SHOCKED AWE NEWS: Truth is not always fair and balanced.

The Weekly Spin

2006-07-01T15:25:29Z

THIS WEEK'S NEWS

== BLOG POSTINGS ==
1. Pro-War "Vets for Freedom" Tied to Bush's PR Team
2. Hadji Girl

== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. Kids to Kraft: Where's the Wheat?
2. U.S. Leads Effort To Shorten EU's REACH
3. Drug Companies Fail Transparency Test
4. Call Goes Out For PR Industry Makeover Proposals
5. CSR "Preventing Progress," Concludes Study
6. CanWest Pushes Drug Ads in Canada
7. Life and Lobbying Go On, After Abramoff
8. Afghanistan's Media War
9. Nuking Hearts and Minds in Britain
10. Republicans Plot Pro-War Strategy to Win in November
11. Benador Asks: Are You With the Fabricators or the Terrorists?
12. Shell Oil Execs To Press the Flesh
13. Pentagon Calls SOS for Foreign Media Work
14. Ethics All Clear for Election Front Group

== BLOG POSTINGS ==

1. PRO-WAR "VETS FOR FREEDOM" TIED TO BUSH'S PR TEAM
by John Stauber

Citizen journalists on SourceWatch have been investigating and
exposing the many Republican connections and the partisan pro-war
political agenda behind Vets for Freedom, a new organization with
mysterious funding and a flashy website designed by Campaign
Solutions, part of the Donatelli Group. Vets for Freedom's hollow
claim of "non-partisanship" took another blow Sunday, June 25, when
the Buffalo News published a front page story by Jerry Zremski,
their Washington correspondent, linking Vets for Freedom to the Bush
White House.

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4916

2. HADJI GIRL
by Sheldon Rampton

If you want to understand why the war is going so badly in Iraq, it
may help to examine the recent reaction to "Hadji Girl," the
videotaped song about killing Iraqis by U.S. Marine Corporal Joshua
Belile. The song became controversial when the Council on
American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) discovered it on the internet and
objected to its lyrics. "Hadji Girl" tells the story of a soldier
"out in the sands of Iraq / And we were under attack":

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4887

== SPIN OF THE DAY ==

1. KIDS TO KRAFT: WHERE'S THE WHEAT?
http://www.rethinkingschools.org/archive/20_04/20_04.shtml
In contrast to the more than $15 billion in direct marketing spent
in the U.S. to exhort children to buy food and non-food products,
children often don’t get very far with the companies when they
start asking questions. Olympia, Washington teacher Michi Thacker
assigned her elementary students to write food manufacturers to
raise questions, such as where the macaroni comes from. Most larger
companies like Kraft suddenly had little to say. Kraft told one
student via email that “the information you are seeking is
considered confidential.” Gatorade, Frito Lay, Campbell’s and
Post had similar nonanswers. Nancy from Nancy’s Yogurt of Eugene,
Oregon, on the other hand, responded personally to students with the
names of the producing farms and the origins of ingredients.
Rethinking Schools contains 13 articles about how children learn
about food, including the costs of local and imported food,
corporate food distribution networks, connecting food and heritage,
and what an earthworm (in contrast to a PR firm) can teach you about
eating right.

SOURCE: Rethinking Schools, Summer 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4921

2. U.S. LEADS EFFORT TO SHORTEN EU'S REACH
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB115134772234890994.html?mod=todays_us_page_one
By year's end, the European Union is expected to adopt REACH, a
proposal that would "require manufacturers to test industrial
chemicals used in the manufacturing process to gather health and
safety data." REACH stands for "Registration, Evaluation and
Authorization of Chemicals." The bill "has prompted a U.S.-led
coalition of 13 countries to step up lobbying efforts to make the
final measure more amenable to industry," reports the Wall Street
Journal. "The diplomatic missions of the U.S., Japan, Australia,
India and other countries issues a length joint critique of the
proposed law this month, saying certain provisions would disrupt
international trade without offering clear environmental benefits."
C. Boyden Gray, the U.S. ambassador to the EU and former chair of
FreedomWorks and Citizens for a Sound Economy, said European
policymakers "never did a proper impact assessment to evaluate the
risk-versus-benefit status of this legislation."

SOURCE: Wall Street Journal (sub req'd), June 27, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4920

3. DRUG COMPANIES FAIL TRANSPARENCY TEST
http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=95357&int1stParentNodeID=89650&int2ndParentNodeID=95352
A report by Consumers International, a global federation of consumer
organisations, examined the corporate social responsibility policies
of 20 major drug companies to test what information they disclose
about sponsoring patient groups, funding disease awareness campaigns
and offering hospitality to medical experts. The report, Branding
the Cure: A consumer perspective on Corporate Social Responsibility,
Drug Promotion and the Pharmaceutical Industry, "found only one
company, (Eli Lilly), provided information on policies towards
patient organisations; Less than half provided information about
codes of conduct for gifts and hospitality to health care
professionals; Pfizer, that worlds biggest pharmaceutical company,
provides no specific public information about its marketing code of
conduct." The report concludes that self-regulatory codes of conduct
are inadequate and that there is a need to "dissolve [the] veiled
relationships between pharmaceutical companies and health
researchers."

SOURCE: Consumers International, June 26, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4919

4. CALL GOES OUT FOR PR INDUSTRY MAKEOVER PROPOSALS
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/565545/EPCA+looks+lift+industry+image/
The European Centre for Public Affairs (ECPA), a non-profit PR
training and research group, is calling on PR consultancies to
outline how they would improve the image of the PR industry. ECPA
deputy chairman Michael Burrell told PR Week that it was "important
that the industry promotes and defends itself." However, Burrell
recognises the that improving the image of the industry won't be
easy. "It is a close to insuperable challenge to actually promote
positive news stories about what [the public affairs industry]
does," he said. Burrell is European Chairman of Public Affairs for
the privately-owned PR firm Edelman.

SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), June 22, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4918

5. CSR "PREVENTING PROGRESS," CONCLUDES STUDY
http://www.sundayherald.com/56377
A new study on corporate social responsibility (CSR) from Scotland's
St. Andrews University concludes that corporate CSR programs "are so
threadbare and misleading that they are preventing progress towards
a sustainable future," reports the Sunday Herald. The study adds
that CSR reports, which are produced by less than four percent of
major companies, are "at best useless and at worst highly
misleading." Study co-author Jan Bebbington, an environmental
adviser to the Scottish Executive, warned, "Driven by globalisation,
problems of pollution, waste and global warming are all threatening
to disrupt humanity in unprecedented ways." She criticized UK
Chancellor Gordon Brown for promoting "a light-touch regulatory
environment" and abandoning "plans to make companies report their
social and environmental impacts." The Confederation of British
Industry welcomed Brown's move, calling the proposed reporting
"overly legalistic."

SOURCE: Sunday Herald (Scotland), June 25, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4917

6. CANWEST PUSHES DRUG ADS IN CANADA
http://bmj.bmjjournals.com/cgi/content/full/332/7556/1469-a
The Canadian government has until the end of June to respond to a
legal action by CanWest MediaWorks, which wants to overturn the ban
on direct-to-consumer advertising of prescription drugs. CanWest
MediaWorks, which owns a national television network in Canada,
lodged the claim in December 2005. In a statement at the time,
CanWest MediaWorks claimed that "Canadians are already inundated by
American advertisements, making the issue one of 'basic business
fairness' between the two markets." Barbara Mintzes, from the Centre
for Health Services and Policy Research at the University of British
Columbia, argues that there is a need for better enforcement of
existing legislation. "CanWest's solution is to get rid of the law.
This is like saying that if corner stores are getting away with
selling cigarettes to 13 year olds, we might as well get rid of the
age restrictions," she told the British Medical Journal.

SOURCE: British Medical Journal (sub req'd), June 24, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4914

7. LIFE AND LOBBYING GO ON, AFTER ABRAMOFF
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/06/21/AR2006062101792.html
Lobbyists from the defunct firm Alexander Strategy Group, which
closed after being tied to convicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff and
disgraced House majority leader Tom DeLay, are finding new K Street
homes, reports Judy Sarasohn. Daniel Gans and Amelia Blackwood have
started their own shop, Polaris Government Relations. Polaris has
several former ASG clients, including BellSouth, U.S. Telecom
Association, Xcel Energy and the Association of Kentucky Fried
Chicken Franchisees, which retained Polaris to lobby on "estate
taxes, 'frivolous obesity suits,' the minimum wage and avian flu."
Former ASG lobbyist Paul Behrends is now at C&M Capitolink and Terry
Haines is at Buchanan Ingersoll. In related news, the U.S. Senate
Indian Affairs Committee released a report detailing how Abramoff
used nonprofit groups "as extensions of for-profit lobbying
operations." One group, conservative activist Grover Norquist's
Americans for Tax Reform, funneled more than $1 million from the
Choctaw tribe to Ralph Reed, reports Associated Press.

SOURCE: Washington Post, June 22, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4911

8. AFGHANISTAN'S MEDIA WAR
http://news.independent.co.uk/world/asia/article1095848.ece
In Afghanistan, "the Taliban now have three different press
spokesmen covering three separate regions of the country. In
Kandahar this summer, Taliban cassettes, DVDs and magazines are
available in numbers never previously seen. ... The Taliban have
also begun broadcasting a pirate station called the 'Voice of
Sharia' from mobile transmitters in at least two southern
provinces," reports The Independent. "In response, Western forces in
the country are extending a fledgling military funded radio channel
called Radio Peace," which aims to counter Taliban propaganda
portraying President Hamid Karzai as a "puppet" of the United
States. The Washington Post reports on "an unsigned but
official-looking document" recently delivered to Afghan media
outlets, which directed them to avoid any material that "weakens
public morale or damages the national interest," among other
instructions. Karzai disavowed the document, which the national
journalists' association called "illegal." The document is believed
to have come from the Afghan intelligence service or government
officials "seeking to indirectly intimidate the press."

SOURCE: The Independent (UK), June 23, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4910

9. NUKING HEARTS AND MINDS IN BRITAIN
http://www.prweek.com/uk/news/article/565845/Nuclear+sector+hunts+public+champion/
"We need to win hearts and minds in local communities and reassure
people about safety," said Philip Dewhurst. He's not a military
commander in Iraq or Afghanistan, but the chair of the British
Nuclear Industry Association (NIA). NIA, which represents 120
"nuclear power station operators, equipment suppliers and waste
management firms," is readying for the government of Prime Minister
Tony Blair "to give the go-ahead for the building of new [nuclear]
stations when it publishes the findings of the Energy Review next
month." NIA created a new staff position, public relations head, "to
champion the industry," reports PR Week. NIA's chief executive has
said "he believes the public would support new plants built next to
existing power stations, where residents are already assured of
safety and where thousands of jobs are supported."

SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), June 22, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4909

10. REPUBLICANS PLOT PRO-WAR STRATEGY TO WIN IN NOVEMBER
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/06/22/washington/22capital.html
The New York Times reports that Republicans are strongly embracing
the Bush Administration's war in Iraq in "an effort to turn what
some party leaders had feared could become the party's greatest
liability into an advantage in the midterm elections." In a strategy
meeting "White House officials including the national security
adviser, Stephen J. Hadley, outlined ways in which Republican
lawmakers could speak more forcefully about the war. Participants
also included Mr. Bush's top political and communications advisers:
his deputy chief of staff, Karl Rove; his political director, Sara
Taylor; and the White House counselor, Dan Bartlett." The NY Times
article makes no mention of the new group Vets for Freedom, an
apparent client of the Republican consultanting firm Donatelli
Group. It has been attacking John Murtha and other Iraq war critics
while heavlily promoting Bush's pro-war position. Vets for Freedom
could be very helpful in the Republican pro-war PR strategy to keep
control of Congress and the Senate.

SOURCE: New York Times, June 22, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4908

11. BENADOR ASKS: ARE YOU WITH THE FABRICATORS OR THE TERRORISTS?
http://www.thenation.com/doc/20060703/cohleresses
"Who needs Hill & Knowlton when you've got Benador Associates?" asks
Larry Cohler-Esses in The Nation. Cohler-Esses examines a
rapidly-debunked May 2006 story in Canada's National Post, which
claimed that Iran's government was requiring Jewish residents to
wear a yellow insignia. That story was planted by the PR firm
Benador Associates, according to its president, Eleana Benador. The
firm's "stable of writers and activists" reads like "a Who's Who of
the neocon movement," including Richard Perle, Michael Ledeen, Frank
Gaffney and Amir Taheri, an Iranian exile who wrote the false story.
Cohler-Esses notes that Taheri's 1989 book, Nest of Spies, was also
debunked for citing "nonexistent sources," fabricating "nonexistent
substance in cases where the sources existed," and distorting the
facts "beyond recognition." Last year, Taheri falsely claimed that
Iran's current ambassador to the United Nations took part in the
1979 hostage crisis at the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. Yet, Taheri was
part of an "Iraq experts" briefing of President Bush last month. "My
major concern is the large picture," Benador told Cohler-Esses. "As
much as being accurate is important, in the end it's important to
side with what's right. What's wrong is siding with the terrorists."

SOURCE: The Nation, June 14, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4904

12. SHELL OIL EXECS TO PRESS THE FLESH
http://www.prweek.com/us/news/article/563530/Shell+tour+US/
"As an industry, we have not done a good job about educating people
and talking about how gas prices are set," explained Shell Oil's
senior media relations specialist, Darci Sinclair. So, over the next
two years, Shell "will send its senior leaders on a 50-city 'tour',"
reports PR Week. Shell president John Hofmeister and other
executives will hold "one-on-one and group meetings, receptions,
speeches, and other events with local chambers of commerce, rotary
clubs, educational institutions, media members, environmental
groups, government officials, Shell employees themselves, and
others." The goal is to reach 10,000 people in total, in cities
including Dallas, Milwaukee, Phoenix, Seattle, Charlotte and
Honolulu. Like other oil companies and the industry group American
Petroleum Institute, Shell is trying to counter public anger at high
oil prices and "windfall profit" tax proposals.

SOURCE: PR Week (sub req'd), June 8, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4902

13. PENTAGON CALLS SOS FOR FOREIGN MEDIA WORK
http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0621stratcom.htm
STRATCOM, the U.S. military's Strategic Operations Command, has
awarded its new contract for foreign media monitoring to SOS
International. Perennial Pentagon favorite the Rendon Group formerly
held the contract. SOS will track "foreign press in several
languages across Europe, Latin America, the Middle East, Asia and
Mexico with a focus on the so-called Global War on Terrorism,"
reports O'Dwyer's PR Daily. The contract is worth up to $67 million
through 2010. SOS "was one of four companies awarded a multi-million
contract with the FBI last year to train and provide role players to
support the Bureau's nationwide counterintelligence training
program." It's also worked for the United Nations, providing
"anti-money laundering training" in Nigeria; for Kellogg Brown and
Root, providing linguists; and for the National Security Agency.

SOURCE: O'Dwyer's PR Daily (sub req'd), June 21, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4901

14. ETHICS ALL CLEAR FOR ELECTION FRONT GROUP
http://www.themercury.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,19525794%5E3462,00.html
The Public Relations Institute of Australia (PRIA) has dismissed an
ethics complaint that a front group authorized by the Chief
Executive of Corporate Communications Tasmania, Tony Harrison,
breached the PR industry's self-regulatory code of ethics. In the
March 2006 Tasmanian state election, Harrison authorised a major
advertising campaign for Tasmanians for a Better Future but refused
to disclose who was funding it. Australian Greens Senator, Christine
Milne, argued that in her opinion Harrison breached the code of
ethics provision which states that "members shall be prepared to
identify the source of funding of any public communication they
initiate or for which they act as a conduit". In a speech to the
Australian Senate late last week Milne said that all she got from
the PRIA "was a two-line reply" dismissing her complaint. Corporate
Communications Tasmania is the largest PR company in Tasmania and an
affiliate of Porter Novelli.

SOURCE: The Mercury, June 20, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4900

Former CIA Analyst Says Iran Strike Set For June Or July

2006-06-01T16:39:47Z

McGovern: Staged terror attacks across Europe, US "probable" in order to justify invasion

Former CIA analyst and Presidential advisor Ray McGovern, fresh from his heated public confrontation with Donald Rumsfeld, fears that staged terror attacks across Europe and the US are probable in order to justify the Bush administration's plan to launch a military strike against Iran, which he thinks will take place in June or July.

Appearing on The Alex Jones Show, McGovern was asked about the timetable for war in Iran and said that behind the diplomatic smokescreen, the final chess pieces were being moved into position.

"There is already one carrier task force there in the Gulf, two are steaming toward it at the last report I have at least - they will all be there in another week or so."

"The propaganda has been laid, the aircraft carriers are in place, it doesn't take much to fly the bombers out of British and US bases - cruse missiles are at the ready, Israel is egging us on," said McGovern.

McGovern said Iran's likely response to a US air strike would be threefold - mobilizing worldwide terrorist cells that would make Al-Qaeda look like a girls netball team - utilizing its cruise missile arsenal to attack US ships and sending fighters into Iraq to attack US forces.

"The Iranians can easily send three divisions of revolutionary guard troops right over....the long border with Iraq," said McGovern, stating that the local Sunni population of Iraq would welcome such an invasion.

The turmoil caused by such an action would lead the US to tap its so-called 'mini-nuke' arsenal said McGovern, opening a new Pandora's box of chaos.

McGovern highlighted President Bush's all time record low approval ratings as a reason for launching an attack on Iran to again whip up false patriotic fervour.

"I can see Karl Rove saying, 'look what you need to do is become a war president again, get us involved with something pretty big here and then strut around and say you can't vote for a bunch of Democrats to pull the rug out from under me while there's a war going on'."

McGovern drew a comparison with the concillatory cold war stance of Russia and JFK's decision to respond in a similar manner, and the Iranian President's letter which was immediately dismissed by the Bush administration. JFK's approach saved the US from potential nuclear anihalation while Bush's actions put the US in severe danger as Russia and China give ominous mixed signals on what their response to a US strike on Iran will be.

McGovern lambasted Bush's inner circle as uniformly lacking any real military experience and characterized them as a cabal already hell-bent on war.

McGovern entertained the notion that western governments and intelligence hierarchies could potentially stage terror attacks in Europe and the US either before or after an invasion of Iran.

"That's altogether possible," said McGovern.

"I would say even probable because they need some proximate cause, some casus belli to justify really unleashing things on Iran....I would put very little past this crew - their record of dissembling and disingenuousness is unparalleled."

McGovern said that Rove, Cheney and Rumsfeld, fearing impeachment and Enron-style criminal proceedings, are urging President Bush to launch a war in order to create a climate unconducive to lengthy investigations and impeachment proceedings.

Asked to cite specifically when we should expect to see an attack launched, McGovern said, "I think we all agree that an attack is likely before the election and we all agree that it has to do largely with the election - as for timing I see a likelihood that it could come as early as late June or early July, most of my colleagues predict August, September, maybe an October surprise even."

"My thinking is that for it to be October that would be so crass and so transparent that even this crowd would shy away from making it so obvious," said McGovern.

McGovern is set to appear along with a host of other respected and credible whistleblowers at the American Scholars Symposium at the end of this month.

infowars news

2006-06-01T16:36:13Z

Latest Neo-Con Lie: Iraq Safer Than Washington DC
Old and distorted figures used to sell wonderful war

Neo-Con publication claims that were parroted by the New York Sun, Rush Limbaugh and others purporting Iraq to be safer than Washington DC have been thoroughly debunked as having used old and distorted figures.

On Monday under the headline, 'Iraq Less Violent than Washington, D.C.', newsmax reported,

"Despite media coverage purporting to show that escalating violence in Iraq has the country spiraling out of control, civilian death statistics complied by Rep. Steve King, R-IA, indicate that Iraq actually has a lower civilian violent death rate than Washington, D.C.

Using Pentagon statistics cross-checked with independent research, King said he came up with an annualized Iraqi civilian death rate of 27.51 per 100,000.

While that number sounds high - astonishingly, the Iowa Republican discovered that it's significantly lower than a number of major American cities, including the nation's capital.

"It's 45 violent deaths per 100,000 in Washington, D.C.," King told Crowley."

As to be expected, the warhawks' argument is based around phony numbers, illogical comparisons and selective data. Think Progress crunches the numbers to illustrate the fraud.

Not a scene you're likely to see in DC.
For a start the King report uses outdated 2002 data for Washington DC, which just happens to be the same year snipers Malvo and Muhammad inflated the casualty numbers of violent deaths. 2004 data gives the real figure of 35.8 deaths per 100,000 in DC.

The Pentagon's own report released yesterday lists an average of 94 violent casualties per day in Iraq between February and May of 2006. This translates into 34,310 deaths per year in Iraq. Iraq's 26.7 million population, plus another 150,000 coalition forces gives us a number of 128 deaths per 100,000.

The Boston Globe also reports that insurgent attacks are at their highest levels since records began.

King is comparing one American city, known as the 'murder capital' of the USA, to the entire country of Iraq. Not to Baghdad, Tikrit or Fallujah, but to the entire country, and including large swathes of population numbers that are untouched by the turmoil due to their remote rural locations and don't know a car bomb from a laptop computer. This is blatant attempt to distort the figures in order to arrive at a pre-ordained result.

Comparing the entire country of Iraq to America and not just DC, the murder rate for all of America in 2004 was 5.5 per 100,000.

In addition, King's Iraq figure does not include deaths from civil homicides, only from war. The Wall Street Journal breaks this down further.

In March 2006 GOP congressional candidate Howard Kaloogian was forced to apologize after his campaign website carried a photograph of a peaceful city corner (seen above) with the following caption.

"We took this photo of downtown Baghdad while we were in Iraq'' which is "much more calm and stable than what many people believe it to be. But, each day the news media finds any violence occurring in the country and screams and shouts about it -- in part because many journalists are opposed to the U.S. effort to fight terrorism.''

Several eagle eyed bloggers began to notice details that weren't quite consistent with Iraqi streets - people holding hands, wearing western clothing, and billboards written in Turkish.

In reality the photograph depicted a suburb of Istanbul, Turkey. The tell-tale signs are explained in the graphic below.

Despite the Bushite media's insistence that there is some kind of liberal conspiracy to hype violence in Iraq and make the administration look incompetent, the reality is that the turmoil is indicative of a complete success on the part of Bush and his handlers.

Neo-conservative and Israeli strategy documents dating back to the eighties describe an agenda to break up Iraq into different sectarian factions and promote inter-Arab conflict.

From that perspective the quagmire is exactly what the PNAC warmongers desire and the left-wing and progressive blog sites should avow themselves of this information if they wish to truly understand what is unfolding in Iraq.

US Marines gunned down 24 Iraqi civilians to avenge their comrade

2006-06-01T16:15:28Z

Relatives and neighbors gathered near the shrouded bodies of civilians said to have been killed by marines in Haditha, Iraq, in November.
"They ranged from little babies to adult males and females. I'll never be able to get that out of my head. I can still smell the blood. This left something in my head and heart."
- Observations of Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones after the Haditha Massacre

On November 19, 2005, Marines from Kilo Company, 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine Regiment, 1st Marine Division based at Camp Pendleton allegedly killed 24 unarmed civilians in Haditha, Iraq, in a three to five hour rampage. One victim was a 76-year-old amputee in a wheelchair holding a Koran. A mother and child bent over as if in prayer were also among the fallen. "I pretended that I was dead when my brother's body fell on me, and he was bleeding like a faucet," said Safa Younis Salim, a 13-year-old girl who survived by faking her death.

