BLOODBATH LIST
Mon Nov 07 2005 11:02:35 ET
Average weekday circulation of America's 20 biggest newspapers for the six-month period ended Sept. 30, as reported Monday by the Audit Bureau of Circulations. [The percentage changes are from the comparable year-ago period.]
1. USA Today, 2,296,335, down 0.59 percent
2. The Wall Street Journal, 2,083,660, down 1.10 percent
3. The New York Times, 1,126,190, up 0.46 percent
4. Los Angeles Times, 843,432, down 3.79 percent
5. New York Daily News, 688,584, down 3.70 percent
6. The Washington Post, 678,779, down 4.09 percent
7. New York Post, 662,681, down 1.74 percent
8. Chicago Tribune, 586,122, down 2.47 percent
9. Houston Chronicle, 521,419, down 6.01 percent
10. The Boston Globe, 414,225, down 8.25 percent
11. The Arizona Republic, 411,043, down 0.54 percent
12. The Star-Ledger of Newark, N.J., 400,092, up 0.01 percent
13. San Francisco Chronicle, 391,681, down 16.4 percent
14. Star Tribune of Minneapolis-St. Paul, 374,528, down 0.26 percent
15. The Atlanta Journal-Constitution, 362,426, down 8.73 percent
16. The Philadelphia Inquirer, 357,679, down 3.16 percent
17. Detroit Free Press, 341,248, down 2.18 percent
18. The Plain Dealer, Cleveland, 339,055, down 4.46 percent
19. The Oregonian, Portland, 333,515, down 1.24 percent
20. The San Diego Union-Tribune, 314,279, down 6.24 percent.
Wrap...
Monday, November 07, 2005
Sunday, November 06, 2005
BushCo's dregs..with new ones coming..
Bush's Wall of Shame
By Tom Engelhardt
The motto of this administration might easily be: "failing upward." Of course, that's not hard when those leading the country into catastrophe are also making the appointments and bestowing the honors. Somewhere in this world of ours there should be at least one Wall of Shame (and perhaps an adjoining Wall of Cronyism) for an administration which has heaped favor, position, and honors on those who have blundered, lied, manipulated, and broken the law (not to say, cracked open the Constitution and the republic). Here is just a sampling of the band of culprits who might appear on such a wall and but a few of the things for which they might be held accountable:
Honored for Catastrophe
Former CIA Director George ("slam dunk") Tenet, who oversaw an "intelligence" program of lies, misinformation, abductions, torture, the disappearing of prisoners, and the setting up of a mini-gulag of private prisons from Thailand to Eastern Europe, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom as his tenure at the Agency ended.
Former Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul (I never saw an army I didn't want to disband) Bremer III, under whose leadership in Baghdad the American occupation mis- and displaced more money than is humanly imaginable, and under whose leadership Iraq descended into chaos, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard ("Guantanamo is a model facility") Myers, who oversaw the Iraq War and whose claim to fame may have been that he called Dan Rather of CBS to try to suppress the first "60 Minutes II" report on Abu Ghraib, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Centcom Commander Tommy ("we don't do body counts") Franks, who oversaw "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq in wars that have never ended, retired to great administration praise and became a "paid patriot," awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Promoted (or Retained) for Disaster
Defense Secretary Donald ("stuff happens") Rumsfeld, who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq so brilliantly and bragged that he could stand up longer than any Guantánamo detainee, kept on as Secretary of Defense in George Bush's second term.
Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul ("There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq") Wolfowitz, who spearheaded the administration's blind cakewalk into Iraq and declared himself "reasonably certain" that the Iraqi people "will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down," was made World Bank president and now prefers not to be "distracted" with ancient "history."
Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John ("I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote" and "there is no such thing as the United Nations") Bolton, who never saw a country he couldn't include in the Axis of Evil, a treaty he wasn't ready to shred, or negotiations he wasn't prepared to sabotage, was given a presidential recess appointment as UN Ambassador after his nomination was deep-sixed by Senate Democrats.
The Torture Brigade
Former White House Counsel Alberto (no rules apply) Gonzales, who helped marshal the administration's case for "relaxing" interrogation rules on prisoners, and the man to whom so many of those torture memos were sent, was made Attorney General.
Former General Counsel for the Pentagon William J. Haynes II, who appointed a working group to circumvent laws and treaties restricting the administration's urge to torture, developed administration policies to deny detainees at Guantánamo prisoner of war status; developed the Pentagon's military tribunal policy to try them; promoted the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the President without legal counsel or judicial review, and recommended (over the protests of military lawyers) many of the most abusive tactics used at Guantánamo, was nominated to a judgeship in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by George W. Bush on September 29, 2003. Only a Democratic filibuster in the Senate derailed the appointment.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice John ("must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.") Yoo, infamous for drafting the August 2002 "torture memo" to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and a supporter of unfettered presidential rule in matters of foreign policy, returned to his position as professor of law at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and wrote a book.
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay ("certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [a legal] proscription against torture") Bybee, who was the official author of the August 2002 torture memo , is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Former Legal Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions," "a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects and… a prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts," known for his "devotion to secrecy" and to an extreme version of unfettered presidential power (as well as a backer of the stalled Haynes judgeship), was promoted to Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff after I. Lewis Libby's resignation.
Former head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division Michael Chertoff, who advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002-03 on how far CIA interrogators could go in coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute, was appointed head of the Homeland Security Department where he oversaw FEMA's disastrous responses to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and where he remains today.
Former principal deputy assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs John Hannah, a conduit for Iraqi exile prewar mis- or disinformation on Saddam's WMD arsenal, involved in producing prewar administration claims linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and in the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson smear campaign, promoted to National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
"Demoted"
Former FEMA Director Michael ("I am a fashion god") Brown, who so spectacularly botched the agency's response to hurricane Katrina, is now on the federal payroll as a $148,000-a-year consultant to FEMA.
Former U.S. Military Commander in Iraq Lt. General Ricardo ("Arab fear of dogs") Sanchez, who personally signed off on the use of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, including the use of "working dogs," was to be made head of the U.S. Southern Command and nominated for his fourth star until Pentagon officials came to fear that his role overseeing the Abu Ghraib scandal would create opposition in the Senate and so he was given a major command in Europe.
Former Commander of Joint Task Force Guantánamo Maj. Gen. Geoffrey ("Gitmo-ize the confinement operation") Miller, who brought Guantánamo interrogation methods, including the use of dogs, to Iraq before the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal (reportedly claiming that Arab prisoners "are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe they're more than a dog, then you've lost control of them"), and for his efforts was then made senior commander in charge of detention operations in Iraq, instead of being cashiered in shame, is now assigned to an Army management position in the Washington, D.C area.
Sadly, while this gallery of rogues was being honored and/or promoted and/or protected, those who really should have received honors and medals were, by and large, overlooked or forgotten -- not just figures like ex-Marine and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who insisted before the war (to the sneers of American reporters) that Iraq was unlikely to possess even the shreds of its former WMD program, but all those millions who massed in the streets and insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be a path, paved by lies, that would lead only to madness. No "medals of freedom" for the likes of them.
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War. His novel, The Last Days of Publishing, has just come out in paperback.
Wrap...
By Tom Engelhardt
The motto of this administration might easily be: "failing upward." Of course, that's not hard when those leading the country into catastrophe are also making the appointments and bestowing the honors. Somewhere in this world of ours there should be at least one Wall of Shame (and perhaps an adjoining Wall of Cronyism) for an administration which has heaped favor, position, and honors on those who have blundered, lied, manipulated, and broken the law (not to say, cracked open the Constitution and the republic). Here is just a sampling of the band of culprits who might appear on such a wall and but a few of the things for which they might be held accountable:
Honored for Catastrophe
Former CIA Director George ("slam dunk") Tenet, who oversaw an "intelligence" program of lies, misinformation, abductions, torture, the disappearing of prisoners, and the setting up of a mini-gulag of private prisons from Thailand to Eastern Europe, awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom as his tenure at the Agency ended.
Former Coalition Provisional Authority head L. Paul (I never saw an army I didn't want to disband) Bremer III, under whose leadership in Baghdad the American occupation mis- and displaced more money than is humanly imaginable, and under whose leadership Iraq descended into chaos, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Richard ("Guantanamo is a model facility") Myers, who oversaw the Iraq War and whose claim to fame may have been that he called Dan Rather of CBS to try to suppress the first "60 Minutes II" report on Abu Ghraib, awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Former Centcom Commander Tommy ("we don't do body counts") Franks, who oversaw "victories" in Afghanistan and Iraq in wars that have never ended, retired to great administration praise and became a "paid patriot," awarded the Medal of Freedom.
Promoted (or Retained) for Disaster
Defense Secretary Donald ("stuff happens") Rumsfeld, who planned the invasion and occupation of Iraq so brilliantly and bragged that he could stand up longer than any Guantánamo detainee, kept on as Secretary of Defense in George Bush's second term.
Former Undersecretary of Defense Paul ("There is no history of ethnic strife in Iraq") Wolfowitz, who spearheaded the administration's blind cakewalk into Iraq and declared himself "reasonably certain" that the Iraqi people "will greet us as liberators, and that will help us to keep requirements down," was made World Bank president and now prefers not to be "distracted" with ancient "history."
Former Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and International Security John ("I'm with the Bush-Cheney team, and I'm here to stop the vote" and "there is no such thing as the United Nations") Bolton, who never saw a country he couldn't include in the Axis of Evil, a treaty he wasn't ready to shred, or negotiations he wasn't prepared to sabotage, was given a presidential recess appointment as UN Ambassador after his nomination was deep-sixed by Senate Democrats.
The Torture Brigade
Former White House Counsel Alberto (no rules apply) Gonzales, who helped marshal the administration's case for "relaxing" interrogation rules on prisoners, and the man to whom so many of those torture memos were sent, was made Attorney General.
Former General Counsel for the Pentagon William J. Haynes II, who appointed a working group to circumvent laws and treaties restricting the administration's urge to torture, developed administration policies to deny detainees at Guantánamo prisoner of war status; developed the Pentagon's military tribunal policy to try them; promoted the indefinite detention of U.S. citizens by the President without legal counsel or judicial review, and recommended (over the protests of military lawyers) many of the most abusive tactics used at Guantánamo, was nominated to a judgeship in the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals by George W. Bush on September 29, 2003. Only a Democratic filibuster in the Senate derailed the appointment.
Former Deputy Assistant Attorney General in the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice John ("must be equivalent in intensity to the pain accompanying serious physical injury, such as organ failure, impairment of bodily function, or even death.") Yoo, infamous for drafting the August 2002 "torture memo" to White House Counsel Alberto Gonzales and a supporter of unfettered presidential rule in matters of foreign policy, returned to his position as professor of law at Boalt Hall School of Law at the University of California, Berkeley, and wrote a book.
Former Assistant Attorney General for the Office of Legal Counsel Jay ("certain acts may be cruel, inhuman, or degrading, but still not produce pain and suffering of the requisite intensity to fall within [a legal] proscription against torture") Bybee, who was the official author of the August 2002 torture memo , is now a judge on the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Former Legal Counsel to the Vice President David Addington, "a staunch advocate of allowing the president in his capacity as commander in chief to deviate from the Geneva Conventions," "a principal author of the White House memo justifying torture of terrorism suspects and… a prime advocate of arguments supporting the holding of terrorism suspects without access to courts," known for his "devotion to secrecy" and to an extreme version of unfettered presidential power (as well as a backer of the stalled Haynes judgeship), was promoted to Vice-Presidential Chief of Staff after I. Lewis Libby's resignation.
Former head of the Justice Department's Criminal Division Michael Chertoff, who advised the Central Intelligence Agency in 2002-03 on how far CIA interrogators could go in coercive interrogation methods on terror suspects under the federal anti-torture statute, was appointed head of the Homeland Security Department where he oversaw FEMA's disastrous responses to Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Wilma, and where he remains today.
Former principal deputy assistant to the Vice President for National Security Affairs John Hannah, a conduit for Iraqi exile prewar mis- or disinformation on Saddam's WMD arsenal, involved in producing prewar administration claims linking Saddam Hussein to the 9/11 attacks and in the Valerie Plame/Joseph Wilson smear campaign, promoted to National Security Advisor to Vice President Cheney.
"Demoted"
Former FEMA Director Michael ("I am a fashion god") Brown, who so spectacularly botched the agency's response to hurricane Katrina, is now on the federal payroll as a $148,000-a-year consultant to FEMA.
Former U.S. Military Commander in Iraq Lt. General Ricardo ("Arab fear of dogs") Sanchez, who personally signed off on the use of coercive interrogation techniques outlawed by the Geneva Conventions, including the use of "working dogs," was to be made head of the U.S. Southern Command and nominated for his fourth star until Pentagon officials came to fear that his role overseeing the Abu Ghraib scandal would create opposition in the Senate and so he was given a major command in Europe.
Former Commander of Joint Task Force Guantánamo Maj. Gen. Geoffrey ("Gitmo-ize the confinement operation") Miller, who brought Guantánamo interrogation methods, including the use of dogs, to Iraq before the Abu Ghraib prisoner-abuse scandal (reportedly claiming that Arab prisoners "are like dogs, and if you allow them to believe they're more than a dog, then you've lost control of them"), and for his efforts was then made senior commander in charge of detention operations in Iraq, instead of being cashiered in shame, is now assigned to an Army management position in the Washington, D.C area.
Sadly, while this gallery of rogues was being honored and/or promoted and/or protected, those who really should have received honors and medals were, by and large, overlooked or forgotten -- not just figures like ex-Marine and former UN weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who insisted before the war (to the sneers of American reporters) that Iraq was unlikely to possess even the shreds of its former WMD program, but all those millions who massed in the streets and insisted that an invasion of Iraq would be a path, paved by lies, that would lead only to madness. No "medals of freedom" for the likes of them.
Tom Engelhardt, who runs the Nation Institute's Tomdispatch.com ("a regular antidote to the mainstream media"), is the co-founder of the American Empire Project and the author of The End of Victory Culture, a history of American triumphalism in the Cold War. His novel, The Last Days of Publishing, has just come out in paperback.
Wrap...
BushCo sleight of hand...Watch out!!!
Watch That Pea
By John M. Kelley
www.mytown.ca
Friday 04 November 2005
What the administration is doing while you're watching Scooter & Sammy.
It seems interesting to me that while all of the Democratic voices have gone gaga over the indictment of Scooter Libby and the nomination to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, the administration is continuing to tighten its control over the national economic/political process.
On the one hand you have Democrats swooning about how this is the beginning of the end for Bush and how the white knight Fitzgerald is going to slay the Neo-Con dragon. They are ecstatic that a majority of the country now sees the war in Iraq as a tragic mistake. They feel that high gas prices, stagflation and the national deficit are winning allies from independents and moderate Republican circles every day. I saw a political cartoon today that implied Rove, Cheney and Bush were all on the run and had fled the country.
On the other hand they are gearing up for a fight over Judge Alito, even before it is clear whether there should be one. The Neo-Cons are promising the nuclear option if Alito"s nomination is filibustered, while some Democrats are already promising to shut down the Senate if they can"t win. Recent polls have given them hope that they will gain public support for a filibuster if Alito can be portrayed as clearly against Roe vs Wade. The Democrats can almost smell a house majority in the 2006 elections.
Hokum, they aren"t watching the pea. First let"s talk about the things that are being ignored that are significant and then this roll the Democrats think they are on....
Note: read the rest here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605G.shtml
Wrap...
By John M. Kelley
www.mytown.ca
Friday 04 November 2005
What the administration is doing while you're watching Scooter & Sammy.
It seems interesting to me that while all of the Democratic voices have gone gaga over the indictment of Scooter Libby and the nomination to the Supreme Court of Samuel Alito, the administration is continuing to tighten its control over the national economic/political process.
On the one hand you have Democrats swooning about how this is the beginning of the end for Bush and how the white knight Fitzgerald is going to slay the Neo-Con dragon. They are ecstatic that a majority of the country now sees the war in Iraq as a tragic mistake. They feel that high gas prices, stagflation and the national deficit are winning allies from independents and moderate Republican circles every day. I saw a political cartoon today that implied Rove, Cheney and Bush were all on the run and had fled the country.
On the other hand they are gearing up for a fight over Judge Alito, even before it is clear whether there should be one. The Neo-Cons are promising the nuclear option if Alito"s nomination is filibustered, while some Democrats are already promising to shut down the Senate if they can"t win. Recent polls have given them hope that they will gain public support for a filibuster if Alito can be portrayed as clearly against Roe vs Wade. The Democrats can almost smell a house majority in the 2006 elections.
Hokum, they aren"t watching the pea. First let"s talk about the things that are being ignored that are significant and then this roll the Democrats think they are on....
Note: read the rest here:
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/110605G.shtml
Wrap...
Galloway & Rumsfeld..nose to nose...
