Mon - February 23, 2004

Survey: Anger Toward Bush Intensifying



By NANCY BENAC
WASHINGTON (AP) - In Arizona, Judy Donovan says she feels desperate for a new president. In Tennessee, Robert Wilson says he finds the president revolting. In Washington state, Maria Yurasek says she'd vote for a dog if it could beat President Bush.

A subtext to this year's presidential campaign is the intense anger that many Democrats are directing toward Bush , an attitude that has been growing in recent months.

``I've never seen anything like it,'' says Ted Jelen, a political science professor at the University of Nevada at Las Vegas. ``There are people who just really, really hate this person.''

Fully a quarter of Americans - mostly Democrats - tell pollsters they have a very unfavorable opinion of the president, more than double the number from last April. When only Democrats are polled, more than half report they feel that way.

Further, in exit polls conducted during Democratic primaries, a sizable chunk of voters have been describing themselves as not just dissatisfied with Bush but outright angry - 51 percent in Delaware, 46 percent in Arizona and New Hampshire, 44 percent in Virginia and Wisconsin.

``They really have a head of steam up against Bush,'' said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press. He said the level of political polarization surrounding Bush, the division between Republicans who favor him and Democrats who don't, exceeds even that for President Clinton in September 1998 during the impeachment battle.

A substantial number of independents who voted in the Democratic primaries expressed anger at Bush as well, exit polls found. For example, almost half of independents in the Delaware primary said they were angry, and about four in 10 in Virginia, Arizona, Iowa and New Hampshire. In Wisconsin, one in 10 of the Republicans who voted in the primaries said they were angry at Bush, and more than twice that many said they were dissatisfied.

Plenty of presidents have generated intense feelings, of course, but Democrats - and even some Republicans - think the phenomenon is outsized this year.

``I've never seen a Democratic Party more unified and more focused, and the anger helps do just that,'' said GOP pollster Frank Luntz. ``The intensity level is just so high. They're using four-letter words to describe him.''

In a recent focus group that Luntz conducted for MSNBC, technicians had to adjust the volume levels because the Bush-haters were ``so gosh-darn loud'' they were drowning out the president's supporters, who were more numerous, Luntz said. ``It was a real problem.''

Bush was asked about the anger in a recent interview on NBC and said he found it perplexing and disappointing. ``When you ask hard things of people, it can create tensions. And heck, I don't know why people do it,'' he said.

His campaign spokesman, Terry Holt, dismisses the anger as something stoked by Democratic presidential candidates and confined to core party activists. He said it also reflects Democratic frustration at Bush's success in pushing through his agenda.

John McAdams, a political scientist at Marquette University, said resentment of Bush is particularly strong among liberals who already hold three things against him: ``First, he's a conservative. Second, he's a Christian. And third, he's a Texan. When you add all of those things up, that invokes pretty much every symbol of the cultural wars.''

``It's particularly galling when somebody who mangles his syntax and doesn't pronounce words extremely well and is from Texas beats you,'' McAdams added.



Some of the anger at Bush stretches back to his 2000 election, when the president lost the popular vote but took the majority of electoral votes after the Supreme Court stopped a recount in Florida.

``It's the long view of Bush in the minds of Democrats,'' said pollster Kohut. ``He came into office in a way that they felt was unfair. They gave him the benefit of the doubt and rallied to him after the 9-11 attacks for some time, and then he disappointed them in the way he dealt with Iraq'' and by pursuing a more conservative course than they expected.

A Bush opponent can vote against the president only once in November, no matter how intense the anger. So does it matter how much voters dislike him, if these are people who would have voted against him anyway?

Political analysts say the intensity of the anti-Bush sentiment could translate into higher turnout by mobilizing the Democratic base. The possible pitfall for Democrats, however, is that strident anti-Bush rhetoric could turn off swing and independent voters who like Bush personally but might be convinced through reasoned argument that his policies are wrongheaded.

``Anger is not necessarily a productive emotion when it comes to politics,'' Luntz said. ``The anger against Bill Clinton was so fierce and over the top that it helped him in 1996 and then again during the impeachment in 1998. People got more angry at those yelling at the president than at the president himself. You could easily see the same thing happening here.''

Posted at 02:01 PM     Read More  


Wed - February 18, 2004

National Debt Tops $7 Trillion



By Jonathan Nicholson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) - The U.S. government's national debt -- the accumulated debt from past budget shortfalls -- totaled more than $7 trillion for the first time as of Tuesday, according to a Treasury Department report.

In its daily financial statement released on Wednesday, the Treasury said the U.S. debt subject to a Congressionally set limit totaled $7.015 trillion, up from $6.983 trillion on Friday. The government was closed on Monday for the Presidents Day holiday.

While passing the $7 trillion mark itself has little practical significance, not unlike a car's odometer rolling over, it may signal some tough political times ahead for President Bush's administration on fiscal policy.

The government debt ceiling stands only a few hundred billion dollars ahead at $7.384 trillion, and Treasury would need Congress's blessing to borrow beyond that. Treasury officials say they expect the limit to be hit sometime between June and October.

And in this election year, Democrats may also use the $7 trillion figure to assail Bush's tax policy and the federal deficits on his watch. Budget shortfalls are met by borrowing. In 2003, the federal budget saw a record $374.25 billion gap and a larger one is expected this fiscal year.

The last time that debt subject to the limit passed a trillion-dollar milestone was on June 28, 2002, according to Treasury records. That was after Congress agreed to hike the debt cap at the time from $5.950 trillion to $6.400 trillion.

To give some idea of the size of the debt, U.S. gross domestic product -- the sum of goods and services produced inside the United States -- totaled about $11 trillion at the end of 2003, according to the Commerce Department.

Posted at 04:31 PM     Read More  

Federal prosecutor sues John Ashcroft


This is getting good now!

WASHINGTON (AP) --The Justice Department has exaggerated its performance in the war on terrorism, interfered with a major terror prosecution and compromised a confidential informant, a federal prosecutor has alleged in an extraordinary lawsuit against Attorney General John Ashcroft .

The lawsuit by Assistant U.S. Attorney Richard Convertino is the latest twist in the Bush administration's first major post-September 11 terrorism prosecution, a Detroit case jeopardized over allegations of prosecutorial misconduct.

Convertino was the lead prosecutor on the case, in which the government did not provide defense attorneys a letter alleging that a prosecution witness lied until long after a trial had ended.

In his lawsuit, Convertino says the Justice Department is retaliating against him because he has complained frequently and publicly about "the lack of support and cooperation, lack of effective assistance, lack of resources and intradepartmental infighting" in terrorism cases.