Other victims included girls and boys ages 14, 10, 5, 4, 3 and 1. The Washington Post reported, "Most of the shots ... were fired at such close range that they went through the bodies of the family members and plowed into walls or the floor, doctors at Haditha's hospital said."

The executions of 24 unarmed civilians were conducted in apparent retaliation for the death of Lance Cpl. Miguel Terrazas when a small Marine convoy hit a roadside bomb earlier that day.

A statement issued by a US Marine Corps spokesman the next day claimed: "A US Marine and 15 civilians were killed yesterday from the blast of a roadside bomb in Haditha. Immediately following the bombing, gunmen attacked the convoy with small-arms fire. Iraqi army soldiers and Marines returned fire, killing eight insurgents and wounding another."

A subsequent Marine version of the events said the victims were killed inadvertently in a running gun battle with insurgents.

Both of these stories were false and the Marines knew it. They were blatant attempts to cover up the atrocity, disguised as "collateral damage."

The Marine Corps paid $38,000 in compensation to relatives of the victims, according to a report in the Denver Post. These types of payments are made only to compensate for accidental deaths inflicted by US troops. This was a relatively large amount, indicating the Marines knew something was not right during that operation, according to Mike Coffman, the Colorado state treasurer who served in Iraq recently as a Marine reservist.

Congressman John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine, was briefed on the Haditha investigation by Marine Corps Commandant Michael Hagee. Murtha said Sunday, "The reports I have from the highest level: No firing at all. No interaction. No military action at all in this particular incident. It was an explosive device, which killed a Marine. From then on, it was purely shooting people."

The Haditha massacre did not become public until Time Magazine ran a story about it in March of this year. Time had turned over the results of its investigation, including a videotape, to the US military in January. Only then did the military launch an investigation.

These Marines "suffered a total breakdown in morality and leadership, with tragic results," a US official told the Los Angeles Times.

"Marines over-reacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood," Murtha said.

Murtha's statement both indicts and exonerates the Marines of the crime of murder.

Murder is the unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought. Premeditation and deliberation - cold-blooded planning - constitute malice. Complete self-defense can be demonstrated by an honest and reasonable belief in the need to defend oneself against death or great bodily injury. The Marines might be able to show that, in the wake of the killing of their buddy Terrazas by an improvised explosive device, they acted in an honest belief that they might be killed in this hostile area. But the belief that unarmed civilians inside their homes posed a deadly threat to the Marines would be unreasonable.

An honest but unreasonable belief in the need to defend constitutes imperfect self-defense, which negates the malice required for murder, and reduces murder to manslaughter.

Many of our troops suffer from post traumatic stress disorder, or PTSD. Lance Cpl. Roel Ryan Briones, a Marine in Kilo Company, did not participate in the Haditha massacre. TJ Terrazas was his best friend. Briones, who was 20 years old at the time, saw Terrazas after he was killed. "He had a giant hole in his chin. His eyes were rolled back up in his skull," Briones said of his buddy.

"A lot of people were mad," Briones said. "Everyone had just a [terrible] feeling about what had happened to TJ."

After the massacre, Briones was ordered to take photographs of the victims and help carry their bodies out of their homes. He is still haunted by what he had to do that day. Briones picked up a young girl who was shot in the head. "I held her out like this," he said, extending his arms, "but her head was bobbing up and down and the insides fell on my legs."

"I used to be one of those Marines who said that post-traumatic stress is a bunch of bull," said Briones, who has gotten into serious trouble since he returned home. "But all this stuff that keeps going through my head is eating me up. I need immediate help."

A key quote from a Marine officer could be used to show premeditation - and thus malice - in support of a possible murder charge against the shooters. An article in yesterday's San Diego Union-Tribune which is reprinted from the New York Times News Service, cites a report by "one Marine officer" that "inspectors suspected at least part of the motive for the killings was to send a message to local residents that they would 'pay a price' for failing to warn the Marines about insurgent activity in the area."

Curiously, that paragraph is missing from the same story in both the print and online editions of yesterday's New York Times. For some reason, the Times had second thoughts about that paragraph, and removed it, after the copy had been sent to other papers over the wire.

Regardless of how those who may ultimately be charged with murder fare in court, a more significant question is whether George W. Bush, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld will be charged with war crimes on a theory of command responsibility.

Willful killing is considered a war crime under the US War Crimes Act. People who commit war crimes can be punished by life in prison, or even the death penalty if the victim dies. Under the doctrine of command responsibility, a commander can be held liable if he knew or should have known his inferiors were committing war crimes and he failed to stop or prevent it.

Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld are knowingly prosecuting a war of aggression in Iraq. Under the United Nations Charter, a country cannot invade another country unless it is acting in self-defense or it has permission from the Security Council. Iraq had invaded no country for 11 years before "Operation Iraqi Freedom," and the council never authorized the invasion.

A war that violates the UN Charter is a war of aggression.

Under the Nuremberg Tribunal, aggressive war is the supreme international crime.

Hagee flew from Washington to Iraq last week to brief US forces on the Geneva Conventions, the international laws of armed conflict and the US military's own rules of engagement. He is reportedly telling the troops they should use deadly force "only when justified, proportional and, most importantly, lawful." This creates a strong inference that our leaders had not adequately briefed our troops on how to behave in this war.

This, combined with the evidence that US forces are committing torture based on policies from the highest levels of government, as well as reports of war crimes committed in places such as Fallujah, served to put Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld on notice that Marines would likely commit war crimes in places such as Haditha. Our highest leaders thus should have known this would happen, and they should be prosecuted under the War Crimes Act.

Murtha told ABC there was "no question" the US military tried to "cover up" the Haditha incident, which Murtha called "worse than Abu Ghraib." Murtha's high-level briefings indicated, "There was an investigation right afterward, but then it was stifled," he said.

"Who covered it up, why did they cover it up, why did they wait so long?" Murtha asked on "This Week" on ABC. "We don't know how far it goes. It goes right up the chain of command."

Murtha said the decision to pay compensation to families of the victims is strong evidence that officers up the chain of command knew what had happened in Haditha. "That doesn't happen at the lowest level. That happens at the highest level before they make a decision to make payments to the families."

Haditha is likely the tip of the iceberg in Bush's illegal war of aggression in Iraq.

"We have a Haditha every day," declared Muhanned Jasim, an Iraqi merchant. "Were [those killed in Haditha] the first ... Iraqis to be killed for no reason?" asked pharmacist Ghasan Jayih. "We're used to being killed. It's normal now to hear 25 Iraqis are killed in one day."

"We have a Fallujah and Karbala every day," Jasim added, referring to the 2004 slaughter by US forces in Fallujah and bombings by resistance fighters in the Shiite city of Karbala.

In Fallujah, US soldiers opened fire on houses, and US helicopters fired on and killed women, old men and young children, according to Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein.

"What we're seeing more of now, and these incidents will increase monthly, is the end result of fuzzy, imprecise national direction combined with situational ethics at the highest levels of this government," said retired Air Force Col. Mike Turner, a former planner at the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

Senator John Warner, R-Va., head of the Armed Services Committee, pledged to hold hearings on the Haditha killings at the conclusion of the military investigation. "I'll do exactly what we did with Abu Ghraib," he told ABC News.

Warner's pledge provides little solace to those who seek justice. Congress has yet to hold our leaders to account for the torture by US forces at Abu Ghraib prison. Only a few low-ranking soldiers have been prosecuted. The Bush administration has swept the scandal under the rug.

During the Vietnam War, the US military spoke of winning the hearts and minds of the Vietnamese people. But in 1968, US soldiers massacred about 400 unarmed elderly men, women and children in the small village of My Lai. A cover-up ensued, and it wasn't until Seymour Hersh broke the story that it became public.

"America in the view of many Iraqis has no credibility. We do not believe what they say is correct," said Sheik Sattar al-Aasaaf, a tribal leader in Anbar province, which includes Haditha. "US troops are very well-trained and when they shoot, it isn't random but due to an order to kill Iraqis. People say they are the killers."

Graffiti on one of the Haditha victims' houses reads, "Democracy assassinated the family that was here."

More:

Haditha: Massacre and cover-up?

Marines 'to face charges over the Haditha massacre'

On a Marine Base, Disbelief Over Charges

Bush admits to mistakes - with a smirk

2006-05-28T19:33:00Z

In a joint news conference, Bush said he had used inappropriate "tough talk" -- such as saying "bring 'em on" in reference to insurgents -- that he said "sent the wrong signal to people." Richard Wolffe from Newsweek, joined Keith Olbermann and says that Bush's more realistic tone and mannerisms seemed rehearsed: "And for me the big giveaway was at the end of that answer, I don't know if you can see it on camera, but the President flashed a big grin to those of us sitting in the front rows. It didn't seem that he was quite as contrite as his performance."

Another Staged Charade From The War Criminals
Bush/Blair press conference feigns Iraqi support for Globalist occupation forces

Paul Joseph Watson/Prison Planet.com | May 26 2006

Thursday night's Bush/Blair press conference was the latest in a long line of carefully choreographed, staged and scripted, PR charades designed to fool the watching audience into thinking that there was anyone outside of the Globalist coalition of the killing and their dwindling army of sycophantic cheerleaders that actually supported the never ending occupation of Iraq.

White House press conferences are as staged as an Arnold Schwarzenegger photo op, with scripted questions that are known beforehand and scripted answers.

None more so than Bush's 'humble' admission that his "bring 'em on" challenge wasn't exactly going to win hearts and minds in the middle east, for which the lapdog media are slavishly back-slapping Bush this morning.

The last time Bush was asked if he had made any mistakes at a White House press conference was April 13th 2004. On this occasion Bush's reaction was a national embarrassment to rival trying to open a locked door in China, and an insight into the true nature of these phony media spectacles.

Anyone who watched the TV footage witnessed the embarrassing sight of Bush pausing for at least five seconds and saying absolutely nothing. Bush's admonition that the question should have been written 'ahead of time' (like the rest) proves that this was an impromptu question in an otherwise carefully scripted briefing.

Bush's bizarre response caused waves of speculation that his answers were being fed through to him via an ear piece and this became a major talking point during the Bush-Kerry election debates.

"John, I'm sure historians will look back and say, gosh, he could've done it better this way or that way. You know, I just -- I'm sure something will pop into my head here in the midst of this press conference, with all the pressure of trying to come up with answer, but it hadn't yet," said Bush as he puffed out his cheeks, fumbled for words, and faltered like a deer in the headlights.

During a prime time press conference on March 6th 2003, a flustered Bush admitted that the event was "scripted" after a reporter interrupted him looking down at his notes to see which journalist to next call upon. The word 'scripted' was later excised from numerous mainstream media transcripts of the event.

Bush's infamous staged conversation with US troops ordered to paint a rosy picture of conditions in Iraq was exposed when video tape of Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, coaching the troops on what their choreographed answers would be was aired.

Thursday night's charade was kept carefully within controlled parameters as Bush and Blair discarded every question with the same canned response.

Blair's insistence on ducking questions about the illegality of invading Iraq by dismissing it as past tense and harping on about how we must forget about that and concentrate on rebuilding the country needs to be put in its proper context.

This would be like breaking into your neighbors house, killing his wife and children, smashing up the place and then telling the police that the reasons and consequences of doing all this are not important because the house is a mess and in need of renovation.

Hailing the installation of another puppet government as a turning point, Bush and Blair carefully avoided questions about when troops will be withdrawn. Press speculation that a large scale withdrawal is imminent has been heard before and always turns out to be baseless. The only point at which troops will be withdrawn is when they are needed to bludgeon another broken backed third world country in the name of democracy.

Blair's indignant preaching about Al-Qaeda in Iraq spoiling his Straussian vision of global democracy (international world government by force) was propped up by Bush's reference to the mythical Al-Zarqawi presence and the determination of the terrorists to succeed.

The fact is that the 'insurgents' are comprised almost entirely of Iraqis and half of Iraqis actually support their goals. On the other hand polls have shown that Bush and Blair's imperial occupation forces garner no more than 18% approval.

Iraqis say the country is worse than it was under Saddam and former Prime Minister Ayad Allawi said human rights abuses had eclipsed those of the deposed Hussein.

If Chinese troops occupied Los Angeles, bombed villages, told citizens they couldn't re-enter their homes without chipped ID cards, engaged in untold massacres, set up torture camps, took control of all free medial, and imprisoned anyone who protested their presence, would Americans who fought back be characterized as insurgents and terrorists?

news

2006-05-28T19:08:15Z

U.S. Military Admits Iraq Massacre -- Months After Press Reported It
NEW YORK Months after the killings were uncovered by the press, the U.S. military finally appears ready to admit that a massacre took place in an Iraqi village last November 19 and then was covered up by soldiers or officers.

"A military investigation into the deaths of two dozen Iraqis last November is expected to find that a small number of marines in western Iraq carried out extensive, unprovoked killings of civilians," Congressional, military and Pentagon officials confirm, The New York Times reports Friday. "Two lawyers involved in discussions about individual marines' defenses said they thought the investigation could result in charges of murder, a capital offense.

"That possibility and the emerging details of the killings have raised fears that the incident could be the gravest case involving misconduct by American ground forces in Iraq."

Time magazine first brought the murders to lights in the U.S. in March, after months of charges in the Arab press. Knight Ridder and the Associated Press followed with stories. The main evidence was a video shot by a local journalism student, plus testimony of villagers to human rights workers. It is not known why four months passed after the incident before the U.S. media covered the story, and six months until the military confirmed the episode, sparking more anger against Americans in Iraq.

"When these investigations come out, there's going to be a firestorm," retired Brig. Gen. David M. Brahms, formerly a top lawyer for the Marine Corps, told The Washignton Post for a Friday story. "It will be worse than Abu Ghraib -- nobody was killed at Abu Ghraib."

An Army lawyer who has heard some accounts of the investigation told thge Post, "It's a lot more serious than people thought at the beginning. It's really bad timing," coming as the repercussions of the Abu Ghraib detainee abuse scandal are waning.

The military had first said that the victims died from a homemade bomb, and later, in a crossfire.

This is how the Times reported the incident last November 20: "The Marine Corps said Sunday that 15 Iraqi civilians and a marine were killed Saturday when a roadside bomb exploded in Haditha, 140 miles northwest of Baghdad....The bombing on Saturday in Haditha, on the Euphrates in the Sunni-dominated province of Anbar, was aimed at a convoy of American marines and Iraqi Army soldiers, said Capt. Jeffrey S. Pool, a Marine spokesman. After the explosion, gunmen opened fire on the convoy. At least eight insurgents were killed in the firefight, the captain said."

Now, the Times reports, evidence "indicates that the civilians were killed during a sustained sweep by a small group of marines that lasted three to five hours and included shootings of five men standing near a taxi at a checkpoint, and killings inside at least two homes that included women and children, officials said.

"That evidence, described by Congressional, Pentagon and military officials briefed on the inquiry, suggested to one Congressional official that the killings were 'methodical in nature.'"

Three Marine officers — the battalion commander and two company commanders in Haditha at the time — have been relieved of duty, although officials have declined to link that action to the probe, the Times noted.

Rep. John Kline (R-Minn.), a retired Marine colonel, told the Times that the allegations indicated that "this was not an accident. This was direct fire by marines at civilians." He added, "This was not an immediate response to an attack. This would be an atrocity."

Americans Against Spying
A majority of Americans disapprove of the NSA’s domestic phone call monitoring, according to a poll by USA Today. More than two-thirds are concerned the program goes far beyond phone calls into banking records and Internet usage. Sixty-two percent want immediate congressional hearings.

Anti-Terror Tool Turned on Muckrakers
Now it seems the Patriot Act is being exploited by the FBI to root out reporters’ confidential sources, by conducting telephone searches that no longer require a judge’s authorization. As a senior federal official told ABC: "It used to be very hard and complicated to do this, but it no longer is in the Bush administration."

Lobbyist Donations As High As Ever (PDF)
The midterm elections this fall will supposedly be all about the "culture of corruption" in Washington, wherein noble-minded reformers—most of them Democrats, presumably—will rail against lobbyists who are perverting and distorting government. So far, though, lobbyists are just carrying on as usual. Public Citizen released a report today looking at donations by lobbyists and their PACs—in 2006, lobbyist donations to members of Congress are on pace to be about 10 percent higher than they were in 2004 (totaling $34 million), which were in turn 90 percent higher than they were in 2000 (totaling $18 million).

Interestingly, Jack Abramoff is only the 30th-ranked lobbyist donor. And not surprisingly, most of the money goes to members of the Senate and House appropriations committees, which ultimately decides how federal money gets spent. Supposedly this is different from the actual bribery that took place when Duke Cunningham was sitting on the House appropriations committee, but the dividing line here seems pretty hazy.

Zogby poll shows interest in new Septmber 11 investigation
A recent Zogby poll found that over 70 million Americans distrust the official explanation of the September 11 attacks. 42% believe there has been some kind of coverup; 45% believe that Congress on an international tribunal should investigate the attacks again.

An August, 2004 poll showed that nearly half of New Yorkers believed that U.S. officials consciously allowed the attacks to happen, and 2/3 of New Yorkers want a new investigation of the events. The report of the September 11 Commission left much to be desired in terms of White House culpability, and omitted information about the collapse of WTC Building 7.

Like a Teenager with a Credit Card
When Bush took office the nation’s debt ceiling — Think: The limit on your Master Card — was $5.95 trillion dollars. That’s some mad cheddar.

But less than two months after successfully petitioning Congress to raise the debt ceiling by $653 billion — the fourth hike in five years — the president has tucked a provision in to his latest budget plan that would boost our nation’s credit limit by another $653 billion.

Bush practices a brand of ‘fiscal conservatism’ that would only make sense to Orwell. With this fifth hike, our debt ceiling would rise to nearly $10 trillion. For those of you who lie to see the zeroes, that’s $10,000,000,000,000

Operation Mock Zarqawi
After admitting that operation "Villainize Zarqawi" had been too effective for its own good, the military is now seeking to throw the propaganda machine into reverse, tearing down the "terrorist mastermind" whose image they boosted with such cold calculation.

Once again, The New York Times appears to be the preferred vessel to disseminate the Pentagon’s agitprop. On its front page this weekend, the Times reports on the zany "outtakes" of a Zarqawi terror video that the Pentagon claims American "troops had discovered amongst a trove of information about Mr. Zarqawi last month in the dangerous town of Yusifiyah, just south of Baghdad."

In the video Zarqawi is seen sporting white New Balance sneaks and fumbling with an automatic weapon, which one of his handlers burns himself on by holding its barrel. The Times parrots the Pentagon’s preferred line:

The message Mr. Zarqawi wants to deliver has always been clear: That Shiites—or "apostates"—and anyone who helps the new Iraqi government or the American military faces a horrible death... But with the release of the out-takes today the American military sought to send a very different message: That Mr. Zarqawi is a poseur who can’t even fire a basic infantry weapon and walks around in comfortable shoes.

As the Washington Post story from two weeks ago makes clear, however, the Pentagon itself had sought to villainize Zarqawi and make him the face of anti-American terror and sectarian violence in Iraq. It quotes one high ranking military officer as saying: "Our own focus on Zarqawi has enlarged his caricature, if you will—made him more important than he really is."

Something about this counter-propaganda campaign is incredibly fishy. In particular because Zarqawi is seen walking around on his own two feet, when the reason he’d been reported to have entered Iraq in the first place was to seek medical treatment for an injured leg, which many reports said was amputated.

Widespread Torture
From Amnesty International:

Evidence continues to emerge of widespread torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment of detainees held in U.S. custody in Afghanistan, Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, Iraq and other locations. While the government continues to assert that abuses resulted for the most part from the actions of a few "aberrant" soldiers and lack of oversight, there is clear evidence that much of the ill-treatment has stemmed directly from officially santioned procedures and policies, including interrogation techniques approved by Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld for use in Guantanamo and later exported to Iraq. While it seems that some practices, such as "waterboarding", were reserved for high value detainees, others appear to have been routinely applied during detentions and interrogations in Afghanistan, Guantánamo and Iraq. The latter include hooding, stripping and shackling of detainees in painful positions as well as using military dogs to intimidate blindfolded detainees; prolonged isolation, deprivation of food and sleep and exposure to extremes of temperature also appear to have been common practice to punish detainees for failing to cooperate or to "soften them up" for interrogation.

Many of the techniques listed above, even if applied in isolation or for limited periods, would in Amnesty International’s view violate the prohibition of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment under Article 16. Such techniques have reportedly been used against "war on terror" detainees in combination and for prolonged periods, causing severe pain and suffering (physical, mental or both) and, being inflicted intentionally by officials for the purpose of obtaining information, thereby amount to torture.(4) Some of the approved techniques, such as forced shaving of facial and head hair, stripping and the use of dogs to inspire fear, appear to have had a specific discriminatory or racist application in the case of Muslim detainees.

It is now known that at least thirty-four detainees who died in US custody have had their deaths listed by the army as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides. The true number of such deaths may be higher as there is evidence that delays, cover-ups and deficiencies in investigations have hampered the collection of evidence.

The Worst President in History?: One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush (Rolling Stone)
George W. Bush's presidency appears headed for colossal historical disgrace. Barring a cataclysmic event on the order of the terrorist attacks of September 11th, after which the public might rally around the White House once again, there seems to be little the administration can do to avoid being ranked on the lowest tier of U.S. presidents. And that may be the best-case scenario. Many historians are now wondering whether Bush, in fact, will be remembered as the very worst president in all of American history.

...Like a Hole in the Head
"I think Jeb would be a great president... I would like to see Jeb run."

the Weekly Spin

2006-05-03T17:36:51Z

THIS WEEK'S NEWS

== BLOG POSTINGS ==
1. Television Stations Respond... And It's Worse Than You Think
2. Network neutrality, telecom company cash and Rep. Bobby Rush (D-Ill.)
3. Neil Young Clobbers the Thought Police
4. Welcome To the Launch of Congresspedia

== SPIN OF THE DAY ==
1. Wal-Mart's Changing PR
2. Chertoff Proposes Disaster Embedding
3. Lincoln Group Work In Iraq "Completely Inept"
4. Connecticut Cuts 'Ade at Schools
5. PR Exec: Fake TV News is Good for You!
6. Ketchum Lands Contract To Polish Russia's Image
7. RJR Tobacco's Push to Keep Smoke-Filled Rooms
8. Too Little of a Good Thing
9. The Flacks Are Coming, the Flacks Are Coming!
10. Radio Payola in NH - Politics as Usual?
11. White House Snow Job
12. Learning from, and Spinning, the Chernobyl Disaster

== BLOG POSTINGS ==

1. TELEVISION STATIONS RESPOND... AND IT'S WORSE THAN YOU THINK
by Diane Farsetta

One news director says, "I have been instructed by corporate not to
talk to you."
Hours after the Center for Media and Democracy released our study
on television stations' widespread and undisclosed use of corporate
video news releases (VNRs), a major organization of broadcast news
executives issued its response.
"The Radio-Television News Directors Association strongly urges
station management to review and strengthen their policies requiring
complete disclosure of any outside material used in news
programming," read the statement. RTNDA went on to caution that
decisions involving "when and how to identify sources ... must
remain far removed from government involvement or supervision."
Unfortunately, RTNDA's statement conflates "sources" with broadcast
material funded by and produced for outside parties. It also
conveniently ignores that the U.S. Federal Communications
Commission, under its authority to regulate broadcasters' use of the
public airwaves, already has disclosure requirements (PDF) on the
books. But RTNDA's stance does point to an important, underlying
issue: how to ensure both news audiences' right to know "who seeks
to influence them," and the editorial freedom of newsrooms.