Posted on Wed, Nov. 02, 2005
A battle joined with the Pentagon's upper echelon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - It was a slide down the toad hole that ended with a bump as I landed in Wonderland: The E Ring office of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld where the great man waited to do battle with me.
The occasion was an invitation to a private lunch with the secretary, and I knew I was not there to receive the Defense Distinguished Service Medal or a pat on the back. My recent columns on the state of the Army and the conduct of the war in Iraq have not been well received at the uppermost levels in the Pentagon.
The surprise was that four others were joining us: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace; the vice chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Richard Cody; the director of the Joint Staff, Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp; and acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita.
Good! Five to one. I had them surrounded.
Rumsfeld was working at his stand-up desk when I entered. He was cordial and smiling and remained so throughout. He did a fast count and informed me that I was outranked by a grand total of 11 stars on the three generals he had brought in.
Then the battle was joined: "I'm not hearing anything like the things you are writing about," Rumsfeld said. I responded that it had been my experience that information coming up the chain to someone with Rumsfeld's reputation was often not the whole truth. Him: "Oh, I know that but I talk to lots of soldiers all the time. Why, I have given over 600 Town Hall meetings and anyone can ask me anything." Uh-huh.
He suggested that perhaps my sources were all retired general officers who had been too long away from what was happening today. I told him that in fact about half my sources were active duty officers and NCOs. "How about 70-30 or maybe 80-20?" Rumsfeld countered. No, not really, I said. In fact many of them are not only active duty but also work in the Pentagon - perhaps some even on his staff.
The debate took us to questions of whether the Army was broken, or not. Rumsfeld said, in his opinion, the Army was "light years better than it was four years ago."
I asked whether our strategy and tactics in Iraq made any sense at all when we cannot figure out some better way of fighting than sending the finest troops in the world down the same roads to be blown up by ever improving terrorist bombs. That by so doing we were playing to the enemy's strong suit in this asymmetric war. Rumsfeld emphatically agreed, saying he had ordered the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, to begin shifting away from that focus on patrolling to a big push to stand up an effective Iraqi defense force last January, and this was now being done.
Rumsfeld said he had told Iraqi leaders that the American forces needed to begin stepping back because the growing casualties were having an impact on American public support for the war "and they understand that and agree with it." When I asked why would the Army send bill collectors out to pursue soldiers who lost limbs to a bomb or mine because they didn't check in their armor and the equipment on leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, or were dunned or their paychecks docked for overpayment of combat pay and benefits, Cody and Rumsfeld spoke of a Pentagon computer system that had been running on automatic.
They said weeks or even months passed before a wounded soldier shipped back to the U.S. for treatment was marked down as having left Iraq and thus was no longer eligible for combat pay and benefits. Then it automatically began billing that soldier or deducting money owed from his pay.
Now, Rumsfeld said, there is someone at the Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany and at Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital who checks every patient into the computer upon arrival so records are accurate.
Pace said he agreed totally with one recent column that decried the apparent return to the use of enemy body counts in Iraq. Rumsfeld said flatly: "We are NOT going to do body counts." Me: But you ARE doing body counts and releasing them; been doing it for a year and the frequency is growing. If you don't want to do body counts then stop doing them.
Throughout the discussion the defense secretary took notes when he thought he heard a valid point or criticism. Others at the table winced.
They had visions of a fresh shower of the secretary's famous "snowflakes," memos demanding answers or action or both.
An hour and a bit later as I headed for the door, Rumsfeld detoured me by a small room in his suite of offices. He wanted to show me a letter he found in his late father's belongings, now framed. It was written by Defense Secretary James Forrestal to the elder Rumsfeld, thanking him for his service in the Navy in the Pacific War.
Rumsfeld told me: "My dad was over-age but volunteered for the Navy. A year later he was the deck officer on an aircraft carrier fighting the war in the Pacific."
On the way out the defense secretary said, in parting: "I want you to know that I love soldiers and I care about soldiers. All of us here do."
I replied that concern for the troops and their welfare and safety were my only purpose "and I intend to keep kicking your butt regularly to make sure you stay focused on that goal."
He grinned and said: "That's all right. I can take it."
---
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at jgalloway@krwashington.com
Wrap...
A battle joined with the Pentagon's upper echelon
By JOSEPH L. GALLOWAY
Knight Ridder Newspapers
WASHINGTON - It was a slide down the toad hole that ended with a bump as I landed in Wonderland: The E Ring office of Secretary of Defense Donald H. Rumsfeld where the great man waited to do battle with me.
The occasion was an invitation to a private lunch with the secretary, and I knew I was not there to receive the Defense Distinguished Service Medal or a pat on the back. My recent columns on the state of the Army and the conduct of the war in Iraq have not been well received at the uppermost levels in the Pentagon.
The surprise was that four others were joining us: the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Marine Gen. Peter Pace; the vice chief of staff of the Army, Gen. Richard Cody; the director of the Joint Staff, Lt. Gen. Walter Sharp; and acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Public Affairs Larry DiRita.
Good! Five to one. I had them surrounded.
Rumsfeld was working at his stand-up desk when I entered. He was cordial and smiling and remained so throughout. He did a fast count and informed me that I was outranked by a grand total of 11 stars on the three generals he had brought in.
Then the battle was joined: "I'm not hearing anything like the things you are writing about," Rumsfeld said. I responded that it had been my experience that information coming up the chain to someone with Rumsfeld's reputation was often not the whole truth. Him: "Oh, I know that but I talk to lots of soldiers all the time. Why, I have given over 600 Town Hall meetings and anyone can ask me anything." Uh-huh.
He suggested that perhaps my sources were all retired general officers who had been too long away from what was happening today. I told him that in fact about half my sources were active duty officers and NCOs. "How about 70-30 or maybe 80-20?" Rumsfeld countered. No, not really, I said. In fact many of them are not only active duty but also work in the Pentagon - perhaps some even on his staff.
The debate took us to questions of whether the Army was broken, or not. Rumsfeld said, in his opinion, the Army was "light years better than it was four years ago."
I asked whether our strategy and tactics in Iraq made any sense at all when we cannot figure out some better way of fighting than sending the finest troops in the world down the same roads to be blown up by ever improving terrorist bombs. That by so doing we were playing to the enemy's strong suit in this asymmetric war. Rumsfeld emphatically agreed, saying he had ordered the U.S. commander in Iraq, Gen. George Casey, to begin shifting away from that focus on patrolling to a big push to stand up an effective Iraqi defense force last January, and this was now being done.
Rumsfeld said he had told Iraqi leaders that the American forces needed to begin stepping back because the growing casualties were having an impact on American public support for the war "and they understand that and agree with it." When I asked why would the Army send bill collectors out to pursue soldiers who lost limbs to a bomb or mine because they didn't check in their armor and the equipment on leaving Iraq or Afghanistan, or were dunned or their paychecks docked for overpayment of combat pay and benefits, Cody and Rumsfeld spoke of a Pentagon computer system that had been running on automatic.
They said weeks or even months passed before a wounded soldier shipped back to the U.S. for treatment was marked down as having left Iraq and thus was no longer eligible for combat pay and benefits. Then it automatically began billing that soldier or deducting money owed from his pay.
Now, Rumsfeld said, there is someone at the Landstuhl Medical Center in Germany and at Walter Reed Army Hospital and Bethesda Naval Hospital who checks every patient into the computer upon arrival so records are accurate.
Pace said he agreed totally with one recent column that decried the apparent return to the use of enemy body counts in Iraq. Rumsfeld said flatly: "We are NOT going to do body counts." Me: But you ARE doing body counts and releasing them; been doing it for a year and the frequency is growing. If you don't want to do body counts then stop doing them.
Throughout the discussion the defense secretary took notes when he thought he heard a valid point or criticism. Others at the table winced.
They had visions of a fresh shower of the secretary's famous "snowflakes," memos demanding answers or action or both.
An hour and a bit later as I headed for the door, Rumsfeld detoured me by a small room in his suite of offices. He wanted to show me a letter he found in his late father's belongings, now framed. It was written by Defense Secretary James Forrestal to the elder Rumsfeld, thanking him for his service in the Navy in the Pacific War.
Rumsfeld told me: "My dad was over-age but volunteered for the Navy. A year later he was the deck officer on an aircraft carrier fighting the war in the Pacific."
On the way out the defense secretary said, in parting: "I want you to know that I love soldiers and I care about soldiers. All of us here do."
I replied that concern for the troops and their welfare and safety were my only purpose "and I intend to keep kicking your butt regularly to make sure you stay focused on that goal."
He grinned and said: "That's all right. I can take it."
---
ABOUT THE WRITER
Joseph L. Galloway is the senior military correspondent for Knight Ridder Newspapers and co-author of the national best-seller "We Were Soldiers Once ... and Young." Readers may write to him at jgalloway@krwashington.com
Wrap...
Bush, Cheney beg for torture okay...
Via Information Clearing House:
The reality of Britain's reliance on torture
Torture means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle, and died after 10 days of agony
By Craig Murray
10/27/05
"The Independent" -- --
The Government has been arguing before the House of Lords for the right to act on intelligence obtained by torture abroad. It wants to be able to use such material to detain people without trial in the UK, and as evidence in the courts. Key to its case is a statement to the Law Lords by the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller. In effect she argues that torture works. It foiled the famous ricin plot. She omits to mention that no more ricin was found than is the naturally occurring base level in your house or mine - or indeed that no poison of any kind was found. But let us leave that for now.
She argues, in effect, that we need to get intelligence from foreign security services, to fight terrorism. And if they torture, so what? Her chief falsehood is our pretence that we don't know what happens in their dungeons. We do. And it is a dreadful story. Manningham-Buller is so fastidious she even avoids using the word "torture" in her evidence. Let alone the reality to which she turns such a carefully blind eye.Manningham Buller also fails to mention that a large number of people have been tortured abroad to provide us with intelligence - because we sent them there to be tortured.
The CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme has become notorious. Under it, detainees have been sent around the world to key torture destinations. There is evidence of British complicity - not only do these CIA flights regularly operate from UK airbases, but detainees have spoken of British intelligence personnel working with their tormentors.
So the UK receives this intelligence material not occasionally, not fortuitously, but in connection with a regular programme of torture with which we are intimately associated. Uzbekistan is one of those security services from whose "friendly liaison" services we obtained information.
And I will tell you what torture means.
It means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle in both vagina and anus, and who died after ten days of agony. It means the old man suspended by wrist shackles from the ceiling while his children were beaten to a pulp before his eyes. It means the man whose fingernails were pulled before his face was beaten and he was immersed to his armpits in boiling liquid.It means the 18-year-old whose knees and elbows were smashed, his hand immersed in boiling liquid until the skin came away and the flesh started to peel from the bone, before the back of his skull was stove in.
These are all real cases from the Uzbek security services which we viewed as friendly liaison, and from which we obtained regular intelligence, in the Uzbek case via the CIA.
A month ago, that liaison relationship was stopped - not by us, but by the Uzbeks. But as Manningham-Buller sets out, we continue to maintain our position as customer to torturers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and many other places. The key point is that none of the these Uzbek victims were terrorists at all.The great majority of those who suffer torture at the hands of these regimes are not terrorists, but political opponents.
And the scale of this torture is vast. In Uzbekistan alone thousands, not hundreds, of innocent men, women and children suffer torture every year.
Across Manningham-Buller's web of friendly intelligence agencies, the number may reach tens of thousands. Can our security really be based on such widespread inhumanity, or is that not part of the grievance that feeds terrorism?
These other governments know that our security services lap up information from their torture chambers. This practical condoning more than cancels out any weasel words on human rights which the Foreign Office may issue. In fact, the case for the efficacy of torture intelligence is not nearly as clear-cut as Manningham-Buller makes out. Much dross comes out of the torture chambers. History should tell us that under torture people would choke out an admission that they had joined their neighbours in flying on broomsticks with cats.
We do not receive torture intelligence from foreign liaison security services sometimes, or by chance. We receive it on a regular basis, through established channels. That plainly makes us complicit. It is worth considering, in this regard, Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which requires signatories to make complicity with torture a criminal offence.
When I protested about these practices within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I was told bluntly that Jack Straw and the head of MI6 had considered my objections, but had come to the conclusion that torture intelligence was important to the War on Terror, and the practice should continue. One day, the law must bring them to account.
A final thought. Manningham-Buller is arguing about the efficiency of torture in preventing a terrorist plot. If that argument is accepted, then in logic there is no reason to rely on foreign intermediaries. Why don't we do our own torturing at home? James VI and I abolished torture - New Labour is making the first attempt in English courts to justify government use of torture information. Why stop there? Why can't the agencies work over terrorist suspects?
The Security Services want us to be able to use information from torture. That should come as no surprise. From Sir Thomas Walsingham on, the profession attracts people not squeamish about the smell of seared flesh from the branding iron. That is why we have a judiciary to protect us. I pray the Law Lords do.
The writer was British ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-2004
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
Wrap...
The reality of Britain's reliance on torture
Torture means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle, and died after 10 days of agony
By Craig Murray
10/27/05
"The Independent" -- --
The Government has been arguing before the House of Lords for the right to act on intelligence obtained by torture abroad. It wants to be able to use such material to detain people without trial in the UK, and as evidence in the courts. Key to its case is a statement to the Law Lords by the head of MI5, Eliza Manningham-Buller. In effect she argues that torture works. It foiled the famous ricin plot. She omits to mention that no more ricin was found than is the naturally occurring base level in your house or mine - or indeed that no poison of any kind was found. But let us leave that for now.
She argues, in effect, that we need to get intelligence from foreign security services, to fight terrorism. And if they torture, so what? Her chief falsehood is our pretence that we don't know what happens in their dungeons. We do. And it is a dreadful story. Manningham-Buller is so fastidious she even avoids using the word "torture" in her evidence. Let alone the reality to which she turns such a carefully blind eye.Manningham Buller also fails to mention that a large number of people have been tortured abroad to provide us with intelligence - because we sent them there to be tortured.
The CIA's "extraordinary rendition" programme has become notorious. Under it, detainees have been sent around the world to key torture destinations. There is evidence of British complicity - not only do these CIA flights regularly operate from UK airbases, but detainees have spoken of British intelligence personnel working with their tormentors.
So the UK receives this intelligence material not occasionally, not fortuitously, but in connection with a regular programme of torture with which we are intimately associated. Uzbekistan is one of those security services from whose "friendly liaison" services we obtained information.
And I will tell you what torture means.
It means the woman who was raped with a broken bottle in both vagina and anus, and who died after ten days of agony. It means the old man suspended by wrist shackles from the ceiling while his children were beaten to a pulp before his eyes. It means the man whose fingernails were pulled before his face was beaten and he was immersed to his armpits in boiling liquid.It means the 18-year-old whose knees and elbows were smashed, his hand immersed in boiling liquid until the skin came away and the flesh started to peel from the bone, before the back of his skull was stove in.
These are all real cases from the Uzbek security services which we viewed as friendly liaison, and from which we obtained regular intelligence, in the Uzbek case via the CIA.
A month ago, that liaison relationship was stopped - not by us, but by the Uzbeks. But as Manningham-Buller sets out, we continue to maintain our position as customer to torturers in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Algeria, Jordan, Morocco and many other places. The key point is that none of the these Uzbek victims were terrorists at all.The great majority of those who suffer torture at the hands of these regimes are not terrorists, but political opponents.
And the scale of this torture is vast. In Uzbekistan alone thousands, not hundreds, of innocent men, women and children suffer torture every year.
Across Manningham-Buller's web of friendly intelligence agencies, the number may reach tens of thousands. Can our security really be based on such widespread inhumanity, or is that not part of the grievance that feeds terrorism?
These other governments know that our security services lap up information from their torture chambers. This practical condoning more than cancels out any weasel words on human rights which the Foreign Office may issue. In fact, the case for the efficacy of torture intelligence is not nearly as clear-cut as Manningham-Buller makes out. Much dross comes out of the torture chambers. History should tell us that under torture people would choke out an admission that they had joined their neighbours in flying on broomsticks with cats.
We do not receive torture intelligence from foreign liaison security services sometimes, or by chance. We receive it on a regular basis, through established channels. That plainly makes us complicit. It is worth considering, in this regard, Article 4 of the UN Convention Against Torture, which requires signatories to make complicity with torture a criminal offence.
When I protested about these practices within the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, I was told bluntly that Jack Straw and the head of MI6 had considered my objections, but had come to the conclusion that torture intelligence was important to the War on Terror, and the practice should continue. One day, the law must bring them to account.
A final thought. Manningham-Buller is arguing about the efficiency of torture in preventing a terrorist plot. If that argument is accepted, then in logic there is no reason to rely on foreign intermediaries. Why don't we do our own torturing at home? James VI and I abolished torture - New Labour is making the first attempt in English courts to justify government use of torture information. Why stop there? Why can't the agencies work over terrorist suspects?
The Security Services want us to be able to use information from torture. That should come as no surprise. From Sir Thomas Walsingham on, the profession attracts people not squeamish about the smell of seared flesh from the branding iron. That is why we have a judiciary to protect us. I pray the Law Lords do.