"These concerns directly related to the ability of the United States to effectively utilize the criminal justice system as a component in the `war on terrorism,"' says his lawsuit filed in federal court.

According to the suit, a senior official in the Justice Department's terrorism and violent crimes section informed Convertino that news reports concerning the department's anti-terror efforts were not accurate and that the "press gives us more credit than we deserve." The lawsuit alleges "gross mismanagement" in the terrorism and violent crimes section.

Convertino says he complained repeatedly to the Justice Department in Washington that it placed "perception" over "reality" to the serious detriment of the war on terror.

He is seeking unspecified damages under the Privacy Act for harm to his reputation.

Justice Department spokesman Mark Corallo declined to comment.

Internal investigation

Convertino came under internal Justice Department investigation last fall after telling a Senate committee of his concerns.

"Whistleblowers put a lot on the line to protect the public," Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, said Tuesday. "They deserve strong protections against intimidation, harassment, demotion or even dismissal for doing the right thing."

Regarding the Detroit case which Convertino handled, the government late last year turned over a jail inmate's letter to defense lawyers. In it, the inmate alleged that prosecution witness Youssef Hmimssa had lied.

A lawyer for Convertino has said he believes his client made the right decision in not disclosing the evidence because it wouldn't have affected the trial's outcome.

Months before the government turned over the letter, a jury found two defendants guilty of document fraud and conspiracy to provide material support for terrorism. One other was found guilty of document fraud but acquitted of terror charges. And the fourth was acquitted on all counts.

A defense attorney who faced Convertino in the Detroit case said one section of his lawsuit "seems completely unfounded."

Convertino alleges a lack of resources, but his resources "appeared to us to be completely unlimited," said James Gerometta, one of the court-appointed defense attorneys in the case.

Informant identified

The lawsuit includes excerpts of an e-mail from another prosecutor in the case that Convertino says "identified some of the gross mismanagement which was negatively impacting the ability of the United States to obtain convictions in a major terrorist case."

The e-mail from the other prosecutor shows he complained at the time that efforts by Justice's terrorism unit in Washington to "insinuate themselves into this trial are, nothing more than a self-serving effort to justify the existence" of the unit.

"They have rendered no assistance and, are in my judgment, adversely impacting on both trial prep and trial strategy," the e-mail cited in the lawsuit states.

Convertino also accused Justice officials of intentionally divulging the name of one of his confidential terrorism informants (CI) to retaliate against him.

The leak put the informant at grave risk, forced him to flee the United States and "interfered with the ability of the United States to obtain information from the CI about current and future terrorist activities," the suit alleges.

The prosecutor is being represented by the National Whistleblower Center, which has represented FBI agents and other whistleblowers in recent cases involving terrorism. Its chief lawyer successfully helped Linda Tripp win damages under the Privacy Act for the leak of information from her Pentagon personnel file after the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Posted at 10:17 AM     Read More  


Thu - February 5, 2004

CIA Boss: Iraq Never an Imminent Threat



WASHINGTON (AP) - In his first public defense in the growing controversy over intelligence, CIA Director George Tenet said Thursday that U.S. analysts never claimed before the war that Iraq was an imminent threat . The urgency of such a threat was the main argument used by President Bush for going to war.

In a speech clearly aimed at protecting the CIA from becoming a scapegoat, Tenet said analysts held varying opinions about whether Iraq possessed chemical, biological and nuclear weapons before the war. Those differences were spelled out in the October 2002 National Intelligence Estimate given to the White House, he said.

``They never said there was an imminent threat,'' Tenet said of the analysts. ``Rather, they painted an objective assessment for our policy makers of a brutal dictator who was continuing his efforts to deceive and build programs that might constantly surprise us and threaten our interests.''

``No one told us what to say or how to say it,'' Tenet said.

In the months before the war, Bush and his top aides repeatedly stressed the urgency of stopping Saddam Hussein. In a Sept. 12 speech to the United Nations, the president called Saddam's regime ``a grave and gathering danger.'' The next day, he told reporters that Saddam was ``a threat that we must deal with as quickly as possible.''

In an Oct. 7, 2002, speech in Ohio, Bush said ``the danger is already significant and it only grows worse with time.''

On Thursday, Bush repeated that ``America confronted a gathering threat in Iraq. The dictatorship of Saddam Hussein was one of the most brutal, corrupt and dangerous regimes in the world. For years the dictator funded terrorists, and gave reward money for suicide bombings.''

Speaking in Charleston, S.C., Bush said Saddam is today ``sitting in a prison cell, and he will be sitting in a courtroom to answer for his crimes.'' But, he conceded, ``As the chief weapons inspector has said, we have not yet found the weapons we thought were there.'' Bush added that inspectors have found possible evidence of weapons programs.

``Knowing what I knew then and knowing what I know today, America did the right thing in Iraq,'' he said, in a line that drew long applause from an audience of military personnel and cadets.

The failure to find weapons of mass destruction is turning into a major political issue ahead of the presidential election, calling into question Bush's justification for the war as U.S. casualties mount.

Tenet said U.S. intelligence accurately reported to Bush before the war that Saddam's regime posed a danger. He revealed that two sources with high-level access to Saddam's regime told the CIA in the fall of 2002, shortly before the war, that production of biological and chemical weapons was going on inside Iraq.

Those sources ``solidified and reinforced ... my own view of the danger posed by Saddam's regime,'' Tenet said, taking direct responsibility for what was passed on to Bush.

Yet he acknowledged no such weapons have been found, and that many of the agency's prewar estimates of weapons of mass destruction have not been borne out so far. He insisted the search isn't over.

``We are nowhere near 85 percent finished,'' he said, in a direct rebuttal to statements made by his former chief adviser on Iraq's weapons, David Kay that sparked the intense debate over prewar intelligence.

Tenet spoke a day before Bush was expected to name a commission to examine intelligence problems.

On specific matters, Tenet acknowledged that U.S. analysts believed that Saddam's regime was trying to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program but have found no evidence of that.

On chemical and biological weapons, Tenet said analysts believed that Saddam had ongoing programs and perhaps stockpiles and have found no evidence of such weapons production.

Tenet outlined the sources of the CIA's prewar estimates with a public detail that intelligence agencies usually shy from. He said they were based on years of U.N. weapons inspections. Once the inspectors left in the late 1990s, the estimates were based mostly on informants - some he acknowledged as suspect - and on technical intelligence, he said.

On one key point that is befuddling weapons inspectors, Tenet said he did not know at this point whether it was possible Saddam's own officials had lied to the Iraqi leader about what his regime had in the way of weapons.