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4762

2. NETWORK NEUTRALITY, TELECOM COMPANY CASH AND REP. BOBBY RUSH (D-ILL.)
by Conor Kenny

Is the Internet about to change from a free-spirited marketplace of
"may the best Web site win" to a top-down, corporate-controlled
glorified cable package? A diverse coalition of bloggers, academics,
citizens groups and non-profit organizations think we're in danger
of just that. The Save the Internet coalition (SourceWatch profile)
warns about the loss of "network neutrality":
Congress is pushing a law that would abandon the Internet's
First Amendment -- a principle called Network Neutrality that
prevents companies like AT&T, Verizon and Comcast from deciding
which Web sites work best for you -- based on what site pays them
the most. Your local library shouldn’t have to outbid Barnes &
Noble for the right to have its Web site open quickly on your
computer.

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4764

3. NEIL YOUNG CLOBBERS THE THOUGHT POLICE
by John Stauber

I'm listening to Neil Young's new album, Living With War. It's not
my first time; I was lucky enough to be at a private listening last
week in California. But now, along with millions of others connected
to the Internet, I'm hearing it free of charge through my computer
speakers, courtesy of Mr. Young and his absolutely brilliant bunch
of guerrilla marketers and movement builders.
Peace groups including True Majority smartly have seized on the
moment to mobilize Young’s listeners. Never before has any album
moved so quickly from concept to completion to pre-release
controversy, to the ears of millions of listeners. Mr. Young knows
how to craft a message, and how to market it in a way that no one
has before. He's done it like a martial arts expert, utilizing the
venom and energy of his attackers who don't like this Canadian
citizen's urgent, compelling, pro-peace vision of the American
dream.

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4758

4. WELCOME TO THE LAUNCH OF CONGRESSPEDIA
by Conor Kenny

Welcome to the debut of Congresspedia, the “citizen’s
encyclopedia on Congress.” Congresspedia is a bold new experiment
by the Center for Media and Democracy and the Sunlight Foundation in
distributed citizen journalism. It is based on the wiki model (think
Wikipedia) and is a subset of the Center’s SourceWatch wiki.
We are starting with 539 articles – one for every current
member of Congress, the non-voting delegates, and former Rep. Randy
“Duke” Cunningham. However, we hope that this is only the
foundation upon which Congresspedia contributors (like you!) will
build upon by not just adding to those profiles but also by creating
new articles on any subject related to Congress that falls within
the bounds of our policies and article guidelines.

For the rest of this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4752

== SPIN OF THE DAY ==

1. WAL-MART'S CHANGING PR
http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2006/04/26/business/02wmssmiley.txt
"Executives with Wal-Mart Stores Inc. kept stressing during the
company's recent media conference that the world's largest retailer
is always changing," reports Anita French. "Wal-Mart made much of
the revamping of its information Web site, walmartfacts.com, during
the conference." The revamp of the website, which the company set up
"to counter what the company said was false information circulated
about Wal-Mart," will allow visitors to more "quickly find
information about our company," explained a Wal-Mart spokesperson.
Last month, PR Week reported on a new Wal-Mart initiative, "to
pursue new-store construction in neglected urban areas" while
simultaneously trying to "curry favor with the small businesses that
will soon have Wal-Mart as a neighbor and competitor." Another
Wal-Mart spokesperson said the planned "host of community relations
measures targeting small businesses" will "help these small
businesses learn how to thrive with Wal-Mart in the neighborhood."

SOURCE: The Morning News (Arkansas), April 26, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4776

2. CHERTOFF PROPOSES DISASTER EMBEDDING
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6328620.html?display=Breaking+News
"Reporters will be embedded with the government during natural
disasters, according to a plan outlined by Homeland Security
Secretary Michael Chertoff at the Radio-Television News Directors
Association convention," writes John Eggerton. Chertoff assured the
audience, "We're not going to be censoring information," since the
program wouldn't involve battleground situations. Eggerton notes
that during the crisis around Hurricane Katrina, "reporters seemed
to know more about what was happening on the ground than the
administration did." So, the new embed program might benefit
government officials more than reporters -- or affected communities.

SOURCE: Broadcasting & Cable, April 27, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4775

3. LINCOLN GROUP WORK IN IRAQ "COMPLETELY INEPT"
http://www.odwyerpr.com/members/0502lincoln.htm
O'Dwyers PR Daily reports that Bill Dixon and Laurie Adler, who
handled PR for the Lincoln Group which gained notoriety for using
Pentagon funds to plant news articles in Iraqi newspapers, have
jumped ship. Dixon only started with the company in January while
Adler served as the company's main spokesman. In the Columbia
Journalism Review Daniel Schulman reports that a U.S. army officer,
who helped select the company for contracts in Iraq, was scathing in
his assessment of their work. "They were sending guys over there
that had absolutely no knowledge of Iraqis whatsoever. ... It was a
scheme written up on a cocktail napkin in D.C. They were just
completely inept," the officer said.

SOURCE: O'Dwyers PR Daily (sub req'd), May 2, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4774

4. CONNECTICUT CUTS 'ADE AT SCHOOLS
http://www.courant.com/news/local/hc-soda0428.artapr28,0,7703359.story?coll=hc-headlines-home
Gatorade and Powerade, as well as soda and other sports drinks, will
be banned from Connecticut schools after a "feverish" double-team by
Coca-Cola and Pepsi failed to stop the state's House of
Representeatives from passing "the strongest school nutrition law in
the nation." A flier distributed by Coke's PR reps, Sullivan &
LeShane, attacked the bill, urging, "It is counterproductive to tell
an 18-year-old who can drive a car, fly a plane, enlist in the
military...and get an abortion that they can't have a soft drink."
But on May 3, 2006, Coke lowered its red flag, announcing with other
beverage companies a nationwide voluntary ban on school day soft
drinks, to be phased in by 2010. (The "ban," which goes farther than
earlier voluntary measures, would still allow the sale of sports
drinks, as well as all sodas after school hours.) While strong on
soft drinks, Connecticut's new law does not regulate snack foods.
Instead, the state has created a voluntary incentive for schools to
stock healthier snacks. Federal legislation is pending to require
healthier school snack foods nationally.

SOURCE: Hartford Courant, April 26, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4772

5. PR EXEC: FAKE TV NEWS IS GOOD FOR YOU!
http://www.broadcastingcable.com/article/CA6329692.html?verticalid=311&industry=Editorials&industryid=1034
In a contributed column titled "Are Video News Releases All Bad?,"
Kevin E. Foley, the president of the Atlanta-based PR company KEF
Media Associates, criticized the Center for Media and Democracy's
(CMD) recent report on the widespread and undisclosed use of video
news releases (VNRs). Foley acknowledges that television stations
often use VNRs as a cheap source of "news" filler but defends their
use without disclosing who sponsored them. He argued, "CMD would
have us believe that some great social harm is being done if a VNR
isn’t attributed, but if the newscaster airs a story that holds
the viewer's attention and the viewer walks away informed or
entertained, who has been hurt?" The report documented an instance
where Ohio-based WYTV-33 broadcast an 80-second news feature on
MimyX, a prescription skin cream for eczema, where safety
information included in the VNR was entirely edited out of the
"story."

SOURCE: Broadcasting & Cable, May 1, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4768

6. KETCHUM LANDS CONTRACT TO POLISH RUSSIA'S IMAGE
http://news.ft.com/cms/s/13bcae1e-d87c-11da-9715-0000779e2340.html
The Russian government has signed a multi-million dollar deal with
the Washington office of the PR company Ketchum and its
Brussels-based sibling, GPlus Europe. The Financial Times reports
that the contract is "to improve the presentation of Russia's
presidency of the Group of Eight leading nations." Last week, U.S.
Republican Senator from Arizona, John McCain, criticized the
decision in January by the Russian government controlled company,
Gazprom, to cut off gas supplies to the Ukraine. The deputy press
attaché to Mr Putin, Dmitry Peskov, told the Financial Times that
Russia's 12-month presidency stint of the G8 "didn't get off to a
good start on the communications front." "Perhaps if we had already
been working then with some kind of communications company things
would have been different," he said.

SOURCE: Financial Times, April 30, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4767

7. RJR TOBACCO'S PUSH TO KEEP SMOKE-FILLED ROOMS
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1146300099124790.xml&coll=2
The R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Company is supporting a bid by the Ohio
Licensed Beverage Association to amend the Ohio constitution to
exempt businesses such as bars, restaurants and bowling alleys from
smoking restrictions. The amendment would also override a number of
local ordinances banning indoor smoking. To gather 300,000
signatures to put the amendment on the ballot in November, the
business lobby is running web advertisements offering $1.50 for each
signature collected. "If people knew that R.J. Reynolds is funding
the push, I think they'd think twice about it," Ken Slenkovich, the
director of policy and planning for the Cuyahoga County Board of
Health, told The Plain Dealer.

SOURCE: The Plain Dealer, April 29, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4763

8. TOO LITTLE OF A GOOD THING
http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/Speaker_caught_ditching_hydrogen_for_SUV_0428.html
The Raw Story reports that Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert just
couldn't wait to get back into his SUV after a photo op and short
ride in a hydrogen car. After expressing their outrage at
skyrocketing gas prices, Hastert and several congressional
colleagues left the Washington DC gas station to return to the Hill,
which was just blocks away. But instead of finishing the trip in the
hydrogen car or, dare we say, walking the rest of the way, Hastert
made a quick pit stop to hop into his SUV. The Associated Press,
which caught the Speaker mid-switch, reported that he was not the
only one to change vehicles, but did not name other names.

SOURCE: The Raw Story, April 28, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4761

9. THE FLACKS ARE COMING, THE FLACKS ARE COMING!
http://www.webershandwick.com/newsroom/newsrelease.cfm/contentid,14071.html
Weber Shandwick Worldwide, one of the world's largest PR firms, has
announced a significant expansion into Eastern and Central Europe.
It has opened new offices in Poland, Croatia, and Bosnia and
Herzegovina and added affiliate offices in Romania, Slovakia,
Slovenia, Serbia and Montenegro, Latvia, Lithuania, and Estonia.
Shandwick's partner in these efforts is McCann WorldGroup, which is,
along with Shandwick, a subsidiary of the InterPublic Group. This is
in addition to their existing presence in Bulgaria, Hungary,
Macedonia, Russia, and Ukraine. "We have expanded our reach across
Europe to better serve our clients through increased collaboration
and the sharing of best practices," said Harris Diamond, chief
executive officer of Weber Shandwick. "For international clients,
this expansion offers a broader geographic footprint covering areas
where they see growth opportunities. And local clients in these
markets will now have access to one of the world's leading
communications networks."

SOURCE: Weber Shandwick Worldwide, April 21, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4759

10. RADIO PAYOLA IN NH - POLITICS AS USUAL?
http://www.nhpr.org/node/10626
"[New Hampshire] GOP Gubernatorial candidate Jim Coburn is facing an
uphill battle. He's a one-term state rep. trying to unseat a
Governor with high poll numbers and plenty of resources. That said,
Jim Coburn is not working alone. Since late march, the former
high-tech entrepreneur's campaign has been run by Meridian
Communications, the PR firm that ... is also assisting New York
Governor George Pataki as he explores a Presidential bid. But
Meridian's co-founder, former TV-news reporter Jack Heath, does more
than just advise candidates and companies on how to get good press.
He also gives them press on his daily radio talk show. ... The
Center for Media and Democracy's John Stauber says such conduct
raises basic questions about the content of all of Heath's
broadcasts, calling it 'very dishonest and less than ethical.' "
After New Hampshire Public Radio broke this story, it was picked up
by the Associated Press and the Boston Globe.

SOURCE: New Hamphsire Public Radio, April 27, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4757

11. WHITE HOUSE SNOW JOB
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Tony_Snow
Do you think it's easy flacking for an unpopular lame duck president
who has mired the nation in an unnecessary and brutal war that is
draining the treasury and has turned world opinion against the
United States? What PR guy could possibly be persuaded to take this
job? Tony Snow, former talk show host and commentator for Fox News.

SOURCE: SourceWatch article on Tony Snow, April 26, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4756

12. LEARNING FROM, AND SPINNING, THE CHERNOBYL DISASTER
http://www.nytimes.com/reuters/world/international-chernobyl-director.html
"Chernobyl has not taught anything to anyone," Viktor Bryukhanov,
the former director of the infamous nuclear power plant, told a
Russian magazine. Twenty years after the disaster, Bryukhanov said
plant employees had made mistakes, but "official investigations into
the cause of the disaster had been a whitewash designed to exonerate
the nuclear industry." Nature magazine noted that "arguments over
the death toll of Chernobyl are as politically charged as ever." In
addition to politics, "uncertainty about the health effects of low
doses of radiation" also complicates assessments. Death toll
estimates range from 4,000 to 100,000 people. In the U.S., the
Nuclear Energy Institute marked the Chernobyl anniversary by
unveiling a new pro-nuclear PR campaign, headed by Hill & Knowlton.

SOURCE: Reuters, April 25, 2006
For more information or to comment on this story, visit:
http://www.prwatch.org/node/4755

Shocked Awe fans and friends,

2006-05-03T17:36:01Z

I have just moved out of state and it's taking a while to get things grounded around here, however I am not abandoning this journal. Just a heads-up.

record debt under Bush

2006-03-17T14:50:50Z

Congress Raises Debt Cap, Fourth Increase Under Bush (Update4)

The U.S. Congress approved a $781 billion increase in the federal government's debt limit, the fourth time lawmakers have raised the cap since President George W. Bush took office.

The Senate voted 52-48 to increase the legal limit on federal borrowing to $8.97 trillion, up from $8.18 trillion. The House approved the measure last year, meaning the legislation now goes to the president for his signature.

Treasury Secretary John Snow warned Congress in increasingly dire terms that the government couldn't keep paying its bills, and risked defaulting on its debt, without an immediate increase in the cap. The ceiling was lifted about 30 minutes after the Treasury postponed the scheduled announcement of the sale of three-month and six-month Treasury bills. An hour later Treasury said it would sell $37 billion in bills.

After the vote, Snow said lawmakers had protected ``the full faith and credit of the United States'' and ensured the government ``can deliver on promises already made, such as Social Security and Medicare payments and aid for the victims of the 2005 hurricanes.''

The increase in the debt limit will bring more borrowing and ``possibly a new round of spending,'' said Richard Schlanger, who manages about $4 billion of fixed-income assets, including Treasury bonds, at Pioneer Asset Management in Boston. ``As long as foreigners are willing to finance us, bring it on.''

Lambasting Bush

While the vote was never in doubt, Democrats used the occasion to lambaste the administration's fiscal policies.

Minority Leader Harry Reid, a Democrat from Nevada, accused Republicans of pushing ``reckless'' policies that had created ``an explosion of debt'' over the course of the past five years. Republicans said the vote was needed to protect the nation's credit.

No Democrats voted for the debt-limit increase. Three Republicans voted against it: Senators Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, John Ensign of Nevada and Conrad Burns of Montana.

Lawmakers also rejected, 55-44, a Democratic proposal that would have required the Treasury Department to study the economic and security implications of the nation's foreign-held debt.

Overseas Investors

``We're funding a war, we're trying to fund certain programs,'' said Kevin Giddis, head of fixed-income trading at brokerage firm Morgan Keegan Inc. in Memphis, Tennessee. ``We need'' foreign investors. ``We're going to continue to need them because if they go away we're going to have an inflationary situation.''

The government will spend $217 billion on interest on the debt this year, according to the Congressional Budget Office. By contrast, federal spending for the Department of Education is $83 billion.

The Bush administration is leading the country down ``a reckless course of crushing debt, deficit-financed tax cuts and increasing the burden on the middle class,'' Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a New York Democrat, said.

Shifting Money

For the last month the Treasury has been moving money between government accounts to stay below the debt limit and keep the government running. Snow last week authorized the government to use the $15 billion available in the exchange stabilization fund and issued a ``debt issuance suspension period'' to stop temporarily investments in the Civil Service Retirement and Disability Fund. The Treasury also redeemed some of the fund's current investments.

Last month Snow stopped investing money from the Government Securities Investment Fund in Treasuries, which requires the issuing of notes, and suspended sales of state and local government securities.

The Treasury said in January it plans to borrow $188 billion from January to March, the most ever for a single quarter.

``The Fed Chairman's been concerned about the deficit,'' Giddis said, referring to Federal Reserve chief Ben S. Bernanke. ``If the Fed's concerned about anything, we as traders and investors should be concerned as well.''

Fourth Debt Increase

This is the fourth time the administration of President George W. Bush has asked lawmakers to raise the debt limit and it brings the ceiling to 70.3 percent of gross domestic product, the highest since the 1997 increase. The four debt-limit increases in the 1990s pushed the ceiling above 70 percent of GDP, though it fell below that level by 2002.

Congress complied with the last request, in November 2004, only after the Treasury was forced to delay auctioning bills and notes and move money among government pension funds.

Since Bush took office in 2001, the federal budget has gone from four years of surpluses, the longest such run since before the Great Depression, to deficits brought on by a recession, tax cuts, the Sept. 11 attacks, wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and Gulf Coast hurricane damage.

Bush last month sent Congress a $2.77 trillion budget request for fiscal 2007 that calls for a deficit of $354 billion, compared with a record $423 billion forecast for this year. The Bush administration says it expects to shave the deficit to less than 2 percent of gross domestic product by 2009, from 3.2 percent this year.

The Treasury estimates it will borrow $427 billion in fiscal 2006 and $373 billion in fiscal 2007 to fund government operations, the budget showed. The government borrowed $297 billion in 2005, according to the documents.

FAMILY DEMANDS THE TRUTH

2006-03-09T15:27:17Z

New inquiry may expose events that led to Pat Tillman’s death

Moved in part by the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, Tillman decided to give up his career, saying he wanted to fight al Qaeda and help find Osama bin Laden. He spurned the Cardinals’ offer of a three year, $3.6 million contract extension and joined the Army in June 2002 along with his brother Kevin, who was playing minor-league baseball for the Cleveland Indians organization.

Pat Tillman’s enlistment grabbed the attention of the nation — and the highest levels of the Bush administration. A personal letter from Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, thanking him for serving his country, now resides in a storage box, put away by Pat’s widow, Marie.

Instead of going to Afghanistan, as the brothers expected, their Ranger battalion was sent to participate in the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March 2003. The Tillmans saw combat several times on their way to Baghdad. In early 2004, they finally were assigned to Afghanistan...

Tillman’s death came at a sensitive time for the Bush administration — just a week before the Army’s abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib in Iraq became public and sparked a huge scandal. The Pentagon immediately announced that Tillman had died heroically in combat with the enemy, and President Bush hailed him as “an inspiration on and off the football field, as with all who made the ultimate sacrifice in the war on terror.”

His killing was widely reported by the media, including conservative commentators such as Ann Coulter, who called him “an American original — virtuous, pure and masculine like only an American male can be.” His May 3, 2004, memorial in San Jose drew 3,500 people and was nationally televised.

Not until five weeks later, as Tillman’s battalion was returning home, did officials inform the public and the Tillman family that he had been killed by his fellow soldiers...

A soldier who on April 23 burned Tillman’s bullet riddled body armor — which would have been evidence in a friendly-fire investigation — testified that he did so because there was no doubt it was friendly fire that killed Tillman. Two days later, Tillman’s uniform and vest also were burned because they were soaked in blood and considered a biohazard. Tillman’s uniform also was burned.

The officer who led the first investigation testified that when he was given responsibility for the probe the morning after Tillman’s death, he was informed that the cause was “potential fratricide.’’

After they received the friendly-fire notification May 28, the Tillmans began a public campaign seeking more information. But it was only when the Tillmans began angrily accusing the Pentagon of a coverup, in June 2005, that the Army apologized for the delay, issuing a statement blaming “procedural misjudgments and mistakes.”

-- Legal liability. In testimony on Nov. 14, the officer who conducted the first investigation said that he thought some Rangers could have been charged with “criminal intent,” and that some Rangers committed “gross negligence.” The legal difference between the two terms is roughly similar to the distinction between murder and involuntary manslaughter...

Throughout the controversy, the Tillman family has been reluctant to cause a media stir. Mary noted that Pat shunned publicity, refusing all public comment when he enlisted and asking the Army to reject all media requests for interviews while he was in service. Pat’s widow, Marie, and his brother Kevin have not become publicly involved in the case, and they declined to comment for this article.

Yet other Tillman family members are less reluctant to show Tillman’s unique character, which was more complex than the public image of a gung-ho patriotic warrior. He started keeping a journal at 16 and continued the practice on the battlefield, writing in it regularly. (His journal was lost immediately after his death.) Mary Tillman said a friend of Pat’s even arranged a private meeting with Chomsky, the antiwar author, to take place after his return from Afghanistan — a meeting prevented by his death. She said that although he supported the Afghan war, believing it justified by the Sept. 11 attacks, “Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war.”

Baer, who served with Tillman for more than a year in Iraq and Afghanistan, told one anecdote that took place during the March 2003 invasion as the Rangers moved up through southern Iraq.

“I can see it like a movie screen,” Baer said. “We were outside of (a city in southern Iraq) watching as bombs were dropping on the town. We were at an old air base, me, Kevin and Pat, we weren’t in the fight right then. We were talking. And Pat said, ‘You know, this war is so f— illegal.’ And we all said, ‘Yeah.’ That’s who he was. He totally was against Bush.”

Another soldier in the platoon, who asked not to be identified, said Pat urged him to vote for Bush’s Democratic opponent in the 2004 election, Sen. John Kerry.

Senior Chief Petty Officer Stephen White — a Navy SEAL who served with Pat and Kevin for four months in Iraq and was the only military member to speak at Tillman’s memorial — said Pat “wasn’t very fired up about being in Iraq” and instead wanted to go fight al Qaeda in Afghanistan. He said both Pat and Kevin (who has a degree in philosophy) “were amazingly well-read individuals … very firm in some of their beliefs, their political and religious or not so religious beliefs.”

Baer recalled that Tillman encouraged him in his ambitions as an amateur poet. “I would read him my poems, and we would talk about them,” Baer said. “He helped me grow as an individual.”

Tillman subscribed to the Economist magazine, and a fellow soldier said Tillman created a makeshift base library of classic novels so his platoon mates would have literature to read in their down time. He even brought gourmet coffee to brew for his platoon in the field in Afghanistan.

Baer said Tillman was popular among his fellow soldiers and had no enemies. “The guys who killed Pat were his biggest fans,” he said. “They were really wrecked afterward.” He called Tillman “this amazing positive force who really brought our whole platoon together.

He had this great energy. Everybody loved him.” His former comrades and family recall Tillman as a born leader yet remarkably humble. White, the Navy SEAL, recalls one day when “some 19-year-old Ranger came and ordered him to cut an acre of grass.

And Pat just did it, he cut that grass, he didn’t complain. He could have taken millions of dollars playing football, but instead he was just taking orders like that.”

Mary Tillman says that’s how Pat would have wanted to be remembered, as an individual, not as a stock figure or political prop. But she also believes “Pat was a real hero, not what they used him as.”

For the moment, all that is left are the memories and the thick binders spread across Mary Tillman’s dining room table in San Jose. As she waits for the Pentagon investigators to finish their new probe, she wonders whether they will ask the hard questions. Like other family members, “I just want accountability,” she said. “I want answers.”

Hannity, Coulter "don't believe" that Tillman liked Noam Chomsky, opposed Iraq war; Tillman's mother disagrees
On the September 27 edition of Fox News' Hannity & Colmes, co-host Sean Hannity and right-wing pundit Ann Coulter told co-host Alan Colmes that they "don't believe" a report that Army Ranger Pat Tillman was a fan of leftist author Noam Chomsky, opposed the Iraq war, and planned to vote for Sen. John Kerry (D-MA) in the 2004 presidential election. But according to a September 25 San Francisco Chronicle report that Colmes cited, Tillman's mother said that he had planned to meet privately with Chomsky and that "Pat was very critical of the whole Iraq war." Tillman, a former pro football star, served in Iraq before being killed by friendly fire in Afghanistan in April 2004.

story of the hour

2006-03-02T12:35:25Z

If you're not outraged, you're still not paying attention!