The writer was British ambassador to Uzbekistan 2002-2004
© 2005 Independent News & Media (UK) Ltd.
Wrap...
BushCo, know yourself. Read Cicero...
From Information Clearing House:
"A man who has in mind an apparent advantage and promptly proceeds to dissociate this from the question of what is right shows himself to be mistaken and immoral. Such a standpoint is the parent of assassinations, poisonings, forged wills, thefts, malversations of public money, and the ruinous exploitation of provincials and Roman citizens alike. Another result is passionate desire - desire for excessive wealth, for unendurable tyranny, and ultimately for the despotic seizure of free states. These desires are the most horrible and repulsive things imaginable. The perverted intelligences of men who are animated by such feelings are competent to understand the material rewards, but not the penalties. I do not mean penalties established by law, for these they often escape. I mean the most terrible of all punishments: their own degradation."Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Wrap...
"A man who has in mind an apparent advantage and promptly proceeds to dissociate this from the question of what is right shows himself to be mistaken and immoral. Such a standpoint is the parent of assassinations, poisonings, forged wills, thefts, malversations of public money, and the ruinous exploitation of provincials and Roman citizens alike. Another result is passionate desire - desire for excessive wealth, for unendurable tyranny, and ultimately for the despotic seizure of free states. These desires are the most horrible and repulsive things imaginable. The perverted intelligences of men who are animated by such feelings are competent to understand the material rewards, but not the penalties. I do not mean penalties established by law, for these they often escape. I mean the most terrible of all punishments: their own degradation."Marcus Tullius Cicero (106-43 B.C.)
Wrap...
Saturday, November 05, 2005
Gov Arnold disses Warren Beatty...
Note: And that was one cheap shot by San Diego's Rush-wanna-be and former Mayor who escaped jail by the skin of his teeth, talk show host, Roger Hedgecock:
Beatty Tries to Crash Schwarzenegger Rally
Beatty and Bening Blocked From Crashing Schwarzenegger Campaign Appearance in San Diego
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - Actors Warren Beatty and wife Annette Bening tried to crash a campaign appearance Saturday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor sought to drum up last-minute support for a group of statewide ballot measures.
The Hollywood couple strode side-by-side to the entrance of an airport hangar where several hundred of the governor's supporters had gathered.
A Schwarzenegger aide told the "Bulworth" star he was not on the guest list and did not have the appropriate wristband to get inside.
"You have to have a wristband to listen to the governor?" Bening asked. "He represents all of us, right?"
The couple's appearance caused momentary confusion. Just before the governor took the stage, the hangar door was closed literally in their faces. It was later reopened as Schwarzenegger spoke.
Inside, Schwarzenegger told cheering supporters that his slate of four ballot proposals on Tuesday's ballot would "reform the broken system."
Beatty planned to shadow Schwarzenegger throughout the day as the governor campaigned. He has been repeatedly mentioned as a possible challenger to Schwarzenegger, but he said Saturday that he would not be a candidate in next year's gubernatorial race.
In a later interview, the governor alluded to Beatty only indirectly.
"There's the main event, then there is the sideshow," Schwarzenegger said. "I don't care about the sideshow."
Earlier, Beatty boarded a bus draped with a banner reading "Truth Squad" and urged people to vote against the ballot measures supported by Schwarzenegger.
His appearance at the Schwarzenegger rally drew the ire of some of the governor's supporters who called Beatty a liberal and a has-been actor.
"I'm trying to be gentle about it, but it's clear that Warren is over the hill and desperately looking for something else to do," said former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock.
Beatty, a Democrat and longtime political activist, told reporters he had no plans to run for public office, but didn't rule it out entirely.
"I don't want to run for governor," he told reporters. "I want to say what I think."
Schwarzenegger, who later appeared with Arizona Sen. John McCain, is pushing several measures that would curb the power of the Democrat-controlled Legislature and the state's public employee unions. Another measure he backs would extend the trial period for teaches to get tenure.
Associated Press Writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Beatty Tries to Crash Schwarzenegger Rally
Beatty and Bening Blocked From Crashing Schwarzenegger Campaign Appearance in San Diego
By MICHAEL R. BLOOD Associated Press Writer
The Associated Press
SAN DIEGO - Actors Warren Beatty and wife Annette Bening tried to crash a campaign appearance Saturday by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as the governor sought to drum up last-minute support for a group of statewide ballot measures.
The Hollywood couple strode side-by-side to the entrance of an airport hangar where several hundred of the governor's supporters had gathered.
A Schwarzenegger aide told the "Bulworth" star he was not on the guest list and did not have the appropriate wristband to get inside.
"You have to have a wristband to listen to the governor?" Bening asked. "He represents all of us, right?"
The couple's appearance caused momentary confusion. Just before the governor took the stage, the hangar door was closed literally in their faces. It was later reopened as Schwarzenegger spoke.
Inside, Schwarzenegger told cheering supporters that his slate of four ballot proposals on Tuesday's ballot would "reform the broken system."
Beatty planned to shadow Schwarzenegger throughout the day as the governor campaigned. He has been repeatedly mentioned as a possible challenger to Schwarzenegger, but he said Saturday that he would not be a candidate in next year's gubernatorial race.
In a later interview, the governor alluded to Beatty only indirectly.
"There's the main event, then there is the sideshow," Schwarzenegger said. "I don't care about the sideshow."
Earlier, Beatty boarded a bus draped with a banner reading "Truth Squad" and urged people to vote against the ballot measures supported by Schwarzenegger.
His appearance at the Schwarzenegger rally drew the ire of some of the governor's supporters who called Beatty a liberal and a has-been actor.
"I'm trying to be gentle about it, but it's clear that Warren is over the hill and desperately looking for something else to do," said former San Diego Mayor Roger Hedgecock.
Beatty, a Democrat and longtime political activist, told reporters he had no plans to run for public office, but didn't rule it out entirely.
"I don't want to run for governor," he told reporters. "I want to say what I think."
Schwarzenegger, who later appeared with Arizona Sen. John McCain, is pushing several measures that would curb the power of the Democrat-controlled Legislature and the state's public employee unions. Another measure he backs would extend the trial period for teaches to get tenure.
Associated Press Writer Elliot Spagat contributed to this report.
Copyright 2005 The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Marriott Hotels are great places...
I've never met a Marriott Hotel that I haven't loved. And I'm so glad I live in San Diego where two of them are particular favorites: The Marriott Courtyard in Old Town and the Marriott Hotel & Marina next to the SD Convention Center in downtown. There's a third one I haven't visited yet...it's just been created: the Marriott Gaslamp in downtown's Gaslamp District.
Once upon a time the Marriott Gaslamp was the Clarion Hotel. When it was the Clarion, we'd run down to stay the weekend and step out on the balcony of the 19th floor and watch the Padre's ballpark being built. Now the ballpark is known as Petco Park. Naming rights purchased, you understand. No matter. Petco Park sounds okay.
The reason I like Marriott Hotels is three-fold: they have wonderful dining patios, great food, and marvelous staffs. All very important to me, since I eat breakfast out every single day, holidays and all, also enjoy going out to dinner or lunch, and I'm a smoker.
I took great offense when smokers were banned from every interior space in California, including bars. I've refused, on principle, to step foot inside a restaurant or bar ever since. The thing is, when the first anti-smoking law was proposed, lawmakers said restaurants could have smoking/non-smoking areas inside. I thought that was fair. Then they included bars and said the same. Then they said the smoking areas would still be allowed if they were in a separate area, walled off, and with air conditioning that met a standard. I thought that was fair. Then they refused to set the standard. Then they forbade smokers inside at all. And that pissed me off. I don't react well to force.
It's as my dad always said: "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".
It's not that I couldn't stand going inside, dining, and enjoying it. I could. I don't smoke when I go to movies, for instance, or other similar events.
But I don't have to go inside because I live in San Diego. And the Marriott Hotels make sure there are comfortable patios for dining...smoking allowed...outside. More, they don't do discriminatory things against smokers. The Marie Callendar's Restaurant I go to on weekends also has a patio...with a sign next to the entry saying "Smokers are welcome on our patio".
The IHOP just a couple blocks down the street has a wonderful big patio, but about three years ago, the manager there quit smoking, and within the month there was a no-smoking allowed sign on the patio. Haven't been back since, and that's where I used to breakfast every day of the week.
Downtown in the Gaslamp District, 5th Avenue is wall-to-wall restaurants...really good ones, most of them, and every restaurant has an outside sidewalk cafe...and they're always busy. A particular favorite is Trattoria Mare & Monte. Great Italian food! Mostly the Gaslamp restaurants open for lunch and dinner only. Pity. So many of the conventioneers ask the doorman at the Conv Ctr where they can go for breakfast. Not many choices, sadly enough.
The Marriott at the Marina, right next door, has breakfast inside only, since the Yacht Club there, which is outside and overlooks the Marina, doesn't open until lunch. Pity. So it's across Harbor Drive to the Hilton Hotel's New Leaf restaurant which does have a patio and is open for breakfast, or further up the street to Cafe 222, also with patio and open for breakfast.
The Hilton Hotel on Mission Bay, when IHOP closed its patio, was where I first went for breakfast. They had the most wonderful 2-sides and roof, enclosed terrace over-looking their swimming pool, just outside the coffee shop. Marvelous staff, great chef. Just loved that terrace. And then management decided to fully enclose the terrace, close the coffee shop, and turn the whole into a banquet room. Down to the Marriott Courtyard in Old Town I went, and never returned.
This all came to mind when, a few minutes ago, I Googled to see how many outside dining places San Diego has. Lots. :))
Wrap...
Once upon a time the Marriott Gaslamp was the Clarion Hotel. When it was the Clarion, we'd run down to stay the weekend and step out on the balcony of the 19th floor and watch the Padre's ballpark being built. Now the ballpark is known as Petco Park. Naming rights purchased, you understand. No matter. Petco Park sounds okay.
The reason I like Marriott Hotels is three-fold: they have wonderful dining patios, great food, and marvelous staffs. All very important to me, since I eat breakfast out every single day, holidays and all, also enjoy going out to dinner or lunch, and I'm a smoker.
I took great offense when smokers were banned from every interior space in California, including bars. I've refused, on principle, to step foot inside a restaurant or bar ever since. The thing is, when the first anti-smoking law was proposed, lawmakers said restaurants could have smoking/non-smoking areas inside. I thought that was fair. Then they included bars and said the same. Then they said the smoking areas would still be allowed if they were in a separate area, walled off, and with air conditioning that met a standard. I thought that was fair. Then they refused to set the standard. Then they forbade smokers inside at all. And that pissed me off. I don't react well to force.
It's as my dad always said: "Give 'em an inch and they'll take a mile".
It's not that I couldn't stand going inside, dining, and enjoying it. I could. I don't smoke when I go to movies, for instance, or other similar events.
But I don't have to go inside because I live in San Diego. And the Marriott Hotels make sure there are comfortable patios for dining...smoking allowed...outside. More, they don't do discriminatory things against smokers. The Marie Callendar's Restaurant I go to on weekends also has a patio...with a sign next to the entry saying "Smokers are welcome on our patio".
The IHOP just a couple blocks down the street has a wonderful big patio, but about three years ago, the manager there quit smoking, and within the month there was a no-smoking allowed sign on the patio. Haven't been back since, and that's where I used to breakfast every day of the week.
Downtown in the Gaslamp District, 5th Avenue is wall-to-wall restaurants...really good ones, most of them, and every restaurant has an outside sidewalk cafe...and they're always busy. A particular favorite is Trattoria Mare & Monte. Great Italian food! Mostly the Gaslamp restaurants open for lunch and dinner only. Pity. So many of the conventioneers ask the doorman at the Conv Ctr where they can go for breakfast. Not many choices, sadly enough.
The Marriott at the Marina, right next door, has breakfast inside only, since the Yacht Club there, which is outside and overlooks the Marina, doesn't open until lunch. Pity. So it's across Harbor Drive to the Hilton Hotel's New Leaf restaurant which does have a patio and is open for breakfast, or further up the street to Cafe 222, also with patio and open for breakfast.
The Hilton Hotel on Mission Bay, when IHOP closed its patio, was where I first went for breakfast. They had the most wonderful 2-sides and roof, enclosed terrace over-looking their swimming pool, just outside the coffee shop. Marvelous staff, great chef. Just loved that terrace. And then management decided to fully enclose the terrace, close the coffee shop, and turn the whole into a banquet room. Down to the Marriott Courtyard in Old Town I went, and never returned.
This all came to mind when, a few minutes ago, I Googled to see how many outside dining places San Diego has. Lots. :))
Wrap...
Then BushCo had better attend. Right?
It's all about image...but it ain't gonna work:
Bush Orders Ethics Course
Wrap...
Bush Orders Ethics Course
Wrap...
Bush's religious right voters like Prop 73. Vote NO!!!
Calif. GOP Seeks Religious Push
Sacramento, Calif., November 5, 2005
(AP) Republicans promoting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's four ballot initiatives on Tuesday's special election are hoping a push by religious conservatives to promote the abortion measure could translate into support for the governor's "year of reform" agenda.
With support from religious groups and churches, backers of Schwarzenegger's abortion initiative plan a substantial push this weekend to motivate millions of Christian voters to the polls, as recent surveys indicate a majority of California voters are unlikely to support the governor for re-election next year.
The abortion initiative, Proposition 73, is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require doctors to notify the parent or guardian of a minor seeking an abortion, although girls could seek a waiver from a judge. The measure provides an exception if delay would create a life-threatening risk.
"We've had tremendous encouragement in recent weeks. Thirty churches a day are signing up to have bulletin inserts to get out the vote and remind their congregations to vote," said Gary Marx, a consultant hired by the California Republican Party to help pass Proposition 73. "We're focusing our efforts on churches that can have the most impact, a lot of the megachurches," he said. Marx said his group's outreach is aimed at up to 5 million voters.
Some political experts aren't certain that a wave of abortion opponents at the polls will translate into support for Schwarzenegger. "Democrats can be against abortion just as much as Republicans," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State University. "They might turn out in large numbers in support of Prop. 73, but they might not support other propositions."
***The abortion has raised alarm among pro-choice groups, in part because it would define abortion as an act that causes "the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born." ***
The language raises suspicion that further restrictions would be sought.
Opponents of Proposition 73, including Planned Parenthood, point out that not all religious groups are supporting the measure. California Church Impact, which represents 1.5 million members of Protestant and Orthodox denominations, says teens might be forced into dangerous options if they are unable to broach the issue with their parents.
The California Church Impact also opposes the governor's entire ballot agenda, calling the special election an assault on the poor and middle class.
Whether members of congregations supporting the measure will also vote in favor of Schwarzenegger's agenda is an open question. The governor has placed three other measures on the special election ballot. He wants to revise teacher tenure laws, restrict the ability of public employee unions to raise money, implement a state spending cap and change the way legislative districts are drawn. Recent polls show none of the four initiatives has majority support, and two trail significantly.
© MMV The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Sacramento, Calif., November 5, 2005
(AP) Republicans promoting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's four ballot initiatives on Tuesday's special election are hoping a push by religious conservatives to promote the abortion measure could translate into support for the governor's "year of reform" agenda.
With support from religious groups and churches, backers of Schwarzenegger's abortion initiative plan a substantial push this weekend to motivate millions of Christian voters to the polls, as recent surveys indicate a majority of California voters are unlikely to support the governor for re-election next year.
The abortion initiative, Proposition 73, is a proposed constitutional amendment that would require doctors to notify the parent or guardian of a minor seeking an abortion, although girls could seek a waiver from a judge. The measure provides an exception if delay would create a life-threatening risk.
"We've had tremendous encouragement in recent weeks. Thirty churches a day are signing up to have bulletin inserts to get out the vote and remind their congregations to vote," said Gary Marx, a consultant hired by the California Republican Party to help pass Proposition 73. "We're focusing our efforts on churches that can have the most impact, a lot of the megachurches," he said. Marx said his group's outreach is aimed at up to 5 million voters.
Some political experts aren't certain that a wave of abortion opponents at the polls will translate into support for Schwarzenegger. "Democrats can be against abortion just as much as Republicans," said Barbara O'Connor, director of the Institute for the Study of Politics and the Media at Sacramento State University. "They might turn out in large numbers in support of Prop. 73, but they might not support other propositions."
***The abortion has raised alarm among pro-choice groups, in part because it would define abortion as an act that causes "the death of the unborn child, a child conceived but not yet born." ***
The language raises suspicion that further restrictions would be sought.
Opponents of Proposition 73, including Planned Parenthood, point out that not all religious groups are supporting the measure. California Church Impact, which represents 1.5 million members of Protestant and Orthodox denominations, says teens might be forced into dangerous options if they are unable to broach the issue with their parents.
The California Church Impact also opposes the governor's entire ballot agenda, calling the special election an assault on the poor and middle class.