Republicans in Congress have increasingly been citing poor intelligence and Tenet, who was appointed by President Clinton, in the growing controversy over why no weapons have been found. Democrats have said intelligence agencies deserved only part of the blame and have accused the White House of cherrypicking intelligence that bolstered the case for war, while ignoring dissenting opinions.

Even as Tenet acknowledged some intelligence shortcomings in Iraq, he cited other work that he said represented great successes. He credited U.S. intelligence on Iran and Libya's nuclear programs, for example, with recent decisions by those countries to cooperate with international arms inspectors.

Tenet also said CIA spies provided the tips that led to the arrests of Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, purported mastermind behind the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks and of Asia's leading terror suspect, Hambali.

Posted at 04:31 PM     Read More  


Tue - February 3, 2004

Powell doubts about case for war


WMDs are in Iraq, they're not in Iraq, we're not sure they're in Iraq, they're in Syria, they're in Iran, oops - no they're not, we're not sure, it could take years to determine the truth - this is RIDICULOUS!

US Secretary of State Colin Powell says he is not sure he would have pushed for an invasion of Iraq if he knew that it had no stockpile of banned weapons.

But he told the Washington Post that he believed history would judge that going to war against Saddam Hussein had been the right thing to do.

The decision had been made on the best judgements of the intelligence agencies at the time, he said.

President Bush has ordered an inquiry into the accuracy of the intelligence.

The bipartisan US commission to be appointed to conduct the inquiry is not expected to report back before the presidential election in November, although members of the Democratic Party think it should.

On Tuesday the UK Government said it would hold its own inquiry.

'Solid evidence' questioned

As the US' top diplomat, Mr Powell had a key role in trying to gather international support for the Bush administration's decision to go to war.

Nearly one year ago he put the US case to the United Nations Security Council, saying he was offering "facts and conclusions based on solid evidence".

The absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get
Colin Powell
White House officials now concede that the intelligence may have been wrong.

Mr Powell told the newspaper that although former Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein may not have possessed chemical, biological or nuclear weapons he intended to acquire them and tried to maintain the capability of producing them in case sanctions were lifted.

But he said the belief that Iraq had these weapons had made the case for war stronger and added that he did not know if he would have recommended an invasion if this belief had proved unfounded.

"It was the stockpile that presented the final little piece that made it more of a real and present danger and threat to the region and to the world," he said.

"[The] absence of a stockpile changes the political calculus; it changes the answer you get."

'Threat response'

But the secretary of state said that the testimony of former chief weapons inspector David Kay at a Senate committee last week - when he suggested there were no stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq - was supportive of the administration in other areas.

"[He] did say, with respect to stockpiles, we were wrong, terribly wrong," Mr Powell said.

"But he also came to other conclusions that deal, I think, with intent and capability which resulted in a threat the president felt he had to respond to."

Saddam Hussein never lost his intent to use such weapons, had kept in place the capability to produce them and continued to train and employ people who knew how to develop them, he said.

"I think there's evidence that suggests that he was keeping a warm base, that there was an intent on his part to use that capability," Mr Powell added.

Posted at 12:40 PM     Read More  


Thu - January 29, 2004

U.S. eyes spring offensive in Afghanistan



Hunt for bin Laden focuses on eastern Afghanistan
From Barbara Starr
CNN Washington Bureau

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The U.S. military is planning a spring offensive against remnants of the Taliban and al Qaeda fighters in Afghanistan , a senior Defense Department official has said.

Authorities have ordered troops, supplies and logistics into place to carry out the operation, the official said Wednesday, without detailing whether the new offensive would require more troops.

The news comes amid increased violence in Afghanistan and on a day in which the U.S. military said it thinks it will find Osama bin Laden and fugitive Taliban leader Mullah Mohammed Omar in eastern Afghanistan.

The manhunt for bin Laden is now in its third year but a military spokesman said confidence is high that he will be captured.

"I can say that Osama bin Laden and Mullah Omar represent a threat to the world, and they need to be destroyed and we believe we will catch them in the next year," U.S. Army Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty, a coalition spokesman, said Wednesday.

In December, the U.S. military said it was launching a major offensive against al Qaeda and the Taliban, sending troops into the southern and eastern parts of the country along the Pakistan border, where bin Laden is believed to be hiding.

Operation Avalanche was an attempt to catch Taliban and al Qaeda guerillas before they hunkered down for the winter, Hilferty said in December. ( Full story ) That offensive continues.

The guerillas typically form small groups once warm weather arrives, the official said Wednesday. The new offensive is designed to keep opposition forces from regrouping after laying low during the winter, the official said.

The United States invaded Afghanistan in 2001 to oust the Taliban, which had provided haven for al Qaeda before the September 11 attacks.

About 8,500 Americans are among the 11,500 international troops that remain in Afghanistan. Separately, 5,000 troops under NATO command act as peacekeepers in the capital, Kabul.

The intelligence sources on bin Laden pointed to the tape made five years ago that was shot at a terrorist camp near the city of Khost and said he was thought to have revisited that area sometime recently.

Bin Laden's biographer, Pakistani journalist Hamid Mir, told CNN he had heard similar information from Arab fighters he encountered in Afghanistan late last year.

"Those Arabs said he is roaming between southern Afghanistan and eastern Afghanistan. And according to them, he spent some time in Khost, he spent some time in Gardez, he spent some time in Kunar (province)," Mir said.

Mir said he believes the most recent videotape of bin Laden, which was released last September, was actually shot in the Gardez region of Afghanistan in the spring of 2003. ( Full story )

Intelligence sources also have told CNN that they believe bin Laden's second in command, Ayman al-Zawahiri, who was also seen on that video, is now often traveling separately from bin Laden. ( Al-Zawahiri's taped message )

The Taliban has enjoyed a resurgence in areas of Afghanistan, along the rugged Pakistan border.

In an interview last week with CNN's Christiane Amanpour, Pakistan President Pervez Musharraf said al Qaeda is operating on both sides of the border and was likely behind recent attempts to kill him. But he said he did not think that the Taliban was regaining strength. ( Full story )

"The story is different to what is being told by the media," he said. "Attacks are on the wane, and they are tactical in nature. They are not strategic in nature. There is no strategic threat."

Musharraf has not publicly given permission for U.S. military operations in his country. CIA and special operations forces occasionally have entered Pakistan on classified missions. U.S. officials said they will respect Pakistan sovereignty.

Surging violence has claimed more than 60 lives in the country this month.

In the latest violence, an explosion Wednesday in Kabul killed a British soldier and wounded four other soldiers -- all part of a NATO-led peacekeeping force in Afghanistan, the British Ministry of Defense confirmed. ( Full story )

The blast occurred outside of a British base in the Afghan capital.

