iraqis...something that prompts him to ask me to tell more people of the generous culture of the Iraqi people. His friendships apparently brought the war much closer to home for him.

"What I concluded last summer when I was waiting to transfer to NSA was that not only were our reasons for being there lies, but we just weren't there to help the Iraqis. So in November of '04 I told my commander I couldn't take part in this. I would have been sent into Fallujah, and he was going to order me in to do my job. I also chose not to go back because the dropping of bombs in urban areas like Fallujah are a violation of the laws of warfare because of the near certainty of collateral damage. For me, seeing the full humanity of Iraqis made me realize I couldn't participate in these operations."

Tharp goes on to say that he believes there are still Vietnam vets who think that that was a necessary war and adds, "I think it's because that keeps the demons at bay for them to believe it is justified...this is their coping mechanism. We, as Americans, have to face the total obvious truth that this was all because of a lie. We are speaking out because we have to speak out. We want to help other vets tell other vets their story...to keep people from drinking themselves to death."

When he is asked what he would say to Mr. Bush if he had a few moments with him, he too took some time to think about it, then says, "It is obvious that middle America is starting to turn against this war and to turn against you...for good reason. The only thing I could see that would arrest this inevitable fall that you deserve, is another 9/11 or another war with say, Iran. There are some very credible indications in the media that we are already in pre-war with Iran. What I'm trying to do is find a stand Americans can take against you, but I think people are willing to say 'don't you dare do this to us again.' My message to the American people is this-do you want to go another round with these people? If not-now is the time to say so."

The men are using this time to tell more of why they are resisting the illegal occupation, and it's difficult to ask new questions as they are adding to what one another share.

"I didn't want to kill another soul for no reason. That's it," adds Henderson, "We were firing into small towns....you see people just running, cars going, guys falling off bikes...it was just sad. You just sit there and look through your binos and see things blowing up, and you think, man they have no water, living in the third world, and we're just bombing them to hell. Blowing up buildings, shrapnel tearing people to shreds."

Tharp jumps in and adds, "Most of what we're talking about is war crimes...war crimes because they are directed by our government for power projection. My easy answer for not going is PTSD...but the deeper moral reason is that I didn't want to be involved in a crime against humanity."

Ryabov then adds, "We were put in a foreign country to fire artillery and kill people...and it shouldn't have even happened in the first place. It's hard to put into words the full tragedy of it-the death and suffering on both sides. I feel a grave injustice has been done and I'm trying to correct it. You do all these things and come back and think, what have we done?"

Michael Hoffman served as a Marine Corps corporal who fought in Tikrit and Baghdad, and has since become a co-founder of Iraq Veterans Against the War.

"Nobody wants to kill another person and think it was because of a lie. Nobody wants to think their service was in vain," says Hoffman.

His response to what he would say to Mr. Bush is simple, "I would look him straight in the eye and ask him 'why?' And I would hold him there and make him answer me. He never has to deal with us one on one. I dare him to talk to any of us like that, one on one, and give us an answer."

Hoffman then adds, "What about the 3 year old Iraqi girl who is now an orphan with diseases and nightmares for the rest of her life for what we did? And the people who orchestrated this don't have to pay anything. How many times are my children going to have to go through this? Our only choice is to fight this to try to stop it from happening again."

Earlier this same day Mr. Bush said, "We cannot leave this task half finished, we must take it all the way to the end."

However, Charlie Anderson, another Iraq veteran, had strong words for Bush. After discussing how the background radiation in Baghdad is now five times the normal rate-the equivalent of having 3 chest x-rays an hour, he said, "These are not accidents-the DU [Depleted Uranium]-it's important for people to understand this-the use of DU and its effects are by design. These are very carefully engineered and orchestrated incidents."

While the entire group nods in agreement and two other soldiers stand up to shake his hand, Anderson says firmly, "You subverted us, you destroyed our lives, you owe us. I want your resignation in my hand in the next five minutes. Get packin' Georgie."



To: Proud_Infidel who wrote (65035)8/6/2005 9:28:45 PM
From: SkywatcherRespond to of 81568
 
How Vulnerable Is Bush on Iraq?
By Dan Froomkin
The Washington Post

Friday 05 August 2005

When a nation is attacked, its people tend to rally around their leader. President Bush's job approval ratings, for instance, shot up more than 30 percent in the immediate aftermath of the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks.

But the seemingly incessant litany of deadly attacks on American troops in Iraq appears to be increasingly turning the public against the president and the war he launched.

The signs of such a turnaround remain faint in the mainstream media coverage of public discourse about Iraq. Something - maybe the administration's insistence that questioning its policies undermines American troops - has somehow cowed many of the predictable voices of dissent into silence.

But go to Brook Park, Ohio, home base for the 14 Marine reservists who were killed in a roadside bombing in Iraq Wednesday, and you hear some expressions of anger at the president.

And ask the American people in general what they think of how Bush is running the war - and whether they trust him anymore - and the verdict is becoming clearer and clearer.

Poll Watch

Will Lester writes for the Associated Press: "Americans' approval of President Bush's handling of Iraq is at its lowest level yet, according to an AP-Ipsos poll that also found fewer than half now think he's honest. . . .

"Approval of Bush's handling of Iraq, which had been hovering in the low- to mid-40s most of the year, dipped to 38 percent. . . .

"A solid majority still see Bush as a strong and likable leader, though the president's confidence is seen as arrogance by a growing number. . . .