Whether members of congregations supporting the measure will also vote in favor of Schwarzenegger's agenda is an open question. The governor has placed three other measures on the special election ballot. He wants to revise teacher tenure laws, restrict the ability of public employee unions to raise money, implement a state spending cap and change the way legislative districts are drawn. Recent polls show none of the four initiatives has majority support, and two trail significantly.
© MMV The Associated Press.
Wrap...
Vote NO on Prop 73. Flat out NO!!!
Note: There are good reasons why 7 out of 10 major CA newspapers recommend a NO vote on Prop 73. The 3 who want 73 passed are all supportive of the "pro-life", anti-abortion groups. More, they have slipped into this proposition language they want added to the Constitution their belief that the second an egg is fertilized, it is, under law, a full-blown child. See the paragraph marked with *** below.
Here, from the official voting guide, an anti-Prop 73 argument:
KEEPING TEENS SAFE IS A PRIMARY CONCERN TO PARENTS, BUT Prop. 73’s proponents believe government can force teens to communicate with their parents. Who’s kidding who?
FAMILY COMMUNICATION CAN’T BE “REQUIRED” BY GOVERNMENT. Talking to our daughters about responsible sexual behavior when they’re young is the best way to protect them.
In fact, MOST TEENS DO TALK TO THEIR PARENTS, BUT SOME JUST CAN’T SAFELY. Proponents are wrong when they say those teens can easily go to court. IT’S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT VULNERABLE, SCARED TEENAGERS FROM ABUSIVE FAMILIES TO SIMPLY “GO TO COURT.” California courthouses are crowded; these teens don’t need to endure a court proceeding.
The proponents are wrong when they assert that Internet predators and statutory rapists will be deterred from their despicable actions by new laws like these. THAT’S PREPOSTEROUS—it’s just included to scare voters.
***Note: PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ONE:
What proponents don’t tell you is this law FORCES DOCTORS TO REPORT these procedures TO THE GOVERNMENT—why does government need to know?
***They’ve also slipped into their initiative language adding “unborn child, a child conceived but not born” to our Constitution.***
What does that have to do with notification? We don’t know.
What we do know is that THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, looking at the experience of other states with similar laws, CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE “OVERWHELMINGLY” SHOWS THESE LAWS DO NOT SUPPORT FAMILIES, BUT IN FACT, PUT TEENAGERS IN DANGER.
California’s League of Women Voters, medical experts, and millions of concerned parents urge you to VOTE NO.
Visit www.NoOnProposition73.org.
DEBORAH BURGER, RN, PresidentCalifornia Nurses Association
KATHY KNEER, CEOPlanned Parenthood Affiliates of California
A. ERIC RAMOS, M.D., PresidentCalifornia Academy of Family Physicians
Wrap...
Here, from the official voting guide, an anti-Prop 73 argument:
KEEPING TEENS SAFE IS A PRIMARY CONCERN TO PARENTS, BUT Prop. 73’s proponents believe government can force teens to communicate with their parents. Who’s kidding who?
FAMILY COMMUNICATION CAN’T BE “REQUIRED” BY GOVERNMENT. Talking to our daughters about responsible sexual behavior when they’re young is the best way to protect them.
In fact, MOST TEENS DO TALK TO THEIR PARENTS, BUT SOME JUST CAN’T SAFELY. Proponents are wrong when they say those teens can easily go to court. IT’S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT VULNERABLE, SCARED TEENAGERS FROM ABUSIVE FAMILIES TO SIMPLY “GO TO COURT.” California courthouses are crowded; these teens don’t need to endure a court proceeding.
The proponents are wrong when they assert that Internet predators and statutory rapists will be deterred from their despicable actions by new laws like these. THAT’S PREPOSTEROUS—it’s just included to scare voters.
***Note: PAY ATTENTION TO THIS ONE:
What proponents don’t tell you is this law FORCES DOCTORS TO REPORT these procedures TO THE GOVERNMENT—why does government need to know?
***They’ve also slipped into their initiative language adding “unborn child, a child conceived but not born” to our Constitution.***
What does that have to do with notification? We don’t know.
What we do know is that THE CALIFORNIA SUPREME COURT, looking at the experience of other states with similar laws, CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCE “OVERWHELMINGLY” SHOWS THESE LAWS DO NOT SUPPORT FAMILIES, BUT IN FACT, PUT TEENAGERS IN DANGER.
California’s League of Women Voters, medical experts, and millions of concerned parents urge you to VOTE NO.
Visit www.NoOnProposition73.org.
DEBORAH BURGER, RN, PresidentCalifornia Nurses Association
KATHY KNEER, CEOPlanned Parenthood Affiliates of California
A. ERIC RAMOS, M.D., PresidentCalifornia Academy of Family Physicians
Wrap...
Friday, November 04, 2005
Spy trial across the Potomac...
Israeli / AIPAC spy trial could expose ways information is gathered in D.C.: It's a classified leak case that could rattle U.S. foreign policy and fundamentally alter how Washington does business. But while the world watches the implosion in the vice president's office, this case is proceeding quietly across the Potomac. Motions filed in recent weeks in the case against two former senior staffers of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee have gone virtually unnoticed in the mainstream media
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10878.htm
Wrap...
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article10878.htm
Wrap...
Tomlinson gone from CPB...
From American Progress:
ETHICS -- EMBATTLED PUBLIC BROADCASTING CHAIR RESIGNS: Former Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) head Kenneth Tomlinson resigned from the board after the agency's inspector general issued a report critical of his leadership.
While chairman of the board, Tomlinson worked to push a partisan agenda in public media, hiring outside consultants "to study the political leanings of guests on such programs as 'Now With Bill Moyers' and 'The Diane Rehm Show' on National Public Radio."
The inspector general had also been investigating "whether Tomlinson violated agency procedures in his recruiting of former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to be CPB's chief executive, and into possible White House influence in the hiring of two in-house ombudsmen to critique news programs on NPR and PBS."
But Tomlinson's resignation doesn't end the strong right-wing influence at CPB; the new chairperson and vice-chairperson, Cheryl F. Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines, are longtime conservative fundraisers.
Wrap...
ETHICS -- EMBATTLED PUBLIC BROADCASTING CHAIR RESIGNS: Former Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) head Kenneth Tomlinson resigned from the board after the agency's inspector general issued a report critical of his leadership.
While chairman of the board, Tomlinson worked to push a partisan agenda in public media, hiring outside consultants "to study the political leanings of guests on such programs as 'Now With Bill Moyers' and 'The Diane Rehm Show' on National Public Radio."
The inspector general had also been investigating "whether Tomlinson violated agency procedures in his recruiting of former Republican National Committee co-chairman Patricia de Stacy Harrison to be CPB's chief executive, and into possible White House influence in the hiring of two in-house ombudsmen to critique news programs on NPR and PBS."
But Tomlinson's resignation doesn't end the strong right-wing influence at CPB; the new chairperson and vice-chairperson, Cheryl F. Halpern and Gay Hart Gaines, are longtime conservative fundraisers.
Wrap...
City Atty doesn't trust Diebold...
From Voice of San Diego.org:
Aguirre Wants Oversight of Vote CountFriday, November 4, 2005 -- 4:47 p.m.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre has asked the county registrar to allow a him to assign a deputy from his office to monitor how votes from Tuesday's election will be counted.
In a letter to County Registrar of Voters Mikel Hass, the city attorney said that he was concerned with the accuracy of how votes in the upcoming election will be tabulated.
"I know that you share my desire for a fair, efficient, and accurate voting and counting process, and I look forward to our working together to ensure we achieve this goal," Aguirre stated.
The county uses Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scanning machines and activists asked Aguirre for more supervision of the vote-tallying process locally after various media reports nationwide questioned the accuracy of the Diebold machines.
Haas has said in prior interviews that the Diebold machines are accurate.
Read Aguirre's letter here.
-- EVAN McLAUGHLIN
Wrap...
Aguirre Wants Oversight of Vote CountFriday, November 4, 2005 -- 4:47 p.m.
City Attorney Mike Aguirre has asked the county registrar to allow a him to assign a deputy from his office to monitor how votes from Tuesday's election will be counted.
In a letter to County Registrar of Voters Mikel Hass, the city attorney said that he was concerned with the accuracy of how votes in the upcoming election will be tabulated.
"I know that you share my desire for a fair, efficient, and accurate voting and counting process, and I look forward to our working together to ensure we achieve this goal," Aguirre stated.
The county uses Diebold AccuVote-OS optical scanning machines and activists asked Aguirre for more supervision of the vote-tallying process locally after various media reports nationwide questioned the accuracy of the Diebold machines.
Haas has said in prior interviews that the Diebold machines are accurate.
Read Aguirre's letter here.
-- EVAN McLAUGHLIN
Wrap...
Voting on Tuesday...
From Political Wire:
It may be an off-year election, but Political Wire readers will find plenty of interesting races to watch on Tuesday night. Here's a quick rundown:
New Jersey Governor: Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) has led Doug Forrester (R) in the polls through the entire campaign but a last minute barrage of negative ads featuring Corzine's ex-wife might help Forrester close the gap.
Virginia Governor: Recent polls show this race is a dead heat, though Tim Kaine (D) probably has a little more momentum over Jerry Kilgore (R) in the closing weeks. It's unclear if an 11th hour campaign swing by President Bush will help or hurt Kilgore's chances.
California Special Election: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) staked much of his political future on four ballot measures that range from limiting public spending to redistricting. Recent polls show the questions losing, however Mystery Pollster notes it's hard to poll ballot questions.
Ohio Redistricting: Democrats are taking advantages of a scandal-plagued Republican party by pushing several ballot measures, from non-partisan redistricting to changes in election administration. As a swing state in the 2004 presidential election, gains here by Democrats will be magnified.
Detroit Mayor: For months, it looked like Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick would be swept out of office after just one term. However, recent polls show Kilpatrick gaining on challenger Freeman Hendrix in the last several weeks. Getting young voters to the polls could make the difference on Tuesday.
San Diego Mayor: After a disputed election last year and the resignation of the ultimate victor, San Diego is having yet another mayoral race. Fifteen candidates entered the race and only two are left: Donna Frye (D) and Jerry Sanders (R). A recent poll gives Sanders the slight edge.
New York Mayor: The only real question is how large will Mayor Michael Bloomberg's (R) victory be over challenger Fernando Ferrer (D)? All recent polls show a landslide in the making.
Wrap...
It may be an off-year election, but Political Wire readers will find plenty of interesting races to watch on Tuesday night. Here's a quick rundown:
New Jersey Governor: Sen. Jon Corzine (D-NJ) has led Doug Forrester (R) in the polls through the entire campaign but a last minute barrage of negative ads featuring Corzine's ex-wife might help Forrester close the gap.
Virginia Governor: Recent polls show this race is a dead heat, though Tim Kaine (D) probably has a little more momentum over Jerry Kilgore (R) in the closing weeks. It's unclear if an 11th hour campaign swing by President Bush will help or hurt Kilgore's chances.
California Special Election: California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) staked much of his political future on four ballot measures that range from limiting public spending to redistricting. Recent polls show the questions losing, however Mystery Pollster notes it's hard to poll ballot questions.
Ohio Redistricting: Democrats are taking advantages of a scandal-plagued Republican party by pushing several ballot measures, from non-partisan redistricting to changes in election administration. As a swing state in the 2004 presidential election, gains here by Democrats will be magnified.
Detroit Mayor: For months, it looked like Mayor Kwame Kilpatrick would be swept out of office after just one term. However, recent polls show Kilpatrick gaining on challenger Freeman Hendrix in the last several weeks. Getting young voters to the polls could make the difference on Tuesday.
San Diego Mayor: After a disputed election last year and the resignation of the ultimate victor, San Diego is having yet another mayoral race. Fifteen candidates entered the race and only two are left: Donna Frye (D) and Jerry Sanders (R). A recent poll gives Sanders the slight edge.
New York Mayor: The only real question is how large will Mayor Michael Bloomberg's (R) victory be over challenger Fernando Ferrer (D)? All recent polls show a landslide in the making.
Wrap...
Who will free prisoners in BushCo's gulags?
From the LA Times:
November 4, 2005
latimes.com : California
COLUMN ONE
Saved by a Saint in a Tank
Sam Goetz long wondered about the larger-than-life soldier who liberated him from a Nazi camp. Decades later, they met again.
By Sandy Banks, Times Staff Writer
For 60 years it percolated in Sam Goetz's mind, rising to the level of obsession — this need to find the American soldier who had loomed so large in the most critical moment of Goetz's life.
On May 6, 1945, Goetz, then 16, was among 18,000 prisoners liberated from the Nazi concentration camp at Ebensee, Austria, by the U.S. Army's 3rd Cavalry. The squadron commander, a tall, young sergeant, climbed down from his tank and pronounced them free.
We "kissed his hands and touched his uniform, as if touching a saint," Goetz would recall years later in his memoir, "I Never Saw My Face." "Each of us wanted to make sure the man was real … that this was neither an illusion or a dream … "
Goetz spent years combing through war archives in Washington, D.C., without ever learning the soldier's identity. "I was haunted by it," says Goetz, now an optometrist in West L.A. "Who was that man in the first tank? What is his name? Is he alive today?"
On Saturday, Bob Persinger — now a bespectacled, gray-haired veteran — strode through the lobby of a Century City hotel and reached out to shake Goetz's hand. The Holocaust survivor stared back, measured reality against his memories, then opened his arms for an embrace.
And the soldier who had seemed so tall 60 years ago stood cheek to cheek with the man he had saved.
(to continue reading, click on link below)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-holocaust4nov04,0,6228516,full.story?coll=la-home-local
Note: Has the United States of America, under the Bush regime, created yet another version of the Holocaust? Are we, the citizens, replaying the part the citizens of Germany played then?
Wrap...
November 4, 2005
latimes.com : California
COLUMN ONE
Saved by a Saint in a Tank
Sam Goetz long wondered about the larger-than-life soldier who liberated him from a Nazi camp. Decades later, they met again.
By Sandy Banks, Times Staff Writer
For 60 years it percolated in Sam Goetz's mind, rising to the level of obsession — this need to find the American soldier who had loomed so large in the most critical moment of Goetz's life.
On May 6, 1945, Goetz, then 16, was among 18,000 prisoners liberated from the Nazi concentration camp at Ebensee, Austria, by the U.S. Army's 3rd Cavalry. The squadron commander, a tall, young sergeant, climbed down from his tank and pronounced them free.
We "kissed his hands and touched his uniform, as if touching a saint," Goetz would recall years later in his memoir, "I Never Saw My Face." "Each of us wanted to make sure the man was real … that this was neither an illusion or a dream … "
Goetz spent years combing through war archives in Washington, D.C., without ever learning the soldier's identity. "I was haunted by it," says Goetz, now an optometrist in West L.A. "Who was that man in the first tank? What is his name? Is he alive today?"
On Saturday, Bob Persinger — now a bespectacled, gray-haired veteran — strode through the lobby of a Century City hotel and reached out to shake Goetz's hand. The Holocaust survivor stared back, measured reality against his memories, then opened his arms for an embrace.
And the soldier who had seemed so tall 60 years ago stood cheek to cheek with the man he had saved.
(to continue reading, click on link below)
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-holocaust4nov04,0,6228516,full.story?coll=la-home-local
Note: Has the United States of America, under the Bush regime, created yet another version of the Holocaust? Are we, the citizens, replaying the part the citizens of Germany played then?
Wrap...
Thursday, November 03, 2005
CPB Board throws out Tomlinson..
via Raw Story:
Former CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson Resigns
By John Eggerton --
Broadcasting & Cable,
11/3/2005 5:49:00 PM
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors said Thursday that embattled former board chairman Ken Tomlinson has resigned.
The board has been reviewing a CPB Inspector General's report--called for by a pair of congressmen--on Tomlinson's relationship with the board stemming from Tomlinson's attempts to add more conservative programming.
The board said in a statement: "[F]ormer chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson has resigned from the CPB board. The board does not believe that Mr. Tomlinson acted maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB or public broadcasting, and the board recognizes that Mr. Tomlinson strongly disputes the findings in the soon-to-be-released Inspector General’s report.
"The board expresses its disappointment in the performance of former key staff whose responsibility it was to advise the board and its members.
"Nonetheless, both the board and Mr. Tomlinson believe it is in the best interests of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that he no longer remain on the board.
"The board commends Mr. Tomlinson for his legitimate efforts to achieve balance and objectivity in public broadcasting."
Tomlinson came under heavy fire for adding conservative shows to balance what he saw as liberal bias, and for hiring an outside consultant to gauge the bias in shows, particularly Now with Bill Moyers.
The CPB board has been under fire itself from groups complaining that it has not released the report and has been meeting in closed session about it. One of those groups was happy with the Tomlinson exit, but saw the problem as systemic.
"It was time that Mr. Tomlinson stepped down," said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester. But, he added. "CPB needs a thorough house cleaning," he said, "We await the IG report's release."
