Sunday, October 16, 2005

These people are going too far, next they will be telling the post office to open our mail before we get it. I guess if you are coming apart at the seams you start in with the fear machine at full tilt to throw off the scent, all of a sudden we'll start hearing about some student who is planning to take over the world and how he or she were in league with the people who support terrorists and, no hold on he's already the president. And once again it will be "Pinky" in the white house not the brain.


October 23, 2005
Colleges Protest Call to Upgrade Online Systems


By SAM DILLON and STEPHEN LABATON

The federal government, vastly extending the reach of an 11-year-old law, is requiring hundreds of universities, online communications companies and cities to overhaul their Internet computer networks to make it easier for law enforcement authorities to monitor e-mail and other online communications.
The action, which the government says is intended to help catch terrorists and other criminals, has unleashed protests and the threat of lawsuits from universities, which argue that it will cost them at least $7 billion while doing little to apprehend lawbreakers. Because the government would have to win court orders before undertaking surveillance, the universities are not raising civil liberties issues.
The order, issued by the Federal Communications Commission in August and first published in the Federal Register last week, extends the provisions of a 1994 wiretap law not only to universities, but also to libraries, airports providing wireless service and commercial Internet access providers.
It also applies to municipalities that provide Internet access to residents, be they rural towns or cities like Philadelphia and San Francisco, which have plans to build their own Net access networks.
So far, however, universities have been most vocal in their opposition.
The 1994 law, the Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act, requires telephone carriers to engineer their switching systems at their own cost so that federal agents can obtain easy surveillance access.
Recognizing the growth of Internet-based telephone and other communications, the order requires that organizations like universities providing Internet access also comply with the law by spring 2007.
The Justice Department requested the order last year, saying that new technologies like telephone service over the Internet were endangering law enforcement's ability to conduct wiretaps "in their fight against criminals, terrorists and spies."
Justice Department officials, who declined to comment for this article, said in their written comments filed with the Federal Communications Commission that the new requirements were necessary to keep the 1994 law "viable in the face of the monumental shift of the telecommunications industry" and to enable law enforcement to "accomplish its mission in the face of rapidly advancing technology."
The F.C.C. says it is considering whether to exempt educational institutions from some of the law's provisions, but it has not granted an extension for compliance.
Lawyers for the American Council on Education, the nation's largest association of universities and colleges, are preparing to appeal the order before the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Terry W. Hartle, a senior vice president of the council, said Friday.
The Center for Democracy and Technology, a nonprofit civil liberties group, has enlisted plaintiffs for a separate legal challenge, focusing on objections to government control over how organizations, including hundreds of private technology companies, design Internet systems, James X. Dempsey, the center's executive director, said Friday.
The universities do not question the government's right to use wiretaps to monitor terrorism or criminal suspects on college campuses, Mr. Hartle said, only the order's rapid timetable for compliance and extraordinary cost.
Technology experts retained by the schools estimated that it could cost universities at least $7 billion just to buy the Internet switches and routers necessary for compliance. That figure does not include installation or the costs of hiring and training staff to oversee the sophisticated circuitry around the clock, as the law requires, the experts said.
"This is the mother of all unfunded mandates," Mr. Hartle said.
Even the lowest estimates of compliance costs would, on average, increase annual tuition at most American universities by some $450, at a time when rising education costs are already a sore point with parents and members of Congress, Mr. Hartle said.
At New York University, for instance, the order would require the installation of thousands of new devices in more than 100 buildings around Manhattan, be they small switches in a wiring closet or large aggregation routers that pull data together from many sites and send it over the Internet, said Doug Carlson, the university's executive director of communications and computing services.
"Back of the envelope, this would cost us many millions of dollars," Mr. Carlson said.
F.C.C. officials declined to comment publicly, citing their continuing review of possible exemptions to the order.
Some government officials said they did not view compliance as overly costly for colleges because the order did not require surveillance of networks that permit students and faculty to communicate only among themselves, like intranet services. They also said the schools would be required to make their networks accessible to law enforcement only at the point where those networks connect to the outside world.
Educause, a nonprofit association of universities and other groups that has hired lawyers to prepare its own legal challenge, informed its members of the order in a Sept. 29 letter signed by Mark A. Luker, an Educause vice president.
Mr. Luker advised universities to begin planning how to comply with the order, which university officials described as an extraordinary technological challenge.
Unlike telephone service, which sends a steady electronic voice stream over a wire, the transmission of e-mail and other information on the Internet sends out data packets that are disassembled on one end of a conversation and reassembled on the other.
Universities provide hundreds of potential Internet access sites, including lounges and other areas that offer wireless service and Internet jacks in libraries, dorms, classrooms and laboratories, often dispersed through scores of buildings.
If law enforcement officials obtain a court order to monitor the Internet communications of someone at a university, the current approach is to work quietly with campus officials to single out specific sites and install the equipment needed to carry out the surveillance. This low-tech approach has worked well in the past, officials at several campuses said.
But the federal law would apply a high-tech approach, enabling law enforcement to monitor communications at campuses from remote locations at the turn of a switch.
It would require universities to re-engineer their networks so that every Net access point would send all communications not directly onto the Internet, but first to a network operations center where the data packets could be stitched together into a single package for delivery to law enforcement, university officials said.
Albert Gidari Jr., a Seattle lawyer at the firm Perkins Coie who is representing Educause, said he and other representatives of universities had been negotiating with lawyers and technology officials from the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of Homeland Security and other agencies since the spring about issues including what technical requirements universities would need to meet to comply with the law.
"This is a fight over whether a Buick is good enough, or do you need a Lexus?" Mr. Gidari said. "The F.B.I. is the lead agency, and they are insisting on the Lexus."
Law enforcement has only infrequently requested to monitor Internet communications anywhere, much less on university campuses or libraries, according to the Center for Democracy and Technology. In 2003, only 12 of the 1,442 state and federal wiretap orders were issued for computer communications, and the F.B.I. never argued that it had difficulty executing any of those 12 wiretaps, the center said.
"We keep asking the F.B.I., What is the problem you're trying to solve?" Mr. Dempsey said. "And they have never showed any problem with any university or any for-profit Internet access provider. The F.B.I. must demonstrate precisely why it wants to impose such an enormously disruptive and expensive burden."
Larry D. Conrad, the chief information officer at Florida State University, where more than 140 buildings are equipped for Internet access, said there were easy ways to set up Internet wiretaps.
"But the wild-eyed fear I have," Mr. Conrad said, "is that the government will rule that this all has to be automatic, anytime, which would mean I'd have to re-architect our entire campus network."
He continued, "It seems like overkill to make all these institutions spend this huge amount of money for a just-in-case kind of scenario."
The University of Illinois says it is worried about the order because it is in the second year of a $20 million upgrade of its campus network. Peter Siegel, the university's chief information officer, estimated that the new rules would require the university to buy 2,100 new devices, at a cost of an additional $13 million, to replace equipment that is brand new.
"It's like you buy a new car, and then the E.P.A. says you have to buy a new car again," Mr. Siegel said. "You'd say, 'Gee, could I just buy a new muffler?' "








The colonel sings the blues




By Lakshmi ChaudhryPosted on October 20, 2005, Printed on October 20, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/bloggers/lakshmi/27117/

Lawrence Wilkerson, the former chief of staff to Colin Powell, offered a scathing and surprisingly blunt critique of the Bush foreign policymaking process during a speech at the New America Foundation. Here are some highlights from a partial transcript [Video HERE]:
But the case that I saw for 4 plus years was a case that I have never seen in my studies of aberration, bastardizations, perturbations, changes to the national security decisionmaking process. What I saw was a cabal between the Vice President of the United States, Richard Cheney, and the Secretary of Defense and [inaudible] on critical issues that made decisions that the bureaucracy did not know were being made. ...
Under Secretary of Defense Douglas Feith whom most of you probably know Tommy Frank said was stupidest blankety blank man in the world. He was. Let me testify to that. He was. Seldom in my life have I met a dumber man. ...
So you’ve got this collegiality there between the Secretary of Defense and the Vice President. And then you’ve got a President who is not versed in international relations. And not too much interested in them either. And so it’s not too difficult to make decisions in this, what I call Oval Office cabal, and decisions often that are the opposite of what you thought were made in the formal process.
Wilkerson was no kinder on Condi Rice, whom he accused of not doing her job: "she would side with the president to build her intimacy with the president." But the section in the raw transcript that caught my attention is this:
And I would say that we have courted disaster, in Iraq, in North Korea, in Iran, generally with regard to domestic crises like Katrina, Rita and I could go on back, we haven’t done very well on anything like that in a long time. And if something comes along that is truly serious, truly serious, something like a nuclear weapon going off in a major American city, or something like a major pandemic, you are going to see the ineptitude of this government in a way that will take you back to the Declaration of Independence. Read it some time again.
I just use it for a tutoring class for my students in the District of Columbia. Forced me to read it really closely because we’re doing metaphors and similes and antonyms and synonyms and so we’re…read in there what the founders say in a very different language than we use today. Read in there what they say about the necessity of people to [inaudible - background voice] tyranny or to throw off ineptitude or to throw off that which is not doing what the people want it to do. [Partial transcript here]
Neither the Washington Post or Financial Times articles clarify exactly what Wilkerson is saying with his reference to the Declaration of Independence. Reads to me as though he is implying that the American public ought to overthrow the Bush administration (or will do so when they realize just how terribly incompetent and dangerous it is), but that may just be wishful thinking. [Links courtesy David Addams]
Update: The full transcript is now available here.