"Bush's overall job approval was at 42 percent, with 55 percent disapproving. That's about where Bush's approval has been all summer but slightly lower than at the beginning of the year."

Here are the complete results , and some graphs .

Tom Raum of the Associated Press looks at the headlines, looks at the poll results, and concludes: "The deadly recent attacks on American troops in Iraq are increasing the pressure on President Bush to develop an exit strategy. The US death toll from the war is now over 1,800, and a new AP-Ipsos poll shows the lowest approval yet for Bush's handling of Iraq, just 38 percent.

"The president's fellow Republicans are growing nervous as they head into an election year."

Casualties of War

Brian Albrecht writes in the Cleveland Plain Dealer: "Wednesday, those Ohio families hit hardest by the recent deaths suddenly found themselves tiptoeing through an emotional minefield of memories, moods and a wide spectrum of views on the war.

"Daniel and Edie Deyarmin, of Tallmadge, said their son, Daniel Nathan Jr., believed in the mission that took his life Monday, and they will continue to believe in it, too.

"'We've got to stay free,' his father said. 'Nathan didn't die in vain. He knew he was getting some of the bad guys.'

"But not long after Marines broke the grim news to Paul Schroeder and Rosemary Palmer - parents of Edward August Schroeder II, one of the 14 Marines killed Wednesday - the couple unleashed misgivings they had had ever since their son joined the Marines.

"'I didn't want him to be there,' said Palmer, who sobbed when she heard of his enlistment. 'I didn't want him to be any part of it.'

"Their son, always the team player, once told them, 'There is no time for individualism or dissent in the desert.'

"But Paul Schroeder - who blamed the death of his son on President Bush - believed it was precisely the time for dissent on the home-front.

"'We are not taking anything away from the troops on the field, but at some point we have to say enough is enough,' he said. 'Otherwise, my son will become just a memory.'"

Kaitlin Bell and Susan Milligan write in the Boston Globe: "The chain fence surrounding the headquarters of the Third Battalion, 25th Marines, yesterday gave the people of northeastern Ohio something they desperately needed: a place to express their complicated feelings about a war that took the lives of 16 of the battalion's members in Iraq.

"As wind twisted the stems of flowers and pulled the strings of balloons as taut as violins, people stood and grieved, and knelt and prayed. They expressed views ranging from deep anger at President Bush to a renewed conviction to rebuild Iraq so the Marines will not have died in vain.

"But many in this Cleveland suburb, in nearby Akron, and in Columbus expressed hope that this week's deaths, and the shock waves they sent throughout the country, would prompt a deeper discussion of a very perplexing war. . . .

"Ohioans describe their state as patriotic and supportive of the troops. The state last year gave a narrow, critical win to an incumbent president defending his decision to send soldiers to fight in Iraq. But the shock of the recent deaths - combined with growing worries that the 2 1/2-year-old conflict remains unresolved - has more residents wondering whether the sacrifice has been worth it."

The New York Post Proposal

The New York Post editorial board , a reliable supporter of Bush, continues to back him on Iraq but has some stern advice as well: "Show some leadership - starting with a visit to Brook Park, Ohio. . . .

"The town needs to see and hear the president there. As does the nation.

"Bush's reluctance to attend individual funerals is understandable. He can't attend all of them, but he can't easily pick and choose, either: One soldier's death is no more worthy of a presidential visit than another's.

"But the geographical concentration of this week's losses creates a unique situation - and cries out for special treatment. . . .

"Go to Ohio, Mr. President, and thank the proud families of Brook Park."

No Place for Dissent

Remember how President Bush earlier this summer asked Americans to log on to AmericaSupportsYou.mil , a Department of Defense Web site, and register support for the troops?

At the time , I did some word searches and it didn't look to me like the site was posting many - if any - comments that suggested that the soldiers might be victims of bad policy decisions.

There are now more than 60,000 viewable messages - out of a reported 128,000 received - on the site.

I encouraged my colleagues at washingtonpost.com to look into this, and yesterday, Robert MacMillan and Mary Specht reported: "The Defense Department has removed messages containing political commentary from a Web site designed for people to show their support for US forces serving in Iraq and Afghanistan. . . .

"Last month the Wall Street Journal reported that two antiwar messages had disappeared from the site, but at the time the site had no posted policy on political statements."

Now the site has taken down some overtly pro-Bush messages as well, and a policy posted on the site last week now warns that political speech will be barred.

Still unclear: What was the nature of the 60,000-plus messages that never made it to the site in the first place?

Judgment in Question?

William Douglas writes for Knight Ridder Newspapers about the fallout from Bush's expression of support for Baltimore Orioles slugger Rafael Palmeiro after he tested positive for steroids.

"Bush's loyalty to his friends extends from the baseball diamond to the White House, where he's backed beleaguered Deputy Chief of Staff Karl Rove, who's mired in an investigation over who leaked the name of an undercover CIA officer, and to John Bolton, whom Bush appointed ambassador to the United Nations despite Senate reservations.

"But the president's quick and unequivocal defense of Palmeiro - who's now the subject of a congressional investigation - has raised questions about whether Bush's loyalty undercuts his political judgment.

"'It seems that President Bush is falling into the Nixon trap - his administration can do no wrong. His allies and people who support him can do no wrong,' said Robert Dallek, a presidential historian 'Palmeiro is above suspicion, Rove is not to be questioned, John Bolton is a stand-up guy.

"'The danger is he divorces himself from public reality, political reality, and it erodes his ability to lead the country,' Dallek said.

"Several analysts said the Palmeiro situation illustrates that point."

-------