Tape: Bush, Chertoff Warned Before Katrina

AP Exclusive: Video Shows Bush, Chertoff Clearly Warned Before Hurricane Katrina Struck

By MARGARET EBRAHIM and JOHN SOLOMON

WASHINGTON Mar 2, 2006 (AP)— On the eve of Hurricane Katrina's fateful landfall, President Bush was confident. His homeland security chief appeared relaxed. And warnings of the coming destruction breached or overrun levees, deaths at the New Orleans Superdome and overwhelming needs for post-storm rescues were delivered in dramatic terms to all involved. All of it was captured on videotape.

The Associated Press obtained the confidential government video and made it public Wednesday, offering Americans their own inside glimpse into the government's fateful final Katrina preparations after months of fingerpointing and political recriminations.

"My gut tells me … this is a bad one and a big one," then-federal disaster chief Michael Brown told the final government-wide briefing the day before Katrina struck the Gulf Coast on Aug. 29.

The president didn't ask a single question during the briefing but assured soon-to-be-battered state officials: "We are fully prepared."

The footage along with seven days of transcripts of briefings obtained by AP show in excruciating detail that while federal officials anticipated the tragedy that unfolded in New Orleans and elsewhere along the Gulf Coast, they were fatally slow to realize they had not mustered enough resources to deal with the unprecedented disaster.

A top hurricane expert voiced "grave concerns" about the levees and Brown, then the Federal Emergency Management Agency chief, told the president and Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff that he feared there weren't enough disaster teams to help evacuees at the Superdome.

"I'm concerned about … their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe," Brown told his bosses the afternoon before Katrina made landfall.

The White House and Homeland Security Department urged the public Wednesday not to read too much into the footage.

"I hope people don't draw conclusions from the president getting a single briefing," Bush spokesman Trent Duffy said, citing a variety of orders and disaster declarations Bush signed before the storm made landfall. "He received multiple briefings from multiple officials, and he was completely engaged at all times."

Homeland Security spokesman Russ Knocke said his department would not release the full set of videotaped briefings, saying most transcripts though not the videotapes from the sessions were provided to congressional investigators months ago.

"There's nothing new or insightful on these tapes," Knocke said. "We actively participated in the lessons-learned review and we continue to participate in the Senate's review and are working with them on their recommendation."

New Orleans Mayor Ray Nagin, a critic of the administration's Katrina response, had a different take after watching the footage from an AP reporter's camera.

"I have kind a sinking feeling in my gut right now," Nagin said. "I was listening to what people were saying they didn't know, so therefore it was an issue of a learning curve. You know, from this tape it looks like everybody was fully aware."

Some of the footage and transcripts from briefings Aug. 25-31 conflicts with the defenses that federal, state and local officials have made in trying to deflect blame and minimize the political fallout from the failed Katrina response:

Homeland Security officials have said the "fog of war" blinded them early on to the magnitude of the disaster. But the video and transcripts show federal and local officials discussed threats clearly, reviewed long-made plans and understood Katrina would wreak devastation of historic proportions. "I'm sure it will be the top 10 or 15 when all is said and done," National Hurricane Center's Max Mayfield warned the day Katrina lashed the Gulf Coast.

"I don't buy the `fog of war' defense," Brown told the AP in an interview Wednesday. "It was a fog of bureaucracy."

Bush declared four days after the storm, "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees" that gushed deadly flood waters into New Orleans. He later clarified, saying officials believed, wrongly, after the storm passed that the levees had survived. But the transcripts and video show there was plenty of talk about that possibility even before the storm and Bush was worried too.

White House deputy chief of staff Joe Hagin, Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and Brown discussed fears of a levee breach the day the storm hit.

"I talked to the president twice today, once in Crawford and then again on Air Force One," Brown said. "He's obviously watching the television a lot, and he had some questions about the Dome, he's asking questions about reports of breaches."

Louisiana officials angrily blamed the federal government for not being prepared but the transcripts shows they were still praising FEMA as the storm roared toward the Gulf Coast and even two days afterward. "I think a lot of the planning FEMA has done with us the past year has really paid off," Col. Jeff Smith, Louisiana's emergency preparedness deputy director, said during the Aug. 28 briefing.

It wasn't long before Smith and other state officials sounded overwhelmed.

"We appreciate everything that you all are doing for us, and all I would ask is that you realize that what's going on and the sense of urgency needs to be ratcheted up," Smith said Aug. 30.

Mississippi begged for more attention in that same briefing.

"We know that there are tens or hundreds of thousands of people in Louisiana that need to be rescued, but we would just ask you, we desperately need to get our share of assets because we'll have people dying not because of water coming up, but because we can't get them medical treatment in our affected counties," said a Mississippi state official whose name was not mentioned on the tape.

Video footage of the Aug. 28 briefing, the final one before Katrina struck, showed an intense Brown voicing concerns from the government's disaster operation center and imploring colleagues to do whatever was necessary to help victims.

"Go ahead and do it," Brown said. "I'll figure out some way to justify it. … Just let them yell at me."

Bush appeared from a narrow, windowless room at his vacation ranch in Texas, with his elbows on a table. Hagin was sitting alongside him.

"I want to assure the folks at the state level that we are fully prepared to not only help you during the storm, but we will move in whatever resources and assets we have at our disposal after the storm," the president said.

A relaxed Chertoff, sporting a polo shirt, weighed in from Washington at Homeland Security's operations center. He would later fly to Atlanta, outside of Katrina's reach, for a bird flu event. Officials say he was frequently updated on the road about Katrina.

One snippet captures a missed opportunity on Aug. 28 for the government to have dispatched active-duty military troops to the region to augment the National Guard.

Chertoff: "Are there any DOD assets that might be available? Have we reached out to them?"

Brown: "We have DOD assets over here at EOC (emergency operations center). They are fully engaged. And we are having those discussions with them now."

Chertoff: "Good job."

In fact, active duty troops weren't dispatched until days after the storm. And many states' National Guards had yet to be deployed to the region despite offers of assistance, and it took days before the Pentagon deployed active-duty personnel to help overwhelmed Guardsmen.

The National Hurricane Center's Mayfield told the final briefing before Katrina struck that storm models predicted minimal flooding inside New Orleans during the hurricane but he expressed concerns that counterclockwise winds and storm surges afterward could cause the levees at Lake Pontchartrain to be overrun.

"I don't think any model can tell you with any confidence right now whether the levees will be topped or not but that is obviously a very, very grave concern," Mayfield told the briefing.

Other officials expressed concerns about the large number of New Orleans residents who had not evacuated.

"They're not taking patients out of hospitals, taking prisoners out of prisons and they're leaving hotels open in downtown New Orleans. So I'm very concerned about that," Brown said.

Despite the concerns, it ultimately took days for search and rescue teams to reach some hospitals and nursing homes.

Brown also told colleagues one of his top concerns was whether evacuees who went to the New Orleans Superdome which became a symbol of the failed Katrina response would be safe and have adequate medical care.

"The Superdome is about 12 feet below sea level…. I don't know whether the roof is designed to stand, withstand a Category Five hurricane," he said.

Brown also wanted to know whether there were enough federal medical teams in place to treat evacuees and the dead in the Superdome.

"Not to be (missing) kind of gross here," Brown interjected, "but I'm concerned" about the medical and mortuary resources "and their ability to respond to a catastrophe within a catastrophe."

Associated Press writers Ron Fournier and Lara Jakes Jordan contributed to this report.

Videotapes of Bush pre-Katrina getting warnings

news

2006-03-02T12:29:37Z

Congressional GOP Did Not Want to Explain (Port) Sale to Public
For the past two campaign cycles, Karl Rove has successfully painted Democrats as soft on national security. The Dubai sale offered them a golden opportunity for payback, report Senior White House Correspondent Richard Wolffe and White House Correspondent Holly Bailey in the current issue of Newsweek. Dubai Ports World already works closely with the U.S., shutting down its commercial traffic whenever the Navy sails in. So when it first approached the Feds about a takeover in mid-October, there were no red flags. They finished their formal review in mid-January with no public fanfare and no extended inquiry, write Wolffe and Bailey who, in the March 6 issue (on newsstands Monday, February 27), reconstruct the events of the port sale and explain how an obscure maritime takeover turned into a political shipwreck.

When you follow the money, the ports sale makes sense
The ocean-cargo industry consolidation that Colgan cited gained momentum in 1999, when CSX Corp., then headed by John W. Snow, now U.S. Treasury secretary, sold its large ocean-cargo unit to Maersk, the Danish ocean-cargo carrier, for $800 million.

CSX badly needed cash because its bidding war with Norfolk Southern Corp. had raised the price of Conrail Inc., the Philadelphia freight railroad, from $91 a share to $115. The two Southern railroads fought to a stalemate, and jointly bought and broke up Conrail.

In 2004, CSX sold its Hong Kong and South American port operations to Dubai Ports World for $1.15 billion.

As Treasury secretary, Snow chairs the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States, which approved the Dubai deal. The panel includes the secretaries of state and homeland security and other administration officials.

RELATED: Bush's War Rhetoric Blows Back in Port Furor
At the core of Bush's case for invading Iraq was the contention that the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks changed the burden of proof in evaluating potential threats. Bush justified the war, despite inconclusive intelligence about whether Iraqi President Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction, largely on the grounds that after Sept. 11, waiting for definitive evidence of danger was itself too risky.

Whistleblower Charged With Three Felonies for Exposing Diebold's Crimes
A whistleblower in Los Angeles is in legal trouble and needs our help. Stephen Heller is alleged to have exposed documents in Jan. & Feb. 2004 which provided smoking gun evidence that Diebold was using illegal, uncertified software in California voting machines. The docs also showed that Diebold's California attorneys (the powerful international law firm Jones Day) had told them they were in breach of the law for using uncertified software, but Diebold continued to use the uncertified software anyway.

Lawyers dissect Bush's argument; show he doesn't have unchecked authority
Why the President's Defense of Executive Power to Wiretap Without Warrants Can't Succeed in the Strict Constructionist Court He Wants

Report: Pentagon Warned on Torture, Abuse
The Navy's former general counsel warned Pentagon officials two years before the Abu Ghraib prison scandal that circumventing international agreements on torture and detainees' treatment would invite abuse, according to a published report. Legal theories granting the president the right to authorize abuse in spite of the Geneva conventions were unlawful, dangerous and erroneous, Alberto J. Mora advised officials in a secret memo. The 22-page document was obtained by The New Yorker for a story in its Feb. 27 issue.

RELATED: Never-before-released Abu Ghraib photos published by Salon

A Letter From The Troops
A first-ever survey of U.S. troops on the ground fighting in Iraq was released February 28, 2006. The findings are surprising, particularly the fact that an overwhelming majority of 72 percent of American troops in Iraq think the U.S. should exit the country within the next year.

http://www.sunherald.com/mld/sunherald/13984316.htm
A Mississippi House committee voted Tuesday to ban most abortions in the state. The only exception would be if the life of the pregnant woman were in danger. There would be no abortions allowed in cases of pregnancy caused by rape or incest.

MEDIA

Vargas's interview of Bush on ABC contained false statements, missed opportunities
Summary: During an exclusive interview with President Bush on the February 28 broadcast of ABC's World News Tonight, co-anchor Elizabeth Vargas repeated White House distortions and uncritically accepted Bush's answers -- even though some were demonstrably false.

Only on Fox: "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"
Summary: Fox News featured two onscreen captions during a segment on escalating violence in Iraq that read: " 'Upside' To Civil War?" and "All-Out Civil War in Iraq: Could It Be a Good Thing?"

the most important news of late

2005-12-28T19:41:25Z

Bush's Snoopgate
The president was so desperate to kill The New York Times’ eavesdropping story, he summoned the paper’s editor and publisher to the Oval Office. But it wasn’t just out of concern about national security.

Dec. 19, 2005 - Finally we have a Washington scandal that goes beyond sex, corruption and political intrigue to big issues like security versus liberty and the reasonable bounds of presidential power. President Bush came out swinging on Snoopgate—he made it seem as if those who didn’t agree with him wanted to leave us vulnerable to Al Qaeda—but it will not work. We’re seeing clearly now that Bush thought 9/11 gave him license to act like a dictator, or in his own mind, no doubt, like Abraham Lincoln during the Civil War.

Post 911 Fear Destroys What bin Laden Could Not
One wonders if Osama bin Laden didn't win after all. He ruined the America that existed on 9/11. But he had help.

If, back in 2001, anyone had told me that four years after bin Laden's attack our president would admit that he broke U.S. law against domestic spying and ignored the Constitution -- and then expect the American people to congratulate him for it -- I would have presumed the girders of our very Republic had crumbled.

Had anyone said our president would invade a country and kill 30,000 of its people claiming a threat that never, in fact, existed, then admit he would have invaded even if he had known there was no threat -- and expect America to be pleased by this -- I would have thought our nation's sensibilities and honor had been eviscerated.

If I had been informed that our nation's leaders would embrace torture as a legitimate tool of warfare, hold prisoners for years without charges and operate secret prisons overseas -- and call such procedures necessary for the nation's security -- I would have laughed at the folly of protecting human rights by destroying them.

If someone had predicted the president's staff would out a CIA agent as revenge against a critic, defy a law against domestic propaganda by bankrolling supposedly independent journalists and commentators, and ridicule a 37-year Marie Corps veteran for questioning U.S. military policy -- and that the populace would be more interested in whether Angelina is about to make Brad a daddy -- I would have called the prediction an absurd fantasy.

Howard Dean Launches FOIA for Information on Bush's Illegal Spying

Have you heard that George Bush is using the National Security Agency to conduct surveillance on American citizens without the consent of any court?

This is specifically against the law. Bush says political appointees in the Justice Department outlined the legal authority to get around the restrictions in our laws and the Constitution, but those legal memos are classified.

I just added my name to a formal Freedom of Information Act request to see these documents. We need to know if the president broke the law, and where this administration thinks the line of its authority is.

You can sign on to the Freedom of Information Act request here.

Destroying Checks and Balances with the Stroke of a Pen
What I just read should scare every American. In connection with the spying scandal, where without any court review or supervision the President unilaterally spied on Americans, we now have the purported legal justification for his actions.

The Justice Department has written the Chairs and Ranking Members of the Intelligence Committees with its legal arguments. In a nutshell, the letter argues that the President's Article II authority as Commander in Chief allows him to do whatever he wants. He doesn't need congressional authorization or oversight. He does not need to go to any court. His decisions are unreviewable by the Supreme Court. It is a similar argument used to justify torturing detainees.

Norman Solomon: NSA Spied on U.N. Diplomats in Push for Invasion of Iraq
That spying had nothing to do with protecting the United States from a terrorist attack. The entire purpose of the NSA surveillance was to help the White House gain leverage, by whatever means possible, for a resolution in the U.N. Security Council to green light an invasion. When that surveillance was exposed nearly three years ago, the mainstream U.S. media winked at Bush’s illegal use of the NSA for his Iraq invasion agenda.

Rice authorized National Security Agency to spy on UN Security Council in run-up to war, former officials say
President Bush and other top officials in his administration used the National Security Agency to secretly wiretap the home and office telephones and monitor private email accounts of members of the United Nations Security Council in early 2003 to determine how foreign delegates would vote on a U.N. resolution that paved the way for the U.S.-led war in Iraq, NSA documents show.

Spying said to be broader than reported

NEW YORK -- The National Security Agency has conducted much broader surveillance of e-mails and phone calls - without court orders - than the Bush administration has acknowledged, The New York Times reported on its Web site.

The NSA, with help from American telecommunications companies, obtained access to streams of domestic and international communications, said the Times in the report late Friday, citing unidentified current and former government officials.

The story did not name the companies.

Since the Times disclosed the domestic spying program last week, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.

But the Times said that NSA technicians have combed through large volumes of phone and Internet traffic in search of patterns that might lead to terrorists.

The volume of information harvested from telecommunications data and voice networks, without court-approved warrants, is much larger than the White House has acknowledged, the paper said, quoting an unnamed official.

The story quoted a former technology manager at a major telecommunications firm as saying that companies have been storing information on calling patterns since the Sept. 11 attacks, and giving it to the federal government. Neither the manager nor the company he worked for was identified.

Media Matters: Top 12 media myths and falsehoods on the Bush administration's spying scandal
1. Timeliness necessitated bypassing the FISA court
2. Congress was adequately informed of -- and approved -- the administration's actions
3. Warrantless searches of Americans are legal under the 1978 Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act
4. Clinton, Carter also authorized warrantless searches of U.S. citizens
5. Only Democrats are concerned about the Bush administration's secret surveillance
6. Debate is between those supporting civil liberties and those seeking to prevent terrorism
7. Bin Laden phone leak demonstrates how leak of spy operation could damage national security
8. Gorelick testimony proved Clinton asserted "the same authority" as Bush
9. Aldrich Ames investigation is example of Clinton administration bypassing FISA regulations
10. Clinton administration conducted domestic spying
11. Moussaoui case proved that FISA probable-cause standard impedes terrorism probes
12. A 2002 FISA review court opinion makes clear that Bush acted legally

Those were the days: House Republican statements on Clinton's impeachment

news

2005-11-10T19:41:58Z

A man mourns for a family member who was killed by a suicide bomber in a central Baghdad restaurant.
Bombing at Crowded Baghdad Restaurant Kills at Least 30
BAGHDAD, Nov. 10 -- A suicide bomber entered a crowded Baghdad restaurant during the breakfast rush Thursday morning and detonated himself in a fiery blast, killing at least 35 people and wounding more than two dozen others, witnesses and police said.

Al Qaeda Terror Group Claims Attacks in Jordan
Three nearly simultaneous bomb blasts tore through hotels here Wednesday night, killing more than 50 people and sending fear and panic through the streets of the normally tranquil city.

Bush Administration Borrows more from Foreign Nations than Previous 42 Presidents Combined
Throughout the first 224 years (1776-2000) of our nation's history, 42 U.S. presidents borrowed a combined $1.01 trillion from foreign governments and financial institutions according to the U.S. Treasury Department. In the past four years alone (2001-2005), the Bush Administration has borrowed a staggering $1.05 trillion.

Bush's War on Veterans
On Friday, November 11, Americans will observe Veteran's Day...
Earlier this year, Republican leaders in Congress blocked $2 billion in emergency funding for veterans' health care from the $82 billion supplemental funding bill. They felt that the money would be better spent in Iraq and Afghanistan, where we're producing more and more injured soldiers for whom we cannot afford adequate medical care.

Why Paris is Burning
Americans should be very concerned about the violence that has swept across France the last two weeks. The riots, and the deeper problems they have laid bare, are a microcosm of the larger struggles of Muslims across the Muslim-majority world to integrate into a globalized order from which they have been marginalized for decades, even centuries.

Senators Turn Up Heat on Oil Executives
Oil company executives faced tough questions Wednesday about their industry's record profits during a Senate hearing that gave lawmakers a chance to vent about high energy costs...
But at a joint hearing of two Senate committees, the executives of five major oil companies made no apologies for their profits — more than $30 billion in the third quarter of this year.

US Army Admits Use of White Phosphorus as Weapon
. . . there is no way you can use white phosphorus like that without forming a deadly chemical cloud that kills everything within a tenth of a mile in all directions from where it hits. Obviously, the effect of such deadly clouds weren't just psychological in nature.

Rumsfeld Can Authorize Exceptions To New "Humane" Interrogation Directive
The new directive lays out broad policy governing interrogations of detainees in Defense Department custody, but leaves the definition of "humane" to a separate, yet to be released directive that is still being debated within the administration.

Related: Did It Just Get Evil In Here?
Nine United States senators recently voted against a measure that would ban torture. The Daily Show reacts. (Click here and select "Interro-gate")

Additional news:

Paging Dr. Ross
Onetime jailbird and now America's most aggressive debunker of legitimate scientific research.

The Lie Factory
A Mother Jones Special Investigation
The inside story of how the Bush administration pushed disinformation and bogus intelligence and led the nation to war.

HOUSTON (AP) - The state's highest criminal court on Wednesday let stand a lower court ruling that threw out Andrea Yates' murder convictions for drowning her children in a bathtub in 2001.

Alan Curry, the Harris County assistant district attorney, said the case would be retried or a plea bargain considered.

Jurors rejected Yates insanity defence in 2002 and found her guilty of two capital murder charges for the deaths of three of her five children.

Curry said if the case goes back to trial, he is confident Yates would be convicted again. He said a plea bargain also may be discussed.

"Andrea Yates knew precisely what she was doing," Curry said. "She knew that it was wrong."

Yates' lawyer, George Parnham, did not immediately return a phone call to The Associated Press.

The First Court of Appeals in Houston overturned Yates' 2002 convictions in January because of false testimony from forensic psychiatrist Park Dietz.

Curry asked the highest criminal court in Texas, based in Austin, to reconsider the lower court's ruling. He argued the lower court had wrongly applied the law when it overturned the convictions.

Did Religion or Extremism Play a Role in Mothers who Murdered their Children?

news

2005-11-10T19:16:07Z

Fox News: "Why All The Fuss About Torturing People?"
Having Their Subsidies, and Eating Local Business Too
Over at Tom Paine, Greg LeRoy, the executive director of Good Jobs First, provides a much-needed look into the billions of dollars in subsidies that Wal-Mart receives:

A Wal-Mart official once stated that the company seeks subsidies in about a third of its stores, suggesting that more than 1,100 of its U.S. stores are subsidized. A national survey by Good Jobs First in 2004 looked at 160 stores and all of the company's distribution centers—and found that more than 90 percent of them have been subsidized. Altogether, 244 subsidized facilities in 35 states received taxpayer deals of more than $1 billion.

The full Good Jobs First survey, available here, also cites at least 40 instances where Wal-Mart enjoyed abatement on property-taxes. And critics of "eminent domain" laws can note that Wal-Mart too has leaned on that crutch by condemning Wisconsin cornfields and apple orchards to seize land for its stores.

The idea of public subsidies for a company with an economy larger than that of most countries is comical. But shaming tactics are unlikely to work against a corporation that's willing to dissuade the unhealthy from working at its stores in order to cut costs, or one that's happy to deny reports about working conditions in its South American subsidiaries. On the other hand, the new Wal-Mart movie, has at the very least goaded the company into spending millions on a public relations counter-attack. As a charmingly commonsensical letter to the NYT editor reads:

This might seem like a simple question, but instead of Wal-Mart's investing in a "war room" to improve its public image, why doesn't the company just raise salaries, allow unions and give its employees better health care? Then Wal-Mart wouldn't need a war room. The money that the company is spending on its image should be spent to do the right thing. Doesn't Wal-Mart see that?

One can agree with Cato Institute economist Brink Lindsey, who, in an interview with PBS, said:

Wal-Mart is doing what the American economy is all about, which is producing things consumers want to buy … offering consumers a wide range of goods at rock-bottom prices. It is meeting the market test.

And still disagree that "Wal-Mart is good for America," as he goes on to say. It’s clear the company has undermined the original philosophy that served as the bedrock for its humble Bentonville origins, which predicated the store's success not just on its famed "every-day low prices," but also on an understanding that happy employees make happy customers, and an underlying culture of entrepreneurialism that perhaps has been diluted in its exponential expansion.