Wednesday :: Oct 19, 2005
Wurmser Is Now Cooperating With Fitz As Well

Raw Story is reporting this morning that a second Cheney staffer, David Wurmser, is also cooperating now with Patrick Fitzgerald. Wurmser, who is one of the PNAC true believers that encircle Cheney, Bolton, and Rummy, has according to Raw Story flipped along with Cheney and Bolton staffer John Hannah after they were threatened for their actions in attacking Joe Wilson's credibility. The Raw Story piece makes it clear that both Hannah and Wurmser revealed Valerie Plame's identity and role at the Agency at the direction of senior staffers in Cheney's office (read: Scooter Libby).
Late Monday, several sources familiar with Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s probe said John Hannah, a key aide to Vice President Dick Cheney and one of the architects of the Iraq war, was cooperating with Fitzgerald after being told that he was identified by witnesses as a co-conspirator in the leak. Sources said Hannah was not given immunity, but was likely offered a “deal” in exchange for information that could result in indictments of key White House officials.
Now, those close to the investigation say that a second Cheney aide, David Wurmser, has agreed to provide the prosecution with evidence that the leak was a coordinated effort by Cheney’s office to discredit the agent's husband. Her husband, former ambassador Joseph Wilson, was one of the most vocal critics of the Iraq war.
Wurmser, Cheney’s Middle East advisor and an assistant to then-Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security Affairs John Bolton, likely cooperated because he faced criminal charges for his role in leaking Wilson's name on the orders of higher-ups, the sources said.
According to those familiar with the case, Wurmser was in attendance at several meetings of the White House Iraq Group (WHIG), a little-known cabal of administration hawks that formed in August 2002 to publicize the threat posed by Saddam Hussein. Those who say they have reviewed documents obtained in the probe assert that the Vice President was also present at some of the group’s meetings.
The sources say that Hannah and Wurmser were given orders by senior officials in Cheney’s office in June 2003 to leak Plame’s covert status and identity in an attempt to muzzle Wilson. The former ambassador had been a thorn in administration’s side since May 2003, when he began questioning claims that Iraq was an imminent threat to the U.S. and its neighbors in the Middle East.
We'll have no way of knowing how solid Raw Story's reporting here really is, until we see what Fitzgerald comes out with. On the surface, it sounds like he is using the two staffers to roll onto Libby, in the hope probably that Libby will then come clean about Cheney's role in all of this, something I don't think will ever happen unless Fitzgerald really can threaten Libby with a violation of the Espionage Act for directing the leaking a covert operative's name, among the other perjury and obstruction charges. But if you are to believe the account by Raw Story, it shows that there was knowledge aforethought about Plame's status, and that takes this into a very serious realm far beyond simple perjury and obstruction charges.
Even the Democrats are now asking what did Bush know, and when did he lie about it?
Even Tweety said this morning that this is evolving into a serious problem for Cheney, although Matthews spins this travesty as something Bush is detached from, and as a wholly-owned Cheney operation. Does anyone believe that?




Rice Fails to Persuade Russia to Support U.N. Action on Iran

By JOEL BRINKLEY
Published: October 16, 2005
MOSCOW, Oct. 15 - Russia's leaders told Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice on Saturday that they did not support sending the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the United Nations Security Council, and they reaffirmed their view that Iran had the legal right to enrich uranium.
The statements, by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and others, were a sharp setback for Ms. Rice's efforts to reach a consensus on Iran's nuclear program. The Iranians "have this right" to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty, Mr. Lavrov said at joint news conference with Ms. Rice, who flew here on short notice for consultations on Iran and other issues before heading to London.
Ms. Rice spent two hours with Mr. Lavrov and another hour with President Vladimir V. Putin on Saturday morning but failed to budge them from their view, which is at odds with Washington's position.
Still, Ms. Rice, speaking to reporters later, made it clear that the United States and its European allies would still refer Iran to the Security Council, for admonishment or sanctions, if it did not shut down its nuclear fuel reprocessing program. But with Russia opposed, the prospects in the Council look bleak, as Russia holds a veto. "We do not agree that this matter should be sent to the Security Council," said Sergei Kislyak, the deputy foreign minister.
Iran says it needs to process nuclear fuel for civilian nuclear-power stations. But Washington and its European allies argue that Iran wants the fuel for nuclear weapons.
The board of the International Atomic Energy Agency, an arm of the United Nations, voted last month to refer the issue of Iran's nuclear program to the Security Council. Russia and 11 other nations abstained. But the board must vote again during a meeting that begins Nov. 24 to make the actual referral. Both Mr. Lavrov and Ms. Rice said they were hoping Iran would make concessions before then, making a referral unnecessary.
Ms. Rice said for the first time on Saturday that Washington might not push for a vote on a referral during the November meeting, suggesting that the United States may not have the votes it needs to win a second vote on the agency's board. Some members of the board who voted in favor of last month's resolution are rotating off the board. Among those rotating on in their place are Belarus, Cuba and Syria, three nations that are unlikely to support the American position.
Officials said the vote could also be postponed if Iran appeared to be moving toward compliance with the board's demands.
"There will be a referral," Ms. Rice said, but "we're going to keep the referral option alive at a time of our choosing."
Ms. Rice contended that the Russians had not rebuffed her because "they did say that the Iranians do not currently have the confidence of the international community." She also noted that the Russians had previously proposed to provide Iran with fuel for a civilian nuclear reactor and then to take back the spent materials. That, she said, demonstrates that Russia, too, has concerns about the Iranian program.
When asked about Mr. Lavrov's unambiguous statements of opposition to the United States and European position, she repeatedly referred back to those two points and would not acknowledge the disagreement. As she explained it, "the Russians prefer to have negotiations proceed in this period of time."
Mr. Kislyak agreed, to a point, saying "one has to work with Iran to find a solution." But he and Mr. Lavrov strongly suggested that negotiating with Iran within the atomic energy agency was about as far as Russia was willing to go.
Responding to a question about referring Iran to the Council, Mr. Lavrov said, "We think that the current situation commits us to develop this issue and to do everything possible within the means of" the atomic energy agency "without referring this issue to other organizations."