Ditto for Free Press executive director Josh Silver: “It’s time to clean house at CPB. We need to get the politics out and put the public back in public broadcasting.”
Chester also wasn'tdone with Tomlinson: "Mr. Tomlinson still remains head of the powerful Broadcasting Board of Governors. It is likely he resigned to help remain in that position."
CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz gave key Hill staffers a three-hour briefing late last month on his investigation into “deficiencies in policies and procedures” at CPB.
Following a request last May by Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), Konz was investigating whether Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act by commissioning an outside content analysis of the politics in Now With Bill Moyers—and other PBS shows—and by enlisting a White House staffer to help write rules for two new ombudsmen, one a former Reader's Digest colleague of Tomlinson's.
The response from Tomlinson's critics in Congress was swift:
"The public interest is hurt when there are no checks and balances,"said Obey "This Administration believes that since they control all branches of government, they can abuse the public trust and get away with it and Mr. Tomlinson is part of this pattern. Mr. Tomlinson's resignation should be used to bring people together, not divide them as he and the administration have done. Public Broadcasting is too important to be anybody's partisan or ideological play thing."
“I’ve not seen the results of the Inspector General’s investigation, but expect to see it shortly and I look forward to doing so,” said Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), whose request for the Tomlinson bias consultant report helped trigger the IG investigation. “Mr. Tomlinson’s departure from the CPB Board, however, comes as welcome news. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tomlinson’s legacy at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a negative one, and that he has done far more harm to the CPB than good.”
Frequent critic Ed Markey (D-Mass.), asid: "This is a welcome opportunity for the Bush Administration to appoint a replacement for Mr. Tomlinson who will be a defender of outstanding public affairs, educational, cultural as well as high quality children's programming."
Wrap...
Former CPB Chairman Ken Tomlinson Resigns
By John Eggerton --
Broadcasting & Cable,
11/3/2005 5:49:00 PM
The Corporation for Public Broadcasting Board of Directors said Thursday that embattled former board chairman Ken Tomlinson has resigned.
The board has been reviewing a CPB Inspector General's report--called for by a pair of congressmen--on Tomlinson's relationship with the board stemming from Tomlinson's attempts to add more conservative programming.
The board said in a statement: "[F]ormer chairman Kenneth Y. Tomlinson has resigned from the CPB board. The board does not believe that Mr. Tomlinson acted maliciously or with any intent to harm CPB or public broadcasting, and the board recognizes that Mr. Tomlinson strongly disputes the findings in the soon-to-be-released Inspector General’s report.
"The board expresses its disappointment in the performance of former key staff whose responsibility it was to advise the board and its members.
"Nonetheless, both the board and Mr. Tomlinson believe it is in the best interests of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting that he no longer remain on the board.
"The board commends Mr. Tomlinson for his legitimate efforts to achieve balance and objectivity in public broadcasting."
Tomlinson came under heavy fire for adding conservative shows to balance what he saw as liberal bias, and for hiring an outside consultant to gauge the bias in shows, particularly Now with Bill Moyers.
The CPB board has been under fire itself from groups complaining that it has not released the report and has been meeting in closed session about it. One of those groups was happy with the Tomlinson exit, but saw the problem as systemic.
"It was time that Mr. Tomlinson stepped down," said Center for Digital Democracy Executive Director Jeff Chester. But, he added. "CPB needs a thorough house cleaning," he said, "We await the IG report's release."
Ditto for Free Press executive director Josh Silver: “It’s time to clean house at CPB. We need to get the politics out and put the public back in public broadcasting.”
Chester also wasn'tdone with Tomlinson: "Mr. Tomlinson still remains head of the powerful Broadcasting Board of Governors. It is likely he resigned to help remain in that position."
CPB Inspector General Kenneth Konz gave key Hill staffers a three-hour briefing late last month on his investigation into “deficiencies in policies and procedures” at CPB.
Following a request last May by Reps. David Obey (D-Wis.) and John Dingell (D-Mich.), Konz was investigating whether Tomlinson violated the Public Broadcasting Act by commissioning an outside content analysis of the politics in Now With Bill Moyers—and other PBS shows—and by enlisting a White House staffer to help write rules for two new ombudsmen, one a former Reader's Digest colleague of Tomlinson's.
The response from Tomlinson's critics in Congress was swift:
"The public interest is hurt when there are no checks and balances,"said Obey "This Administration believes that since they control all branches of government, they can abuse the public trust and get away with it and Mr. Tomlinson is part of this pattern. Mr. Tomlinson's resignation should be used to bring people together, not divide them as he and the administration have done. Public Broadcasting is too important to be anybody's partisan or ideological play thing."
“I’ve not seen the results of the Inspector General’s investigation, but expect to see it shortly and I look forward to doing so,” said Senator Byron Dorgan (D-N.D.), whose request for the Tomlinson bias consultant report helped trigger the IG investigation. “Mr. Tomlinson’s departure from the CPB Board, however, comes as welcome news. There’s no doubt in my mind that Mr. Tomlinson’s legacy at the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is a negative one, and that he has done far more harm to the CPB than good.”
Frequent critic Ed Markey (D-Mass.), asid: "This is a welcome opportunity for the Bush Administration to appoint a replacement for Mr. Tomlinson who will be a defender of outstanding public affairs, educational, cultural as well as high quality children's programming."
Wrap...
DeLay & the Christian "Wackos"...
DeLay aide's memo betrays the playbook
(From the diaries -- kos)
How anybody could vote Republican until they do a full fumigation to get rid of DeLay and Co. is beyond me. Check out what (indicted) DeLay aide Mike Scanlon says here:
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
The article explains the strategy we've come to know all too well:
Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.
Well, here's their plan finally in black and white. This should piss off the wackos. It should anger the public. We're already fuming. If this quote is run as a DNC ad in every district in the country, we win both chambers in a landslide.
Update [2005-11-4 0:27:43 by VirginiaDem]: FOUND IT! Go to page 119 of this .pdf document
Wrap...
(From the diaries -- kos)
How anybody could vote Republican until they do a full fumigation to get rid of DeLay and Co. is beyond me. Check out what (indicted) DeLay aide Mike Scanlon says here:
"The wackos get their information through the Christian right, Christian radio, mail, the internet and telephone trees," Scanlon wrote in the memo, which was read into the public record at a hearing of the Senate Indian Affairs Committee. "Simply put, we want to bring out the wackos to vote against something and make sure the rest of the public lets the whole thing slip past them."
The article explains the strategy we've come to know all too well:
Scanlon confessed the source code of recent Republican electoral victories: target religious conservatives, distract everyone else, and then railroad through complex initiatives.
Well, here's their plan finally in black and white. This should piss off the wackos. It should anger the public. We're already fuming. If this quote is run as a DNC ad in every district in the country, we win both chambers in a landslide.
Update [2005-11-4 0:27:43 by VirginiaDem]: FOUND IT! Go to page 119 of this .pdf document
Wrap...
In Iraq for another year?!!!
From: AP via WAVY.com:
U-S offers plan to keep multinational force in Iraq another year
UNITED NATIONS
The U-S is pushing a change at the U-N. It wants to extend the mandate of the multinational force now serving in Iraq for an additional year.
A draft resolution being circulated in the Security Council would change the current practice of requiring renewal every six months.
The current mandate for the 180-thousand troops expires after next month's legislative elections in Iraq.
Russia's ambassador says extending it for another year won't be automatic. Russia has been calling for security to be handed over to Iraqi forces as quickly as possible.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press.
Wrap...
U-S offers plan to keep multinational force in Iraq another year
UNITED NATIONS
The U-S is pushing a change at the U-N. It wants to extend the mandate of the multinational force now serving in Iraq for an additional year.
A draft resolution being circulated in the Security Council would change the current practice of requiring renewal every six months.
The current mandate for the 180-thousand troops expires after next month's legislative elections in Iraq.
Russia's ambassador says extending it for another year won't be automatic. Russia has been calling for security to be handed over to Iraqi forces as quickly as possible.
Copyright 2005 Associated Press.
Wrap...
Defining terrorism...
SECRECY NEWS
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2005, Issue No. 102
November 2, 2005
A MILITARY GUIDE TO TERRORISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
A comprehensive military textbook on terrorism has just been reissuedby the U.S. Army. Based on open sources, the 280 page volume (with four large supplements), provides a synthetic account of the nature and history of terrorism, its operational characteristics, the threat it poses to U.S. military forces, and the future of terrorism.The publication was prepared "under the direction of the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligence-Threats."
A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
See "A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century,"version 3.0, 15 August 2005:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/index.html
from the FAS Project on Government Secrecy
Volume 2005, Issue No. 102
November 2, 2005
A MILITARY GUIDE TO TERRORISM IN THE TWENTY-FIRST CENTURY
A comprehensive military textbook on terrorism has just been reissuedby the U.S. Army. Based on open sources, the 280 page volume (with four large supplements), provides a synthetic account of the nature and history of terrorism, its operational characteristics, the threat it poses to U.S. military forces, and the future of terrorism.The publication was prepared "under the direction of the U.S. ArmyTraining and Doctrine Command, Assistant Deputy Chief of Staff forIntelligence-Threats."
A copy was obtained by Secrecy News.
See "A Military Guide to Terrorism in the Twenty-First Century,"version 3.0, 15 August 2005:
http://www.fas.org/irp/threat/terrorism/index.html
A soldier in Iraq writes...
From http://misoldierthoughts.blogspot.com
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The History Books
Some days begin with regret, some with happiness, others just begin. My uniform top has a hole worn in it where my rifle rubs on it, and my pants have the same. I feel like it is in my bones, the weariness and the purgatory of this deployment. I don't have it as hard as some, and yet I have it harder than others. Compared to last time I was here I have to admit it has been much better (living conditions that is).I see a shooting star almost every night (remember, I work nights) and every time my wish is the same, you might be surprised what it is, but if I were to tell it wouldn't come true would it?
Limbo, that is forward operations base Speicher. Nothing changes here except the beat of the mortar rounds as they hit at different times, often daily. It is amazing what I have taken from my time in the Army. You might be surprised that when I joined I was a staunch republican. I had the utmost faith in the system that is our government and I was young. I can't say that I am much older now (only 5 and a half years have passed) but I am wiser about many things. I have lost my innocence and I am not so naive. I have met some wonderful people, and I have also met some people that I would rather not know.
It is a lot different when you can communicate with the Iraqis you know. When you can ask them how they feel about things instead of just telling them to get back with arm signals. They are people, and they are like you and I. Time may tell things differently just as the victors write the history books, but it seems that such a great injustice has been done, and we are getting farther and farther from the things we promised the Iraqis when we invaded. I will not attempt to predict the future however I can't help but let it be known that I fear we have gone too far and that our eyes were so much larger than our stomach.
Wrap...
Thursday, November 03, 2005
The History Books
Some days begin with regret, some with happiness, others just begin. My uniform top has a hole worn in it where my rifle rubs on it, and my pants have the same. I feel like it is in my bones, the weariness and the purgatory of this deployment. I don't have it as hard as some, and yet I have it harder than others. Compared to last time I was here I have to admit it has been much better (living conditions that is).I see a shooting star almost every night (remember, I work nights) and every time my wish is the same, you might be surprised what it is, but if I were to tell it wouldn't come true would it?
Limbo, that is forward operations base Speicher. Nothing changes here except the beat of the mortar rounds as they hit at different times, often daily. It is amazing what I have taken from my time in the Army. You might be surprised that when I joined I was a staunch republican. I had the utmost faith in the system that is our government and I was young. I can't say that I am much older now (only 5 and a half years have passed) but I am wiser about many things. I have lost my innocence and I am not so naive. I have met some wonderful people, and I have also met some people that I would rather not know.
It is a lot different when you can communicate with the Iraqis you know. When you can ask them how they feel about things instead of just telling them to get back with arm signals. They are people, and they are like you and I. Time may tell things differently just as the victors write the history books, but it seems that such a great injustice has been done, and we are getting farther and farther from the things we promised the Iraqis when we invaded. I will not attempt to predict the future however I can't help but let it be known that I fear we have gone too far and that our eyes were so much larger than our stomach.
Wrap...
Worthy books upcoming...
From Publishers Lunch Weekly:
FICTION/DEBUT:
James Canon's TALES FROM THE TOWN OF WIDOWS, in which the men are swept away during Colombia's long and bloody civil war, and the women of Mariquita learn hard lessons about love and survival as they challenge the tenets of male-dominated society, discover power with all its pitfalls and strive to create an entirely new social order, an all-female utopia, to Claire Wachtel at Morrow, by Lisa Bankoff at ICM (NA, Translation). UK/Commonwealth is being repped by Kate Jones at ICM London.
THRILLER:
NYT bestselling author of SHOOTER Jack Coughlin and Donald A. Davis's THE SNIPER, based on Coughlin's twenty years as a Marine sniper and black ops team leader, to Charlie Spicer at St. Martin's, by Jim Hornfischer at Hornfischer Literary Management (world).jim@hornfischerlit.com
BUSINESS/INVESTING/FINANCE:
James Thompson's THE CUBICLE SURVIVAL GUIDE: Protecting Your Privacy and Your Job in the Least Hospitable Environment on the Planet, a humorous how-to addressing all aspects of cubicle life -- from how to (and how not to) decorate to what to do when your doctor calls unexpectedly, to Christina Duffy at Random House, for publication as a trade paperback original in spring 2007, by Andrea Somberg at Harvey Klinger (world English).Rights: rbernstein@randomhouse.com
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
BRING IT ON: The Life and Times of Terry McAuliffe, by former Democratic Party Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, a blow-by-blow account of the American political scene as he has seen and worked it since his early twenties, when he was finance director for President Carter's re-election campaign, with colorful anecdotes, his take on the mistakes, twists and turns of the last Presidential election and views on what the Democratic Party needs to do to win the White House, to Sean Desmond at Thomas Dunne Books, for publication in winter 2007, by Bret Saxon of TMP (world).
Journalist John Ross's WAR ON THE RUN: Robert Rogers and the Birth of Commando Warfare, the story of how an impoverished farmer's son, leading a motley band of warriors in daring, bloody raids against the French and Indians, reinvented warfare in the French and Indian War, his codified tactics still in use by US Army rangers today, to John Flicker at Bantam, by Deborah Grosvenor at Grosvenor Literary Agency (world).deb@gliterary.com
David A. Price's DEATH AND LIFE ON THE USS COLE: A Story From the Terror War, a narrative of the Oct. 12, 2000, Al Qaeda suicide attack on the USS COLE in Yemen, and of the survival story in the days afterward as the sailors struggled to rescue the injured and save the ship, to Bruce Nichols at Free Press, by Glen Hartley at Writers' Representatives.glen@writersreps.com daprice@gmail.com
WSJ reporters Robert Block and Christopher Cooper's critical assessment of the failures of the federal and local governments to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, revealing the ominous weaknesses that still exist in America's defense and preparedness systems and how those weaknesses had terrible consequences, based on "first-hand and exclusive reporting" and including inside accounts from the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, to Paul Golob at Times Books, for publication in fall 2006, by Esmond Harmsworth and Todd Shuster of the Zachary Shuster Harmsworth Literary Agency (world).claire.mckinney@hholt.com
HUMOR:
Twenty-five-year old Bobby Henderson's THE GOSPEL OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, purporting to assert another theory of "intelligent design" which the author feels should be taught alongside evolution (cited by many newspapers since he wrote to the Kansas Board of Education), showing how the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually created the universe, accompanied by scripture, proofs, and rites observed by Pastafarians, to Chris Schluep at Villard, for publication as a trade paperback, by Paula Balzer at Sarah Lazin Books (world). Rights: ctisne@randomhouse.com
MEMOIR:
Attorney and the wife of 2005 vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards' memoir, focused on the sustaining role that communities have played at every stage of her journey, from the military community (her father as a Navy pilot) as a child and the support she received as a mother, to the comfort extended when one of her sons died in a car accident, and support from all over during her current recovery from breast cancer, along with her story of campaigning, to Stacy Creamer at Broadway, by Robert Barnett of Williams & Connolly (NA).
UK:
Two-time Olympic rowing Gold medalist James Cracknell and BBC presenter Ben Fogle's TWO NAKED MEN IN A BOAT, about their participation in the toughest rowing race on Earth, to Toby Mundy and Louisa Joyner at Atlantic Books, by Julian Alexander of LAW (UK/Commonwealth, excluding Canada).louisebrice@groveatlantic.co.uk
Wrap...
FICTION/DEBUT:
James Canon's TALES FROM THE TOWN OF WIDOWS, in which the men are swept away during Colombia's long and bloody civil war, and the women of Mariquita learn hard lessons about love and survival as they challenge the tenets of male-dominated society, discover power with all its pitfalls and strive to create an entirely new social order, an all-female utopia, to Claire Wachtel at Morrow, by Lisa Bankoff at ICM (NA, Translation). UK/Commonwealth is being repped by Kate Jones at ICM London.