Cheney's Torture Kick
Dick Cheney is truly insane. The vice-president is now off making impassioned pleas in defense of torture:

Last Tuesday, Senate Republicans were winding up their weekly luncheon in the Capitol when the vice president rose to speak. Staffers were quickly ordered out of the room—what Cheney had to say was for senators only. Normally taciturn, Cheney was uncharacteristically impassioned, according to two GOP senators who did not want to be on the record about a private meeting. He was very upset over the Senate's overwhelming passage of an amendment that prohibits inhumane treatment of terrorist detainees. Cheney said the law would tie the president's hands and end up costing "thousands of lives." He dramatized the point, conjuring up a scenario in which a captured Qaeda operative, another Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, refuses to give his interrogators details about an imminent attack. "We have to be able to do what is necessary," the vice president said, according to one of the senators who was present.

Andrew Sullivan has been particularly eloquent about the wrongness of torture and the wrongness of forcing our military officers to carry it out and the wrongness of our archipelago of secret CIA prisons around the world. Consider too that Elliot Abrams, the man who covered up the El Mozote massacre in El Salvador during the Reagan years and called the U.S.-backed death squads in that country a "fabulous achievement," is now trying to dissuade Cheney from his views on torture. Once again: Cheney's now too extreme for Elliot Abrams.

Now some people might be tempted to think that yes, Cheney's moral compass is a bit askew, but he is vice-president, he does know a lot that we don't know, and maybe we should give him the benefit of the doubt that the executive branch really does need to "be able to do what is necessary." Sorry, but no. Cheney doesn't deserve the benefit of the doubt, ever. Throughout his time in Washington he's shown himself to be, frankly, a strategic moron with exceedingly poor judgment, as seen in this anecdote from his tenure during Bush I:

Following one White House meeting at which he'd asked for more time and more troops, Stormin' Norman reports; Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Colin Powell called to warn the Desert Storm commander that he was being loudly compared, by a top administration official, to George McClellan. "My God," the official supposedly complained. "He's got all the force he needs. Why won't he just attack?" Schwarzkopf notes that the unnamed official who'd made the comment "was a civilian who knew next to nothing about military affairs, but he'd been watching the Civil War documentary on public television and was now an expert."

And then, twenty pages later, Schwarzkopf casually drops the information that he got an inspirational gift from Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney right before the air war finally got under way. Cheney was presenting a gift to a military man, and he chose something with an appropriate theme: "(A) complete set of videotapes of Ken Burns's PBS series, The Civil War."

But that wasn't the only gift that Dick Cheney had for Norman Schwarzkopf. Having figured out that the general was being too cautious with his fourth combat command in three decades of soldiering, Cheney got his staff busy and began presenting Schwarzkopf with his own ideas about how to fight the Iraqis: What if we parachute the 82nd Airborne into the far western part of Iraq, hundreds of miles from Kuwait and totally cut off from any kind of support, and seize a couple of missile sites, then line up along the highway and drive for Baghdad? Schwarzkopf charitably describes the plan as being "as bad as it could possibly be... But despite our criticism, the western excursion wouldn't die: three times in that week alone Powell called with new variations from Cheney's staff. The most bizarre involved capturing a town in western Iraq and offering it to Saddam in exchange for Kuwait." (Throw in a Pete Rose rookie card?) None of this Walter Mitty posturing especially surprised Schwarzkopf, who points out that he'd already known Cheney as "one of the fiercest cold warriors in Congress.

This is not a man worth trusting.

The Truth About Free-Riders
The latest issue of the British Medical Journal has an excellent article on American drug companies. To put this in context, recall that of late, the pharmaceutical industry has been lobbying the U.S. government to sign "free" trade deals with other countries that would: raise prices on patented drugs; extend patent protection to delay the introduction of generics; and block "re-importation" to the United States. Why would they do such a thing? Because, says Big Pharma, the rest of the world hasn't been paying its "fair share" of research expenditures, and it's time for them to stop free-riding. Which brings us to the BMJ article, which basically screams "Liar!"

The United States government is engaged in a campaign to characterise other industrialised countries as free riding on high US pharmaceutical prices and innovation in new drugs...

The campaign, strongly backed by the pharmaceutical industry, seems to have started in the late 1990s as a response to a grass roots movement started by senior citizens against the high prices of essential prescription drugs. This issue was the most prominent one for both parties in the 2000 elections and has since been fuelled by a series of independent reports documenting that US drug prices are much higher than those in other affluent countries...

We can find no convincing evidence to support the view that the lower prices in affluent countries outside the United States do not pay for research and development costs. The latest report from the UK Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme documents that drug companies in the United Kingdom invest proportionately more of their revenues from domestic sales in research and development than do companies in the US.

Prices in the UK are much lower than those in the US yet profits remain robust. Companies in other countries also fully recover their research and development costs, maintain high profits, and sell drugs at substantially lower prices than in the US.

Interestingly, the U.S. pharmaceutical industry's claim that European countries "free ride" seems to be based primarily on a 2004 report produced by Bain & Company, a consulting group in Boston. (The AARP passed it widely around.) But that report doesn't provide any evidence for its claim that "innovative drugs" are somehow less available in Europe as a result of overly-low prices. Perhaps American pharmaceutical companies aren't marketing their absolute latest and flashiest patented drugs in Europe, true. But considering how many of these are "me-too" drugs with little to no significant medical benefit, perhaps it's no surprise that Europeans aren't suffering much for the loss.

The IRS finally Looks at Church/State Separation
After Justice Sunday passed this year, some of us were wondering whether the Internal Revenue Service would ever investigate blatantly political churches like Two Rivers Baptist in Nashville.

Now, we learn that the IRS is indeed going after a church for political involvement: All Saints Episcopal Church in Pasadena may lose its tax-exempt status because its rector, J. Edwin Bacon, preached an anti-war sermon two days before the 2004 election.

In all fairness, it should be noted that in 1992, the IRS revoked the tax-exempt status of a Binghamton, New York church because it ran ads opposing the candidacy of Bill Clinton. The tax code explicitly prohibits churches from becoming involved in campaigns and elections. Though an argument can be made that opposing the war in Iraq was a campaign issue in 2004, the same argument can be made that August's Justice Sunday, which involved many churches, was a direct promotion of the Supreme Court nomination of John Roberts. Then there is the matter of large tax-exempt church-related organizations such as Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition, which routinely involved themselves in election matters.

I am opposed to the tax exempt status of churches because I perceive them as primarily as private clubs at the least, and agents of social control at their very worst. But if the tax-exempt status is to remain in place--and we know it is--how odd that, after thirteen years, the only target is a liberal institution in California.

The Trouble with Housing Policy
James K. Galbraith argues that expanding homeownership is a good and proper policy route for helping working families to increase wealth. George Fredrickson made a similar point in a recent New York Review of Books essay, "Still Separate and Unequal," where he discussed the vast wealth gap between white and black Americans, and argued that historical disparities in homeownership were to blame:

How did this vast inequality come about? It was mainly the result of the greater white access to home mortgages that were insured and subsidized by the federal government. Before the 1930s a home buyer had to put down 50 percent of a house's price and could get only a relatively short-term mortgage, perhaps only ten years. By the 1950s, as a result of a series of federal housing programs, including the GI Bill, most Americans could get long- term mortgages—up to thirty years— with a down payment as low as 10 percent. By 1984 seven out of ten whites owned their own homes, worth on average $52,000. But only one in four blacks owned a home, worth, on average, less than $30,000. ...

The advantages of whites over blacks ... were more characteristically Northern than Southern; they manifested themselves in the growth of virtually all-white suburbs outside the major cities and virtually all-black ghettos within them. This new form of racial segregation was not simply the product of private choices, among them the refusal of white home-owners to sell to blacks, blockbusting and the racial "steering" of home buyers by real estate agents, and the personal prejudice of bankers asked to approve loans for blacks.

The urban segregation that has contributed so much to the persistence of black inequality came about in large part because between the 1930s and the 1970s federal housing agencies refused to approve mortgage loans in neighborhoods that were "redlined," which meant property values were deemed uncertain because of the presence of blacks.

True enough. All the same, modern-day housing policy to correct this imbalance sometimes seems pretty painfully misguided. The Bush administration, like its more liberal predecessor, has made a point of offering subsidized mortgages to low-income and especially minority families, which is a great idea in theory, as Galbraith's and Frederickson's pieces might suggest. But so long as homes remain unaffordable for 80 percent of all renters, including 21 million renters who couldn't get mortgages under even the loosest of underwriting standards, these sorts of policies will only go so far.

Lower-income families that can afford homes, meanwhile, often end up with units in need of costly repairs or are located in poor neighborhoods plagued by crime and unemployment. Not the best way to create wealth, obviously, or reduce the inequality and segregation Frederickson's talking about. In Baltimore a few years ago, reporters discovered that homes basically falling apart were being "patched up" and sold to low-income families at inflated prices. In the South, 40 percent of low-income home-buyers were steered into trailer parks on leased land. Not to mention the fact that extending homeowner credit to low-income and/or minority neighborhoods usually opens the door to predatory lenders to walk on in.

Plus, it's not even clear that owning a home is always a fantastic wealth-enhancing strategy for low-income families. It's true that the median wealth of low-income homeowners is 12 times that of renters with similar incomes, and most of that comes from the home. But renters and owners tend to be very different people to begin with, at different stages of the life cycle, in different financial situations. How "good" of an investment owning a home is often depends on when an owner enters the market, how long it holds the property, local market conditions, etc. On the downside, some low-income families who buy a home can quickly find themselves assailed with all sorts of costs—insurance costs, property taxes, utility bills—and often borrow against the equity of their home in a financial pinch, erasing any wealth.

That's not to say Galbraith or Frederickson are on the wrong track; clearly they know what they're talking about. Still, we hear about policies to promote homeownership—from both parties—as a strategy for helping working families, but they deserve far more scrutiny. It's troubling, for instance, that the percent of mortgage loans that end in foreclosure have risen from 1.24 in the 1990s to 1.46 these days—a potential sign that people are being steered into homes before they're ready. A proper housing policy, perhaps, would increase the stock of affordable housing and help out low-income renters until they're ready to own a home. What we have now, unfortunately, is a national housing policy primarily intended to benefit lenders—who, these days, depend on sub-prime loans to low-income families for profits—while slashing rental-assistance programs like Section 8.

Did Texas Just Ban Marriage?
HJR No. 6 passed in Texas yesterday, supposedly to ban gay marriage. But read the text closely.

Sec. 32
(a) Marriage in this state shall consist only of the union of one man and one woman.
(b) This state or a political subdivision of this state may not create or recognize any legal status identical or similar to marriage.

Is it egg-heady coastal elitism to point out that Texas just defined marriage and then made it illegal for everybody, even heteros? I wonder if "family values" include literacy.

Dover Evolves
One small, but nonetheless sweet victory for people who acknowledge the virtues of empiricism: the Dover, PA, school board was thrown out of office by the town's voters. These are the folks who decided to join with the Thomas More Law Center to force a landmark test case in the hopes of establishing "intelligent design"—widely viewed as a stalking horse for biblically-based creationism—as constitutionally permissible classroom instruction.

news

2005-10-19T20:05:36Z

In a far cry from the haggard, heavily bearded fugitive who was pulled out of a "spider hole" more than two years ago and shown meekly complying with doctors probing his mouth, a defiant Saddam Hussein stood up in court on Wednesday (October 19) and strongly proclaimed his innocence.

In his first appearance before the court that will try him along with seven co-defendants on charges of torture and murder in the 1982 massacre of 143 men and boys in the Shiite town of Dujail (see "Saddam Hussein's Crimes Against Humanity Trial Begins; Lawyers Seek Delay"), Hussein attempted to give a prepared speech and refused to identify himself.

Presiding Judge Rizgar Mohammed Amin read the defendants their rights and a list of charges against them, which also include forced expulsions, failure to comply with international law and illegal imprisonment. Walking to the podium with a large, hardcover copy of the Koran, Hussein began by reading a passage from the book. "By the name of God," he said, before the judge interrupted and asked Saddam to give his name. Hussein refused and began a rebuke of the court, including a dig at having to wait several hours for the day's proceedings to begin.

The judge asked the 68-year-old Hussein, "Mr. Saddam, go ahead. Are you guilty or innocent?"

Hussein replied, "I said what I said. I am not guilty."

"And I reserve my constitutional right as president of the country of Iraq, so, please, you have time," continued Hussein, seated alongside his co-defendants in a white, cagelike area in the middle of the room. "This is not the time. ... You ask for my ID, but this is a formality of the court. Therefore, I don't acknowledge the entity that authorized you nor the aggression, because everything that's based on falsehood is falsehood."

Hussein told Amin at the start of the three-hour proceeding that he maintained his position as the "constitutional president of Iraq. ... And I have the right to remain silent about my identity. You know me. You know who I am but I do not recognize your authority. I did not hire you."

The former president then engaged Amin in a 10-minute argument in which the judge told Hussein that he would have his chance to speak.

"The Iraqi people chose me. I don't answer to this so-called court," Hussein said. "I don't recognize you." Amin then read Hussein's full name, date of birth and referred to him as the former president of Iraq, a reference that irked Hussein.

"Excuse me, I did not say formerly president," said Hussein "I said I am the president."

"You say what you say," Amin replied.

The highly anticipated trial was closely watched by Iraqis across the country, who, like the rest of the world, viewed the proceedings on a 20-minute delay. The trial is taking place in a heavily fortified and retrofitted building that was formerly the headquarters of Hussein's Baath Party. Despite starting two hours late and encountering problems with the audio feed that muted his answers in the courtroom, it was clear that Hussein was not willing to back down.

Neither was fellow defendant Awad Bandar, who complained that the court had blocked him from wearing his traditional Arab headdress, an agal, in the courtroom. Amin called for a break to allow Bandar and three others to doff their agals and then the proceedings continued. Unlike Hussein, the other defendants agreed to identify themselves and entered pleas of not guilty to the charges when asked.

The chief prosecutor of the Iraqi Special Tribunal, Jaffar Mussawi, laid out the events that led to the charges in a 30-minute presentation, explaining how the 143 victims in Dujail were executed after a botched assassination attempt on Hussein in the town. The defendant's lawyers objected to Mussawi's statement, complaining that he was mixing in other alleged crimes with those committed in Dujail. After the second objection, Mussawi flipped through a few pages of his notes and said, "Fine, I'll only concentrate on Dujail."

It was one of several strange moments in the proceeding, which included one of the defendants firing his lawyer.

Among the other defendants are Hussein's half brother and former intelligence chief, Barzan Ibrahim al-Hassan, ex-Vice President Taha Yassin Ramadan, former Deputy Cabinet Chief Awad Ahmad al-Bandar and four former officials who were responsible for the Dujail area at the time of the massacre.

At one point, Hussein, dressed in a dark gray suit with a white shirt that was open at the neck, got into a scuffle with guards who were trying to escort him out during a break. When Hussein stood up and asked to leave the courtroom for a few minutes, he testily shook off the guards when they tried to grab his arms to lead him out. When they tried to grab him again, Hussein struggled to break free, setting off a minute-long shoving match. Hussein got his way and walked out of the room with the two guards following behind him.

Hussein and his co-defendants could face the death penalty if convicted of the charges. Three of the five judges must agree on a verdict, and in an ironic twist, current Iraqi laws call for the country's president to approve executions.

At the end of the proceedings, the judge ordered an adjournment until November 28, mainly because many witnesses were too afraid to come to court despite protective curtains around the witness box, according to a Reuters report. Amin said 30 to 40 witnesses had failed to come to Baghdad for the trial. Hussein's lead lawyer, Khalil al-Duleimi, also requested a delay to study testimonies.

Lawyers for Hussein had been pushing for a dismissal or delay, citing their belief that the tribunal is illegitimate under the Geneva Convention and that it may not be impartial because it was funded by the United States.

Bush whacked Rove on CIA leak
An angry President Bush rebuked chief political guru Karl Rove two years ago for his role in the Valerie Plame affair, sources told the Daily News.

"He made his displeasure known to Karl," a presidential counselor told The News. "He made his life miserable about this."

Bush has nevertheless remained doggedly loyal to Rove, who friends and even political adversaries acknowledge is the architect of the President's rise from baseball owner to leader of the free world.

As special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald nears a decision, perhaps as early as today, on whether to issue indictments in his two-year probe, Bush has already circled the wagons around Rove, whose departure would be a grievous blow to an already shell-shocked White House staff and a President in deep political trouble.

Miers Supported Ban on Most Abortions in '89
Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers pledged support in 1989 for a constitutional amendment banning abortions except when necessary to save the life of the mother, according to material given to the Senate on Tuesday.

"If Congress passes a Human Life Amendment to the Constitution that would prohibit abortion except when it was necessary to prevent the death of the mother, would you actively support its ratification by the Texas Legislature," asked an April 1989 questionnaire sent out by the Texans United for Life group.

Miers checked "yes" to that question, and all of the group's questions, including whether she would oppose the use of public moneys for abortions and whether she would use her influence to keep "pro-abortion" people off city health boards and commissions.

Halliburton's New Low in Treachery
According to the Tribune, American tax dollars and the wartime needs of the U.S. military are fueling an illicit pipeline of cheap foreign labor into Iraq. Most of those falling for the fraudulent job offers are impoverished Asians who, the newspaper said, "often are deceived, exploited and put in harm's way with little protection."

The Tribune got on the story after 12 young civilians from Nepal were kidnapped by terrorists in Iraq and a few days later publicly slaughtered. The newspaper sent a reporter and photographer to Nepal, where they interviewed families and friends and soon discovered that thousands of men are routinely recruited for "good" Mideast jobs, but wind up in the most treacherous stretches of Iraq territory working in private jobs for the U.S. military.

A brother of one of the kidnapped men told Cam Simpson, the Trib reporter, that the last time he heard from his brother was when he called from his supposed job in Jordan. He was being sent against his will to Iraq, the brother said, and then blurted out, "I am done for." The phone then went dead. The next time the young Nepalese was seen was on a TV screen two weeks later, his hands tied behind his back and a gun pointed at his head.

O'Reilly excused Bush's Katrina response: "maybe he's exhausted"
O'Reilly neglected to mention that President Bush had been on a "working vacation" on his ranch in Crawford, Texas, for more than four weeks when Katrina hit the Gulf Coast. As The Washington Post reported, Bush had been informed of the extent of the disaster as early as Monday, August 29, but chose to stay in Crawford until Wednesday, August 31. That day, Bush made his first "visit" to the region, during which he surveyed the damage from a window on Air Force One en route to Washington, as The New York Times reported. Bush actually set foot in New Orleans for the first time on Friday, September 2.

Analysis: Decline In Armed Conflict Claimed
The independent Human Security Report released at the United Nations says armed conflict declined by 40 percent since 1991, citing successes of U.N. conflict-resolution and peace-building policies.

Pakistan Quake Rescuers Try to Reach 500,000 People
More than 500,000 people in northern Pakistan, the world's most mountainous region, haven't been reached and are in danger of dying from hypothermia after the Oct. 8 earthquake, the United Nations said.

The Partisan War Syndrome
The Democrats' policy of doing nothing as the Republican Party keeps tripping over itself is a recipe for continued political failure and irrelevance.

Senate Republicans Insert Wildlife Refuge Drilling In Budget Bill
A Senate committee voted Wednesday to include drilling in an Alaska wildlife refuge in a massive budget proposal, assuring that drilling opponents won't be able to use the filibuster to thwart oil development there.

The Fallen Legion
Commentary: The ever more numerous casualties of the Bush Administration
In late August 2005, after twenty years of service in the field of military procurement, Bunnatine ("Bunny") Greenhouse, the top official at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers in charge of awarding government contracts for the reconstruction of Iraq, was demoted. For years, Greenhouse received stellar evaluations from superiors -- until she raised objections about secret, no-bid contracts awarded to Kellogg, Brown & Root (KBR) -- a subsidiary of Halliburton, the mega-corporation Vice President Dick Cheney once presided over.

Cleansing the Savages: Christian Extremists in Iraq

2005-06-25T16:53:13Z

Just beneath the surface of the US war lies a Crusader mentality and faction, despite an official public relations effort to conceal it. Here are some examples for the religious community to ponder and discuss.

* Air Force Chaplain Submits Resignation (NYT, June 22); "Air Force Chaplain Tells of Academy Proselytizing” (NYT, May 12). Reports that evangelical Christians in leadership positions at the academy were creating a discriminatory climate. Chief of chaplains for the air force, responding to an internal film on tolerance, asks "why is it that the Christians never win?". Chaplain MeLinda Morton forced to resign.

* The Pentagon Unleashes a Holy Warrior, by William Arkin (LAT, Oct. 16, 2003). Lt. Gen. William "Jerry" Boykin, deputy undersecretary of defense for intelligence, former head of top-secret Joint Special Operations Command, and frequent speaker at Christian Right meetings, says his god is "a real god" and allah is an "idol":, "Satan wants to destroy us...as a Christian army", George Bush was "appointed by God", "we are hated because we are a nation of believers", etc. Boykins shows aerial photos of Mogadishu with a dark smudge which he says is "the principalities of darkness...a demonic presence...that god revealed to me as the enemy." Boykin has never been disciplined or removed.

* Evangelicals Flock Into Iraq on a Mission of Faith (LAT, Mar. 18, 2004). Nine evangelical churches open in Baghdad in eight months, supported with $100,000 per church. Nine hundred thousand bibles in Arabic sent to Iraq. Thirty missionaries work in Baghdad, 150 have visited. "God and the president have given us the opportunity to bring Jesus Christ to the Middle East." "Iraq will become the center for spreading the gospel of Jesus Christ to Iran, Libya, throughout the Middle East." Yes, sharing Christ’s love causes conflict, but the alternative is allowing people to go to hell.

* Islam is a "very evil and wicked religion", says Rev. Franklin Graham, who delivered the invocation at President Bush’s inauguration.

* Muhammad was a "demon-possessed pedophile" says Rev. Jerry Vines, past president of 16-million member Southern Baptist Convention.

* End-Time Believers See Prophecies Fulfilled in Iraq (W Post). Time LaHaye and Jerry Jenkins’ books sell 38 million copies since 1995, describing rapture, rise of the anti-Christ, seven years of hell on earth, armageddon, return of Jesus, etc. "Iraq fits like hand in glove", says editor of Endtime magazine. Chapter 9, Verse 11 (9/11) predicts the coming of an army of locusts led by the Destroyer (Saddam). One-third of mankind is to die.

* U.S. Hires Christian Extremists to Produce Arabic News, by Russell Mokhiber and Robert Weissman, Alternet (May 2, 2003). Official US governement Arabic language satellite launched from studios of Grace Digital Media, controlled by fundamentalist Christians who are "rabidly pro-Israel."

news

2005-06-24T17:48:00Z

Schiavo autopsy reveals massive brain damage, no signs of abuse
Her brain was far too damaged for that, or to have felt any pain, Thogmartin said, as she slowly died at age 41 by dehydration 13 days after her feeding tube was removed under a court order sought by her husband. "This damage was irreversible, and no amount of therapy or treatment would have regenerated the massive loss of neurons," he said. "The brain weighed 615 grams, roughly half of the expected weight of a human brain."

9/11 families to Karl Rove: Stop trying to reap political gain from 9/11
As families whose relatives were victims of the 9/11 terror attacks, we believe it is an outrage that any Democrat, any Republican, any conservative or any liberal, stakes a "high ground" position based upon the September 11th death and destruction. Doing so assumes that all those who died and their loved ones would agree. In truth, some would and some would not. By definition the conduct is divisive and, because it is intended to be self-serving and politicizes 9/11, it is offensive. We are calling on Karl Rove to resist his temptations and stop trying to reap political gain in the tragic misfortune of others. His comments are not welcome.