U.S. House of Representatives
N E W S R E L E A S E
For Immediate Release: October 21, 2005Davis, Waxman, Sensenbrenner, Conyers, Boehlert, and Gordon ReactTo GAO Report on Security Problems With Electronic Voting SystemsWashington, D.C. - Government Reform Committee Chairman Tom Davis (R-VA) and Ranking Member Henry A. Waxman (D-CA), Judiciary Committee Chair F. James Sensenbrenner (R-WI) and Ranking Member John Conyers (D-MI), and Science Committee Chair Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) and Ranking Member Bart Gordon (D-TN), issued the following statements upon today's release of the Government Accountability Office's report, "Federal Efforts to Improve Security and Reliability of Electronic Voting Systems Are Under Way, but Key Activities Need to Be Completed" (GAO-05-956):"It is certainly disappointing that, despite the recommendations from federal organizations and non-governmental groups, many states still have not made progress to make sure their electronic voting systems are safe from fraud and can be relied on to accurately count votes," Chairman Davis said. "However, I am pleased that the EAC is continuing to push states to improve their voting systems and comply with the requirements of the Help Americans Vote Act (HAVA). American's voting system must be made to be world class, everywhere in the country, as soon as possible.""The GAO report indicates that we need to get serious and act quickly to improve the security of electronic voting machines," said Rep. Waxman. "The report makes clear that there is a lack of transparency and accountability in electronic voting systems - from the day that contracts are signed with manufacturers to the counting of electronic votes on Election Day. State and local officials are spending a great deal of money on machines without concrete proof that they are secure and reliable. American voters deserve better." Chairman Sensenbrenner said, "The Founders established the states as the entity primarily responsible for the administration of both federal and state elections. While Congress has provided direction through HAVA and federal grants to modernize state election systems, some states continue to drag their feet in preventing voting compilation errors and eliminating questionable voter registration and poll day procedures. In my home state of Wisconsin, the current Governor has done his best to block the legislature's efforts to implement voting reforms conforming with HAVA guidelines, despite evidence of widespread voter fraud in Milwaukee in recent elections. The EAC will have to push hard to overcome the resistance of those who rely on outmoded and unreliable voting practices to keep themselves in power.""I am shocked at the extent and nature of problems GAO has identified in our electronic voting systems, and I fear that this may just be the tip of the iceberg," said Rep. Conyers. "It is totally unacceptable that in 21st century American we would allow faulty machines and systems to rob citizens of their voting rights. While GAO offers some modest recommendations for improvement, it is incumbent upon Congress to respond to this problem and to enact much-needed reforms such as a voter verified paper audit trail that protects all Americans' right to vote."Chairman Boehlert said, "I wholeheartedly endorse the GAO recommendations, which underscore the need for the Election Assistance Commission and the National Institute of Standards and Technology to continue their work to establish standards and testing procedures for voting equipment. This work must move ahead on an ambitious schedule, and the Science Committee will continue to monitor its progress.""The foundation of democracy rests upon the accuracy, integrity and security of our voting system," Rep. Gordon said. "The Science Committee gave the National Institute of Standards and Technology a pivotal role to ensure that our voting systems are trustworthy. However - as the GAO report highlights - much remains to be done before the next election cycle. Their report is a wake-up call for adequate funding for NIST's activities and makes clear that closer oversight by Congress is warranted."Background / GAO Results SummaryAll levels of government share responsibility in the U.S. election process. At the federal level, Congress has authority under the Constitution to regulate presidential and congressional elections. The Help America Vote Act of 2002 increased the federal role in state and local elections, in part by giving states the resources to improve the accessibility, security, and reliability of their voting systems. Under HAVA, nearly $39 billion has been allocated to states to purchase electronic voting systems and improve the voting process. Voting System Vulnerabilities Identified by GAO:· Cast ballots, ballot definition files, memory cards, and audit logs could be modified.· Supervisor functions were protected with weak or easily guessed passwords, and memory cards that allowed individuals access to voting machines were inadequately protected.· Systems had easily picked locks and power switches that were exposed and unprotected.· Voting machine vendors had weak security practices, including the failure to conduct background checks on programmers and system developers, and the failure to establish clear chain of custody procedures for handling software.Voting System Failures Have Already Occurred During ElectionsIn addition to identifying potential vulnerabilities, GAO identified a number of cases of operational failures in real elections. These examples included:· In California, a county presented voters with an incorrect electronic ballot, meaning they could not vote in certain races.· In Pennsylvania, a county made a ballot error on an electronic voting system that resulted in the county's undervote percentage reaching 80% in some precincts.· In North Carolina, electronic voting machines continued to accept votes after their memories were full, causing over 4,000 votes to be lost.· In Florida, a county reported that touch screens took up to an hour to activate and had to be activated sequentially, resulting in long delays.Problems With Implementation of Voluntary Standards, Testing, and Federal Efforts to Improve Voting System SecurityGAO reported that voluntary standards for electronic voting adopted in 2002 by the Federal Election Commission contain vague and incomplete security provisions, inadequate provisions for commercial products and networks, and inadequate documentation requirements. GAO also found that tests currently performed by independent testing authorities and state and local election officials do not adequately assess electronic voting system security and reliabilityThe GAO report indicated that national initiatives to improve voting system security and reliability of electronic voting systems either lack specific plans for implementation or are not expected to be completed until after the 2006 election. According to GAO, "Until these efforts are completed, there is a risk that many state and local jurisdictions will rely on voting systems that were not developed, acquired, testing, operated, or managed in accordance with rigorous security and reliability standards - potentially affecting the reliability of future elections and voter confidence in the accuracy of the vote count" The Election Assistance Commission, which was created as part of the "Help American Vote Act" began operations in January 2004. To improve the security and reliability of electronic voting systems, GAO recommends that EAC establish tasks, processes, and time frames for improving the federal voluntary voting system standards, testing capabilities, and management support available to state and local election officials. EAC commissioners agreed with GAO recommendations and stated that actions on each are either under way or intended. The National Institute of Standards' (NIST) director also agreed with the report's conclusions.
Are we going to be lead by smoke and mirrors, or are we going to stand up and take back our country?

Take a look around, everyday we are losing more of our freedom. Our rights are being tossed out the window. As a person of color, I am waiting for the reality of the American dream - the struggle to make that dream a dream for all Americans. I want all of us to truly be able to live our lives to the fullest. I want all of us to be able to try, to fail, and to pick ourselves up and to try once more. I want all of us to have a true opportunity, a real chance to succeed. This is how it was meant to be; however, this is not what is practiced. In truth, the America of today is a result of the lies and injustices bestowed upon the masses by an elite group of society. It is actually no better than a caste system because the country was built on the backs of those whom will never enjoy the true fruits of their labor as it was meant to be. There will always be a handful of the less fortunate whom will be able to "rise above their station" and will be upheld as examples for the masses. But in reality, there is not an even playing field for social and economic advancement.
I served my country proudly because of my belief in the values and ideas on which this country was founded. I realize that I am not the only one with the patriotic sense of duty and the desire to give back to my country. For these reasons, I am alarmed at the prospect of losing the rights that I (and those that fought before me and after me) vowed to uphold and protect. I also realize that the people who seem to have so much to say about my rights are less likely to have served in a war zone or to have an immediate family member in uniform on active duty in a war zone. These people want to portray themselves as patriotic, but it is very easy to be patriotic when you have nothing on the line. This is why the recruitment commercials for the military are targeting the people whom are looking for a way to improve their lives through education. It is a chance many of our poverty stricken citizens are willing to take in order to better their lives. I believe we should concentrate on taking care of our problems at home so that we may begin to balance the gaps between the poor and "Bush's base", otherwise known as "the elite".



Bush Launches New Flack Attack
U.S. public shelled today from Iraq by weapon of mass distraction



George W. Bush what a newsmaker. In the true sense of the word. This morning, he made it up.
The videoconference his handlers set up with U.S. soldiers in Iraq was staged, as the AP's Deb Reichmann just pointed out.
But here's another part of the flack attack you may not know: The soldier on the left side of the front row was actually a flack herself, though she didn't reveal it during the regime's 24-minute infomercial.
Her name is Corine Lombardo, and I hope she stays safe in Iraq. It's a dangerous place even for flacks. But the fact is, as my sharp-eyed colleague David Axe tipped me, Lombardo probably sees more action watching CNN than action. (For a sample of her work, click here.)
I'm glad Lombardo is safe, and I mean her no harm, and it's nothing personal, but I don't believe a fucking word she says, because her job is to make the Bush regime look good. So what great insights did she have? Here's a portion of her conversation with the POTUS who moronically stepped on her lines and couldn't even get her rank straight. Bush started by asking her this:
Is it possible to give us a sense, kind of a calibration of what life was like when you first got there, and what it's like today?
Here's what ensued in this "conversation":

SERGEANT LOMBARDO: I can tell you over the past 10 months we've seen a tremendous increase in the capabilities and the confidences of our Iraqi security force partners. We've been working side-by-side, training and equipping 18 Iraqi army battalions. Since we began our partnership, they have improved greatly, and they continue to develop and grow into sustainable forces. Over the next month, we anticipate seeing at least one-third of those Iraqi forces conducting independent operations.
THE PRESIDENT: That's important. The American people have got to know and I appreciate you bringing that up, Sergeant Major, about how what the progress is like. In other words, we've got a measurement system
SERGEANT LOMBARDO: Well, together
THE PRESIDENT: I'm sorry, go ahead.
Gee, Sergeant, tell me more! Sorry, I couldn't resist. Anyway, the phony bullshit continued:
SERGEANT LOMBARDO: I'm sorry, just, together with our coalition forces, we've captured over 50 terrorists, as well as detained thousands of others that have ties to the insurgency. And I believe it is these accomplishments and the numerous accomplishments from our task force that will provide a safe and secure environment for the referendum vote.
THE PRESIDENT: Well, I appreciate that. There's no question that we need to stay on the offense, and we need to stay on the offense with well-trained Iraqi forces, side-by-side the finest military ever ever to exist, and that's the United States military.
SERGEANT LOMBARDO: That it is, Mr. President. Thank you.