It was the second deadly bombing in two days. A suicide bomber struck a NATO truck convoy Tuesday in Kabul, killing a Canadian soldier and an Afghan civilian. Three other Canadian soldiers were hurt. ( Full story )

Hours after that attack, NATO's military commander told a U.S. Senate panel the organization will be ramping up operations and troop strength.

The bombings follow a Monday ceremony in which Afghanistan's first post-Taliban constitution went into effect.

The news of a spring offensive was first reported in Wednesday's Chicago Tribune. The newspaper said the U.S. military planned to enter Pakistan with the goal of destroying al Qaeda. The paper said the military was concerned about two recent assassination attempts on the Pakistan president as well as signs that al Qaeda and the Taliban are regrouping in Afghanistan.

Posted at 02:16 PM     Read More  

Afghan Weapons Cache Blast Kills 7 GIs



KABUL, Afghanistan (AP) - Seven U.S. soldiers were killed and three injured in an explosion Thursday , U.S. Central Command said. One American soldier was missing.

An Afghan interpreter also was injured in the 3 p.m. explosion near the city of Ghazni, 60 miles southwest of the capital, Kabul. The soldiers had been working around a weapons cache when the blast happened, Centcom said in a statement.

The wounded soldiers were evacuated to a hospital at Bagram Air Base, headquarters for U.S.-led coalition in Afghanistan. Names were being withheld pending notification of relatives.

Earlier this month, the U.S. death toll in the two-year war in Afghanistan reached 100.

Only 16 Americans died in the lightning war that drove the Taliban from power at the end of 2001 for providing a refuge and base for Osama bin Laden, the suspected mastermind of the Sept. 11, attacks. The rest of the Americans died after the Taliban's defeat.

The total number includes deaths in other parts of Operation Enduring Freedom, such as a helicopter crash in the Philippines nearly two years ago that killed 10 American soldiers.


In November, five U.S. soldiers died in a helicopter crash near the main U.S. base at Bagram, north of Kabul, apparently due to mechanical failure.

The United States provides 9,000 of the 11,000-member coalition troops stationed in Afghanistan.

01/29/04 14:03

Posted at 02:15 PM     Read More  

You Say Deserter, I Say More Dessert



by Michael Moore
January 27, 2004

Friends,

I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a "deserter." What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants. In fact, he “shot a man in Reno just to watch him die."

Actually, what I meant to say up in New Hampshire last week was that "We're going to have Bush for dessert come November!" I'm always mixing up "dessert" and "desert" -- I'm sure many of you have that problem.

Well, well, well. As George W. would say, "It's time to smoke ‘em out of their hole!" Thanks to my "humorous" introduction of Wesley Clark 10 days ago in New Hampshire -- and the lughead way the no-sense-of-humor media has covered it -- there were 15 million hits this weekend on my website <http://www.michaelmoore.com/ > . Everyone who visited the site got to read the truth about Bush not showing up for National Guard duty.

The weird thing about all this is that during my routine I never went into any details about Bush skipping out while in the Guard (it's not like it's the biggest issue on my mind or facing America these days!) I was just attempting my best impersonation of that announcer guy for the World Wrestling Federation, asking the cheering crowd if they would like to see a smackdown ("debate") which I called "The Generaaal Versus The Deserterrrr!!" (You can watch it here <http://www.michaelmoore.com/special/deserter.php >  -- hardly anyone in the media has shown this clip because viewers would suddenly see the context of my comments.)

When the press heard me use that word "deserter," though, the bells and whistles went off, for this was one of those stories they knew they had ignored -- and now it was rearing its ugly, truthful head on a very public stage. Without a single other word from me other than the d-word, they immediately got so defensive that it looked to many viewers like they—the press—maybe had something to hide. After all, when I called Bush a deserter, how did they know I wasn't referring to how he has deserted the 43 million Americans who have no health coverage? Why didn't they assume I was talking about how Bush is a deserter because he has deserted the working people of this country (who have lost 3 million jobs since he's taken office)? Why wasn't it obvious to them that I was pointing out how Bush had deserted our constitution and Bill of Rights as he tries to limit freedom of speech and privacy rights for law-abiding citizens?

Instead, they have created the brouhaha over Bush's military record, often without telling their audience what the exact charges are. It seems all they want to do is to get Clark or me -- or you -- to shut up. "We have never investigated this and so we want you to apologize for bringing it up!" Ha ha ha.

Well, I'm glad they have gone nuts over it. Because here we have a Commander in Chief --who just took off while in uniform to go work for some Republican friend of his dad's -- now sending our kids over to Iraq to die while billions are promised to Halliburton and the oil companies. Twenty percent of them are National Guard and Reserves (and that number is expected to double during the year). They have been kept in Iraq much longer than promised, and they have not been given the proper protection. They are sitting ducks.

What if any of them chose to do what Bush did back in the early 70s -- just not show up? I've seen Republican defenders of Bush this week say, “Yeah, but he made up the time later.” So, can today's National Guardsmen do the same thing -- just say, when called up to go to Iraq, "Um, I'm not going to show up, I'll make up the time later!"? Can you imagine what would happen? Of course, none of them are the son of a Congressman, like young Lt. Bush was back in 1972.

Today, MoveOn.org <http://www.moveon.org/ >  has put together it's response to this issue, and I would love to reprint it here. It lays out all the facts about Bush and the remaining unanswered questions about where he went for many, many months:

Here are what appear to be the known facts, laid out recently in considerable detail and documentation by retired pilot and Air National Guard First Lt. Robert A. Rogers, and in a 2003 book, “The Lies of George W. Bush,” by David Corn.

1. George W. Bush graduated from Yale in 1968 when the war in Vietnam was at its most deadly and the military draft was in effect.  Like many of his social class and age, he sought to enter the National Guard, which made Vietnam service unlikely, and fulfill his military obligation. Competition for slots was intense; there was a long waiting list. Bush took the Air Force officer and pilot qualification tests on Jan. 17, 1968, and scored the lowest allowed passing grade on the pilot aptitude portion.  

2.  He, nevertheless, was sworn in on May 27, 1968, for a six-year commitment. After a few weeks of basic training, Bush received an appointment as a second lieutenant – a rank usually reserved for those completing four years of ROTC or 18 months active duty service. Bush then went to flight school and trained on the F-102 interceptor fighter jet. Fighter pilots were in great demand in Vietnam at the time, but Bush wound up serving as a “weekend warrior” in Houston, where his father’s congressional district was centered.  

A Houston Chronicle story published in 1994, quoted in Corn’s book, has Bush saying: “I was not prepared to shoot my eardrum out with a shotgun in order to get a deferment.  Nor was I willing to go to Canada.  So I chose to better myself by learning how to fly airplanes.”  