Guantánamo and beyond: The continuing pursuit of unchecked executive power
In late December 2001, a memorandum was sent from the United States Justice Department to the Department of Defense.(4) It advised the Pentagon that no US District Court could "properly entertain" appeals from "enemy aliens" detained at the US Naval Base in Guantánamo Bay, Cuba. Because Cuba has "ultimate sovereignty" over Guantánamo, the memorandum asserted, US Supreme Court jurisprudence meant that a foreign national in custody in the naval base should not have access to the US courts. The first "war on terror" detainees were transferred to the base two weeks later. The memorandum remained secret until it was leaked to the media in mid-2004 in the wake of the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.

Not long after this leak, on 28 June 2004, the US Supreme Court ruled, in Rasul v. Bush, that the federal courts in fact do have jurisdiction to hear appeals from foreign nationals detained in Guantánamo Bay.(5) Yet almost a year later, none of the more than 500 detainees of some 35 nationalities still held in the base – believed to include at least three people, from Canada, Chad and Saudi Arabia, who were minors at the time of being taken into custody – has had the lawfulness of his detention judicially reviewed.

Top five Gitmo falsehoods
In recent weeks, the debate over the Pentagon detention facility at Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, has garnered increased coverage on cable and network news programs. But as Media Matters for America documents, conservative media figures have often attempted to downplay the severity of the alleged abuses at Guantánamo, dismiss every detainee as a terrorist unprotected by international law, and distort criticism of the Bush administration's detention policy.

Bush's Empathy Shortage
Why do families with the shakiest grip on the American dream support the Bush equivalent of taking bread from the poor and giving it to the rich?

Related: The Chauffeur's Dilemma
How Bush converted an economic program aimed at strip-mining America into a program for winning blue-collar hearts and minds.

Bush Administration Shorts Veteran Health Funds By $1B
The $1 billion shortfall emerged during an administration midyear budget review and was acknowledged only during lengthy questioning of Jonathan B. Perlin, VA undersecretary for health, by House Veterans Affairs Committee Chairman Steve Buyer (R-Ind.) at a hearing yesterday.

IRAQ SCANDAL: don't ignore this story!

2005-06-24T17:35:25Z

"FOLLOW THE MONEY"

Rep. Waxman's latest investigation of the CPA's mismanagment of the Development Fund of Iraq (DFI, successor to the Oil-for-Food program) has prompted Republican colleagues to join him in demanding a full investigation into what he describes as an "appalling level of incompetence, mismanagement, waste, fraud, and greed" that makes the UN oil-for-food "scandal" puny by comparison.

According to Waxman, a total of $12.7 billion in cash was shipped to Iraq out of DFI accounts held in trust for "the Iraqi people" by the U.S. Federal Reserve. The cash was shipped in 484 pallets of $100 bills, weighing a total of 363 tons. This includes a shipment of $2.4 billion made just one week before the CPA handed authority over to the new Interim Government -- the largest shipment of cash in Federal Reserve history.

Off the Books

"With so much cash arriving in Iraq, you might think that extensive precautions would be taken to account for the funds," Waxman suggested to his colleagues on the House Subcommittee on National Security, Emerging Threats and International Relations, which held the first ever hearings of the DFI yesterday. "But exactly the opposite happened: U.S. officials used virtually no financial controls to safeguard the Iraqi funds. No certified public accounting firm was hired to monitor disbursements, and auditors found that U.S. officials could not account for billions of dollars."

Waxman's report is bolstered by CPA's own Inspector General, who criticized the CPA's "less than adequate controls" on expenditures and "contracting actions" in a report released in January.

Waxman also indicated that "the largest single recipient of DFI funds was Halliburton. The company vastly overcharged to import gasoline into Iraq and to provide other oil-related services. These overcharges – which exceed $200 million – were billed to U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. But U.S. officials arranged for over 80% of them to be paid out of the DFI."

"Here’s the most incredible part," Waxman says. "When the U.N. auditors charged with overseeing the DFI asked about the overcharges, U.S. officials concealed them."

It's clear from this letter from Halliburton that U.S. officials did so at the company's request. Pentagon officials told Waxman privately that this is the case, according to a related New York Times story.

While Halliburton has claimed it was protecting proprietary information, committee chairman Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT) is not buying the story. Shays accused the Pentagon of "deferring completely to the contractor's absurdly expansive view of what constitutes proprietary information and must be shielded from view."

"This is a self-inflicted wound, a needless failure to meet transparency obligations," Shays suggested. "It really ticks me off. It seems senseless."

So what's the Pentagon's excuse?

Perhaps they've been too busy giving Halliburton another contract for work in the Balkans (despite an ongoing federal criminal probe into the legality of the company's existing Balkans contracts) and hiring the company to build a new $30 million detention facility and security fence for Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, which you will recall was announced shortly after former Halliburton CEO Dick Cheney defiantly declared that Gitmo would not be shut down.

Whether the oil revenues-for-Halliburton investigation will lead all the way to Cheney himself is anyone's guess. But one twist that the intrepid reporters and congressional investigators interested in "following the money" back to the original decision to give Halliburton/KBR the no-bid contract paid for out of the DFI, is that at some point they are likely to end up knocking on the door of former Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz who, as the current president of the World Bank sits on the international advisory monitoring board (IAMB) charged with overseeing the DFI, an obvious conflict of interest.

(To learn more about and to continue to follow this unfolding scandal see Waxman's site, Halliburton Watch and Iraq Revenue Watch.)

news

2005-06-24T17:26:28Z

DOCTORS AS TORTURERS
by Erica Jong
The word Orwellian has become inadequate to describe what’s going on at Gitmo. We now have physicians advising on and observing torture. I guess that once you suspend the Geneva Convention anything is possible.

I was once the wife of a psychiatrist drafted into the US Army during the Viet Nam War. I know that there’s always the right way and the Army way. The Viet Nam war caused army doctors to learn special skills—like counseling victims of Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome or counseling the children of personnel who were traumatized or helping adolescents to deal with the distress of moving every two years when their parents were transferred... But never in my three years as a medical officer’s wife did I hear of trained specialists assisting torturers. Every time we think we have reached a new low, we go even lower.

Of course Nazi Germany asked doctors to experiment with Jews--thrusting them into freezing water, performing useless operations without anesthesia. But they were Nazis and we’re Americans in love with liberty. Right? Also the Nazis thought Jews were subhuman so they got no benefit of empathy. So now we’re doing that to Muslims. The Attorney General, Mr. Gonzales, approves. At least we’re not torturing Latinos. His ox is not currently being gored. The President and Vice President think Gitmo is just swell. Cheney depicts it as a kind of Health Spa in the tropics.

What can an American prisoner expect when captured if this is how we treat our captives? And most of them are charged with no crime.

We have not only suspended the Geneva Convention, we have also suspended the Hippocratic oath: “first, do no harm.”

70 Percent Chance of Attack...
Sen. Richard Lugar's (R-IN) office has just released a new report on proliferation that makes some massively important points. The most eye-opening stat here is that a survey of proliferation experts suggested that the chances of a WMD attack on a city somewhere in the world—radiological, nuclear, biological, chemical—could be as much as 70 percent over the next ten years. Obviously the plural of opinion isn't fact, but 70 percent is pretty appallingly high, no? Meanwhile, those same experts say we can expect about two to five countries to join the nuclear weapons club over the next ten years—they don't say which countries, but it's safe to assume that the Bush administration won't stop Iran and North Korea from arming, and I've got a hunch that we might well see Saudi Arabia, Japan, and possibly even Taiwan in that club.

Meanwhile, those proliferation experts are more or less in consensus on what is to be done here: strengthen arms control treaties, boost funding for the Nunn-Lugar initiative to destroy "loose" Russian nukes, placing controls on nuclear fuel cycles, etc. etc. Most of which has not been done, although now that John Bolton's out of the State Department there have been a few encouraging steps. Oh, and they all think it would sure be nice to try and stop Iran and North Korea from acquiring nuclear weapons, although the White House's utter inability even to talk to Pyongyang makes the latter a non-starter. Now the policy recommendations here are all eye-glazing stuff, it's truel; perhaps not nearly as exciting for Karl Rove as, say, accusing one-third of the country of treason. Still, nuclear proliferation's almost as big a threat to our country as Dick Durbin—lest we forget, President Bush did claim it as his number one priority during the presidential debates—and as always, it would be awfully swell if someone in charge was thinking seriously about this stuff.

Karl Rove's "Understanding of 9/11"
Mr. Rove, the first thing that I would like to address is Afghanistan - the place that anyone with a true “understanding of 9/11” knows is a nation that actually has a connection to the 9/11 attacks. One month after 9/11, we invaded Afghanistan, took down the Taliban, and left without capturing Usama Bin Laden - the alleged perpetrator of the September 11th attacks. In the meantime, Afghanistan has carried out democratic elections, but continues to suffer from extreme violence and unrest. Poppy production (yes, Karl, the drug trade) is at an all time high, thus flooding the world market with heroin. And of course, the oil pipeline (a.k.a. the Caspian Sea pipeline) is better protected by U.S. troops who now have a “legitimate” excuse to be in that part of Afghanistan. Interesting isn't it Karl that the drug “rat line” parallels the oil pipeline. (Yet, with all those troops guarding that same sliver of land, can you please explain how those drugs keep getting through?)

Now Karl, a question for you, since you seem to be the nation's self-styled sensei with regard to 9/11: Is Usama Bin Laden still important? Lately, your coterie of friends seems to be giving out mixed messages. Recall that in the early days, Bin Laden was wanted “dead or alive.” Then when Bin Laden slipped through your fingertips in Tora Bora, you downgraded his importance. We were told that Bin Laden was a "desperate man on the run,” and a person that President Bush was not "too worried about". Yet, whenever I saw Bin Laden's videos, he looked much too comfortable to actually be a man on the run. He looked tan, rested, and calm. He certainly didn't look the way I wanted the murderer of almost 3,000 innocent people to look: unkempt, panicked, and cowering in a corner.

Karl, I mention Bin Laden because recently Director of the CIA, Porter Goss, has mentioned that he knows exactly where Bin Laden is located but that he cannot capture him for fear of offending sovereign nations. Which frankly, I find ironic because of Iraq--and let's just leave it at that. But, when you say that “moderation and restraint” don't work in fighting terrorists, maybe you should share those comments with Mr. Goss because he doesn't seem to be on the same page as you. Unless of course, Porter is holding out to announce that Bin Laden is in Iran. (Karl, I want Bin Laden brought to justice, but not if it means starting a war with Iran - a country that possesses nuclear weaponry. The idea of nuclear fallout in any quadrant of the world is just not an acceptable means to any ends, be it capturing Bin Laden, oil or drugs. But, Afghanistan and Bin Laden are old news. Iraq is the story of today. And of course, it appears that Iran will be the story of next month. But, I digress.)

More to the point, Karl when you say, “Conservatives saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and prepared for war,” what exactly did you do to prepare for your war? Did your preparations include: sound intelligence to warrant your actions; a reasonable entry and exit strategy coupled with a coherent plan to carry out that strategy; the proper training and equipment for the troops you were sending in to fight your war? Did you follow the advice of experts such as General Shinseki who correctly advised you about the troop levels needed to actually succeed in Iraq? No, you didn't.

It has always been America's policy that you only place soldiers' lives in harm's way when it is absolutely necessary and the absolute last resort. When you send troops into combat you support those troops by providing them with proper equipment and training. Why didn't you do that with the troops that you sent into Iraq? Why weren't their vehicles armored? Why didn't they have protective vests? Why weren't they properly trained about the rules of interrogation? And Karl, when our troops come home – be it tragically in body bags or with missing limbs – you should honor and acknowledge their service to their country. You shouldn't hide them by bringing them home in the dark of night. Most importantly, you should take care of them for the long haul by giving them substantial veteran's benefits and care. To me, that is being patriotic. To me, that is how you support our troops. To me, that is how you show that you know the value of a human life given for its country.

For the record Karl, does Iraq have any connection to the 9/11 attacks? Because, you and your friends with your collective “understanding of 9/11” seem to be contradicting yourselves about the Iraq-9/11 connection, too. First, we were told that we went to war with Iraq because it was linked to the 9/11 attacks. Then, your rationale was changed to "Iraq has WMD". Then you told us that we needed to invade Iraq because Saddam was a "bad man". And now it turns out that we are in Iraq to bring them "democracy."

Of course, the Downing Street memo clarifies many of these things, but for the record Karl: Iraq had nothing to do with 9/11; there were few terrorists in Iraq before our invasion, but now Iraq is a terrorist hot-bed. America had the sympathy and support of the whole world before Iraq. Now, thanks to your actions, we find ourselves hated and alienated by the rest of the world. Al Qaeda's recruitment took a nose-dive after the 9/11 attacks, but has now skyrocketed since your invasion of Iraq; and most importantly, nearly 2,000 U.S. soldiers have been killed because of your war in Iraq. These facts speak for themselves. (And, they speak very little about effectively winning any war on terror.)

Karl, you say you “understand” 9/11. Then why did you and your friends so vehemently oppose the creation of a 9/11 Independent Commission? Once the commission was established, why did you refuse to properly fund the Commission by allotting it only a $3 million budget? Why did you refuse to allow access to documents and witnesses for the 9/11 Commissioners? Why did we have to fight so hard for an extension when the Commissioners told us that they needed more time due to your footdragging and stonewalling? Why didn't you want to cooperate so that all Americans could “understand” what happened on 9/11?

Since the release of the 9/11 Commission's Final Report, have you helped bring to fruition any of the commission's recommendations? Have you truly made our homeland safer by hardening/eliminating soft targets? Because, to me rebuilding a tower that is 1,776 feet tall where the World Trade Center once stood seems to be only providing more soft targets for the terrorists to hit. Moreover, your support for the use of nuclear energy seems to be providing even more soft targets. Tell me, while you write your nifty little speeches about nuclear power, do you explain to your audience how our nuclear plants will be protected against terrorist attack or infiltration? What assurances do you give that nuclear waste will not find its way into terrorist's dirty bombs and onto our city streets? And, how do you assure your audience that the shipment of radioactive material will not become a terrorist target as it rolls through their own backyards?

To date, you have done practically nothing to secure our ports, nuclear power plants, and mass transportation systems. Imagine if the billions of dollars you spent in Iraq were spent more wisely on those things here at home. Imagine what sort of alternative energy resources (bio-diesel, wind power, solar power, and hybrid automobiles) could have been researched and funded in the past three years. Talk about regaining the respect and support of the world, that is the one way to do it.

Karl, if you “understand 9/11”, then why don't you understand that until we have a more environmentally friendly energy policy, we cannot effectively fight the war on terrorism. By being dependent on foreign oil, we have no choice but to cozy up to nations that sponsor terrorists. Moreover, because of oil, we may end up placing our troops and our nation at greater risk by having to invade certain oil-rich countries. Our invasion of these countries merely serves to inflame would-be terrorists by reinforcing their notion that we are gluttonous and self-centered -- invading sovereign nations solely to steal their oil. Forgive me Karl, but is that how you think you "win hearts and minds"? Does that help in any way to "spread democracy"?

Finally Karl, please “understand” that the reason we have not suffered a repeat attack on our homeland is because Bin Laden no longer needs to attack us. Those of us with a pure and comprehensive “understanding of 9/11” know that Bin Laden committed the 9/11 attacks so he could increase recruitment for al Qaeda and increase worldwide hatred of America. That didn't happen. Because after 9/11, the world united with Americans and al Qaeda's recruitment levels never increased.

It was only after your invasion of Iraq, that Bin Laden's goals were met. Because of your war in Iraq two things happened that helped Bin Laden and the terrorists: al Qaeda recruitment soared and the United States is now alienated from and hated by the rest of the world. In effect, what Bin Laden could not achieve by murdering my husband and 3,000 others on 9/11, you handed to him on a silver platter with your invasion of Iraq - a country that had nothing to do with 9/11.

Which leads me to my final questions for you Karl: What are your motives when it comes to 9/11 and are you really sure that you understand 9/11?

BeNow All You Can Be
This week the Pentagon began working with a private company called BeNow to create a marketing database of Americans 16- to 18- years old. According to the Washington Post, the product being marketed to these kids, you will not be shocked to learn, is enlistment in the military.

It’s bad enough that the data that the No Child Left Behind Act requires high schools to compile are being provided to military recruiters, so that they can call kids at home and pitch them a swell career in the armed forces.

But this new database will contain even more information: birth dates, Social Security numbers, e-mail addresses, grade-point averages, even what subjects the kids are taking.

So just as Amazon.com can send you an email saying that you might want to buy the new Anne Coulter book because you bought Mussolini’s memoirs in the past, now the Pentagon can pick off kids whose grades aren’t scholarship material and whose zip codes aren’t high-income, and paint a rosy picture of their future in uniform.

And that’s not to mention the identity theft issues. Imagine what a treasure-trove the BeNow database will be to hackers in Uzbekistan. The Pentagon, of course, assures us that all this information will be secure. But coming within days of our learning that 16 million American credit-card holders can kiss their privacy goodbye, the Defense Department’s promises aren’t very comforting.

Serving our country in the armed forces is a courageous and patriotic choice. But that’s not what this new Big Brother offensive is about. It’s about military recruiters failing to make their quotas, because kids don’t want to serve in a war they don’t believe in. It’s about none of the children of the chickenhawks and of the right-wing pundits in Washington enlisting, because war’s fine as long as someone else's kids fight it for them.

At the height of the Vietnam War, a raging issue was whether to permit military recruiters and reserve programs on campus. Today, the battle has moved to the high schools, and in a virtual world, no one can be kept out of our homes and our lives. Before we offer up the next generation on a silver platter to the war machine, shouldn't we be demanding that Jenna and Barbara Bush put in their time in Iraq?

Related: Democracy Now!: Pentagon Developing Massive Database on Millions of U.S. Students
The Pentagon is working with a private company to create information dossiers on millions of young Americans to help identify college and high school students as young as 16 to target for military recruiting. We speak with the executive director of the Electronic Privacy Center and Rep. Mike Honda (D-CA).

Burn This
Let's see...the situation in Iraq is deteriorating, tens of millions of Americans are uninsured, the public education system is a disgrace and Congress is debating...flag burning? It's good to see their priorities are in order. I know that if I'm a guy with a son in Iraq, helping out a parent who worked for a company where the pension fund went south, and whose daughter can't get a decent education, flag burning it what I think about when I wake up each day, and I'm glad Congress shares my priorities. But what I really want to know, if I'm that guy, is when our elected represenatives are going to have more hearings on steroid abuse in professional baseball.

news

2005-06-09T21:56:34Z

Amnesty Under Attack
The Bush Administration used Amnesty International's reports to push its case for war on Iraq. But when the organization criticized abuses in U.S. military prisons, the gloves came off.

Bolton The Fixer
Forget the lousy managment style. John Bolton was one of the principal architects of Bush's manufactured Iraq intelligence.

Texas Teenager Gets Life In Prison For Helping Girlfriend Terminate Pregnancy
Basoria, then 16, was five months pregnant when Flores stepped on her bulging belly more than once the week before she gave birth prematurely in a bathroom at Flores' house the night of May 6, 2004. The defense said she hit herself at the same time, making it impossible to tell who killed the babies. Testimony alleged both may have wanted a miscarriage so the babies wouldn't infringe on college and social plans. His girlfriend coerced him into it, Flores said in a taped police interview played at trial in which he demonstrated stepping on her. Bauereiss repeated the clip for jurors during his emotional closing statement.

Gay Rights Battlefields Spread to Public Schools
Emboldened by the political right's growing influence on public policy, opponents of school activities aimed at educating students about homosexuality or promoting acceptance of gay people are mounting challenges to such programs, at individual schools, at statehouses and in Congress. Chief among the targets are sex education programs that include discussions of homosexuality, and after-school clubs that bring gay and straight students together, two initiatives that gained assent in numerous schools over the last decade.

Bush Administration Defends Former Oil Industry Advocate Who Changed Climate Reports
The Bush administration said Wednesday that changes made in government reports on global warming by a former oil industry advocate were part of a normal interagency review and did not violate a pledge to base environmental policy on sound science.

Related:
Bush Aide Softened Greenhouse Gas Links to Global Warming
A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

Climate Whitewash At The White House
Links between the White House and the energy industry have come under renewed scrutiny as Tony Blair prepares to ask President George W Bush for help at next month's G8 summit to tackle global warming... ExxonMobile, the world’s largest publicly traded oil company, has been linked to The Global Climate Coalition (GCC), a lobbying group for major industrial interests, that held several meetings with senior Washington figures.

G8 scientists tell Bush: Act now - or else
An unprecedented joint statement issued by the leading scientific academies of the world has called on the G8 governments to take urgent action to avert a global catastrophe caused by climate change.

Staying out of Africa
Depending on who you ask, we're either giving more aid to Africa than ever before or failing the continent entirely. Unfortunately, both are true.

Obscured in all the diplomacy is the fact that the G8 has already promised and failed to deliver enough aid to slash the death rate of children under 5-years-old by 2015. A new United Nations report reveals the actual consequences of failing to live up to this promise:

Three million children will die in the poorest countries of sub-Saharan Africa in the next ten years. Over 115 million children will be deprived of an education and 219 million extra people living below the poverty line.

Related:
Into Africa
The British -- along with most of the G-8 wealthy nations -- want to spend $25 billion over a decade to pull Africa back from the brink. There are plenty of doubts -- corruption, civil war and misgovernment -- but the African continent needs a modern-day Marshall Plan. Sensing Bush's objections, the Blair team is already giving ground. Let's hope that he won't settle for crumbs, such as Tuesday's announced $674 million in famine aid from the White House. Rebuilding Africa will take more than a one-time relief effort. It will mean steady, sustained aid from a coalition of big countries.

Random Finds:

Side-by-side comparison of religious right anti-gay speech and Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. Is it similar? You decide.

What Did Bush Decide and When Did He Decide It?

The Downing Street Memo reported that in a July 23, 2002 meeting between Prime Minister Blair and his war cabinet, attendees of the meeting discussed the fact that President Bush had already made up his mind to attack Iraq. According to the minutes of the meeting:

“There was a perceptible shift in attitude. Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action.”

Yet, as the record below proves, President Bush claimed over and over after July 23rd until the war began that he had not made up his mind.

“Of course, I haven’t made up my mind we’re going to war with Iraq.” [10/1/02]

“Hopefully, we can do this peacefully – don’t get me wrong. And if the world were to collectively come together to do so, and to put pressure on Saddam Hussein and convince him to disarm, there’s a chance he may decide to do that. And war is not my first choice, don’t – it’s my last choice.” [11/7/02]

“This is our attempt to work with the world community to create peace. And the best way for peace is for Mr. Saddam Hussein to disarm. It’s up to him to make his decision.” [12/4/02]

“You said we’re headed to war in Iraq – I don’t know why you say that. I hope we’re not headed to war in Iraq. I’m the person who gets to decide, not you. I hope this can be done peacefully.” [12/31/02]

Bush: “First of all, you know, I’m hopeful we won’t have to go war, and let’s leave it at that.” [1/2/03]

“But Saddam Hussein is – he’s treated the demands of the world as a joke up to now, and it was his choice to make. He’s the person who gets to decide war and peace.” [2/7/03]

“I’ve not made up our mind about military action. Hopefully, this can be done peacefully.” [3/6/03]

“I want to remind you that it’s his choice to make as to whether or not we go to war. It’s Saddam’s choice. He’s the person that can make the choice of war and peace.” [3/6/03]

“We are doing everything we can to avoid war in Iraq. But if Saddam Hussein does not disarm peacefully, he will be disarmed by force.” [3/8/03]

“Should Saddam Hussein choose confrontation, the American people can know that every measure has been taken to avoid war, and every measure will be taken to win it.” [3/17/03]

news

2005-06-09T20:39:35Z

Questions Over the Downing Street Memo
Remember the Downing Street Memo? That recent-leaked note from early 2002 which showed that, at the time, the head of British intelligence thought that the intelligence for war against Iraq was "being fixed around policy"? "The case was thin," the memo said. Right, that one. Well, the major newspapers are starting to ask questions about it—as opposed to merely writing stories about how befuddled they are that the memo, somehow, isn't garnering more attention—and yesterday reporters confronted both Bush and Tony Blair on the subject. Freiheit und Wissen has a roundup of reports. See also ThinkProgress.