There's no reason to believe what she says. Axe, who has talked with hundreds and hundreds of U.S. and British soldiers, not to mention Iraqis, tells me:
There are tens of thousands of training officers and NCOs in Iraq who work with Iraqi forces on a daily basis; Lombardo is not one of them.
Bush could have told the American people that he had at least one public-affairs person flacking them this morning. I mean, a public-relations person spouting the regime's line back at us? Instead, he pretended that they were all combat soldiers, not spokespeople.
It's bad enough that the videoconference itself was shamelessly an infomercial. The AP's Reichmann writes:
It was billed as a conversation with U.S. troops, but the questions President Bush asked on a teleconference call Thursday were choreographed to match his goals for the war in Iraq and Saturday's vote on a new Iraqi constitution. "This is an important time," Allison Barber, deputy assistant defense secretary, said, coaching the soldiers before Bush arrived. "The president is looking forward to having just a conversation with you."
Reichmann covered all the bases by asking Bush's officially recognized flack about today's subterfuge:
White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Thursday's event was coordinated with the Defense Department but that the troops were expressing their own thoughts. With satellite feeds, coordination often is needed to overcome technological challenges, such as delays, he said. "I think all they were doing was talking to the troops and letting them know what to expect," he said, adding that the president wanted to talk with troops on the ground who have firsthand knowledge about the situation. The soldiers all gave Bush an upbeat view of the situation.
What a shock that they were upbeat. David Axe, who's made several forays into Iraq for the Voice read his latest, "Powerless," a dispatch from southern Iraq knows Corine Lombardo from having spent time in Tikrit. He tells me:
Her job when I was with the 42nd Infantry Division included taking reporters to lunch. She lives in a fortified compound in Tikrit and rarely leaves. Many public-affairs types in Iraq never leave their bases, and they're speaking for those who do the fighting and dying.
As long as Bush was going to talk with soldiers from the 42nd, I wish he would have focused on the fragging, not the flacking.
If you recall, Staff Sergeant Alberto Martinez killed two of his commanding officers in the 42nd at the base in Tikrit (Saddam Hussein's hometown), according to military prosecutors. Check out the New York Times story about this from June 19 (posted here by the excellent Australian paper The Age). The piece, co-authored by Kareem Fahim (an ex-colleague of mine), notes that the alleged fragging on June 7 is the second such case known to have happened.
Meanwhile, the flacking by the Bush regime continues, even after they should have been shamed by the Armstrong Williams embarrassment. For more on that sorry-ass waste of our tax money just so the Bush regime could lie to us, see the GAO's latest report, from September 30. And take a look at Timothy Karr's fresh piece on that, "Our Snake Oil President."
That Bush. What an oozemaker.
Posted by Harkavy at 08:30 PM, October 13, 2005



Cheap headline pun can't mask coming fracture
True grit: A soldier from the 42nd Infantry Division, doing real work instead of the flacking that his unit's PR person did yesterday for Bush, tries to conduct a reconnaissance sweep at Balad Air Base in Iraq during a sandstorm



Before we find out the results of tomorrow's voting in Iraq, keep in mind that the fix is in. But not the kind that assured George W. Bush of victory through shady dealings in Florida and Ohio.
Yes, it's the same kind of propaganda manufactured by Sinclair and other Bush allies during the 2004 U.S. presidential campaign. But the result is likely to be slightly different.
Yesterday's videoconference infomercial starring Bush and some soldiers merely followed more phony baloney passed off to Iraqis the day before. As the Washington Post reports, Iraqi TV showed footage of old dancing in the street but called it new dancing in the street after the latest of many trumpeted "last-minute accords" between Shiites and Sunnis. From today's story by Ellen Knickmeyer and Omar Fekeiki:
State television, controlled by loyalists of the Shiite religious party that leads Iraq's transitional government, aired what it described as live footage of crowds dancing in the streets of the Shiite holy city of Najaf to celebrate the accord. The scenes were actually filmed earlier in the week before the agreement was reached as shopkeepers and a reporter watched. No such celebrations were seen in the streets of Najaf on Wednesday.
The corruption that's finally floating to the surface over here Hey, Roto-Rooter man! masks the ineptness of the Bush regime's handling of its unjustified invasion of Iraq. We need to investigate Wampumgate, Kazakhgate, the oil-for-slush scandal, Plamegate, and all the rest we need to do it for the sake of our own democracy. But all that focus on the style of what the Bush handlers have done obscures the reality of the havoc they've wreaked.
Here's another aspect we can all relate to: You know how easy it is to lie about something but how difficult it is to keep that lie going. Life becomes much more of a headache as you spend more and more time justifying, explaining, and, yes, lying some more all to cover your ass. I'm not telling anybody anything new.
Well, as the Washington Post points out today, the Bush regime's so preoccupied with fighting off investigations, probes, proddings, and pokings that when it comes to making major decisions, it's paralyzed and even more inept than usual.
Even before the scandals oozed to the surface, Bush's handlers were in trouble. For crying out loud, these people can't even get imperialism right. It's bad enough that Bush's cluster of neocons and religious nuts and military industrialists schemed some dangerous ideas. What's even more destabilizing is that they couldn't pull off their absurd plan to seize Iraq's oil, guarantee security for Israel, and settle in for a millennium of peaceful rule over billions of Muslims.
What we have instead is civil war in Iraq and a more dangerous world in general.
The invasion was a stupid idea right from the start, and the Bush regime cynically used the 9-11 horror to birth this Damien:
Seize Iraq from Saddam Hussein, set up a puppet government, privatize the economy so U.S. firms could pillage petrol and other profits. Did we not know the history of Iraq's ugly sectarian battles? As I pointed out a while back, the neocons themselves had to have known. Yet, we ignored that by smashing all of Iraq's national institutions when we invaded. Now, of course, we want a "unified Iraq." Madness.
We knew all this even before we re-elected Bush. Can you believe it?
And a fractured Iraq will be even more dangerous for planetary stability. Basically, the Kurds will continue to run their own nation in the north, and the Shiites will solidify their control of the south. Central Iraq, from Baghdad west to Syria, will get more and more dangerous potentially a Little Big Horn for our poor soldiers. Abbas J. Ali, a professor at Indiana University of Pennsylvania, breaks down the breakdown in yesterday's Jordan Times. I'll let him blab for a while:
Paul Bremer, the head of the occupation authority, had been able to recruit communal and sectarian individuals, and ethnic warlords, to assume political positions. The primary aim was to obscure national and patriotic issues, while highlighting differences rather than integration. Bremer was successful in enacting a flawed interim constitution in defiance of the will and desire of the majority of the Iraqi people. The religious authority in Najaf denounced the interim constitution and warned of its illegitimacy and threat to the existence and integrity of the country. The framers of the interim constitution, the neoconservatives Noah Feldman and Larry Diamond, acting upon Paul Wolfowitz's instructions, had designed it in a way that ensures the dictatorship of an ethnic minority and the future disintegration of the country. In an interview on March 9, 2004, Feldman defended his design, stating that the interim constitution reflects the fact that the Kurds have been running their own show and have no desire to change that." What Feldman failed to mention is what Wolfowitz once proudly stated: that this situation in northern Iraq was created and protected by Washington. Like the interim constitution, the new draft constitution guarantees freedom of expression, religious and political affiliation, along with equal treatment of all Iraqis. Simultaneously, the new draft constitution maintains the serious flaws of the interim constitution. These flaws will eventually lead to the end of Iraq as a country and, at best, perpetuate strife and national unrest.
It's kinda funny, in a tragic way, that Feldman once likened the new Iraqi constitution to Canadian federalism, calling the Iraqi document "Quebec plus." Yeah, Feldman, as in ne plus ultra, eh? Right.
All the haggling over various parts of the constitution are secondary, says Ali:
Critics claim that these flaws render all constitutional articles pertaining to freedom and liberty useless. In its editorial on Oct. 6, the Washington Post argued that there are many flaws in the proposed constitution, but the most serious is its facilitation of a de facto partition of Iraq into several mini-states."
And not a mini-disaster for peace prospects in the Middle East, but a major one.
Posted by Harkavy at 08:17 AM, October 14, 2005



Full DisclosureTime for Miller to come clean
by Sydney H. SchanbergOctober 7th, 2005 3:37 PM

The press's role in the leak of a CIA operative's identity has made clear that if ever there was a time for transparency by the journalism community, this is it. The case is clouded in secrecy and murk, including the part about the press's involvement. At least two of the reporters involved, protecting sources, have failed to give anything resembling a complete account of their information-gathering.
I am not suggesting in any way that they name confidential sources who are not already known, but if they or their employers are to claim credibility, a full disclosure of their roles is crucial. The public needs to be given details of, among other things, how they conducted their reporting, what their conversations with their sources consisted of, what questions the special federal prosecutor investigating the case posed to them, and what their responses were. They should also bring forward any testimony they gave to the prosecutor's grand jury. Once a person testifies, he or she can make the testimony public.
The leak happened in July 2003. The prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, has been running his investigation for nearly two years and seems to be wrapping it up now. What began as a dirty political trick by the White House to silence criticism of the Iraq war has now swollen, because of the ensuing cover-up, into a threat to the Bush administration's legitimacy.
The journalist who first published CIA agent Valerie Plame Wilson's name more than two years ago, columnist Robert Novak, cited as his sources two senior administration officials" unnamed. Novak, a partisan conservative who has regularly been a conduit for Republican leaks, has refused to explain his role but says he will do so as soon as the prosecutor's case is concluded. As I wrote in an earlier column: "Two years is a long time for a reporter to hide the truth."
Another controversial journalist, New York Times reporter Judith Miller, was found guilty of civil contempt by the federal judge in the case for refusing to identify her sources or testify before the grand jury. Finally, last week, after 85 days in a federal jail, she worked out a deal with the prosecutor and testified about one of her sources I. Lewis Libby, chief of staff to Vice President Richard Cheney. She also turned over some of her notes, which she was allowed to edit in advance. She has refused as yet to discuss the details of her involvement, but says this will all come out in the soon-to-appear New York Times account of the story. Oddly, though weapons of mass destruction are one of her key fields of interest and she seems to have done substantial reporting on the criticism by Plame's husband, Joseph Wilson, of the Bush administration, she never published a story about it. So far, she has not explained why.
Since her release, Miller has gone on television to defend her actions, but has not cleared up any of the mysteries. In these appearances, she has said repeatedly that if sources' identities were not protected, many of them would not come forward and tell reporters what shenanigans the government and major corporations were really up to, and the public would suffer. "The public's right to know" is at stake, she says again and again. And she's right. That's why I believe, since she is a major part of the story, that she now has to take the uncommon step of telling us her whole story. She has to do it for the public she says she is responsible to, for her colleagues, and for the Times, whose reputation is also at stake here.
The American press has been under siege in recent years mostly from the right, which accuses journalists of being overwhelmingly liberal and determinedly hostile to the Bush administration. More and more court decisions have reversed journalists' traditional privileges such as protection, under the freedom-of-the-press language of the First Amendment, from having to testify or turn over notes, except in extraordinary cases.
Miller cited those privileges in her refusal to cooperate with the prosecutor. She says she did it to protect the confidentiality of her sources. Virtually everyone in the journalism world believes in the need for confidentiality to enable whistleblower sources to come forward anonymously and expose wrongdoing without fear of retaliation. But many have expressed doubts about Miller's reporting methods and her relationships with her sources.
One of the warts on this case and therefore on Novak's and Miller's silence is the fact that the sources this time, as is frequently the case with high-placed Washington leakers, were not civic-minded whistleblowers. They were major administration wheeler-dealers trying to smear Wilson, a former U.S. diplomat with service in Africa, who had challenged the Bush claim that the Saddam Hussein regime in Iraq had gone to Africa seeking to purchase uranium yellowcake, needed for nuclear weapons. This was a key part of the weapons-of-mass-destruction rationale that Bush employed to lead the country into war against Iraq in 2003. Nearly all the Bush arguments for war turned out to be false, hyped, or hollow. The claim about the yellowcake, for instance, was based on forged documents.