3. Sometime after May 1971, young Lt. Bush stopped participating regularly in Guard activities. According to Texas Air National Guard records, he had fewer than the required flight duty days and was short of the minimum service owed the Guard.  Records indicate that Bush never flew after May 1972, despite his expensive training and even though he still owed the National Guard two more years.

4. On May 24, 1972, Bush asked to be transferred to an inactive reserve unit in Alabama, where he also would be working on a Republican senate candidate’s campaign.  The request was denied. For months, Bush apparently put in no time at all in Guard service.  In August 1972, Bush was grounded -- suspended from flying duties -- for failing to submit to an annual physical exam. (Why wouldn't he take this exam from a doctor?)

5.  During his 2000 presidential campaign, Bush’s staff said he recalled doing duty in Alabama and then returning to Houston for still more duty.  But the commander of the Montgomery, AL, unit where Bush said he served told the Boston Globe that he had no recollection of Bush – son of a congressman – ever reporting, nor are there records, as there should be, supporting Bush’s claim.  Asked at a press conference in Alabama on June 23, 2000 what duties he had performed as a Guardsman in that state, Bush said he could not recall, “but I was there.”

6. In May, June and July, 1973, Bush suddenly started participating in Guard activities back in Houston again – pulling 36 days at Ellington Air Base in that short period.  On Oct. 1, 1973, eight months short of his six-year service obligation and scheduled discharge, Bush apparently was discharged with honors from the Texas Air National Guard (eight months short of his six-year commitment).  He then went to Harvard Business School.

Documents supporting these reports, released under Freedom of Information Act requests, appear along with Rogers’ article on the web at http://democrats.com/display.cfm?id=154 .

In the absence of full disclosure by the President or his supporters, only the President and perhaps a few family or other close associates know the whole truth.  And they’re not talking.   

Bush was apparently absent without official leave from his assigned military service for as little as seven months (New York Times) or as much as 17 months (Boston Globe) during a time when 500,000 American troops were fighting the Vietnam War.  The Army defines a “deserter” -- also known as a DFR, for “dropped from rolls” – as one who is AWOL 31 days or more: www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf <http://www-ari.army.mil/pdf/s51.pdf > .

Well, there you have it. Someone got some special treatment. And now that special someone believes he has the right to conduct a war -- using other not-so-special people's lives.

My friends, I always call it like I see it. I don't pussyfoot around. Sometimes the truth is hard to take. The media conglomerates are too afraid to take this on. I understand. But I'm not. That's my job. And I'll continue to do it.

And when I'm wrong, like the thing about Bush pooping his pants, I'll say so.

Yours,
Michael Moore

mmflint@aol.com

Posted at 11:35 AM     Read More  

FWD: Quote from Eisenhower of note



Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. This world in arms is not spending money alone. It is spending the sweat of its laborers, the genius of its scientists, the hopes of its children...under the cloud of threatening war, it is humanity hanging from a cross of iron.

--President Dwight D. Eisenhower, April 16, 1953, before the American Society of Newspaper Editors

Posted at 11:33 AM     Read More  

David Hagar's appointment to the FDA and its potential implications


Okay... now "they" have hit a really personal cord with me on this. This is one of the issues that is personally paramount to me. Please take the time to read it - several articles confirm the validity of this message - if you care at all about woman's choice / health, please please take the time to consider the implications of David Hagar's appointment to the FDA.

Time Magazine - Jesus and the FDA

Frankly - I'm appalled that the FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee allowed their charter to lapse b/c they haven't met in 2 years. This is an INEXCUSABLE situation and it is the reason that Bush is now tasked with filling ALL 11 positions with new members. Note that these appointments do NOT require congressional approval. This is indeed a very scary scenario and is an accurate portrayal of the situation. If you're wondering what Bush's specific views are relating to women's right to choose and women's health in general - view the following links for details.

Planned Parenthood Denounces President Bush's Call to Double Funding for Abstinence-Only Education - January 21, 2004

If you've never heard of what is referred to as the Mexico City policy, it's worth a few moments of your time - note that this is the press release from the Whitehouse.gov official web site. Bush couched this press release wording to state that he doesn't want taxpayer $ used to perform or promote abortions overseas - the reality is that this practice is already prohibited by law! This Mexico City policy instead states that it would control what foreign recipients of U.S. international family planning assistance do and say with their OWN funds.

Restoration of the Mexico City Policy - January 22, 2001

This is Planned Parenthood's official response

Here's a MINOR snippet from the checklist of what's happened since he took office - as if these aren't bad enough, this is only about 20% of what's listed in Planned Parenthood's report.

1. President Bush closes the White House Office for Women's Initiatives and Outreach - March 29, 2001
2. President Bush strips contraceptive coverage from federal employees in his first budget - April 9, 2001
3. President Bush withholds $34 million in funding for birth control, maternal and child health care, and HIV/AIDS prevention from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) - July 22, 2002
President Bush's FY 2004 budget fails family planning programs and denies women access to abortion services - February 3, 2003
4. Congress once again votes down amendments to the DOD Authorization Bills which would permit women in the military overseas to access abortion services, using their own funds, at military hospitals - - May 22, 2003
5. State Department denies funds for refugee AIDS prevention - August 1, 2003

<snip>
Terrifying message from Planned Parenthood..... it just gets worse!

President Bush has announced his plan to select Dr. W. David Hager to
head up the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Reproductive Health
Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee has not met for more than two
years, during which time its charter lapsed. As a result, the Bush
Administration is tasked with filling all eleven positions with new
members. This position does not require Congressional approval.

The FDA's Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee makes crucial
decisions on matters relating to drugs used in the practice of
obstetrics, gynecology and related specialties, including hormone
therapy, contraception, treatment for infertility, and medical
alternatives to surgical procedures for sterilization and pregnancy
termination.

Dr. Hager's views of reproductive health care are far outside the
mainstream for reproductive technology.  Dr. Hager is a practicing
OB/GYN who describes himself as "pro-life" and refuses to prescribe
contraceptives to unmarried women. Hager is the author of "As Jesus
Cared for Women: Restoring Women, Then and Now."  The book blends
biblical accounts of Christ healing women with case studies from Hager's
practice.

In the book Dr. Hager wrote with his wife, entitled "Stress and the
Woman's Body," he suggests that women who suffer from premenstrual
syndrome should seek help from reading the bible and praying. As an
editor and contributing author of "The Reproduction Revolution: A
Christian Appraisal of Sexuality Reproductive Technologies and the
Family," Dr. Hager appears to have endorsed the medically inaccurate
assertion that the common birth control pill is an abortifacient.