THRILLER:
NYT bestselling author of SHOOTER Jack Coughlin and Donald A. Davis's THE SNIPER, based on Coughlin's twenty years as a Marine sniper and black ops team leader, to Charlie Spicer at St. Martin's, by Jim Hornfischer at Hornfischer Literary Management (world).jim@hornfischerlit.com
BUSINESS/INVESTING/FINANCE:
James Thompson's THE CUBICLE SURVIVAL GUIDE: Protecting Your Privacy and Your Job in the Least Hospitable Environment on the Planet, a humorous how-to addressing all aspects of cubicle life -- from how to (and how not to) decorate to what to do when your doctor calls unexpectedly, to Christina Duffy at Random House, for publication as a trade paperback original in spring 2007, by Andrea Somberg at Harvey Klinger (world English).Rights: rbernstein@randomhouse.com
HISTORY/POLITICS/CURRENT AFFAIRS:
BRING IT ON: The Life and Times of Terry McAuliffe, by former Democratic Party Chairman, Terry McAuliffe, a blow-by-blow account of the American political scene as he has seen and worked it since his early twenties, when he was finance director for President Carter's re-election campaign, with colorful anecdotes, his take on the mistakes, twists and turns of the last Presidential election and views on what the Democratic Party needs to do to win the White House, to Sean Desmond at Thomas Dunne Books, for publication in winter 2007, by Bret Saxon of TMP (world).
Journalist John Ross's WAR ON THE RUN: Robert Rogers and the Birth of Commando Warfare, the story of how an impoverished farmer's son, leading a motley band of warriors in daring, bloody raids against the French and Indians, reinvented warfare in the French and Indian War, his codified tactics still in use by US Army rangers today, to John Flicker at Bantam, by Deborah Grosvenor at Grosvenor Literary Agency (world).deb@gliterary.com
David A. Price's DEATH AND LIFE ON THE USS COLE: A Story From the Terror War, a narrative of the Oct. 12, 2000, Al Qaeda suicide attack on the USS COLE in Yemen, and of the survival story in the days afterward as the sailors struggled to rescue the injured and save the ship, to Bruce Nichols at Free Press, by Glen Hartley at Writers' Representatives.glen@writersreps.com daprice@gmail.com
WSJ reporters Robert Block and Christopher Cooper's critical assessment of the failures of the federal and local governments to prepare for Hurricane Katrina, revealing the ominous weaknesses that still exist in America's defense and preparedness systems and how those weaknesses had terrible consequences, based on "first-hand and exclusive reporting" and including inside accounts from the Department of Homeland Security and FEMA, to Paul Golob at Times Books, for publication in fall 2006, by Esmond Harmsworth and Todd Shuster of the Zachary Shuster Harmsworth Literary Agency (world).claire.mckinney@hholt.com
HUMOR:
Twenty-five-year old Bobby Henderson's THE GOSPEL OF THE FLYING SPAGHETTI MONSTER, purporting to assert another theory of "intelligent design" which the author feels should be taught alongside evolution (cited by many newspapers since he wrote to the Kansas Board of Education), showing how the Flying Spaghetti Monster actually created the universe, accompanied by scripture, proofs, and rites observed by Pastafarians, to Chris Schluep at Villard, for publication as a trade paperback, by Paula Balzer at Sarah Lazin Books (world). Rights: ctisne@randomhouse.com
MEMOIR:
Attorney and the wife of 2005 vice presidential candidate John Edwards, Elizabeth Edwards' memoir, focused on the sustaining role that communities have played at every stage of her journey, from the military community (her father as a Navy pilot) as a child and the support she received as a mother, to the comfort extended when one of her sons died in a car accident, and support from all over during her current recovery from breast cancer, along with her story of campaigning, to Stacy Creamer at Broadway, by Robert Barnett of Williams & Connolly (NA).
UK:
Two-time Olympic rowing Gold medalist James Cracknell and BBC presenter Ben Fogle's TWO NAKED MEN IN A BOAT, about their participation in the toughest rowing race on Earth, to Toby Mundy and Louisa Joyner at Atlantic Books, by Julian Alexander of LAW (UK/Commonwealth, excluding Canada).louisebrice@groveatlantic.co.uk
Wrap...
This CANNOT stand!!!
From the NY Times:
Op-Ed Columnist
Secrets and Shame
By BOB HERBERT
Ultimately the whole truth will come out and historians will have their say, and Americans will look in the mirror and be ashamed.
Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "better angels" of our nature. George W. Bush will have none of that. He's set his sights much, much lower.
The latest story from the Dante-esque depths of this administration was front-page news in The Washington Post yesterday. The reporter, Dana Priest, gave us the best glimpse yet of the extent of the secret network of prisons in which the C.I.A. has been hiding and interrogating terror suspects. The network includes a facility at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.
"The hidden global internment network is a central element in the C.I.A.'s unconventional war on terrorism," wrote Ms. Priest. "It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s covert actions."
The individuals held in these prisons have been deprived of all rights. They don't even have the basic minimum safeguards of prisoners of war. If they are being tortured or otherwise abused, there is no way for the outside world to know about it. If some mistake has been made and they are, in fact, innocent of wrongdoing - too bad.
As Ms. Priest wrote, "Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."
This is the border along which democracy bleeds into tyranny.
Some of the prisoners being held by the C.I.A. are no doubt murderous individuals who, given the opportunity, would do tremendous harm. There are others, however, whose links to terrorist activities are dubious at best, and perhaps nonexistent.
The C.I.A.'s original plan was to hide and interrogate maybe two or three dozen top leaders of Al Qaeda who were directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or were believed to pose an imminent threat. It turned out that many more people were corralled by the C.I.A. for one reason or another. Their terror ties and intelligence value were less certain. But they were thrown into the secret prisons, nevertheless.
A number of current and former officials told The Washington Post that "the original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored."
The secret C.I.A. prisons are just one link in the long chain of abominations that the Bush administration has unrolled in its so-called fight against terrorism. Rendition, the outsourcing of torture to places like Egypt, Jordan and Syria, is another. And then there are the thousands upon thousands of detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There is little, if any, legal oversight of these detainees, or effective monitoring of the conditions in which they are being held.
Terrible instances of torture and other forms of abuse of detainees have come to light. The Pentagon has listed the deaths of at least 27 prisoners in American custody as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides.
None of this has given the administration pause. It continues to go out of its way to block a legislative effort by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, to ban the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
I had a conversation yesterday with Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, about the secret C.I.A. prisons. "We're a nation founded on laws and rules that say you treat people humanely," he said, "and among the safeguards is that people in detention should be formally recognized; they should have access, at a minimum, to the Red Cross; and somebody should be accountable for their treatment.
"What we've done is essentially to throw away the rule book and say that there are some people who are beyond the law, beyond scrutiny, and that the people doing the detentions and interrogations are totally unaccountable. It's a secret process that almost inevitably leads to abuse."
Worse stories are still to come - stories of murder, torture and abuse. We'll watch them unfold the way people watch the aftermath of terrible accidents. And then we'll ask, "How could this have happened?"
Wrap...
Op-Ed Columnist
Secrets and Shame
By BOB HERBERT
Ultimately the whole truth will come out and historians will have their say, and Americans will look in the mirror and be ashamed.
Abraham Lincoln spoke of the "better angels" of our nature. George W. Bush will have none of that. He's set his sights much, much lower.
The latest story from the Dante-esque depths of this administration was front-page news in The Washington Post yesterday. The reporter, Dana Priest, gave us the best glimpse yet of the extent of the secret network of prisons in which the C.I.A. has been hiding and interrogating terror suspects. The network includes a facility at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.
"The hidden global internment network is a central element in the C.I.A.'s unconventional war on terrorism," wrote Ms. Priest. "It depends on the cooperation of foreign intelligence services, and on keeping even basic information about the system secret from the public, foreign officials and nearly all members of Congress charged with overseeing the C.I.A.'s covert actions."
The individuals held in these prisons have been deprived of all rights. They don't even have the basic minimum safeguards of prisoners of war. If they are being tortured or otherwise abused, there is no way for the outside world to know about it. If some mistake has been made and they are, in fact, innocent of wrongdoing - too bad.
As Ms. Priest wrote, "Virtually nothing is known about who is kept in the facilities, what interrogation methods are employed with them, or how decisions are made about whether they should be detained or for how long."
This is the border along which democracy bleeds into tyranny.
Some of the prisoners being held by the C.I.A. are no doubt murderous individuals who, given the opportunity, would do tremendous harm. There are others, however, whose links to terrorist activities are dubious at best, and perhaps nonexistent.
The C.I.A.'s original plan was to hide and interrogate maybe two or three dozen top leaders of Al Qaeda who were directly involved in the Sept. 11 attacks or were believed to pose an imminent threat. It turned out that many more people were corralled by the C.I.A. for one reason or another. Their terror ties and intelligence value were less certain. But they were thrown into the secret prisons, nevertheless.
A number of current and former officials told The Washington Post that "the original standard for consigning suspects to the invisible universe was lowered or ignored."
The secret C.I.A. prisons are just one link in the long chain of abominations that the Bush administration has unrolled in its so-called fight against terrorism. Rendition, the outsourcing of torture to places like Egypt, Jordan and Syria, is another. And then there are the thousands upon thousands of detainees being held at Guantánamo Bay in Cuba, in Afghanistan and in Iraq. There is little, if any, legal oversight of these detainees, or effective monitoring of the conditions in which they are being held.
Terrible instances of torture and other forms of abuse of detainees have come to light. The Pentagon has listed the deaths of at least 27 prisoners in American custody as confirmed or suspected criminal homicides.
None of this has given the administration pause. It continues to go out of its way to block a legislative effort by Senator John McCain, the Arizona Republican, to ban the "cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment" of any prisoner in U.S. custody.
I had a conversation yesterday with Michael Posner, executive director of Human Rights First, about the secret C.I.A. prisons. "We're a nation founded on laws and rules that say you treat people humanely," he said, "and among the safeguards is that people in detention should be formally recognized; they should have access, at a minimum, to the Red Cross; and somebody should be accountable for their treatment.
"What we've done is essentially to throw away the rule book and say that there are some people who are beyond the law, beyond scrutiny, and that the people doing the detentions and interrogations are totally unaccountable. It's a secret process that almost inevitably leads to abuse."
Worse stories are still to come - stories of murder, torture and abuse. We'll watch them unfold the way people watch the aftermath of terrible accidents. And then we'll ask, "How could this have happened?"
Wrap...
Wednesday, November 02, 2005
BushCo is sick....
From the NY Times:
November 3, 2005
Editorial
The Prison Puzzle
It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?
When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform.
Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror.
Senior military lawyers want these standards, as do some Defense and State Department officials outside the inner circle. They say the abuse and torture of prisoners has reduced America's standing with its allies and taken away its moral high ground with the rest of the world. They also know that it endangers any American soldiers who are captured.
The rigid ideologues blocking this reform say the Geneva Conventions banning inhumane treatment are too vague. Which part of no murder, torture, mutilation, cruelty or humiliation do they not understand? The restrictions are a problem only if you want to do such abhorrent things and pretend they are legal. That is why the Bush administration tossed out the rules after 9/11.
It's a terrifying thing when the people who devote their lives to protecting our national security feel that the civilians who oversee their operations are out of control. Dana Priest reports in The Washington Post that even the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operators are getting nervous about the network of secret prisons they have around the world - including, of all places, at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.
We're not naïve enough to believe that if the C.I.A. nabs a Qaeda operative who knows where a ticking bomb is hidden, that terrorist will emerge unbruised from his interrogation.
Extraordinary circumstances are different from general policies that allow foot soldiers and even innocent bystanders to be swept up in messy, uncontrolled and probably fruitless detentions.
Ms. Priest reports that of the more than 100 prisoners sent by the C.I.A. to its "black site" camps, only 30 are considered major terrorism suspects, and some have presumably been kept so long that their information is out of date. The rest have limited intelligence value, according to The Post, and many of them have been subjected to the odious United States practice of shipping prisoners to countries like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco and pretending that they won't be tortured.
Like so many of the most distressing stories these days - the outing of Valerie Wilson and questions about the intelligence on Iraq also come to mind - this one circles right back to Vice President Dick Cheney's office.
Mr. Cheney, a prime mover behind the attempts to legalize torture, is now leading a back-room fight to block a measure passed by the Senate, 90 to 9, that would impose international standards and American laws on the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Cheney wants a different version, one that would make the C.I.A.'s camps legal, although still hidden, and authorize the use of torture by intelligence agents. Mr. Bush is threatening to veto the entire military budget over this issue.
When his right-hand man, Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted on charges relating to team Cheney's counterattack against Joseph Wilson, Mr. Cheney replaced him with David Addington, who helped draft the infamous legalized-torture memo of 2002. Mr. Addington is now blocking or weakening proposed changes to the prison policies. The Times said he had berated a Pentagon aide who had briefed him and Mr. Libby recently on the draft of the new military standards for handling prisoners. (The indictment of Mr. Libby said he had done the same thing to a C.I.A. briefer in 2003 when agency officials questioned the intelligence on Iraq.)
The Times reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, favor changing the detention policies. So we can only conclude that President Bush has decided to expend the minimal clout remaining to his beleaguered administration in a fight to put the full faith and credit of the United States behind the concept of torture. After all, the sign on Dick Cheney's door says he is the vice president.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Wrap...
November 3, 2005
Editorial
The Prison Puzzle
It's maddening. Why does the Bush administration keep forcing policies on the United States military that endanger Americans wearing the nation's uniform - policies that the military does not want, that do not work and that violate standards upheld by the civilized world for decades?
When the Bush administration rewrote the rules for dealing with prisoners after 9/11, needlessly scrapping the Geneva Conventions and American law, it ignored the objections of lawyers for the armed services. Now, heedless of the lessons of Abu Ghraib, the civilians are once again running over the people in uniform.
Tim Golden and Eric Schmitt reported yesterday in The Times that the administration is blocking the Pentagon from adopting the language of the Geneva Conventions to set rules for handling prisoners in the so-called war on terror.
Senior military lawyers want these standards, as do some Defense and State Department officials outside the inner circle. They say the abuse and torture of prisoners has reduced America's standing with its allies and taken away its moral high ground with the rest of the world. They also know that it endangers any American soldiers who are captured.
The rigid ideologues blocking this reform say the Geneva Conventions banning inhumane treatment are too vague. Which part of no murder, torture, mutilation, cruelty or humiliation do they not understand? The restrictions are a problem only if you want to do such abhorrent things and pretend they are legal. That is why the Bush administration tossed out the rules after 9/11.
It's a terrifying thing when the people who devote their lives to protecting our national security feel that the civilians who oversee their operations are out of control. Dana Priest reports in The Washington Post that even the Central Intelligence Agency's clandestine operators are getting nervous about the network of secret prisons they have around the world - including, of all places, at a Soviet-era compound in Eastern Europe.
We're not naïve enough to believe that if the C.I.A. nabs a Qaeda operative who knows where a ticking bomb is hidden, that terrorist will emerge unbruised from his interrogation.
Extraordinary circumstances are different from general policies that allow foot soldiers and even innocent bystanders to be swept up in messy, uncontrolled and probably fruitless detentions.
Ms. Priest reports that of the more than 100 prisoners sent by the C.I.A. to its "black site" camps, only 30 are considered major terrorism suspects, and some have presumably been kept so long that their information is out of date. The rest have limited intelligence value, according to The Post, and many of them have been subjected to the odious United States practice of shipping prisoners to countries like Egypt, Jordan and Morocco and pretending that they won't be tortured.
Like so many of the most distressing stories these days - the outing of Valerie Wilson and questions about the intelligence on Iraq also come to mind - this one circles right back to Vice President Dick Cheney's office.
Mr. Cheney, a prime mover behind the attempts to legalize torture, is now leading a back-room fight to block a measure passed by the Senate, 90 to 9, that would impose international standards and American laws on the treatment of prisoners. Mr. Cheney wants a different version, one that would make the C.I.A.'s camps legal, although still hidden, and authorize the use of torture by intelligence agents. Mr. Bush is threatening to veto the entire military budget over this issue.
When his right-hand man, Lewis Libby, resigned after being indicted on charges relating to team Cheney's counterattack against Joseph Wilson, Mr. Cheney replaced him with David Addington, who helped draft the infamous legalized-torture memo of 2002. Mr. Addington is now blocking or weakening proposed changes to the prison policies. The Times said he had berated a Pentagon aide who had briefed him and Mr. Libby recently on the draft of the new military standards for handling prisoners. (The indictment of Mr. Libby said he had done the same thing to a C.I.A. briefer in 2003 when agency officials questioned the intelligence on Iraq.)
The Times reports that Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and the national security adviser, Stephen Hadley, favor changing the detention policies. So we can only conclude that President Bush has decided to expend the minimal clout remaining to his beleaguered administration in a fight to put the full faith and credit of the United States behind the concept of torture. After all, the sign on Dick Cheney's door says he is the vice president.
Copyright 2005 The New York Times Company
Wrap...