The purpose of the leak of Plame's name and occupation she was a covert agent working in the area of anti-proliferation of weapons of mass destruction was to paint her as an anti-Bush co-conspirator with her husband, so as to discredit his information on the Bush uranium claim.
Also working against Times reporter Miller is her past reporting on weapons of mass destruction, which generally hewed to the White House line that Iraq was actively engaged in producing and building up stockpiles of these arms and thus presented a "grave and gathering danger" to America's security. When that story fell apart the president's own weapons investigator reported after the invasion of Iraq that no such weapons could be found Miller refused to acknowledge any error on her part, saying in essence that she had merely reported what officials were talking about in high places and had told her. She said then that this was what her job as a reporter was supposed to be. Later she softened some of these responses but never gave a clear accounting of her work nor fully acknowledged that she, wittingly or unwittingly, had misled the public. Anti-war critics have accused her of assisting the administration's push toward war.
In the days since her release from jail, she has, in my opinion, not helped herself or her paper. She has given interviews only to TV personalities who will gush over her. At this writing, there have been two such appearances, with Lou Dobbs on CNN and with ABC's Barbara Walters on Good Morning America.
Both hosts melted on camera. Walters introduced her guest thusly: "I've known Judith as a friend and a journalist for years. I visited her in jail." Later, Walters, in an awe-filled voice, said: "You were in jail longer than any other journalist." Miller quickly corrected her, "Twice as long as any other journalist." (Watch the video.)
Miller keeps saying that she is not seeking to be a hero or a martyr. Unfortunately, her demeanor the little we have seen of it belies this claim. This perception on my part may be a generational thing, but I was taught that a reporter does not go forth patting himself on the back for doing his job.
Also, I have always thought that keeping a professional distance between you and your sources was an important part of the journalist's code. At times, Miller's distance seems miniscule. It was reported that, while in jail, she was visited twice by John Bolton, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations. Bolton, a hawk on the Iraq war, also made weapons of mass destruction one of his special issues. This issue seems to link many of the people in this convoluted story. All the connections lead back to the Iraq war.
Miller also received a letter in jail from Libby, the Cheney source she was protecting until he gave her personal permission to give testimony about their conversations. Dated September 15, Libby's release frees her from her grant of confidentiality and urges her to go before the grand jury, saying that he "would be better off if you testified."
Two things about the letter struck me as strange.
One is the tone that of personal friend or buddy, not professional contact. The other off-key note is that much of the letter is devoted to laying out a kind of blueprint of the case Libby has made to the prosecutor namely that he "did not discuss Ms. Plame's name or identity" with any reporter. Could this have been a map to guide Miller's own testimony-to-come?
Novak has never disguised the fact that he is a "player" in the nation's capital. Is Judith Miller also a "player" in Washington's games, or is she a reporter? Miller needs to address these questions.
Even her supporters are asking for answers. On September 30, one of her most stalwart admirers, Lucy Dalglish, director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, was asked during an online chat hosted by The Washington Post: "So what are the three biggest mysteries/questions that YOU would like Judy Miller to explain?" At the top of her list, Dalglish put this question: "Was Scooter Libby your source for information about Valerie Plame, or were you HIS source?"
About the tone of the Libby letter to Miller, here is how it ends:
"You went into jail in the summer. It is fall now. You will have stories to cover Iraqi elections and suicide bombers, biological threats and the Iranian nuclear program. Out West, where you vacation, the aspens will already be turning. They turn in clusters, because their roots connect them. Come back to work and life. Until then, you will remain in my thoughts and prayers. With admiration, Scooter Libby."
We reporters are always insisting on full disclosure and transparency from the people and institutions we write about. Now, with the press under scrutiny and in some quarters under attack, it has become necessary for reporters to do their own disclosing.

Saturday, October 08, 2005

If you don't control your mind, someone else will."
-John Allston



Wheels Coming Off White House As Bush-Cheney Indictments Pending
ABC News, usually a neo-con mouthpiece, is now confirming, through George Stephanopolis, that reliable sources claim Bush-Cheney indictments are coming down from the Valerie Plame grand jury probe.6 Oct 2005
By Greg Szymanski

The wheels are coming off the Bush administration, but it matters little since the problems facing America go much deeper. The Arctic Beacon reported months ago about the impending indictments against Bush and Cheney, receiving criticism in some circles over the use of “credible sources” surrounding Special Prosecutor’s Patrick Fitzgerald’s grand jury investigation.

Now ABC news agents, who usually follow the neo-con party line, reported last Sunday through George Stephanopolis, “reliable sources” reveal indictments against Bush and Cheney are pending.

But even with Bush and Cheney gone, the cancer in our government remains since the entire executive, judicial and legislative branches needs to ‘picked clean’ so that fair-minded men can again take back the country.

However, it can’t be denied that Bush and Cheney are a good start and if the cat’s really finally out of the bag, let’s hope they are good “mousers,” efficient at getting all the rats out of Washington, including the Clinton’s, McCain and Kerry.

There are simply bigger fish to fry then the “Three Stooges,” adding Condaleeza Rice in for good measure. And, of course, for added political pleasure, don’t forget Rumsfeld and Wolfowitz, two scoundrels that probably should be horsewhipped first before being booted out of Washington.

Regarding the secrecy surrounding the Fitzgerald inquiry, observers speculate ABC leaked the information in order to prepare America for upcoming political chaos, but then again chaos has been the rule not the exception since Bush, nicknamed “Your Stupidity” not Your Majesty, was illegally appointed King of the neo-cons in 2000 by the black robed marauders posing as jurists at the Supreme Court.

One person following the indictments from the outset, Sherman Skolnick of Chicago, nicknamed the “judge buster” for putting more jurists behind bars then any American alive and also putting away a former Illinois governor and federal court judge, had a particularly ominous view about the impending high-level indictments.

“I think our government will be discredited and swept away because this stooge and scapegoat, George W., supervised b y his father on behalf of the Queen of England and the Anglo-American aristocracy, has controlled what is going on in the United States,” said Skolnick after Stephanopolis commented last Sunday on his morning ABC talk show.

“I’m very concerned that they may in the very near future create some kind of earthquake scenario with the White House then claiming there’s an emergency situation meriting martial law.”

Skolnick also feared the political bombshell could also reverberate in Wall Street, causing a stock market crash making the great depression look like a day at the beach. Looking at historical precedent, Skolnick added:

“I think by the third week of October we may have another historical event, October has historically been seen as ‘crash month.’”

Months ago the U.S. attorney’s Office of the Northern District of Illinois refused to comment to the Arctic Beacon on whether an indictment was pending or not, saying at the time any questions on the status of the grand jury investigating were off limits.

And this week the U.S. Attorney’s Office continued its “hush hush” position on the staus of the Bush Cheney indictments, saying again any questions were not going to be answered.

In December 2003, Fitzgerald was named Special Counsel to investigate the alleged disclosure of the identity of who leaked information in the Valerie Plame case, but the present grand jury probe has expanded to include the wide-reaching crime allegations as new information surfaced.

Although the U.S. Attorney’s office in Chicago is staying silent, it is well known that Fitzgerald is digging deep into an assortment of serious improprieties among many Bush administration figures based, in part, on subpoenaed testimony provided by former Secretary of State Colin Powell.