The main question here: why is this all important? Also known as: Do we really need to wade into this debate again? Well, yes. It's true that the memo likely won't change anyone's mind about the war in Iraq—in some ways the validity or invalidity of the war is independent of the sinister motives behind it, and that's doubly true today, now that Bush has convinced us that the war was fought all along to spread democracy rather than to disarm Saddam Hussein—but nevertheless, this is still very much the sort of thing worth investigating. I'm not holding my breath for Bush to be impeached, but ideally in the future I'd prefer if presidents refrained from going to war on false pretenses and skewed intelligence. And an exploration of exactly how and why it happened this time around is crucial towards preventing it from happening again.

When Former Lobbyists Attack
You know, it would be nice if this sort of thing was shocking rather than routine:

A White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents.

My oh my. Whoever could've done such a thing?

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

Yep. Shocked, just shocked. Actually, though, this brings up an important point related to Elizabeth Drew's latest piece on Congressional corruption. One major "revolving door" problem in Congress is that representatives and senators often leave their positions as elected officials and find lobbying spots or other lucrative positions around Washington. Sometimes this leads to rather blatant conflicts of interest, as when former Rep. Billy Tauzin (R-LA) left his spot as chairman of the House pharmaceutical oversight committee to go... become the president and CEO of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. How this might've affected the drafting of the 2003 Medicare bill that Tauzin co-sponsored—a bill replete with pharmaceutical giveaways—well, I'll leave that to the imagination. But the revolving door revolves both ways; as with Mr. Cooney, industry lobbyists coming into government can pose just as great a problem. Surprisingly, the Office of Government Ethics' rules and guidelines on conflicts of interest don't cover this situation. Here's the OGE's summary of the relevant statute:

Specifically, this law says that you may not work on an assignment that you know will affect your own financial interests or the financial interests of your spouse or your minor child. The prohibition also applies if you know the assignment will affect the financial interests of your general partner, or of an organization that you serve as an officer, director, employee, general partner, or trustee. And it even applies when you know the matter will affect the financial interests of someone with whom you have an arrangement for employment, or with whom you are negotiating for employment.

In other words, former lobbyists can waltz into government and oversee the industries they used to represent. They just can't have any direct financial stakes in the matter. Wink, wink, nudge, nudge. Looks like a loophole in need of a bit of attention, no?

Kick the Koran
Ok, Ok. So we can't confirm that anybody actually flushed a Koran down a crapper. But there was definitely some Koran kicking. And some profanity inscribing. And some water-balloon hitting. And, oh, yeah, that incident with the urine.

Less than two weeks after Pentagon spokesman and able "disassembler" Larry DiRita baldly proclaimed that the Pentagon had "not seen specific, credible allegations" of Koran abuse at Gitmo, the Pentagon released an after-hours Friday announcement that, indeed, the Pentagon was aware of specific, credible holy-book abuse. Not only that, the military had already reprimanded one of the contractors involved.

The incidents described in the Southcom press release are remarkable. They provide not only a disquieting insight into daily life at Guantanamo, but they're also evidence of military investigators bending over backwards to find innocuous explanations for inexcusable behavior -- such as peeing on a detainee and his Koran through a ventilation duct.

A few choice examples:

On 24 FEB 02, a detainee refused recreation time and his cell was searched ... He claimed that the guards hit him in the groin, threw him on the ground and then kicked his Koran. A number of the detainees on the block stated they no longer wanted recreation time until the guards stopped disrespecting the Koran.

On 15 AUG 03, two detainees complained to the swing shift guards (1400-2200 hrs) that the detainees? Korans were wet because the night shift guards had thrown water balloons on the block.

On 21 AUG 03, a detainee complained to a guard that a two-word obscenity had been written in English on the inside cover of his English version Koran and asked to complain to the commander ... The detainee speaks English at a conversational level. It is possible that a guard committed this act; it is equally possible that the detainee wrote in his own Koran.

On 25 MAR 05, a detainee complained to the guards that urine came through an air vent in Camp 4, and splashed on him and his Koran while he laid near the air vent. A guard reported to a Block NCOIC that he was at fault. The guard had left his observation area post and went outside to urinate. He urinated near an air vent and the wind blew his urine through the vent into the block.

On 25 JUL 03, a contract interrogator apologized to a detainee for stepping on the detainee?s Koran in an earlier interrogation ... The detainee accepted the apology and agreed to inform other detainees of the apology and ask them to cease disruptive behaviors caused by the incident. The interrogator was later terminated for a pattern of unacceptable behavior, an inability to follow direct guidance and poor leadership.

On 13 NOV 04, a guard conducted a routine cell search. While shaking out the sleeping mat, the guard accidentally knocked the detainee's Koran out of the surgical mask onto the floor. The guard bent down and picked up the Koran. Available reports do not state which detainee owned the Koran; however, five detainees spat and threw liquids, including urine, at the guard after the Koran was touched.

After SouthCom issued its report, DiRita was asked in a follow-up press conference:

"Mr. DiRita, as the Department of Defense, are you going to present your apologies to the Arab world?"

DiRita responded: "For what?"

The Church of State
George W. Bush's Texas successor, Governor Rick Perry took the mixing of church and state to a whole new level last weekend by signing two bills -- a parental-notification abortion bill and a bill to place an anti-gay marriage constitutional amendment on the November ballot -- at a Sunday ceremony inside the Calvary Christian academy, an evangelical church school in Ft. Worth.

Prior to the event, Perry staffers had emailed supporters encouraging them to "completely fill this location with pro-family Christian friends who can celebrate with us.?

The Rev. Barry Lynn of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, called the event a "grotesque misuse of religion for a clear partisan political advantage," and called on the IRS to revoke the school's tax exemption.

More than 300 gay- and abortion-rights protesters gathered outside the academy, leading Perry to quip: "If we'd been in a Wal-Mart parking lot, they'd still be griping about it."

The Jobs Deficit
What do we have to show for the trillions of dollars in tax benefits showered upon the richest Americans, purportedly to goose the economy into long-term private sector growth? As of May: Continued job loss.

Fifty two months into the Bush presidency, and the American economy is still down 24,000 private sector jobs. Of course, that gives short shrift the more than 910,000 jobs that have been created as government has swollen massively under Bush. So much for the end of Big Government.

It's increasingly obvious that whatever voodoo is behind the neo-conomics of the Bush administration, it hasn't worked. Consider that under the law of averages, taken from the past 70 years of American history, Bush should have overseen the creation of 10 million private sector jobs by now. Even if he'd matched the worst 52 months of job growth over that span, another 5 million Americans would be at work today. (For more read-em-and weep stats from the Center for American Progress, click here.)

Consider also that the average wage of the American worker has stagnated -- and even declined slightly -- since the end of the recession in 2001. In the meantime the ratio of CEO pay to the wages of an average worker has skyrocketed from 145:1 in 2002 to 240:1 last year.

Bush administration has so succeeded in tilting the playing field in favor of the hyper rich -- as David Cay Johnston makes clear in this infuriating piece in the New York Times, that a worker making $75K now pays a greater percentage of his income in taxes than does Bill Gates.

Worse, 15 percent of the president's tax cuts will go to a mere 145,000 Americans. The statistics unearthed by the Times are simply jaw dropping. For every dollar in real wages the rest of us have earned since 1990, those in the top 0.01 percent have raked in 18,000. Ladies and gentlemen, we're being screwed.

But perhaps the country is finally cluing in. A full 52 percent now disapprove of the job Bush is doing as president.

The Fundamentalist Pope
Pope James Dobson I -- or, rather, Benedict XVI -- committed his papacy to the culture wars this week, deriding the "pseudo-matrimonies" of gay couples as the epitome of "an anarchic freedom which falsely tries to pass itself off as the true liberation of man."

The fundamentalist pope also railed against birth control as "contrary to human love" and -- just so there isn't any doubt about where the Vatican stands -- inveighed against abortion and euthanasia by calling on Catholics to reaffirm the ?intangibility of human life from conception to its natural end.?

... Like a Hole in the Head
"Today, after months of encouragement from friends and constituents, colleagues and advisers, many prayers and with the love and support of my family, the time has come to launch a campaign for the U.S. Senate." -- Rep. Katherine Harris (R.-Fla.)

Where Are the Advisors?
Meanwhile, in more good news, Eric Umansky notices that the new Iraqi government is laying off workers—always a good way to add a few disgruntled unemployed Iraqis to the ranks of the insurgency—and is, ah, a tad behind in paying its special forces units. Also a bit of a problem.

news

2005-06-03T07:16:05Z

Activists of Bangladesh Khilafat Andolon, or Opposition Movement, burn a U.S. flag as they shout anti-U.S. slogans during a rally after Friday prayers in Dhaka, Bangladesh. The activists were protesting the reported desecration of the Quran by American soldiers in Guantanamo Bay last month.

Mark Fiore animated cartoon: It's all Newsweek's Fault!

Torture: Knowing/Not Knowing
Torture is the ultimate act of bad faith on the part of the state, and it is, therefore, credible evidence that a state is illegitimate. Torture strips individuals of all rights, and very often their lives. When George W. Bush determined in 2002 that the Geneva Conventions no longer apply, he departed from clear, specific, and well-established norms of civilized conduct, and left military personnel on the ground to decide what is and is not humane treatment.

Challenging Cheney
"It doesn't matter whether he takes Amnesty International seriously. He doesn't take torture seriously; he doesn't take the Geneva Convention seriously; he doesn't take due process rights seriously; and he doesn't take international law seriously." —William Schulz, executive director of Amnesty International USA, in response to Vice President Dick Cheney's comment that he wasn't putting much weight on Amnesty's criticism of U.S. treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay.

Oil for Saddam
Republicans were quick to revile the United Nations for allowing Saddam Hussein to bust oil sanctions -- but it turns out that the Bush administration helped facilitate the illegal deals. According to a Senate investigation, U.S. ships provided "safe passage" through the Persian Gulf to seven Jordanian tankers loaded with 7.7 million barrels of Saddam's oil. This "largest single illicit" shipment enabled Saddam to line his war chest with $53 million, on the eve of the American invasion. The White House "knew about the shipments," says Sen. Carl Levin, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations. "The [administration] looked the other way."

Step Away From the Tree
What do you call animal-rights activists who free caged minks, or tree huggers who disrupt logging? If you're the FBI, you call them "terrorists." Testifying before Congress in May, Deputy Assistant Director John Lewis said that some of the "most serious domestic terrorist threats" today come from the Animal and Earth Liberation Fronts. Although neither group has killed anyone, Lewis portrayed them as more dangerous than the Klan and abortion-clinic bombers, blaming them for crimes such as "animal releases, vandalism and office takeovers." To confront these enemies, he added, the FBI is using anti-terror funds to "disrupt and dismantle the animal-rights and environmental extremist movements."

Action Alert
Need further evidence of the true venality of the man Bush has embraced as a strong anti-terror ally? Consider that Uzbek human rights leader Saidjahon Zainabitdinov -- the man who provided Western journalists with the best available body counts after the massacre -- been now been arrested. One can only imagine how he's being tortured. "The international community must call on the Uzbek government to ensure the safety of Zainabitdinov and other human rights activists who could be subject to repercussions," said Holly Cartner, Europe and Central Asia director of Human Rights Watch.

Fumble or Foul?
Ever wonder why Bush uses the same words over and over again in his speeches? For those of us who haven't studied subliminal mind control, the Prez himself offers up this simple quote:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." (Greece, NY, March 2005.)

But nothing compared to Bush's response to the accusation by Amnesty International that Guantanamo has become an " American Gulag."

It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of -- and the allegations -- by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble -- that means not tell the truth."

Wrong for the United Nations
Tell your senators to oppose John Bolton's nomination as U.N. ambassador.

AN EPIDEMIC FAILURE

An Epidemic Failure
By GERALDINE SEALEY

When President Bush introduced his global AIDS initiative in January 2003 -- calling it "a work of mercy beyond all current international efforts" -- the plan certainly sounded promising. Bush pledged to spend $15 billion over five years to provide life-saving drugs to at least 2 million people with HIV, prevent 7 million new infections, and care for the sick and orphaned in fifteen countries. Most of the money, the president declared, would go to sub-Saharan Africa, home to the majority of the world's 40 million people living with HIV and AIDS. In the hardest-hit countries, nearly forty percent of the population is infected, and 12 million children across the region have lost at least one parent to the disease. "I believe God has called us into action," Bush declared during a trip to Uganda in 2003. "We are a great nation, we're a wealthy nation. We have a responsibility to help a neighbor in need, a brother and sister in crisis."
Dubbed the President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), the ambitious agenda provided the administration with some much-needed PR at the very moment it was preparing to defy international will by invading Iraq. But from the start, Bush has failed to deliver on the funding he promised -- and what little money he has provided is being used to promote a right-wing agenda that undercuts international efforts and puts millions of people in AIDS-ravaged countries at greater risk of infection and death.

Thanks to the president's foot-dragging, his "emergency plan" took its sweet time getting going. Bush requested only $2 billion for PEPFAR in its first year -- a billion less than one would expect. Then, when Congress decided to approve $400 million more than the president asked for, Bush unsuccessfully fought to block the increase. By the time the first relief funds arrived in Africa, nearly a year and a half had passed since the president announced his plan -- a costly delay in fighting an epidemic that claims 8,500 lives every day.

The administration insists it will meet its goal by 2008, saying it planned all along to gradually "ramp up" the program. But public-health experts say it looks increasingly unlikely that Bush will fulfill his promise -- and that even if he does, the money will fall far short of what is needed. According to UNAIDS, a partnership involving the World Bank and nine other international aid groups, the world needs to spend $20 billion a year by 2007 to wage an effective war against AIDS. What Bush proposes to spend annually, if funding remains constant, is less than half the $6.6 billion that America would be expected to contribute based on the size of its economy. "The fact that the United States can spend $300 billion on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan but cannot find a relative pittance to rescue the human condition in Africa -- there is something profoundly out of whack about that," says Stephen Lewis, the secretary-general's special envoy for HIV/AIDS in Africa.

The president's AIDS initiative, like his invasion of Iraq, is a go-it-alone affair that ignores the clear global consensus on how to fight AIDS. In launching his own initiative, Bush has shifted the bulk of U.S. money away from the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an international organization that has funded projects in 128 countries and is widely recognized as the best way to distribute AIDS funds. "Bush is starving the fund," says Dr. Paul Zeitz, executive director of the Global AIDS Alliance. "It's despicable, frankly."

In addition to shortchanging international relief efforts, Bush is using AIDS funds to place religion over science, promoting abstinence and monogamy over more effective measures such as condoms and sex education. Before overseas groups can receive U.S. funding, for example, the Bush administration requires them to take a "loyalty oath" to condemn prostitution -- a provision that AIDS workers say further stigmatizes a population in need of HIV education and treatment. Brazil recently became the first country to rebel against the oath, announcing in May that it was rejecting $40 million in AIDS grants from the administration. "What we're doing is imposing a really misguided and ill-informed ideology on top of a public-health crisis," says Jodi Jacobson, executive director of the Center for Health and Gender Equity in Takoma Park, Maryland.

Bush's plan calls for an "ABC" approach to HIV prevention -- which stands for abstinence, "be faithful" and condom use -- but the administration is stressing the "A." In its first year, PEPFAR spent more than half of the $92 million earmarked to prevent sexual transmission on promoting abstinence programs. Studies show that such programs actually increase risk by discouraging contraceptive use. What's more, focusing on abstinence and monogamy ignores the reality facing young women and girls in Africa and other impoverished regions, who are often infected by wandering husbands or forced to have sex in exchange for food or shelter. Among fifteen- to twenty-four-year-olds in sub-Saharan Africa, studies show, more than three times as many young women are infected with HIV as young men.

"It's only a matter of time before the impact of abstinence-only programs can be measured in needless new HIV infections," says Jonathan Cohen, an HIV/AIDS researcher with Human Rights Watch.

The emphasis on morality is being driven by social conservatives, who have made spreading the gospel of abstinence and monogamy to Africans their primary mission. "Condoms promote promiscuity," says Derek Gordon of the evangelical Christian group Focus on the Family. "When you give a teen a condom, it gives them a license to go out and have sex." At a congressional hearing in April, Rep. Henry Hyde threatened to cut funding for organizations that promote condoms. "The best defense for preventing HIV transmission is practicing abstinence and being mutually faithful to a non-infected partner," Hyde declared.

Nowhere is the effort by conservative Republicans to turn back the clock on sex education more pronounced than in Uganda. By aggressively promoting condom use and sex education, Uganda has managed to cut its HIV rate from fifteen percent of the population to barely six percent during the past decade, making it Africa's biggest success story. But under pressure from the Bush administration, Uganda has taken a dangerous turn toward an abstinence-only approach. In April, the country's Ministry of Education banned the promotion and distribution of condoms in public schools. To make matters worse, the government has even engineered a nationwide shortage of condoms, issuing a recall of all state-supplied condoms and impounding boxes of condoms imported from other countries at the airport, claiming they need to be tested for quality control. As of this year, a top health official announced, the government will "be less involved in condom importation but more involved in awareness campaigns: abstinence and behavior change."

The Bush administration is supporting the shift by pumping $10 million into abstinence-only programs in Uganda. "One can put a dollar figure on the political pressure," says Cohen, who has closely studied the initiatives in Uganda. "Groups know the more they talk about abstinence, the more they'll get U.S. funding. And they fear that if they talk about condoms they'll lose funding -- or, worse, get kicked out of the country."

Ambassador Randall Tobias, who serves as Bush's global AIDS czar, issued written guidelines in January that spell out the administration's agenda. Groups that receive U.S. funding, Tobias warned, should not target youth with messages that present abstinence and condoms as "equally viable, alternative choices." Zeitz of Global AIDS Alliance has dubbed the document "Vomitus Maximus." He says, "I get physically ill when I read it. It has the biggest influence over how people are acting in the field." And under a proposal being pushed by Republicans on Capitol Hill, Tobias would be given the power to divert even more money toward promoting abstinence. "All Republicans can think about is making Africans abstinent and monogamous," says a Democratic staffer involved in the negotiations. "It's the crassest form of international social engineering you could imagine."

The anti-condom order issued by Tobias is already having a chilling effect among the groups most effective at combating AIDS. Population Services International, a major U.S. contractor with years of experience in HIV prevention, says it can no longer promote condoms to youth in Uganda, Zambia and Namibia because of PEPFAR rules. "That's worrisome," says PSI spokesman David Olson. "The evidence shows they're having sex. You can disapprove of that, but you can't deny it's happening."

What's more, conservatives are attacking PSI for promoting condoms -- a campaign that prevented an estimated 800,000 cases of HIV last year. Focus on the Family recently denounced PSI as a "shady" and "sordid" organization that is leading Africans into immorality by promoting condoms. And in April, conservative Republicans in the House invited Martin Ssempa, a Ugandan minister, to Capitol Hill, to berate PSI and other public-health groups for "promoting promiscuity and condoms" in his country. This year, for the first time, U.S. funding for PSI has been reduced.

Groups that support the president's religious agenda, meanwhile, are beginning to receive money that has traditionally been devoted to more experienced organizations. The Children's AIDS Fund, a well-connected conservative organization, received roughly $10 million last fall to promote abstinence-only programs overseas -- even though the group was deemed "not suitable for funding" by an expert review panel. FreshMinistries, a Florida organization with little experience in tackling AIDS, also received $10 million. "Bush has enacted policies that will redirect millions of dollars away from groups that have experience fighting HIV and AIDS and toward groups that don't but are members of his religious constituency," says Cohen.

In the end, say public-health experts, the administration's diversion of funds away from tried-and-true HIV prevention methods is more than a misguided experiment -- it's a deadly game of Russian roulette that could mark a calamitous turn in Africa's attempts to get a handle on the AIDS epidemic. As Bush fails to make good on his promises, Africans continue to contract HIV and die from AIDS in the same numbers as they did during the worst phases of the epidemic.

"People will look back and say, 'Why didn't they stop the dying?' " says Zeitz. "Why don't we show our compassionate selves? What kind of country are we?"

Promoting Democracy Or Fueling Repression?
At a Rose Garden press conference earlier this week, President Bush struck one of his favorite themes, asserting that "the U.S. is a country that promotes freedom around the world." But the reality of U.S. arms sales policy contradicts Bush's rhetoric. The United States' longstanding policy of arming, training and aiding some of the world's most repressive regimes has accelerated during the Bush years. Increased weapons shipments have gone to allies like the authoritarian Uzbekistan and the thinly veiled military dictatorship in Pakistan; and to the Philippines and Colombia, where U.S. weapons and training have been turned against civilians.

Bases, Bases Everywhere
Department planning in Iraq, 2003-2005: It's a Pentagon world, and welcome to it!

Explosions, Shootings Kill 36 in Iraq
KIRKUK, June 2 -- The daily wave of killings in Iraq that has claimed more than 800 lives in six weeks took at least 36 more Thursday with explosions and shootings in four different cities.

Wounded Iraqis Left Broken and Burdened
Attempts to quantify civilian casualties here have largely focused on the number of dead, not the wounded. A widely criticized study by an international group of university professors released in October estimated that the invasion had caused 100,000 civilian deaths. At least 21,940 civilians have been reported killed in news stories, according to a database compiled by the group Iraq Body Count, which does not track the number of wounded.

Dirty Money
As coal plants win the right to burn dirtier and dirtier, the administration is subsidizing coal as the "clean fuel" of the future.

news

2005-06-01T20:15:39Z

Vietnam Vets Protest Against Iraq War
Vet: 'The Only Time They Care About Us Is On Memorial Day'

CHICAGO -- While many honored veterans of past wars on Memorial Day, some remembered those who have died in the war and occupation in Iraq. Monday morning, Vietnam veterans gathered downtown to protest the war in Iraq. They also spoke out against the government for spending too little on medical care for injured troops.

"The only time they care about us is on Memorial Day, when they're putting wreaths on our graves," one veteran said to the crowd. "But if they have to spend a dime to keep us alive or to keep us sane, they don't want it on TV."

Two veterans groups said many wounded soldiers go untreated because the system is underfunded and understaffed.

Since the beginning of the Iraq War in 2003, more than 1,600 U.S. soldiers have been killed.

Minneapolis Star Tribune obliterates Bush on Memorial Day
As this bloody month of car bombs and American deaths -- the most since January -- comes to a close, as we gather in groups small and large to honor our war dead, let us all sing of their bravery and sacrifice. But let us also ask their forgiveness for sending them to a war that should never have happened. In the 1960s it was Vietnam. Today it is Iraq. Let us resolve to never, ever make this mistake again. Our young people are simply too precious.

More than 59,000 view Conyers' letter on Downing Street memo over weekend
Congressman John Conyers' (D-MI) letter questioning President Bush about secret Iraq war plans based on minutes of a high-level British meeting held in 2002 saw heavy traffic over the holiday weekend since its announcement Friday afternoon, RAW STORY has learned.