Test of Bush's presidency....
From:
Stratfor.com
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
11.01.2005
The Bush Presidency: Can It Survive?
By George Friedman
Last week, President George W. Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, withdrew her nomination after being savaged from all directions. Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was indicted on a series of charges having to do with the investigation of a White House leak. And the president of Iran said that Israel has to be wiped off the face of the map. None of these events, by themselves, rise to the level of historical significance. But the three taken together, along with other signs and portents, might well be of enormous significance.
We have long argued that one of the primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the Bush administration's need to demonstrate to the world in general and the Muslim world in particular that the United States not only has the stomach for war, but also can be decisively victorious. This capacity has not been obvious to anyone, including Americans, since the Vietnam War.
Rightly or wrongly, it had become an idée fixe that the United States shied away from wars in general and from potentially extended wars in particular.Now we are in a period of warfare when the power of the U.S. president -- due to a variety of factors -- has become uncertain. And that is no trivial matter to either the United States or a host of foreign powers.
The Presidency: A Decisive Force?
n wartime, the power of the U.S. president is critical. It is the job of a skillful politician in wartime to do whatever it takes to keep the presidency strong and decisive. And as history shows, presidents who are able to hold the political center and act decisively-- despite challenges faced in the war or on other political fronts -- will survive.
Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States through a series of unmitigated disasters -- surviving more than a year of defeat and confusion -- because he nurtured confidence among the public and carefully manipulated situations so as to deflect blame from himself. Adm. Husband Kimmel, the commander-in-chief of the Pacific region, was fired after Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt was not.
Conversely, the center did not hold under Lyndon B. Johnson. His legitimacy and credibility as a warfighting president collapsed with startling swiftness when his own party turned on him -- and the opposition, though still supporting the war, never had any confidence in his warfighting strategy. Roosevelt survived the fall of the Philippines; Johnson could not even survive the Tet Offensive.
Therefore, the question that Bush now faces is whether he can hold the center -- whether his presidency can survive as a decisive force.
Let's define this with some care. Unless he was to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the House of Representatives, Bush will serve as president until January 2009. But there are two kinds of presidents: those with sufficient power to act unilaterally in foreign affairs -- that is, who assume they have the political power to speak and act with confidence -- and those who lack or have lost that ability.
For instance, by the time of the final North Vietnamese assault, Gerald Ford had no practical military or diplomatic options left. His political and legal position precluded that: The center of his presidency was in shambles. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, retained his military option relative to Yugoslavia in spite of other political problems. He was able to move from military action to covert action to diplomatic action at will -- and, in general, without reference to external forces. He was a free agent. Ford could not control the situation in Vietnam, whereas Clinton could control the situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and ultimately in Serbia. The center of Clinton's presidency held.
Polls and Perceptions: The Fight for the Right
The question now, therefore, is whether the center of Bush's presidency will hold or whether he will, for a time or permanently, lose the ability to act unilaterally in foreign affairs. There have been many factors influencing the U.S.-jihadist war in general, but the key now is this: Can Bush still make unilateral decisions? For instance, does he have the ability to decide whether to bomb Syria? Or attack Iranian nuclear reactors? Could he withdraw forces from Iraq without appearing to be capitulating? Can he keep promises to Iraqi factions and credibly threaten them as well?
Part of the answer lies in foreign perceptions of the U.S. presidency, which brings us to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statement on Israel. The statement was rooted in many things. Some of it has to do with domestic Iranian politics; some of it is simply the repetition of long-standing Iranian policy; some of it has to do with the fact that the new president likes to make bellicose statements. But the single most important factor is that Iran does not fear the United States quite as much now as it did six months ago. Words are merely words, but the Iranians were probing for reaction. That the French condemned the statement was of little interest to Tehran; whether the Americans condemned it - and, if so, how -- was the key. The Iranians were taking the measure of American politics. And the response from Washington, we note, was quite mild in comparison to most other Western governments.
Bush's popularity rating, after Libby's indictment was announced, stood at 39 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll. This is actually pretty good news for Bush, believe it or not. As we attempted to show in past articles, there is a point of support beyond which Bush's Republican base could be deemed to be fragmenting, and that is the point at which a presidency becomes unrecoverable. Bush has been at that point, which we peg -- at the extreme -- at 39 percent, for several weeks now. Polls have been showing him in the 37 percent to 45 percent range, which, given error rates, puts him realistically in the very low 40s. Bush's support did not bounce back (given all the issues at stake, a bounce would have been miraculous), but -- and this is the critical point -- his core has not fragmented.
This is one reason why Miers, whose nomination to the Supreme Court raised outcries among Bush's core base of conservatives, had to be ditched fast -- before the indictments in the Plame case came out. At this point, Bush must, above all costs, hold his base solidly. He can't even begin to worry about the center, let alone the left, if the right deserts him. Miers' appointment raised doubts on the right. Bush could not be certain what the grand jury would say or who would be indicted, but he knew there would be indictments. By getting Miers out of the way, he rallied his base at a moment when they would be the vital -- and only -- element he could bank on.
If the early polls are correct, the move worked. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Bush is out of the woods. The social conservatives are only one of three core constituencies within the Republican Party. The others are economic conservatives and businesspeople and, finally, the national security constituency. Miers' withdrawal shored up support among the social conservatives, and the recent nomination of Ben Bernanke to be the new chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve seems to have delighted the economic conservatives.
But the Plame affair is raising hackles in the third constituency: The national security core is restive, to say the least.
There are several strands within this constituency. First, there are the military service members and their families, who are extremely unhappy with the failure to expand the military and to halt the frequent and long deployments that active duty, reserve and National Guard troops are enduring. There is another round of stop losses coming for the next rotation to Iraq -- further alienating a natural Republican constituency that is in near-revolt.
Then there are those who vote Republican because they believe the GOP is more likely to support the defense and intelligence community: These are the ones who are most shaken by the Plame affair, which cuts against their perception of Republican practice.
Finally, there are those who generally believe that Republicans are more effective at conducting foreign policy. It is the support of this group that is now at risk. These are overlapping constituencies, obviously.
But that strand of the Republican base that supported the war even without the issue of WMD, or that could accept misleading reasons for going to war, is now raising fundamental questions about the execution of the war. A recent poll shows the president is slipping in this core constituency.
Political Cycles and Windows of Opportunity
The rest of the world is sensing this weakness. They have long experience with the American political cycle and its periodic weakening of the president. They understand that, despite the objective power of the United States, internal constraints frequently tie the president's hands -- limiting his ability to act or to change the pattern of his actions. These cycles can last from months to several years, but they are not permanent. They do, however, open important windows of opportunity.
The obvious example is the Nixon-Ford presidency and Vietnam, but the weakness extended into the Carter presidency as well. As events in Iran and Afghanistan transpired, options that might have been available under other circumstances were not available to Carter. Indeed, except for the perception that political circumstances precluded the United States from taking certain actions, it is not clear that either the Iranian revolutionaries or the Soviet Union would have behaved in exactly the manner they did. They were able to exploit the temporary situation to their benefit.
The United States is enormously powerful, and viewed within the context of a century, these periodic paralyses are not decisive. It has been established that Woodrow Wilson was unable to control U.S. foreign policy after World War I. Roosevelt could not act as early as he would have liked on World War II, and others were unable to keep control in Vietnam and Iran.
But these substantial moments of paralysis and failure did not define the main trajectory of U.S. power -- which consistently increased throughout the century. To those who doubt this premise, consider the fate of Japan and Germany in World War II or the Soviet Union in the Cold War. There were those -- Henry Kissinger included -- who were prepared to argue that the United States was a declining power after Vietnam. The decline is hardly visible 30 years later.
This is not to understate the dilemma now facing the president. Bush's problems are not trivial: He will be president for three more years, and if he is paralyzed, other nations will have opportunities for action they might not otherwise have. But it has to be kept in balance. The United States does not come near to utilizing its full power -- a few years of paralysis historically have been compensated for at later dates, with minimal harm. But as we saw in the 1930s and 1970s, these periods of U.S. paralysis can have substantial consequences during that time -- and particularly for the history of other nations. The rest of the world may have proceeded pretty much as it would have anyway during those periods, but the course of Vietnamese and Iranian history did not.
At this moment, a number of secondary powers are considering the condition of the American presidency. Iran, as we have noted, is one. Russia is another. For Moscow, the United States is an ally and competitor. If the American presidency is about to enter a black hole, Vladimir Putin will behave differently than he otherwise might. China is dealing with a host of American demands. Those will be dealt with differently if Bush no longer commands the government but only the White House. And in Iraq, of course, every party is looking at American will and American guarantees.
Bush has not lost his presidency. He is merely close to it, and other presidents have recovered from such precarious positions. What he needs is a decisive victory within the United States.
That is why he has nominated Samuel Alito, a staunchly conservative judge, for the Supreme Court in place of Miers. Bush is putting all of his eggs in one basket, looking again to shore up his core base of support. If he can win this battle, the entire psychology of his presidency will shift in his favor. If he loses, then he probably will be no worse off than he was before.
Presidents have power to the extent that they are perceived to have power. At this moment, Bush's status is uncertain. He has certainly not yet lost his presidency, but he has not restored his standing in the polls. It is interesting, therefore, that the status of U.S. foreign policy rests at this moment on the outcome of a decidedly internal matter: the battle for the Supreme Court. The fates of other nations -- and the United States can be decisive in determining their fate -- rest on the idiosyncrasies of American domestic politics.
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.
© Copyright 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
Wrap.,..
Stratfor.com
GEOPOLITICAL INTELLIGENCE REPORT
11.01.2005
The Bush Presidency: Can It Survive?
By George Friedman
Last week, President George W. Bush's appointee to the Supreme Court, Harriet Miers, withdrew her nomination after being savaged from all directions. Vice President Dick Cheney's chief of staff, Lewis Libby, was indicted on a series of charges having to do with the investigation of a White House leak. And the president of Iran said that Israel has to be wiped off the face of the map. None of these events, by themselves, rise to the level of historical significance. But the three taken together, along with other signs and portents, might well be of enormous significance.
We have long argued that one of the primary reasons for the invasion of Iraq was the Bush administration's need to demonstrate to the world in general and the Muslim world in particular that the United States not only has the stomach for war, but also can be decisively victorious. This capacity has not been obvious to anyone, including Americans, since the Vietnam War.
Rightly or wrongly, it had become an idée fixe that the United States shied away from wars in general and from potentially extended wars in particular.Now we are in a period of warfare when the power of the U.S. president -- due to a variety of factors -- has become uncertain. And that is no trivial matter to either the United States or a host of foreign powers.
The Presidency: A Decisive Force?
n wartime, the power of the U.S. president is critical. It is the job of a skillful politician in wartime to do whatever it takes to keep the presidency strong and decisive. And as history shows, presidents who are able to hold the political center and act decisively-- despite challenges faced in the war or on other political fronts -- will survive.
Franklin D. Roosevelt led the United States through a series of unmitigated disasters -- surviving more than a year of defeat and confusion -- because he nurtured confidence among the public and carefully manipulated situations so as to deflect blame from himself. Adm. Husband Kimmel, the commander-in-chief of the Pacific region, was fired after Pearl Harbor; Roosevelt was not.
Conversely, the center did not hold under Lyndon B. Johnson. His legitimacy and credibility as a warfighting president collapsed with startling swiftness when his own party turned on him -- and the opposition, though still supporting the war, never had any confidence in his warfighting strategy. Roosevelt survived the fall of the Philippines; Johnson could not even survive the Tet Offensive.
Therefore, the question that Bush now faces is whether he can hold the center -- whether his presidency can survive as a decisive force.
Let's define this with some care. Unless he was to be convicted of high crimes and misdemeanors by the House of Representatives, Bush will serve as president until January 2009. But there are two kinds of presidents: those with sufficient power to act unilaterally in foreign affairs -- that is, who assume they have the political power to speak and act with confidence -- and those who lack or have lost that ability.
For instance, by the time of the final North Vietnamese assault, Gerald Ford had no practical military or diplomatic options left. His political and legal position precluded that: The center of his presidency was in shambles. Bill Clinton, on the other hand, retained his military option relative to Yugoslavia in spite of other political problems. He was able to move from military action to covert action to diplomatic action at will -- and, in general, without reference to external forces. He was a free agent. Ford could not control the situation in Vietnam, whereas Clinton could control the situation in Kosovo, Bosnia and ultimately in Serbia. The center of Clinton's presidency held.
Polls and Perceptions: The Fight for the Right
The question now, therefore, is whether the center of Bush's presidency will hold or whether he will, for a time or permanently, lose the ability to act unilaterally in foreign affairs. There have been many factors influencing the U.S.-jihadist war in general, but the key now is this: Can Bush still make unilateral decisions? For instance, does he have the ability to decide whether to bomb Syria? Or attack Iranian nuclear reactors? Could he withdraw forces from Iraq without appearing to be capitulating? Can he keep promises to Iraqi factions and credibly threaten them as well?
Part of the answer lies in foreign perceptions of the U.S. presidency, which brings us to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's recent statement on Israel. The statement was rooted in many things. Some of it has to do with domestic Iranian politics; some of it is simply the repetition of long-standing Iranian policy; some of it has to do with the fact that the new president likes to make bellicose statements. But the single most important factor is that Iran does not fear the United States quite as much now as it did six months ago. Words are merely words, but the Iranians were probing for reaction. That the French condemned the statement was of little interest to Tehran; whether the Americans condemned it - and, if so, how -- was the key. The Iranians were taking the measure of American politics. And the response from Washington, we note, was quite mild in comparison to most other Western governments.
Bush's popularity rating, after Libby's indictment was announced, stood at 39 percent, according to a Washington Post-ABC poll. This is actually pretty good news for Bush, believe it or not. As we attempted to show in past articles, there is a point of support beyond which Bush's Republican base could be deemed to be fragmenting, and that is the point at which a presidency becomes unrecoverable. Bush has been at that point, which we peg -- at the extreme -- at 39 percent, for several weeks now. Polls have been showing him in the 37 percent to 45 percent range, which, given error rates, puts him realistically in the very low 40s. Bush's support did not bounce back (given all the issues at stake, a bounce would have been miraculous), but -- and this is the critical point -- his core has not fragmented.
This is one reason why Miers, whose nomination to the Supreme Court raised outcries among Bush's core base of conservatives, had to be ditched fast -- before the indictments in the Plame case came out. At this point, Bush must, above all costs, hold his base solidly. He can't even begin to worry about the center, let alone the left, if the right deserts him. Miers' appointment raised doubts on the right. Bush could not be certain what the grand jury would say or who would be indicted, but he knew there would be indictments. By getting Miers out of the way, he rallied his base at a moment when they would be the vital -- and only -- element he could bank on.
If the early polls are correct, the move worked. This does not necessarily mean, however, that Bush is out of the woods. The social conservatives are only one of three core constituencies within the Republican Party. The others are economic conservatives and businesspeople and, finally, the national security constituency. Miers' withdrawal shored up support among the social conservatives, and the recent nomination of Ben Bernanke to be the new chairman of the U.S. Federal Reserve seems to have delighted the economic conservatives.
But the Plame affair is raising hackles in the third constituency: The national security core is restive, to say the least.
There are several strands within this constituency. First, there are the military service members and their families, who are extremely unhappy with the failure to expand the military and to halt the frequent and long deployments that active duty, reserve and National Guard troops are enduring. There is another round of stop losses coming for the next rotation to Iraq -- further alienating a natural Republican constituency that is in near-revolt.
Then there are those who vote Republican because they believe the GOP is more likely to support the defense and intelligence community: These are the ones who are most shaken by the Plame affair, which cuts against their perception of Republican practice.
Finally, there are those who generally believe that Republicans are more effective at conducting foreign policy. It is the support of this group that is now at risk. These are overlapping constituencies, obviously.
But that strand of the Republican base that supported the war even without the issue of WMD, or that could accept misleading reasons for going to war, is now raising fundamental questions about the execution of the war. A recent poll shows the president is slipping in this core constituency.
Political Cycles and Windows of Opportunity
The rest of the world is sensing this weakness. They have long experience with the American political cycle and its periodic weakening of the president. They understand that, despite the objective power of the United States, internal constraints frequently tie the president's hands -- limiting his ability to act or to change the pattern of his actions. These cycles can last from months to several years, but they are not permanent. They do, however, open important windows of opportunity.
The obvious example is the Nixon-Ford presidency and Vietnam, but the weakness extended into the Carter presidency as well. As events in Iran and Afghanistan transpired, options that might have been available under other circumstances were not available to Carter. Indeed, except for the perception that political circumstances precluded the United States from taking certain actions, it is not clear that either the Iranian revolutionaries or the Soviet Union would have behaved in exactly the manner they did. They were able to exploit the temporary situation to their benefit.
The United States is enormously powerful, and viewed within the context of a century, these periodic paralyses are not decisive. It has been established that Woodrow Wilson was unable to control U.S. foreign policy after World War I. Roosevelt could not act as early as he would have liked on World War II, and others were unable to keep control in Vietnam and Iran.