Besides Fitzgerald’s probe into Bush administration lies relating to the war in Iraq and the CIA- Plame leaks, he is also looking into a huge drug money laundering operation involving both the Clinton and Bush administrations with ties reaching all the way to Arkansas.

Fitzgerald began serving as the U.S. Attorney for the Northern District of Illinois in September, 2001. He was initially appointed on an interim basis by former Attorney General John Ashcroft before being nominated by President Bush.

The U.S. Senate confirmed his nomination by unanimous consent in October 2001. In December 2003, he was named Special Counsel to investigate the CIA-Valerie Plame case.


Everything you need to know about what a Neo-Conservative is ...and how they will DESTROY America for Republicans and Democrats alike.

The Project for a New American Century (PNAC) is a Neo-Conservative organization that almost nobody in America has heard of.

This is a major problem considering their own documents reveal they intend to use OUR military to create a "Unipolar World" that they will control.

Even more alarming, members of this Neo-Conservative group hold some of the most powerful positions in the American government. ...and yet most who have voted for them don't even know the core Neo-Conservative philosophies. Most have been fooled into thinking they've voted "Republican."

*** Vice President Dick Cheney is a founding member of PNAC, along with Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld. Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz is the ideological father of the group.

The PNAC Statement of Principles is signed by Cheney, Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld, as well as by Eliot Abrams, Jeb Bush, Bush's special envoy to Afghanistan Zalmay Khalilzad, and many others. William Kristol, famed conservative writer for the Weekly Standard, is also a co-founder of the group. The Weekly Standard is owned by Ruppert Murdoch, who also owns international media giant Fox News.


Project for a New American Century (PNAC) and some of its aims.

PNAC's "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report outlines plans (and ideologies) that have been in the making for decades. In "Rebuilding America's Defenses," PNAC outlines what is required of America to bring about the global empire they seek to create and control.

Most ominously this PNAC document describes four "Core Missions" for the American military, one of which is for American forces to "fight and decisively win multiple, simultaneous wars."

To be Clear,PNAC is NOT suggesting that America should be "prepared" to fight these wars. What they are saying is, we MUST fight these wars by whatever means necessary. They're not talking about going to war against those who have attacked or clearly plan to attack us; they are talking about demonstrating American Military dominance for all the world to see.

In order to gain additional strategic leverage the report speaks of a need to "Secure and Expand the zones of democratic peace" in the middle east. Maybe that is why Saddam was tied to 911 (wrong) then tied to the Anthrax attacks (wrong) then tied to Al Qaeda (no) then posed a "Grave and Dangerous Threat" (NO, and just months before 911, Powell and Rice both said he was NOT a threat! CLICK HERE to hear it out of their own mouths)

When in doubt, justify taking a position on the chess board as a humanitarian effort. "We're liberating them."

Keep in mind, the NeoCons knew their plans for running America and the WORLD would be a hard sell. Perhaps that is why the document specifically says a "New Pearl Harbor" event would help speed things along. How convenient they got JUST THAT less than a year after taking power in the form of 911.

In addition, the authors might have seen the truly "free press" nature of the internet as a threat to their agenda, as they also included: "Control the International Commons of cyberspace" in their battle plan. Well think about it... Where would YOU have gained access to this documented information if not HERE? The mainstream media sure hasn't touched on any of it.

Who Wins at our expense?

Sadly America, Iraq is just the beginning. After the war, permanent bases will be established under the guise of defending the oil and the peace in the Middle East. The nations in that region however will see this for what it really is: A jump-off point for American forces to easily attack and invade other nations in the region. Unlike the American people, the nations in the Middle East are well aware of what is going on. They've undoubtedly read the Neo-Conservative's plans, laid out in no uncertain terms in the their own PNAC report.

Unfortunately, the American people anxiously awaiting some sort of exit plan, after America secures Iraq, will see too late that there will be no "exit." The only "Plan" is for more of the same. This never ending "war on terror" is the perfect vehicle to expand and consolidate power. It is the means by which their "Pax Americana" will be created.

The defense contractors who feed on American tax revenue will see TRILLIONS of dollars pour in as they arm the new American empire. The corporations that own the news media will sell this eternal war on terror at a profit, as "terror" sends their ratings through the roof. Those within the administration who believe every regional opponent to Israel must be laid to waste will have their dreams fulfilled. The PNAC men who wish for a global "freedom at gunpoint" will see their plans unfold.

Restrictions on our liberties will tighten further in the name of "keeping us safe." Terrorist attacks and recruiting will skyrocket as a result of "pre-emptive" aggression against the world. Oddly enough, an increase in "terror" will only make it easier for the NeoCons to further their aims. ...It will justify increasing their military aggression, as well as justify their oppression of those at home who challenge them.

NowTHINK about that for a minute. ...They actually have MORE TO GAIN if they FAILto protect us!
Don't think so? Look no further than 9/11.

9/11 consisted of a series of "defense failures" that defy ALL LOGIC and yet many of the most troubling questions about "how" certain things were allowed to happen were ignored. Those who were responsible for the failures were not held accountable! ...And the administration that oversaw the WORST "goof" in government history??? They were REWARDED with MORE power, MORE money, MORE control, and a perfect opportunity to move forward with the plans they had made years earlier. ...Isn't that type of arrangement called a "Conflict of Interest?"

And Let's Face it Folks: When they promised Congress they would "Only use war as a last resort" they spoke the FIRST and most deceptive statement of all. ...War wasn't the "last" option on the table...it was the ONLY option. If they couldn't move forward with their "Unipolar" plans following something like 9/11, they'd be hard pressed to move them forward at all. (Information referenced from an article posted at http://truthout.org/docs_02/022203A.htm)

To View a New Documentary on "PNAC" CLICK HERE

You can view or download the Full PNAC "Rebuilding America's Defenses" report HERE.

Real Republicans, take note: There is a HUGE DIFFERENCE between "Conservative Republican Values" and "NeoConservative Values."

Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor protecting our civil liberties - Truly American NeoConservatives: See our civil liberties as an unnecessary restriction on government power.
Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor a smaller, less intrusive government- Truly AmericanNeoConservatives: Are Willing to spend money (and expand government reach) without restraint, provided it helps them further their agenda.
Conservative Republicans: STRONGLY favor Fiscal Responsibility and reducing taxes - GOOD FOR AMERICANeoConservatives: Fool the public into thinking a "tax cut" (Paid for with PRINTED MONEY) is actually beneficial. -hiding the fact that it amounts to little more than a loan that the taxpayer (or their children) will have to repay WITH INTEREST.

****Side Note on current fiscal policy: Tax cuts on PRINTED MONEY are NOT tax cuts! It is like me saying I'm going to give you $1,000, but then I secretly add a 1,500 debt to your mortgage. ...Eventually, that money is going to have to be paid with interest and it is going to be TAXES that pays it. To say nothing of the additional spending that has been passed on printed money by this administration-to say nothing of how that further reduces the value of the dollars in your pocket! If these were "democrats" in office, they would have (rightfully) been raked over coals by now!

Recently, I was asked by somebody on a message board: "What is your urgent concern?" My reply:

"What is my "urgent concern?" Regain control of OUR GOVERNMENT. Then clean up the mess in Iraq best we can. (Not reward those who created that mess (and others) with additional opportunity to do more of the same.) Then DRASTICALLY DECREASE the size and reach of government in our lives. As far as foreign policy goes, George W. hooked me good with his original plans for America. I seem to remember him speaking of a more "humble foreign policy" that steered clear of "Nation Building" and focused on building a "stronger, more united and free America." Sign me up for that plan.

The bottom line is this administration CLAIMS to be "Conservative Republican" when it clearly is NOT. In making this claim, it gains the UNEARNED support of a FIERCELY LOYAL group of Republican Voters... Voters who expect certain core values to be upheld: SMALLER Government, Fiscal Responsibility, STRONG protection of Civil Liberties, etc.

As soon as we STOP thinking of this as a "Republican Administration" and start reading up on what the NeoCon agenda is, (and see how this administration has shamelessly manipulated good Americans to further that agenda) the outrage comes quick."

Suggested Reading: (Also see the STL Store)

Worse Than Watergate is just one book that reveals plenty of legitimate concerns regarding the "Bush/Cheney" vision for America. -it isn't the "America" any self-respecting Republican would ever support.
The New Pearl Harbor by David Ray Griffin. For any who think some in our government might have actually LET the 911 attacks happen, this book brings up mounds of supporting evidence. For instance:
How exactly is it that the STRATEGIC MILITARY COMMAND CENTER of the United States of America (The Pentagon) was unable to defend itself against a 757? ...the most HEAVILY defended building on this PLANET, was unable to stop a HUGE (150,000 pound) airplane traveling at just 500 Miles per hour, even after it had already been established (for more than an hour) that planes were being hijacked, slammed into buildings, and one was heading that way. If not under those circumstances, under WHAT circumstances COULD the building be defended? ...and how come nobody was held accountable for such a catastrophic failure?
The Northwoods document proves that high ranking officials in our government have openly conspired to PROVOKE and ALLOW attacks against the US to happen in order to justify attacking another country. EVEN WORSE, the document suggests our own government could carry out the attacks itself (to be blamed on the target country) or completely manufacture an attack (to be blamed on the target country.)
READ THAT AGAIN! The Northwoods document PROVES that high ranking officials in OUR OWN GOVERNMENT have conspired to allow and / or actually carry out attacks against US targets in order to justify attacking another country.
This document is available at the National Security Archive (George Washington University website). It took 40 years and the Freedom of Information Act to get it released. -Start reading on page 10 for the unbelievable truth regarding how far some in power are willing to go to get what they want. And then ask yourself, are you prepared to support this in an AMERICAN government?
IMAGINE THIS News Story America-and then imagine it was our OWN government that conspired to make it so.