Hager's mission is religiously motivated. He has an ardent interest in
revoking approval for mifepristone (formerly known as RU-486) as a safe
and early form of medical abortion. Hagar recently assisted the
Christian Medical Association in a "citizen's petition" which calls upon
the FDA to revoke its approval of mifepristone in the name of women's
health.

Hager's desire to overturn mifepristone's approval on religious grounds
rather than scientific merit would halt the development of mifepristone
as a treatment for numerous medical conditions disproportionately
affecting women, including breast cancer, uterine cancer, uterine
fibroid tumors, psychotic depression, bipolar depression and Cushing's
syndrome.

Women rely on the FDA to ensure their access to safe and effective drugs
for reproductive health care including products that prevent pregnancy.
For some women, such as those with certain types of diabetes and those
undergoing treatment for cancer, pregnancy can be a life-threatening

condition. We are concerned that Dr. Hager's strong religious beliefs
may color his assessment of technologies that are necessary to protect
women's lives or to preserve and promote women's health.

Hager's track record of using religious beliefs to guide his medical
decision-making makes him a dangerous and inappropriate candidate to
serve as chair of this committee. Critical drug public policy and
research must not be held hostage by antiabortion politics. Members of
this important panel should be appointed on the basis of science and
medicine, rather than politics and religion. American women deserve no less.

WHAT CAN YOU  DO?

1. SEND THIS TO EVERY PERSON YOU KNOW WHO IS CONCERNED ABOUT WOMEN'S RIGHTS.

2. OPPOSE THE PLACEMENT OF THIS MAN BY CONTACTING THE WHITE HOUSE AND
TELL THEM HE IS TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE ON ANY LEVEL.

Please email President Bush at president@whitehouse.gov

<mailto:president@whitehouse.gov>

and say

"I oppose the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the FDA
Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. Mixing religion and
medicine is unacceptable in a policy-making position.  Using the FDA to
promote a political agenda is inappropriate and seriously threatens

women's health."

----- ------- End Forwarded Message ------- -----

Posted at 11:31 AM     Read More  


Wed - January 28, 2004

Ex-Iraq inspector: Prewar intelligence failure 'disturbing'



Kay to Senate panel: 'It turns out we were all wrong'

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- The former top U.S. weapons inspector in Iraq on Wednesday blamed intelligence failures for the apparently incorrect conclusion that Saddam Hussein possessed large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction before the U.S.-led invasion.

David Kay, who resigned last week as leader of the Iraq Survey Group searching for banned weapons, told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he believed a "fundamental analysis of how we got here" is needed to ensure the best possible intelligence in the future.

Kay appeared before the Armed Services Committee after a closed-door session Wednesday morning with the Senate Intelligence Committee.

Kay told the senators that the intelligence he had seen before the war indicated Saddam had banned weapons and that France and Germany -- countries that had opposed the war -- had stated that the Iraqi dictator possessed such weapons.

"It turns out we were all wrong, and that is most disturbing," Kay said.

Kay said that while it was "theoretically possible" large stockpiles of chemical or biological weapons could be found in Iraq, the prospect was "highly unlikely."

He said he did not believe that anyone had pressured intelligence officials to conclude that Saddam's government had banned weapons.

"Almost in a perverse way, I wish it had been undue influence because we know how to correct that," Kay said. "We get rid of the people who, in fact, were exercising that.

"The fact that it wasn't tells me that we've got a much more fundamental problem of understanding what went wrong, and we've got to figure out what was there."

Asked if there should be an independent investigation, Kay said that "it's important to acknowledge failure."

"I must say my personal view -- and it's purely personal -- is that in this case, it will -- you will finally determine that it is going to take an outside inquiry both to do it and to give yourself and the American people the confidence that you have done it," Kay said.

He said the extensive looting that followed Saddam's ouster in April will leave an "unresolvable ambiguity" about what happened to the weapons programs.

"A lot of that traces to the failure, on April 9, to establish immediately physical security in Iraq -- the unparalleled looting and destruction, a lot of which was directly intentioned, designed by the security services to cover the tracks of the Iraq WMD program and their other programs as well," Kay said.

But Kay, who supported the war, said the Iraq Survey Group's conclusions did nothing to undercut his belief that Saddam needed to be removed from power.

He said Iraq was in violation of U.N. Resolution 1441, which mandated Saddam to disclose and destroy prohibited weapons.

He said inspectors have found hundreds of cases of Iraqi officials concealing from U.N. weapons inspectors evidence that placed Iraq in clear violation of the world body's resolutions.

He added that Iraq had become totally corrupt after 1998, when U.N. inspections ceased, improving the likelihood that banned weapons could wind up in the wrong hands.

During the debate over whether to invade Iraq, the Bush administration argued repeatedly that Iraq was violating U.N. resolutions requiring its disarmament after the 1991 Persian Gulf War. The administration also dismissed findings of U.N. weapons inspectors, who returned shortly before the war and reported finding no banned weapons.

The Armed Services Committee's chairman, Sen. John Warner, R-Virginia, noted that the survey group's work was not complete.

But Democrats have said Kay's findings show the Bush administration misled the country in arguing that war with Iraq was necessary.

The committee's ranking Democrat, Sen. Carl Levin of Michigan, said administration officials, including President Bush, made "numerous vivid, unqualified statements about Iraq having in its possession weapons of mass destruction -- not programs, not program-related activities, not intentions."

"When lives are at stake and our military is to be placed in harm's way -- in other words, when we decide to go to war -- it is totally unacceptable to have intelligence that is this far off or to exaggerate or shape the intelligence for any purpose by anybody," Levin said.

Posted at 04:14 PM     Read More  


Thu - January 22, 2004

Iraq's 'Sunni Triangle' scene of new deadly attacks



Deaths of 2 U.S. soldiers among casualties in restive region

BAGHDAD, Iraq (CNN) -- Insurgents in Iraq's volatile "Sunni Triangle" launched three deadly attacks during a 24-hour period , killing two U.S. soldiers, three Iraqi police officers and four civilians.

The Sunni Triangle is Iraq's most volatile region, an area north and west of Baghdad that is a hotbed of opposition to the U.S.-led coalition and scene of political instability.

In the most recent attack, three Iraqi police officers and a civilian were killed Thursday at a highway checkpoint between the central cities of Fallujah and Ramadi, an Iraq police official said.

Suspected insurgents in two pickups with medium to heavy machine guns opened fire on the police checkpoint, said Maj. Walid Jalal, an official with the Iraqi highway patrol force based in Fallujah.