But these substantial moments of paralysis and failure did not define the main trajectory of U.S. power -- which consistently increased throughout the century. To those who doubt this premise, consider the fate of Japan and Germany in World War II or the Soviet Union in the Cold War. There were those -- Henry Kissinger included -- who were prepared to argue that the United States was a declining power after Vietnam. The decline is hardly visible 30 years later.
This is not to understate the dilemma now facing the president. Bush's problems are not trivial: He will be president for three more years, and if he is paralyzed, other nations will have opportunities for action they might not otherwise have. But it has to be kept in balance. The United States does not come near to utilizing its full power -- a few years of paralysis historically have been compensated for at later dates, with minimal harm. But as we saw in the 1930s and 1970s, these periods of U.S. paralysis can have substantial consequences during that time -- and particularly for the history of other nations. The rest of the world may have proceeded pretty much as it would have anyway during those periods, but the course of Vietnamese and Iranian history did not.
At this moment, a number of secondary powers are considering the condition of the American presidency. Iran, as we have noted, is one. Russia is another. For Moscow, the United States is an ally and competitor. If the American presidency is about to enter a black hole, Vladimir Putin will behave differently than he otherwise might. China is dealing with a host of American demands. Those will be dealt with differently if Bush no longer commands the government but only the White House. And in Iraq, of course, every party is looking at American will and American guarantees.
Bush has not lost his presidency. He is merely close to it, and other presidents have recovered from such precarious positions. What he needs is a decisive victory within the United States.
That is why he has nominated Samuel Alito, a staunchly conservative judge, for the Supreme Court in place of Miers. Bush is putting all of his eggs in one basket, looking again to shore up his core base of support. If he can win this battle, the entire psychology of his presidency will shift in his favor. If he loses, then he probably will be no worse off than he was before.
Presidents have power to the extent that they are perceived to have power. At this moment, Bush's status is uncertain. He has certainly not yet lost his presidency, but he has not restored his standing in the polls. It is interesting, therefore, that the status of U.S. foreign policy rests at this moment on the outcome of a decidedly internal matter: the battle for the Supreme Court. The fates of other nations -- and the United States can be decisive in determining their fate -- rest on the idiosyncrasies of American domestic politics.
This report may be distributed or republished with attribution to Strategic Forecasting, Inc. at www.stratfor.com.
© Copyright 2005 Strategic Forecasting Inc. All rights reserved.
Wrap.,..
Marines won't like this...
From the LA Times' "In Brief":
November 2, 2005
latimes.com :
National News
IN BRIEF/WASHINGTON, D.C.
Marines Create New Special Operations ForceFrom Times Wire Reports
The Pentagon announced the creation of a new force of about 2,600 Marines intended to address a shortage of elite troops available for anti-terrorist operations and other missions requiring exceptional skills.But in a marked departure for the fiercely self-reliant corps, the new contingent will report not to the Marine leadership but to the multi-service command responsible for other Special Operations troops from the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Wrap...
November 2, 2005
latimes.com :
National News
IN BRIEF/WASHINGTON, D.C.
Marines Create New Special Operations ForceFrom Times Wire Reports
The Pentagon announced the creation of a new force of about 2,600 Marines intended to address a shortage of elite troops available for anti-terrorist operations and other missions requiring exceptional skills.But in a marked departure for the fiercely self-reliant corps, the new contingent will report not to the Marine leadership but to the multi-service command responsible for other Special Operations troops from the Army, Navy and Air Force.
Wrap...
Congrats, Bloggers!
From Nov 7th Newsweek's The Blog Watch:
As the Plame grand jury wound down, firedoglake.blogspot.com's analysis illuminated the murky case, while fitzmas.blogspot.com injected a little festive cheer.
Of all the ways to infuriate bloggers, claiming never to read their work tops the list. If only someone had told Trent Lott. The thinkprogress.org tribe vented its collective spleen.
Former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers may yet be immortalized—as a verb. According to reformclub.blogspot.com, to be "miered" is to be "unscrupulously torpedoed by an ally."
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
Wrap...
As the Plame grand jury wound down, firedoglake.blogspot.com's analysis illuminated the murky case, while fitzmas.blogspot.com injected a little festive cheer.
Of all the ways to infuriate bloggers, claiming never to read their work tops the list. If only someone had told Trent Lott. The thinkprogress.org tribe vented its collective spleen.
Former Supreme Court nominee Harriet Miers may yet be immortalized—as a verb. According to reformclub.blogspot.com, to be "miered" is to be "unscrupulously torpedoed by an ally."
© 2005 Newsweek, Inc.
Wrap...
Shakeup at CNN!!!
November 2, 2005
CNN Ousts Aaron Brown and Gives Slot to Anderson Cooper
By BILL CARTER
CNN ousted its longtime prime-time anchor, Aaron Brown, today in favor of Anderson Cooper, who has received extensive media attention in the wake of his widely publicized coverage of Hurricane Katrina.
Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/U.S., said today that he and Mr. Brown had mutually agreed that Mr. Brown would leave the cable news network because the new CNN lineup left "no options" for a program that would include Mr. Brown. "It is, unfortunately, a zero-sum game," Mr. Klein said.
The realigned CNN lineup will place Mr. Cooper's program "360," which had previously run at 7 p.m. Eastern time weeknights, in the 10 p.m. time period that had been occupied for the last four years by Mr. Brown's program, "Newsnight." Mr. Cooper's program will also expand to two hours, from 10 until midnight. CNN has experimented with that two-hour format over the past month, with Mr. Cooper joining Mr. Brown to serve as co-anchor of the program.
The audience levels for that program have increased markedly in the last month, a development that CNN attributed to Mr. Cooper's presence. In the 7 p.m. hour, where Mr. Cooper had previously worked, CNN will insert the final hour of its three-hour-long "Situation Room" program with Wolf Blitzer. That program has been running from 3 to 6 p.m. Eastern time each weekday. Now it will run from 4 to 6 p.m., leading into an hourlong newscast anchored by Lou Dobbs, with Mr. Blitzer coming back at 7 p.m. for one more hour.
Paula Zahn's program will continue to run from 8 to 9 p.m. and Larry King's show will remain from 9 to 10 p.m.
Mr. Klein said the moves were made chiefly to elevate the profiles of the two news figures that he said have been growing in popularity at CNN, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Blitzer.
"We want to expose Anderson and Wolf to more people," Mr. Klein said.
He said that Mr. Cooper, who is 38, had so stood out for his "passion and enthusiasm" - especially during the coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and its impact on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast - that "his name has been on the tip of everyone's tongue."
Mr. Klein also complimented Mr. Brown, who is 56, saying "he is a first-class news talent, no question." But he repeated that CNN simply had no program to offer Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown did not respond to telephone calls and e-mails requesting comment. A CNN spokeswoman said Mr. Cooper was on vacation and unavailable for comment.
Wrap...
CNN Ousts Aaron Brown and Gives Slot to Anderson Cooper
By BILL CARTER
CNN ousted its longtime prime-time anchor, Aaron Brown, today in favor of Anderson Cooper, who has received extensive media attention in the wake of his widely publicized coverage of Hurricane Katrina.
Jonathan Klein, the president of CNN/U.S., said today that he and Mr. Brown had mutually agreed that Mr. Brown would leave the cable news network because the new CNN lineup left "no options" for a program that would include Mr. Brown. "It is, unfortunately, a zero-sum game," Mr. Klein said.
The realigned CNN lineup will place Mr. Cooper's program "360," which had previously run at 7 p.m. Eastern time weeknights, in the 10 p.m. time period that had been occupied for the last four years by Mr. Brown's program, "Newsnight." Mr. Cooper's program will also expand to two hours, from 10 until midnight. CNN has experimented with that two-hour format over the past month, with Mr. Cooper joining Mr. Brown to serve as co-anchor of the program.
The audience levels for that program have increased markedly in the last month, a development that CNN attributed to Mr. Cooper's presence. In the 7 p.m. hour, where Mr. Cooper had previously worked, CNN will insert the final hour of its three-hour-long "Situation Room" program with Wolf Blitzer. That program has been running from 3 to 6 p.m. Eastern time each weekday. Now it will run from 4 to 6 p.m., leading into an hourlong newscast anchored by Lou Dobbs, with Mr. Blitzer coming back at 7 p.m. for one more hour.
Paula Zahn's program will continue to run from 8 to 9 p.m. and Larry King's show will remain from 9 to 10 p.m.
Mr. Klein said the moves were made chiefly to elevate the profiles of the two news figures that he said have been growing in popularity at CNN, Mr. Cooper and Mr. Blitzer.
"We want to expose Anderson and Wolf to more people," Mr. Klein said.
He said that Mr. Cooper, who is 38, had so stood out for his "passion and enthusiasm" - especially during the coverage of the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina and its impact on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast - that "his name has been on the tip of everyone's tongue."
Mr. Klein also complimented Mr. Brown, who is 56, saying "he is a first-class news talent, no question." But he repeated that CNN simply had no program to offer Mr. Brown.
Mr. Brown did not respond to telephone calls and e-mails requesting comment. A CNN spokeswoman said Mr. Cooper was on vacation and unavailable for comment.
Wrap...
Tuesday, November 01, 2005
Right now controls PBS...
via Truthout.org:
New Pub-Casting Chief Completes Right-Wing Coup
By Timothy Karr
Media Citizen
Monday 31 October 2005
The new president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has stacked the agency's offices with propagandists and White House loyalists in a bold-faced effort to carry forward Kenneth Tomlinson's right-wing crusade against public broadcasting.
Since taking up her post as CPB President in June, Patricia de Stacy Harrison - the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee - has brought in senior officers from the State Department's "Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy" division, the group that oversees efforts to "advance U.S. interests and security and to provide the moral basis for U.S. leadership in the world."
Each of the new hires had previously served under Harrison when she was assistant secretary for educational and cultural affairs and acting undersecretary for public affairs and public diplomacy.
"Public diplomacy" is gov-speak for propaganda. The packing of the CPB with individuals more comfortable with selling U.S. propaganda than with honest journalism sends a not-so-subtle signal to those working in public broadcasting that truth is out and government spin is in. Harrison's CPB hires include:
Tom Igsitt, now CPB's vice president for government affairs, was a driving force behind the campaign to place pro-American propaganda in Arabic media worldwide to win Arab support for the war on terror. Before joining the State Department, Isgitt was a manager for international public relations giant Burson-Marsteller; the firm has a history of placing key players in George W. Bush's presidential campaigns into top public relations jobs across the industry.
Mike Levy, the new CPB vice president of communications, served as Harrison's chief of staff when she headed the RNC. At the State Department, Levy developed "pro-active media strategies" to increase support for U.S. counter-narcotics initiatives in more than 100 countries as part of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He also previously worked as special assistant to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and as press secretary to several GOP congressional campaigns.
Helen Mobley, hired as CPB's senior director of corporate communications and planning, worked closely with Harrison to manage the State Department's efforts to bring Afghan women to America to showcase new freedoms after the downfall of the Taliban regime. Mobley also was deputy director of scheduling during George W. Bush's first presidential run and has been active in GOPUSA.com, Bobby Eberle's Texas-based campaign "to spread the conservative message throughout America." Eberle became known earlier this year for having hired J.D. Guckert - aka Jeff Gannon - as his White House corresondent.
I have posted extensive profiles of these three at Free Press.
The CPB was created to shield public broadcasting from political interference, not to be a megaphone for the White House. Harrison's actions have made it clear that she and her right-wing cronies at the CPB will not be deterred from their quest to turn America's treasured public broadcasting system into partisan echo chamber.
Harrison got her own position at the CPB through her political connections to then-Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, who also heads the Broadcasting Board of Governors - which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio and TV Marti and other government-run international broadcasting. Tomlinson's successor, current CPB Chairwoman Cheryl Halpern, is another big GOP fundraiser who spent seven years as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Tomlinson is currently being investigated for efforts to impose his political agenda at CPB by funding programming with a pro-government slant, secretly monitoring PBS and NPR for signs of "liberal advocacy journalism," as well as hiring unqualified political cronies like Harrison. Inspector General Kenneth Konz is expected to present his findings - which reportedly included ethical and procedural violations as well as misuse of funds - on Tuesday to a closed-door meeting of the CPB board of directors, of which Tomlinson remains a member.
"CPB is being governed more like a private, secret society than an agency supported by taxpayers," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "As the hiring of former State Department propaganda colleagues by Patricia Harrison illustrates, the CPB has been ideologically hijacked."
The packing of CPB with individuals more comfortable with selling U.S. propaganda than with honest journalism sends a not-so-subtle signal to those working in public broadcasting that truth is out and government spin is in.
Free Press, the Center for Digital Democracy and Common Cause have repeatedly called for greater openness and accountability at the CPB. Earlier this year, we delivered more than 150,000 petitions to the CPB, demanding Tomlinson step down and board members end their partisan interference with public broadcasting.
Wrap...
New Pub-Casting Chief Completes Right-Wing Coup
By Timothy Karr
Media Citizen
Monday 31 October 2005
The new president of the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) has stacked the agency's offices with propagandists and White House loyalists in a bold-faced effort to carry forward Kenneth Tomlinson's right-wing crusade against public broadcasting.
Since taking up her post as CPB President in June, Patricia de Stacy Harrison - the former co-chair of the Republican National Committee - has brought in senior officers from the State Department's "Public Affairs and Public Diplomacy" division, the group that oversees efforts to "advance U.S. interests and security and to provide the moral basis for U.S. leadership in the world."
Each of the new hires had previously served under Harrison when she was assistant secretary for educational and cultural affairs and acting undersecretary for public affairs and public diplomacy.
"Public diplomacy" is gov-speak for propaganda. The packing of the CPB with individuals more comfortable with selling U.S. propaganda than with honest journalism sends a not-so-subtle signal to those working in public broadcasting that truth is out and government spin is in. Harrison's CPB hires include:
Tom Igsitt, now CPB's vice president for government affairs, was a driving force behind the campaign to place pro-American propaganda in Arabic media worldwide to win Arab support for the war on terror. Before joining the State Department, Isgitt was a manager for international public relations giant Burson-Marsteller; the firm has a history of placing key players in George W. Bush's presidential campaigns into top public relations jobs across the industry.
Mike Levy, the new CPB vice president of communications, served as Harrison's chief of staff when she headed the RNC. At the State Department, Levy developed "pro-active media strategies" to increase support for U.S. counter-narcotics initiatives in more than 100 countries as part of the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. He also previously worked as special assistant to Labor Secretary Elaine Chao and as press secretary to several GOP congressional campaigns.
Helen Mobley, hired as CPB's senior director of corporate communications and planning, worked closely with Harrison to manage the State Department's efforts to bring Afghan women to America to showcase new freedoms after the downfall of the Taliban regime. Mobley also was deputy director of scheduling during George W. Bush's first presidential run and has been active in GOPUSA.com, Bobby Eberle's Texas-based campaign "to spread the conservative message throughout America." Eberle became known earlier this year for having hired J.D. Guckert - aka Jeff Gannon - as his White House corresondent.
I have posted extensive profiles of these three at Free Press.
The CPB was created to shield public broadcasting from political interference, not to be a megaphone for the White House. Harrison's actions have made it clear that she and her right-wing cronies at the CPB will not be deterred from their quest to turn America's treasured public broadcasting system into partisan echo chamber.
Harrison got her own position at the CPB through her political connections to then-Chairman Kenneth Tomlinson, who also heads the Broadcasting Board of Governors - which oversees the Voice of America, Radio Free Europe, Radio and TV Marti and other government-run international broadcasting. Tomlinson's successor, current CPB Chairwoman Cheryl Halpern, is another big GOP fundraiser who spent seven years as a member of the Broadcasting Board of Governors.
Tomlinson is currently being investigated for efforts to impose his political agenda at CPB by funding programming with a pro-government slant, secretly monitoring PBS and NPR for signs of "liberal advocacy journalism," as well as hiring unqualified political cronies like Harrison. Inspector General Kenneth Konz is expected to present his findings - which reportedly included ethical and procedural violations as well as misuse of funds - on Tuesday to a closed-door meeting of the CPB board of directors, of which Tomlinson remains a member.
"CPB is being governed more like a private, secret society than an agency supported by taxpayers," said Jeff Chester, executive director of the Center for Digital Democracy. "As the hiring of former State Department propaganda colleagues by Patricia Harrison illustrates, the CPB has been ideologically hijacked."
The packing of CPB with individuals more comfortable with selling U.S. propaganda than with honest journalism sends a not-so-subtle signal to those working in public broadcasting that truth is out and government spin is in.
Free Press, the Center for Digital Democracy and Common Cause have repeatedly called for greater openness and accountability at the CPB. Earlier this year, we delivered more than 150,000 petitions to the CPB, demanding Tomlinson step down and board members end their partisan interference with public broadcasting.
Wrap...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)