Cuba shoots down an American Airliner killing all onboard (Mainly students on vacation)The US government announced today that Cuba shot down a civilian airliner in an unprovoked act of aggression against the USA. Congressmen Deceito of Washington went on the record, saying: "We MUST take action immediately if we ever plan on having safety in the skies." He went on to say:"Any failure to act decisively and immediately will be perceived as weakness around the world. Failing to respond to this heinous act would be akin to America saying: It's OK to shoot our planes down and kill our children. That would be a mistake America can't afford to make."

As usual, the "conspiracy theorists" are once again showing their utter lack of respect for America (and the dead) by questioning the governments account.

Even though there were numerous eyewitness accounts that a Cuban Mig was tailing flight #2235, and flight recorders plainly reveal the pilot issuing a mayday call; specifically: "Mayday, mayday, we are being fired on by a Cuban Mig" Bob Accurato (Known Conspiracy Theorist) was quoted as saying:

"It is ALL A LIE. That wasn't really a Cuban Mig, it was an American F-86 that our government painted up to LOOK LIKE a Cuban mig. ...and it wasn't really a civilian airliner either. The government loaded a bunch of people (under fake names) on a plane, landed it, and then flew another plane by remote control into the airspace where the fake Cuban Mig then shot it down. They did this so they could justify attacking Cuba."

NOW, Who would believe the "conspiracy theory" over the much simpler "official account?" NOBODY! Do you suppose those who would conspire to do such a thing wouldn't be prepared to use that to their advantage?

READ the Northwood's Document, and you will find out that (in the above hypothetical scenario) it would be the "Conspiracy Theorist" who was telling the truth. Thank goodness John F. Kennedy wasn't amused by the Northwood's plan. He rejected it and was in the process of trying to dismantle our country's corrupt "under-government" just prior to being assassinated.


Saving Ohio
Did a reporter with GOP ties suppress a story that could have cost Bush the White House?
By Bill Frogameni
Oct. 06, 2005 In April 2005, the Blade newspaper of Toledo, Ohio, began publishing a remarkable series of articles about a well-connected Republican donor, Tom Noe, chair of the Bush-Cheney 2004 campaign for Lucas County, which encompasses Toledo. The Blade, which had won a Pulitzer Prize for reporting in 2004, discovered that Noe, a Toledo coin dealer, was investing $50 million for the state through the novel practice of coin speculation: buying and selling rare coins to turn a profit. Noe, the Blade revealed, could not account for $10 million to $13 million in the fund.
The paper also divulged that Noe had been placed under federal investigation for allegedly laundering money -- perhaps state money -- to the Bush campaign. The Blade's initial reports on Noe started a chain reaction of related scandals for Ohio's dominant Republicans. Recently, Gov. Bob Taft pleaded no contest to accepting several gifts from influence peddlers -- including Noe -- without reporting them, as law requires. Noe is currently the subject of 13 investigations.
In November 2004, Lucas County was among the most hotly contested areas in the most hotly contested state. Kerry won the county by 45,000 votes, but George W. Bush went on to win Ohio by less than 120,000 votes, which swung the election for him.
But Bush's reelection may have been made possible by a Blade reporter with close ties to the Republican Party who reportedly knew about Noe's potential campaign violations in early 2004 but suppressed the story.
According to several knowledgeable sources, the Blade's chief political columnist, Fritz Wenzel, was told of Noe's potential campaign violations as early as January 2004. But according to Blade editors, Wenzel never gave the paper the all-important tip in early 2004.
Wenzel says that he heard allegations of Noe's misdeeds only in spring 2004 and that he promptly informed his editors of them.
Wenzel, who worked for years as a GOP political operative in Oregon before the Blade hired him, quit the Blade in May 2005 to take a job as a paid political consultant to Jean Schmidt, the Republican congressional candidate who in August narrowly defeated Democratic challenger (and Iraq war vet) Paul Hackett.
Of course, no one can say for sure whether Ohio voters would have cast their ballots differently if they had known about allegations that Bush's campaign boss in Toledo was hijacking money from the state to keep the campaign humming. But native Ohioan John Robinson Block, publisher and editor in chief of the Blade, which endorsed Kerry, thinks it's a strong possibility. Had the "Coingate" scandal blown up before the election, Block says, "most Republicans I know agree that Kerry would have won Ohio and won the presidency." Rep. Marcy Kaptur, a Democrat whose district includes Toledo, feels the same. "I think it would have tipped the election," she says.
The story of how Wenzel learned about the alleged violations, and why he allegedly sat on the information, reveals a Toledo political scene right out of "Peyton Place," complete with a cast of backstabbers. It begins in January 2004, when Tom Noe's wife, Bernadette Noe -- who chaired the local Republican Party and sat on the Board of Elections -- approached Lucas County prosecutor Julia Bates, a Democrat. Bernadette Noe raised ethical questions about Joe Kidd, a well-connected Republican who was then director of the Board of Elections. She told the prosecutor's office she suspected Kidd was receiving money from Diebold, the now-notorious manufacturer of voting machines. Bates says that Bernadette Noe's source for the allegations was Joe Kidd's estranged wife, Tracy, with whom Bernadette practiced law. Bates says it's possible that Bernadette's allegations against Kidd were motivated by sympathy for her friend Tracy.
Paula Ross, a former Lucas County Democratic Party chair, who also sat on the Board of Elections, confirms that Bernadette Noe went to the prosecutor to tarnish Kidd. Ross says she talked with both Bernadette and Kidd. In January 2004, Ross says, "I was contacted by Bernadette, who made allegations about Joe. I then spoke with Joe, who assured me that the allegations were false. He believed he could persuade Bernadette to stop making these false allegations because he had information about [Noe and her husband] that could put them in jail." The information, says Ross, was that Tom Noe was laundering money to the Bush campaign.
Kidd retaliated against the Noes by going to Wenzel, in January 2004, according to a Toledo Republican Party insider familiar with the affairs of the Board of Elections, and sources familiar with the Blade. Kidd told Wenzel that Tom Noe was illegally funneling money to the Bush campaign and also running a questionable coin investment with the state. Sources confirmed that Kidd told them he had this conversation with Wenzel. Kidd would not comment for this article.
Bates, the Lucas County prosecutor, confirms that Kidd came to her in March 2004 with an outline of Noe's campaign money laundering, and that it was crucial in helping her office ultimately build a case against Noe. The prosecutor won't say if Kidd himself took Noe's money and gave it to Bush, thus laundering it (that is, making it a legitimate campaign donation). But she does say that, upon first glance, she found it "interesting" that he gave $2,000, considering he was a civil servant on a modest income. Other sources say that Kidd, along with several local Republican officials, did in fact launder money. This summer, Kidd testified in front of the federal grand jury convened to investigate Noe's alleged money-laundering scheme. Bates says her office considered offering Kidd immunity in exchange for help building the case. "We thought the key was Joe," says Bates, so she encouraged him to get a lawyer and produce all the evidence he could. Kidd, who was also being investigated for the allegations Bernadette Noe made against him, cooperated.
Wenzel declined to be interviewed for this story. He responded with this general statement issued through attorney Mark Berling, who formerly sat on the Lucas County Republicans' executive committee: "When a source conveyed an allegation about Tom Noe's possible involvement with campaign finance irregularities in the spring of 2004, I promptly informed Blade editors about what I had been told."
But Blade editors deny that Wenzel ever informed them about the allegations. The Blade's special projects editor, Dave Murray, who was Wenzel's assigning editor at the time, says Wenzel would have come to him with any such information about Noe. But, Murray says, "he never came to me, and, as far as I know, he never came to other Blade editors." Speaking for the other Blade editors, assistant editor LuAnn Sharp says no one recollects Wenzel turning over any such information. (Full disclosure: This reporter once applied for a job at the Toledo Blade.)
Blade editor in chief Block and other editors say they don't believe that Wenzel intentionally sat on the story.
Both Wenzel and his son had personal relationships with the Noes. In March 2004, Wenzel's son, P.J., was elected to the Lucas County Republican Central Committee. At the time, Bernadette Noe still chaired the Lucas County Republican Party. From April 15, 2005, to the end of May, P.J. Wenzel was on the payroll of the Ohio Republican Party. The Noes also attended the younger Wenzel's wedding.
A month before Wenzel left the paper, at the Lucas County Republicans' annual "Lincoln Day" dinner, Bernadette Noe made a speech in which she announced Wenzel would be leaving the paper for his consulting business. She wished him well at the dinner, which was attended by all three Republican gubernatorial candidates.
As the Blade's chief political writer, Wenzel reported and commented on politics. He also ran his own Web site, heartlandpolitics.com (whose homepage says it is "temporarily out of commission"), which he touted as offering in-depth analysis of northwest Ohio politics. Democrats charged that Wenzel's reporting was biased toward Republicans. The Blade's ombudsman, Jack Lessenberry, agreed: "At times I felt that his reporting was slanted to favor Republican positions or Republican candidates," Lessenberry says.
The Noe story is not the first time Wenzel has been suspected of conflict of interest. During the 2004 election season, Wenzel worked simultaneously for the Blade and for Zogby International, the polling firm. President and CEO John Zogby said that Wenzel worked for the company as a "senior political writer" between roughly May and October 2004. The work he did for Zogby acknowledged that Wenzel was a political reporter for the Blade. But in at least four columns he wrote for the Blade at the time he was working for Zogby, Wenzel cited Zogby polls without disclosing his affiliation. John Block expressed surprise and concern that Wenzel cited Zogby without disclosure: "He shouldn't have cited Zogby. I have to say, that's the first I've heard of that." According to Bob Steele, a journalism professor specializing in ethics at the Poynter Institute, the problem goes beyond Wenzel's failure to acknowledge the relationship. Steele points to a question of "competing loyalty," and says, "To disclose his connection to Zogby alerts readers to that conflict of interest and competing loyalty, but that disclosure doesn't make the problem go away."
In spring 2004, while Lucas County prosecutors began to investigate Noe's campaign irregularities, the Blade, without Wenzel's scoop, remained in the dark. Assistant editor Sharp says that the Blade's editors and reporters received worthwhile tips about the Noe campaign finance improprieties "around September." Prosecutor Bates, whose daughter and son-in-law are Blade reporters, says she can't remember anyone from the paper coming to her about the investigation until then. "I don't recall any official inquiry until [Blade reporter] Mark Reiter came to me in early fall," she says. Bates says that was right around the time she was obliged to turn over the investigation to federal prosecutors, which made it much more difficult for reporters to unearth information. At any rate, it was only a few weeks before the election.
On April 3, 2005, the first Blade story about Noe and the coin investments appeared. With the Blade's aggressive reporting, the story quickly gathered state and national attention, but Wenzel, who was still at the Blade, never wrote anything about it in the paper. Additionally, he never wrote about it in the many posts on his personal blog. Sharp says the Blade did not restrain Wenzel from writing about Coingate.
Although he never wrote about Coingate, Wenzel did blog on his Web site about Bernadette Noe and the Lincoln Day dinner on April 14. Although this was 11 days after the Blade published its first Coingate story, Wenzel failed to mention one of the biggest political scandals in Ohio history. Instead, Wenzel fawned over Bernadette Noe. "Also not fading is former GOP chairman Bernadette Noe. She was honored last night for her service to the party, then held up a copy of yesterday's Toledo Free Press, reminding those present to check out her new column (Great picture, Bernie!). But that's not all. A new television talk show and radio program are in the works. Talk about multi-tasking."
After leaving the Blade on Friday, May 13, Wenzel officially went to work the following Monday as congressional candidate Jean Schmidt's media consultant. Schmidt, a Cincinnati-area Republican who formerly headed Cincinnati Right to Life, was running for Congress in the most staunchly conservative corner of the state. Wenzel's company, Wenzel Strategies, received $30,000 from the Schmidt campaign that Monday and another $30,000 a week later. His role was to handle media issues in the hotly contested special election.
News organizations, including Salon, have questioned whether Wenzel was already working as a consultant for Schmidt prior to leaving the Blade, which would constitute an obvious conflict of interest. As early as May 3, Wenzel wrote blog entries about the Schmidt race and made disparaging remarks about Schmidt's primary opponents on his Web site. Regarding Pat DeWine, one of Schmidt's primary opponents, Wenzel wrote: "DeWine also has personal problems. He left his wife when she was eight months pregnant with their third child to take up with another woman. You could say he thinks so much of family values that he has decided to start another."
Wenzel's blog entries were pulled from the Web shortly after his ties to the Schmidt campaign came under scrutiny, but Wenzel denies he was working for Schmidt and the Blade simultaneously. He reportedly told a Cincinnati paper that he had a "busy weekend" drumming up Schmidt's business right after he left the Blade.
Block, the publisher and editor in chief, says he has confidence in the integrity of Wenzel's overall tenure at the Blade, but doesn't believe Wenzel kept the Schmidt job separate from his time at the paper. "You don't just leave on one day and then immediately set up your consulting business," Block says. "I think that in his final period at the Blade, it was getting close to a conflict of interest. I'm not going to deny that."
In October 2004, Bates turned her investigation into Noe's campaign irregularities over to the U.S. Department of Justice. That was three weeks before the election, not enough time, Bates says, to affect the outcome.
The Coingate scandal continues to grow. The Blade still diligently hounds the story amid growing revelations about the Noes and Republican problems statewide. Wenzel is basking in political success, having helped take Schmidt from being an outside contender in the primaries to sitting in the U.S. House of Representatives. Ohio government is still thoroughly dominated by Republicans, but, as Blade editors and Democrats are quick to note, that might soon be changing, thanks to the scandal. What won't change is that Coingate never got reported in 2004, and George W. Bush won the presidency.
-- By Bill Frogameni