A grenade was thrown at a police vehicle parked at the checkpoint, Jalal said. Another police officer was wounded in the attack, he said.

In other violence, a mortar and rocket attack on a U.S. military base north of Baghdad killed two American soldiers and wounded four others Wednesday night, U.S. military sources said Thursday.

Three of the wounded received treatment and returned to duty. The fourth, who was critically wounded, is hospitalized.

A mortar round directly hit the forward operating base near Baqubah, said Maj. Josslyn Aberle of the 4th Infantry Division . Aberle said U.S. forces launched a counterattack but the fate of the attackers is unknown.

The number of U.S. troops killed in the Iraq war is 504, with 349 fatalities in hostile circumstances.

Also near Fallujah, anti-coalition insurgents on Wednesday fired on and killed three Iraqi female laundry workers in a minivan, U.S. military sources said Thursday.

The attack took place as the van carried nine people to work at a forward operating base.

Witnesses said they saw passengers in a red car shoot at the van. Preliminary reports said at least two others may have been wounded in the attack, including the van's driver.

"This shows a certain type of desperation, if not coldheartedness," said Brig. Gen. Mark Kimmitt, discussing the workers' deaths, " ... that anti-coalition elements would have the audacity and temerity to go attack women as they were going to work to provide for their families."

WMD details likely 'years away'

The chairman of the U.S. House Intelligence Committee said it could take years before investigators are able to uncover the details of Iraq's unconventional weapons programs under Saddam Hussein.

"Every day is a new day for the intelligence people," said U.S. Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida. "I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group under David Kay continues to search for weapons of mass destruction and evidence that Saddam concealed such programs from the international community.

Last year, the Bush administration said the threat of weapons of mass destruction was a key reason in its decision to launch an invasion of Iraq in March.

Critics of the administration have argued that Iraq did not pose an immediate threat and question why no weapons of mass destruction have been found.

Meanwhile, Charles Duelfer, a former U.N. arms inspector in Iraq, is likely to replace Kay, according to a U.S. official, who said an announcement should come in a few days.

Council member: Compromise possible on elections

A Shiite Muslim member of the Iraqi Governing Council said Thursday that coalition officials are working with a top cleric to solve a dispute on how to select an Iraqi transitional legislature.

A possible compromise could include delaying the political handover process to Iraqis and holding direct elections later this year, said Mowaffak al-Rubaie of the U.S.-appointed council.

Rubaie said Grand Ayatollah Ali Sistani wants to develop the most feasible electoral process possible. Sistani has been pushing for direct elections instead of the U.S.-backed caucuses for a transitional national assembly before July 1. The United States is to hand over political control to Iraqis by that date.

"Confrontation is not a choice," Rubaie said. "Failure of democracy is not a choice. We have to get this successful. We have to get democracy and elections and ballot boxes in Iraq."

Shiites represent about 60 percent of the Iraqi population, which would likely give them an advantage over groups in direct elections. There have been demonstrations this month in Iraqi cities in support of Sistani's position. ( Full story )

Posted at 03:02 PM     Read More  


Wed - January 21, 2004

Congressman: Iraqi WMD details 'years away'


We went to war on the premise that we could at ANY moment be attacked by Saddam Hussein and his evil WMDs - Bush specifically stated that Iraq was ready to attack within days.

But... wasn't he our buddy, our pal? Oops, here's picture of our buddy Donald Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein , not that long ago. This link includes a transcript of the video! A must see...

And what was that in his State of the Union address on January 28, 2003 ?

Quote:
Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve agent. In such quantities, these chemical agents could also kill untold thousands. He's not accounted for these materials. He has given no evidence that he has destroyed them.

The International Atomic Energy Agency confirmed in the 1990s that Saddam Hussein had an advanced nuclear weapons development program, had a design for a nuclear weapon and was working on five different methods of enriching uranium for a bomb. The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa. Our intelligence sources tell us that he has attempted to purchase high-strength aluminum tubes suitable for nuclear weapons production. Saddam Hussein has not credibly explained these activities. He clearly has much to hide.

WASHINGTON (CNN) -- It could take years before investigators are able to uncover the details of Iraq's unconventional weapons programs under Saddam Hussein , according to the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee.

"Every day is a new day for the intelligence people. I would say that we are probably a couple of years away from getting through all the material and talking to all the people we need to talk to about exactly what was going on," said Rep. Porter Goss, R-Florida.

He said that applied to "not only with the Saddam Hussein regime, but with some of the Taliban and some of the things that have been going on in North Korea, Libya, Iran and other places."

The CIA's Iraq Survey Group under David Kay continues to search for weapons of mass destruction and evidence that Saddam concealed such programs from the international community. The search is expected to continue for another three to six months.

Kay presented a preliminary report to the House Intelligence Committee in October that said the group found no unconventional weapons, but did uncover evidence that Saddam's regime planned to manufacture them.

The Bush administration said last year that the Iraqi threat of weapons of mass destruction was a main reason for its decision to launch a U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in March.

In his State of the Union address Tuesday night to Congress and the American people, President Bush cited the Kay report as support for the U.S.-led war in Iraq.

"Had we failed to act, [Saddam's] weapons of mass destruction programs would continue to this day," Bush said.

Embarking on the Hajj

In another symbol of freedom in post-Saddam Iraq, many more citizens in the war-wracked nation will perform the sacred Muslim Hajj this year. ( The pilgrimage )

Muslims across the globe make the annual Hajj pilgrimage to Saudi Arabia, where they worship at Islam's holiest sites. The five-day ritual journey -- which every adult Muslim must take at least once during their lifetime if possible -- begins January 31. ( Key Hajj facts ) ( Pillars of Islam )

During Saddam's reign, participation was greatly restricted. But recently, the Iraqi Governing Council and Saudi Arabia reached an agreement to allow 30,000 Iraqis to participate, an Iraqi government official said.

Participants were chosen in a public lottery from among more than 500,000 who applied. Last year, 14,000 Iraqis performed the Hajj; the year before, 8,000 went on the holy journey.

In Kuwait, officials said 6,500 Iraqis went across the Iraqi border into Kuwait at Basra Tuesday night. They headed straight to the airport in Kuwait City and boarded planes.

When they return home, officials in Kuwait will set up a special tent city for them in which they will wait for buses heading back to Iraq. Red Crescent workers will be there to provide support.

U.S. Central Command said Task Force "All American" soldiers and Iraqi security forces are helping "facilitate the safe travel of the Hajj pilgrims" and noted that more than 2,400 Iraqi pilgrims over the past few days have crossed the Iraqi border at Ar Ar into Saudi Arabia.