RAF bombing raids tried to goad Saddam into war
THE RAF and US aircraft doubled the rate at which they were dropping bombs on Iraq in 2002 in an attempt to provoke Saddam Hussein into giving the allies an excuse for war, new evidence has shown.

Revealed: US dirty tricks to win vote on Iraq war
The memo describes orders to staff at the agency, whose work is clouded in secrecy, to step up its surveillance operations 'particularly directed at... UN Security Council Members (minus US and GBR, of course)' to provide up-to-the-minute intelligence for Bush officials on the voting intentions of UN members regarding the issue of Iraq. The leaked memorandum makes clear that the target of the heightened surveillance efforts are the delegations from Angola, Cameroon, Chile, Mexico, Guinea and Pakistan at the UN headquarters in New York - the so-called 'Middle Six' delegations whose votes are being fought over by the pro-war party, led by the US and Britain, and the party arguing for more time for UN inspections, led by France, China and Russia.

Hannity, Morris, Scarborough, Matthews hyped indictment of Clinton fund-raiser Rosen, then ignored his acquittal
Though prosecutors stated that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton had not been aware of the alleged campaign finance violations that led to the indictment of her 2000 Senate campaign finance director, conservative pundits aggressively hyped the indictment as a potential scandal that could threaten Clinton's political career. But many of these same pundits have yet to report that a jury cleared David Rosen of all charges on May 27.

Major newspapers largely ignored White House rejection of senators' call for consultation on judicial nominees
A Media Matters for America review of major newspaper coverage of the past two days has found that, with the exception of The New York Times, the Los Angeles Times, Reuters news service and the San Francisco Chronicle, the print media have largely ignored the White House's rejection of a bipartisan call for greater consultation on federal judicial nominees.

Bush Calls Criticism of Guantanamo Detainee Treatment Absurd
Speaking at a news conference in the Rose Garden, the president used the word "absurd" four times in the course of a 10-sentence response when asked his reaction to a highly critical report by Amnesty International that challenged the administration's respect for the human rights of detainees in the campaign against terrorism.

CIA Secretly Restores Ties to Sudan Despite Ongoing Human Rights Abuses in Darfur
The Los Angeles Times recently revealed that the U.S. has quietly forged a close intelligence partnership with Sudan despite the government's role in the mass killings in Darfur. Charles Snyder, the U.S. State Department Senior Representative on Sudan, defends the Bush administration's policy on Sudan.

news-RS

2005-06-01T20:06:56Z

The Smoking Gun?
SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL ? U.K. EYES ONLY

... Military action was now seen as inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy... There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action.

... It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided. But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbours, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran.

The Defence Secretary said that the US had already begun "spikes of activity" to put pressure on the regime. No decisions had been taken, but he thought the most likely timing in US minds for military action to begin was January, with the timeline beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections.

These notes, taken for Prime Minister Tony Blair in July 2002, seven months before the launch of the Iraq war, and confirmed by a former Bush official as an "absolutely accurate description of what transpired" are about as close as you can get to a smoking gun on Iraq.

To review: Bush was pre-determined to go to war. The case that Saddam posed any danger was "thin." The administration had taken it upon itself to "fix" the intelligence to justify an invasion. The lack of post-war planning had already begun.

We also see in this memo that the administration had originally intended to use the war for the political benefit of the Republican Party, hoping to topple Saddam at the same time the GOP toppled Democrats in the 2002 midterm elections. The Rove-ian logic couldn't be more revolting: choosing the timing of war based on political, rather than military, calculations.

I haven't blogged on this outrage for two weeks, assuming naively that this would become front-page, CNN Headline news any day now. You would think, after all, that 90 Congressional Democrats signing a letter to the President demanding that he explain how he could have "secretly agreed to attack Iraq in the summer of 2002, well before the invasion and before you even sought Congressional authority" would make a few waves.

But the U.S. media world has just so far simply shrugged. Where did the major dailies play the story? Washington Post: A-18. New York Times: A-9 (buried in a political analysis handicapping of Blair's electoral chances.) The LA Times: A-3.

Indeed, search on GoogleNews for mention of the Democrat's letter and you'll get two hits: The Washington Post's ombudsman -- taking his paper to task for not covering it -- and Aljazeera.com.

You know you're in trouble when the American newspaper taking charge on this story is the The New York Review of Books.

Revisiting Slam Dunk
This memo, with its explosive, if un-detailed assertions -- what exactly does it mean to "fix" intelligence and facts, for example? -- is enough to set conspiracy theorists running wild. But without going off the deep end, let me pose an open question: Is it possible that George Tenet's characterization of the WMD intelligence as a "slam dunk" was staged for Bob Woodward's benefit?

Was Tenet set up early to take the fall for manipulating intelligence around a "thin" case? The "slam dunk" anecdote provides the perfect shield for the president, doesn't it? If your chief of intelligence tells you that, you're moving forward. End of story. To do otherwise would be irresponsible. If there's any blame here, it's on George Tenet's head, not George Bush's.

But doesn't it seem plausible -- hell, likely-- that this was just another moment of stagecraft in the song-and-dance routine that was the march to war, leading right up the President's "Mission Accomplished" touchdown on that aircraft carrier? Having choreographed the CIA director's tumble from grace in advance would explain why the fall guy was given a parachute and allowed to bow out early, gracefully -- for his family -- before any of the intel shit inevitably hit the fan.

And it certainly helps explain why Mr. Slam Dunk would receive a presidential medal of freedom. (You can almost hear the conversation, can't you?: "Somebody's got to take the fall for this Georgie, but history will remember you as a hero.") A "pivotal role in great events" indeed.

Storm Troopers Stomp Freedom's March
The great wave of Democracy came to Uzbekistan this week. As President Bush predicted in Tblisi Georgia just days ago: "In Central Asia and in the broader Middle East, we see the same desire for liberty burning in the hearts of young people. They are demanding their freedom -- and they will have it."

But when Uzbeks demanded freedom, Bush suddenly forgot his second inaugural pledge: "All who live in tyranny and hopelessness can know: the United States will not ignore your oppression, or excuse your oppressors. When you stand for your liberty, we will stand with you."

Far from standing with the Uzbek people, the Bush administration stood by as the Iron Fist of Central Asia, Islam Karimov, sent in storm troopers who machine gunned protestors and bystanders in what is perhaps the bloodiest suppression of a pro-democracy movement since Tiananmen square.

As many as 745 dead. Mass graves being dug.

Of course, there's no free press in Uzbekistan, so reliable accounts are hard to come by. But one survivor said: "They shot at us like rabbits." A local human rights organizer told the Scottsman, "It is sheer genocide against the people. The people now are more afraid of government troops than of any so-called militants."

What is the administration's response to this murder spree by Karimov?

MR. McCLELLAN: We have had concerns about human rights in Uzbekistan, but we are concerned about the outbreak of violence, particularly by some members of a terrorist organization that were freed from prison. And we urge both the government and the demonstrators to exercise restraint at this time. The people of Uzbekistan want to see a more representative and democratic government, but that should come through peaceful means, not through violence. And that's what our message is.

I believe that's called "wanting to have your dictator and democracy too."

This incident is especially upsetting given that the president has openly praised another revolution that started in the same Ferghana Valley -- the one that toppled the government in neighboring Kyrgyzstan. "Sometimes, when people see the example of courage," Bush said lumping that Central Asian republic's revolution in with that of the Ukraine and Georgia, "freedom moves like a wildfire."

Hard to exercise restraint in a wildfire, don't you think? Predictably, Karimov didn't, sending in his firing squad to put out the flames.

As for the presence of terrorists alleged by Karimov and McClellan (and Condi Rice), consider this essay from the San Jose Mercury News:

"The nature of Karimov's rule is no secret. As a reporter covering the Soviet Union, I visited Uzbekistan in the early 1990s when Karimov was the Communist Party chief... When independence from Soviet rule came, the communist state, including its secret police, simply draped itself in Uzbek colors. After 15 years, the state-run economy is firmly intact. Corruption is widespread and the 26 million Uzbeks sink deeper and deeper into poverty. Pro-democracy activists have all been jailed or forced into exile and Western organizations barred. Radical Islamists are the only vibrant opposition remaining. Some engage in violence, but most advocate peaceful revolution."

If you don't want to take their word for it, consider the statement of the former UK ambassador to Uzbekistan: "I traveled to Andijan a year ago to meet the opposition leaders, and kept in touch. I can give you a direct assurance that they are - or in many cases were -- in no sense Islamist militants. They died an unwanted embarrassment to US foreign policy....

Hell, even the Moonies agree. From the Washington Times: "U.S. lawyers and others familiar with political conditions in Uzbekistan say riots last week that left several hundred dead were the result of a drive for greater free enterprise, not terrorism -- as the government says."

The moral clarity of this situation couldn't be clearer. But where are the Democrats?

Bizarro Bush?
Staring down sinking poll numbers (43 percent approval) and record-high gas prices the president this week started talking the talk on energy conservation and renewable fuels like he was Al Gore or something. Consider his praise of that renowned hippie fuel made from vegetable oil:

"Biodiesel is one of our nation's most promising alternative fuel sources," the president said this week. "And by developing biodiesel, you're making this country less dependent on foreign sources of oil."

Or Bush's promise to subsidize the dream cars of Blue America:

"To help more consumers conserve gas and protect the environment, my budget next year proposes that every American who purchases a hybrid vehicle receive a tax credit of up to $4,000."

Is Bush off his meds? Don't worry, old George hasn't forgotten his old talking points:

"As a matter of fact, developing this tiny area could yield up to about a million barrels of oil a day. And thanks to technology, we can reach that oil with almost no impact on land or wildlife. To make this country less dependent on foreign -- foreign oil, Congress needs to authorize pro-growth, pro-job, pro-environment exploration of ANWR."

Or the energy he just can't pronounce:

"It is time for us to start building some nuclear power plants in America."

The Iraq Premium
How much is the war costing American consumers? Try seventy-five cents a gallon. According to energy analysts, soaring prices at the pump have more to do with Bush's attack on Baghdad than with the laws of supply and demand. "Instability in Iraq adds a 'risk premium' that increases oil prices by fifteen dollars a barrel," says Rachel Bronson, director of Gulf Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations. With crude at an all-time high, the oil companies are cashing in: ExxonMobil's first-quarter profits surged forty-four percent. And Bush wants to further boost the industry's bottom line: His energy bill, which he is promoting as a way to bring down oil prices, would give oil and gas companies tax breaks worth $3.3 billion.

No Tree Left Behind
On Earth Day, the president boasted that his Healthy Forest Restoration Act has saved 10 million acres from wildfires. But two weeks later, Bush gutted a federal rule that protected 58.5 million acres of wilderness from logging and drilling. Governors who want to stop special interests from destroying forests will now have to petition the White House -- but few expect their concerns to be heeded. "It's going to start a war in the West," says Gov. Bill Richardson of New Mexico, who has already lost repeated battles with Bush over drilling rights.

THE QUAGMIRE

By ROBERT DREYFUSS

The news from Iraq is bad and getting worse with each passing day. Iraqi insurgents are stepping up the pace of their attacks, unleashing eleven deadly bombings on April 29th alone. Many of the 150,000 Iraqi police and soldiers hastily trained by U.S. troops have deserted or joined the insurgents. The cost of the war now tops $192 billion, rising by $1 billion a week, and the corpses are piling up: Nearly 1,600 American soldiers and up to 100,000 Iraqi civilians are dead, as well as 177 allied troops and 229 private contractors. Other nations are abandoning the international coalition assembled to support the U.S., and the new Iraqi government, which announced its new cabinet to great fanfare on April 27th, remains sharply split along ethnic and religious lines.
But to hear President Bush tell it, the war in Iraq is going very, very well. In mid-April, appearing before 25,000 U.S. soldiers at sun-drenched Fort Hood, in Texas, Bush declared that America has succeeded in planting democracy in Iraq, creating a model that will soon spread throughout the Middle East. "That success is sending a message from Beirut to Tehran," the president boasted to chants of "U.S.A.! U.S.A.!" from the troops. "The establishment of a free Iraq is a watershed event in the global democratic revolution." Staying on message, aides to Gen. George Casey, the top U.S. commander in Iraq, later suggested that U.S. forces could be reduced from 142,000 to 105,000 within a year.

In private, however, senior military advisers and intelligence specialists on Iraq offer a starkly different picture. Two years after the U.S. invasion, Iraq is perched on the brink of civil war. Months after the election, the new Iraqi government remains hunkered down inside the fortified Green Zone in Baghdad, surviving only because it is defended by thousands of U.S. troops. Iraqi officials hold meetings and press conferences in Alamo-like settings, often punctuated by the sounds of nearby explosions. Outside the Green Zone, party offices and government buildings are surrounded by tank traps, blast walls made from concrete slabs eighteen feet high, and private militias wielding machine guns and AK-47s. Even minor government officials travel from fort to fort in heavily armed convoys of Humvees.

"I talk to senior military people and combat commanders who tell me that the situation is much more precarious than admitted," says Col. Patrick Lang, former Middle East chief for the Defense Intelligence Agency. "Even inside the Green Zone you are not safe, because of indirect fire. And if you were to venture outside at night, they'd probably find your headless body the next morning."

Car bombs rock Baghdad and other cities virtually every day, and insurgents conduct hundreds of attacks each week on U.S. troops, Iraqi recruits and civilian police. Thousands of Iraqi police and soldiers have scattered or disappeared, and countless others either do no fighting or covertly support the insurgency. The out-of-control security situation means that few reconstruction projects can get off the ground. Transport is crippled, and Iraq's core infrastructure -- its roads and bridges, its power plants, its water-treatment facilities, and its all-important oil fields, pipelines and oil terminals -- remains heavily damaged from the war.

According to U.S. officials, the resistance attacks are being aided by an extensive network of informers. Insurgents, apparently making use of engineers and former insiders, have been able to hit oil installations and power plants expertly, foiling U.S. efforts to sustain Iraqi oil exports and to provide electricity and water to Iraqi cities. "They have tentacles that reach all through the new government and the new military," Lt. Gen. Walter Buchanan, who commands U.S. air forces in the Persian Gulf, admitted recently.

The new government is not only powerless to stop the attacks by insurgents, it is dominated by the same clique of warlords and exiles who lobbied the Pentagon to go to war in the first place, many of whom have close ties to the warring camps that control vast parts of the country. "In the Arab world, Iraq is seen as a zone of chaos in a pre-civil-war situation, held together only by the U.S. occupation," says Chas Freeman, who served as U.S. ambassador to Saudi Arabia under Bush's father. A brief survey of the three major forces in Iraq -- Shiites in the south, Sunnis in the center and Kurds in the north -- makes clear the sharp divisions that threaten to blow the country apart:

The Shiites: The Bush administration's plan for reconstruction envisioned the Shiites -- the majority population long oppressed by Saddam Hussein -- as the chief power in a democratic Iraq. The United Iraqi Alliance, a Shiite party backed by Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani, won a majority in the new national assembly. But a militant bloc of fundamentalist Shiites has been using its newfound strength -- and its street thugs -- to forcibly impose Islamic law throughout the southern half of Iraq. Militias loyal to rival Shiite factions are blowing up liquor stores and movie theaters, forcing women to wear ultraconservative Islamic dress and assassinating secular officials and other opponents.

One militant force, the Mahdi Army, recently stormed a peaceful picnic in Basra, where they ripped the blouse of a woman wearing Western garb. "We will send a picture to your parents," a gunman told her, "so they can see how you were dancing naked with men." The Mahdi, which battled U.S. forces during two major uprisings last year, is fiercely loyal to the charismatic and fanatical cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, the scion of a leading fundamentalist Shiite family. Al-Sadr's militia, hammered in last year's clashes, is quickly rebuilding with new recruits armed with machine guns, rocket launchers and rocket-propelled grenades. It now controls a big chunk of Basra, Iraq's only port and second-largest city, along with Kut, Amarah, Nasariyah and the huge eastern district of Baghdad known as Sadr City. In April, al-Sadr organized a rally of 300,000 people to demand that U.S. troops leave Iraq.

The Mahdi Army's main rival for power among the Shiites is the Badr Brigade, which has an estimated 20,000 men under arms. Badr is run by the Supreme Council for the Islamic Revolution in Iraq, which was founded by Ayatollah Khomeini in Iran and trained by his Revolutionary Guards. SCIRI's leaders still have close ties to Iran, even though many of its officials have been elected to the new Iraqi parliament. The hard-line group is powerful in Iraq's two holy cities, Najaf and Karbala, and controls another chunk of Basra.

Other Shiite forces include the Dawa Islamic Party, whose chieftain, Ibrahim al-Jaafari, is Iraq's new prime minister. Dawa was an underground terrorist organization in Iraq from the 1960s through the 1980s, and militants linked to the group attacked the U.S. and French embassies in Kuwait in 1983. While the State Department says it has no evidence to connect al-Jaafari himself to any terrorist acts, those who study the group suspect that Dawa also gets support from Iran. "They've been spreading money to everyone," says Juan Cole, an expert on Shiism at the University of Michigan.

The Sunnis: In central Iraq, millions of formerly dominant Sunnis opted out of the elections for the new government, which they see as being almost entirely in the hands of southern Shiites and northern Kurds. There are now several dozen Sunni organizations fighting the U.S. occupation, broadly divided into two camps: mainstream, secular Arab nationalists who served as military officers and Baath Party leaders under Saddam, and Islamist fundamentalists, including extremists associated with Abu Musab Zarqawi.

Most of the attacks on American forces -- the roadside IEDs, mortar strikes and full-scale assaults -- have been conducted by the mainstream resistance, who are intent on driving out the U.S. They have brought down helicopters, destroyed at least eighty of the Abrams tanks that are the mainstay of the U.S. occupation, and mounted large-scale actions involving scores of fighters, such as the April attacks on the Abu Ghraib prison and at Al Qaim near the Syrian border. In one recent incident, car bombs exploded simultaneously in front of and behind a U.S. convoy, which then came under intense fire from automatic weapons wielded by snipers inside abandoned buildings along the route.

The Islamist extremists, including partisans tied to Al Qaeda, mix attacks on U.S. and Iraqi troops with bloody suicide bombings against Shiites and other Iraqi civilians on pilgrimages and in mosques. According to intelligence sources, including U.S. military officers who travel frequently to Iraq, such attacks on civilians have fueled a split between the two camps. "There is a big gap between the mainstream resistance and the extremists," says a U.S. military officer, who added that the nationalists are debating how to create a political force to represent them, much as the Irish Republican Army had both military and political wings.

The Sunni insurgency is larger and more homegrown than the Bush administration acknowledges. American forces, after first insisting that the resistance was composed of no more than 5,000 foreign fighters with ties to Al Qaeda, now hold more than twice that many prisoners at Abu Ghraib, Camp Bucca and Camp Cropper -- and admit that as many as 20,000 well-funded fighters remain at large. "We're facing a well-developed, mature insurgency with the support of the local population," Maj. John Reed, stationed outside the city of Husaybah, said recently.

Even Fallujah, a city of 300,000 that was virtually obliterated in a U.S. blitz last fall, is quietly re-emerging as a center of resistance. Fallujah's mayor, in the circumspect language of one U.S. official, is "doing some things not positive in nature." Meanwhile, the city of Mosul has become the newest hotbed of the insurgency. Last fall, during an attack by insurgents there, thousands of Iraqi police melted away at the first sign of violence. "I went from 2,000 police to 50," a U.S. commander on the scene told reporters.

According to Wayne White, who served until March as director of the State Department's Iraq intelligence team, Iraq cannot hold together unless a substantial bloc of Sunnis is brought into the government. But in Baghdad, the newly ascendant Shiite political parties plan to purge Iraq's security forces and fledgling intelligence service of their few remaining Sunnis. Such a move would gut the only forces in Iraq that are actually taking on the insurgency, and would alienate the remaining Sunni moderates, pushing them over into the resistance. Leading the purge, sources say, will be none other than Ahmed Chalabi, the darling of U.S. neoconservatives and Pentagon officials who helped engineer the American invasion.

The Kurds: A non-Arab population that inhabits the three northern provinces, the Kurds have long been America's closest friends in Iraq. But if the country descends into civil war, it will likely be because of the Kurds, whose territory is even further beyond the control of the Green Zone-based government than the Shiite south. Since the U.S. invasion, the Kurds have run a de facto state of their own, controlled by their militia under the command of two warlords, Jalal Talabani of the Patriotic Union of Kurdistan and Massoud Barzani of the Kurdistan Democratic Party. Talabani, who was named president of Iraq in April, makes no bones about his beliefs. "Historically and demographically speaking, Kurdistan was never part of Iraq," he says. In January, about ninety-seven percent of Kurds voted in favor of an independent Kurdistan.

"The central government has no authority whatsoever in Kurdistan," says Peter Galbraith, a former State Department official who is a longtime Kurdish sympathizer. "The government doesn't even have an office there. No Iraqi flag flies there. Signs say, WELCOME TO KURDISTAN OF IRAQ."

To make matters worse, the Kurds have set their sights on Kirkuk, a multiethnic city that sits atop Iraq's vast northern oil fields. Even though the city lies outside of Kurdistan, Talabani calls it "the Jerusalem of Kurdistan," and Barzani says, "We are ready to fight and to sacrifice our souls to preserve its identity." The Kurds are already engaging in some brutal expulsions of Arabs from the city. "They're doing their own ethnic cleansing, and it's dirty stuff," says Judith Yaphe, a former CIA analyst on Iraq. A full-scale Kurdish takeover, however, would be resisted by Arabs and Turks in Kirkuk, pushing Iraq even faster toward civil war. And the Kurds would roil Iraq's neighbors Turkey, Iran and Syria, which fear their own Kurdish minorities. Many experts predict Turkey would invade northern Iraq to prevent the Kurdish seizure of Kirkuk.

If it comes to civil war, the disintegration of Iraq will be extremely bloody. "The breakup of Iraq would be nearly as bad as the breakup of India in 1947," says David Mack, a former U.S. assistant secretary of state with wide experience in the Arab world. "The Kurds can't count on us to come in and save their bacon. Do they think we are going to mount an air bridge on their behalf?" Israel might support the Kurds, but Iran would intervene heavily in support of the Shiites with men, arms and money, while Arab countries would back their fellow Sunnis. "You'd see Jordan, Saudi Arabia, even Egypt intervening with everything they've got -- tanks, heavy weapons, lots of money, even troops," says White, the former State Department official.

"If they see the Sunnis getting beaten up by the Shiites, there will be extensive Arab support," agrees a U.S. Army officer. "There will be no holds barred."

In fact, it may already be too late to prevent Iraq from exploding. Iraq's new government is stuck in a fatal Catch-22: To have any credibility among Iraqis it must break with the U.S. and oppose the occupation, but it couldn't last a week without the protection of American troops. The Bush administration is also stuck. Its failure to stabilize Iraq, and the continuing casualties there, have led to a steady slide in the president's popularity: Polls show that a majority of Americans no longer think that the war in Iraq was worth fighting in the first place. Yet withdrawing from Iraq would only lead to more chaos, and the rest of the world has exhibited little interest in cleaning up America's mess. Of the two dozen or so countries that sent troops to Iraq, fewer and fewer remain: Spain, Portugal, Hungary and New Zealand have already quit, and the Netherlands, Bulgaria, Ukraine and Italy have announced they are getting out. Even if the United Nations agreed to step in, there is little or no chance that the administration will internationalize control over Iraq. In the face of a full-scale civil war in Iraq, says a source close to the U.S. military, Bush intends to go it alone.

"Our policy is to make Iraq a colony," he says. "We won't let go."