On another note, If you are of color DON'T move back to New Orleans.

By RACHEL LA CORTE Associated Press Writer

October 11,2005 NEW ORLEANS -- A retired elementary teacher who was repeatedly punched in the head by police in an incident caught on videotape said Monday he was not drunk, put up no resistance and was baffled by what happened.
Robert Davis said he had returned to New Orleans to check on property his family owns in the storm-ravaged city, and was out looking to buy cigarettes when he was beaten and arrested Saturday night in the French Quarter.
Police have alleged that the 64-year-old Davis was publicly intoxicated, a charge he strongly denied as he stood on the street corner where the incident played out Saturday.
"I haven't had a drink in 25 years," Davis said. He had stitches beneath his left eye, a bandage on his left hand and complained of soreness in his back and aches in his left shoulder.
A federal civil rights investigation was begun in the case. Davis is black; the three city police officers seen on the tape are white.
But Davis, his attorney and police spokesman Marlon Defillo all said they do not believe race was an issue. "He does not see it as a racial thing," said Davis' lawyer, Joseph Bruno.
Two city officers accused in the beating, and a third officer accused of grabbing and shoving an Associated Press Television News producer who helped document the confrontation, pleaded not guilty Monday to battery charges.
Trial was set at a hearing Monday for Jan. 11. Afterward, officers Lance Schilling, Robert Evangelist and S.M. Smith were released on bond. They left without commenting.
Police Superintendent Warren Riley said any misconduct would be dealt with swiftly. He noted the video showed "a portion of that incident."
"The actions that were observed on this video are certainly unacceptable by this department," Riley said.
Two other officials in the video appeared to be federal officers, according to police. Numerous agencies have sent officers to help with patrols in the aftermath of Katrina.
Stephen Kodak, an FBI spokesman in Washington, said none of its agents had been disciplined. He said the FBI was taking part in the Justice Department's civil rights probe.
Davis said he had been walking in the French Quarter and approached a mounted police officer to ask about the curfew in the city when another officer interrupted.
"This other guy interfered and I said he shouldn't," Davis said. "I started to cross the street and -- bam -- I got it. ... All I know is this guy attacked me and said, `I will kick your ass,' and they proceeded to do it."
He said he did not know why the punches were thrown.
The confrontation came as the New Orleans Police Department -- long plagued by allegations of brutality and corruption -- struggles with the aftermath of Katrina.
The APTN tape shows an officer hitting Davis at least four times in the head outside a bar. Davis twisted and flailed as he was dragged to the ground by several officers. Davis's lawyer said his client did not resist.
"I don't think that when a person is getting beat up there's a whole lot of thought. It's survival. You don't have a whole lot of time to think when you're being pummeled," Bruno said.
Davis was kneed and pushed to the sidewalk with blood streaming down his arm and into the gutter. The officers accused of striking Davis were identified as Schilling and Evangelist.
Mayor Ray Nagin said, "I don't know what the gentleman did, but whatever he did, he didn't deserve what I saw on tape."
During the arrest, another officer, identified as Smith, ordered APTN producer Rich Matthews and a cameraman to stop recording. When Matthews held up his credentials, the officer grabbed the producer, leaned him backward over a car, jabbed him in the stomach and unleashed a profanity-laced tirade.
Police said Davis was booked on public intoxication, resisting arrest, battery on a police officer and public intimidation.
The head of the New Orleans police union said the officers told him they had acted appropriately.
"They feel they were justified in their actions and they were using the amount of force necessary to overcome the situation," Lt. David Benelli told WDSU in New Orleans.
--__
APTN and Associated Press Writer Ross Sneyd contributed to this story.