"Iraqi border guards and customs agents are operating the Ar Ar border crossing and managing traffic into Saudi Arabia," Central Command said.

"Iraqi Civil Defense Corps troops have been actively involved in the security of the routes and rest areas with additional support from Red Crescent volunteers, who have been integral in providing support for the travelers."

Other developments

• British Prime Minister Tony Blair deflected a call for an independent inquiry into his country's role in the Iraq war Wednesday, saying there was "absolutely no doubt" about the existence of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. ( Full story )

• Three U.S. soldiers were wounded in Iraq when a roadside bomb exploded Wednesday near the northern city of Mosul, the U.S. military said. The injuries were not life-threatening.

• Sources have revealed new details from the U.S. Army's criminal investigation into reports of abuse of Iraqi detainees, including the location of the suspected crimes. (Full story )

• Thousands of Shiite Muslims marched through the streets of Baghdad Tuesday demanding Saddam's execution. (Full story )

Posted at 06:21 PM     Read More  

Bush May Seek Billions for Iraq After Election


Was I right, or was I right? the $79 and $87 billion already allocated ain't going to be enough to support our efforts, much more will be required before the end. This is on top of the $400 billion military budget that will be sent to Congress next month. The US budget deficit this year ALONE is $500 billion.

Bush May Seek Billions for Iraq After Election

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Bush may seek an additional $40 billion or more for military operations in Iraq and Afghanistan next year -- on top of the $400-billion military budget he will send to Congress next month, congressional sources and budget analysts said on Wednesday.

But Bush is unlikely to send the request to Congress until after the November presidential election to minimize any political damage, the sources said.

Bush's Democratic challengers have criticized the high cost of the war in Iraq and its chaotic aftermath. They say Iraq has cost $120 billion so far despite initial administration assurances that it would be "an affordable endeavor."

White House budget officials said it is premature to speculate about an emergency war supplemental for the 2005 fiscal year starting Oct. 1.

But congressional sources said preliminary planning is underway and a request would be send to Congress in late 2004 or early 2005.

"Every presidential contender is going to be subject to political demands. But no matter who wins (the election), we're going to see a request," one congressional aide said.

Its size could vary widely depending on the number of U.S. troops in Iraq, budget analysts and congressional aides said.

If the administration can reduce the number of troops there from more than 100,000 to 75,000, about another $25 billion would be needed in fiscal 2005 to supplement the military's regular budget, said Steven Kosiak, a defense analyst with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments.

Operations in Afghanistan and elsewhere could add another $15 billion. Kosiak said the emergency request could total $40 billion to $50 billion.

Other analysts and congressional aides said it could be closer to $75 billion or $100 billion. U.S. military plans hinge on a smooth hand-over of political power by June 30 and rebuilding the Iraqi Army.

"They're playing it week by week because they don't know ... Things could go worse than expected or they could go better than expected," said John Pike, director of GlobalSecurity.org, a defense policy research group.


A senior congressional aide attributed the push for additional funds to concerns that Bush's "new budget contains little or no money for Iraq's shadow rulers after June 30."

TOPPING OFF

Bush won approval from Congress last year for two war supplementals -- one for $79 billion and another for $87.5 billion for Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere.

"It's a little early to be speculating about the deployment (in Iraq) for October and beyond," an administration official said on Wednesday.

Bush has been under pressure from his conservative Republican base to rein in record budget deficits, expected to hit $500 billion this fiscal year alone.

In his $2.3 trillion budget for fiscal 2005, to be sent to Congress on Feb. 2, Bush wants to limit growth in discretionary spending to less than 4 percent. The Defense Department is expected to receive more than $400 billion, a modest increase.

That would cover normal Pentagon activities -- not peacekeeping or combat operations, which would be funded through an emergency request.

"It is uncertain what level of resources will be required and it's uncertain when they will need it. But they will need to have to come to ask for additional money at some point in fiscal 2005," said Kosiak.

Others said the administration would need up to $100 billion on top of the Pentagon's normal budget, and the only issue was timing.

"From a budget standpoint, I don't think they have to put in another (supplemental) this year," Pike said.

Proposing it before the election would only "give the Democrats an opportunity to stage another food fight on the president's Iraq policy," Pike added.

Posted at 05:59 PM     Read More  

Where is the $?


Catherine Austin Fitts was appointed by Bush senior to head up HUD, The Department of Housing and Urban Development. 2 years into the administration, she was fired. Since then, she started her own software company and has been auditing / monitoring the financial aspects of several government entities.

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/

These numbers are pretty scary - and... since the reports are classified as public information, there are specific references available which lend credibility to their information. Most reports are the actual versions from the hud.gov web sites, etc...

http://www.whereisthemoney.org/numbers.html

One snippet - this is only the tip of the iceberg. Here's the statement from Susan Gaffney, Inspector General of HUD before the House of Representatives committee on government reform on March 22, 2000 . Note that HUD "reconciled" (like oops, where did it go?) "accounting discrepancies" of $17.6 BILLION in 1998 and subsequently $59.6 BILLION in 1999. They have since DISCONTINUED these audits - WHAT????

Tell me, for those of you who are accountants or have financial backgrounds - how is it even possible to have a $77 BILLION discrepancy on the books of a SINGLE branch of a US government agency within a 2 year period without SOMEONE stepping in to figure out where this $ is going.

And I quote:
HUD used a financial statement report consolidation software called Hyperion Enterprise to prepare the financial statements. Reconciliation processes to identify discrepancies with Treasury fell behind schedule, and HUD had to make numerous adjustments to the general ledger fund balance with Treasury balances to make them agree with Treasury records. These adjustments were not made via the normal general ledger posting process. Rather, they were made directly to Hyperion Enterprise.

At the time we discontinued our audit work, a total of 42 adjustments totaling about $17.6 billion had been processed in this manner to adjust fiscal year 1998 ending balances. An additional 242 adjustments totaling about $59.6 billion, were made to adjust fiscal year 1999 activity.

Posted at 01:41 PM     Read More  
Kay: No weapons yet, but evidence of intent
Text of David Kay's unclassified statement
Class-action lawsuit filed over data shared by Northwest Airlines
Army Faults Its Treatment of Reserve Troops
Israeli planes raid south Lebanon
George W Bush And The Real State Of The Union
Kerry wins Iowa; Gephardt to bow out
Army Awards Iraq Deals to KBR, Parsons
Army's Suicide Rate in Iraq Said Higher
U.S. death toll in Iraq tops 500
Spain's PM Says Bush Acts Like an Emperor
Iraqis protest at handover plan
In pictures: Baghdad car bomb
Iraq attacks complicate UN role plans
Massive demonstration in Iraq for free elections

©